I thought I finally knew which presidential candidate would get my ballot in the California primary. I considered posting it, and asking whether my choice surprised you.
Then I talked to my wife about it and she talked me out of... not out of the choice itself so much as out of being certain about it. She reminded me why I'd previously been so opposed to the same candidate. I told her everything I've picked up from reading blogs and news articles (sadly, in about that order) over the past couple weeks. I came away from that conversation thinking that although I'd kept closer track of how the races were going, she had a better perspective on the candidates precisely by taking the longer view.
Anyway, I think my choice is between four candidates. Feel free to talk me into or out of one. (If you want me to vote for someone other than those four, feel free to advocate, but understand that you probably won't sway me.)
1. Barack Obama. This isn't a vote against Hillary so much as a vote against {Hillary and John Edwards}. I told Julia that I'd learned two things from Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively -- Iowa showed me Hillary can be stopped; New Hampshire told me she must be stopped.
What's so great about Obama? His leadership skills are tremendous. Of all the candidates, he's the one I like most as a person (from what I know about them all at this point). He's certainly one of the smartest.
To the extent that this article describes his positions accurately, his economic platform includes most of what I'd want from a Republican (with the conspicuous exception that the last full paragraph implies that he'd raise taxes). Based on the first few comments to that article, those positions are feared and loathed by a lot of the same people whose own economic views I fear and loathe.
To the extent that this NY Times piece accurately describes Obama's approach, he understands a very important point about how the world works (and how unintended consequences work) that I think even some people who mouth GOP talking points too frequently forget.
The big red flag here is foreign policy. Obama's certainly more dovish than I would be (though less dovish than, say, Ron Paul), and there's a worry that the rest of the world would treat him as a pushover. If I did end up backing Obama, you could safely infer that I've become a lot more optimistic (foolishly so?) about our chances of avoiding/withstanding the next major act of terror.
2. Fred Thompson. If this election were decided by position papers I think he'd have my support, just like seemingly every conservative blogger has that "Fred '08" logo. But I'm ambivalent about whether he's a viable candidate, and with the races so close I'm not interested in throwing away my vote if he isn't.
Regrettably, I also tend to agree with this Glenn Reynolds critique: "He can give good speeches and make sound policy decisions, but his management abilities, as demonstrated in this campaign so far, have been less than stellar."
3. Rudy Giuliani. Unlike a lot of people I'm not too worried about whether he can win the nomination. Remember that as polling data goes he's still the nationwide ostensible front-runner. Would he really win in November though? Also, I worry that he'll descend to self-parody, or at least remain one-dimensional. Finally, even though he's plainly pro-business, there's a big difference between pro-business and pro-market; I'm not convinced he's pro-market.
4. John McCain. Most of the national security motivation I'd have for supporting Rudy also applies to McCain. On the other hand, like Rudy he has way too much faith in what the government can do (without screwing things up) and way too little discretion in what the government ought to be up to.
I also think there's a very strong game-theoretic chance of a McCain-Huckabee ticket, especially if no GOP candidate gets to the convention with a delegate majority.
Posted by Matt Bruce at January 16, 2008 01:10 PMGo with McCain, while he's not perfect his flaws are acceptable, Rudy is too slimy, Obama is a naive dreamer that lacks experience, and Thompson just doesn't seem to want the job.
One thing I see if McCain wins the nomination is the potential for a McCain/Lieberman ticket, while he'd lose some Republican support he'd gain major ground with independents and conservative Democrats, I don't think any of the Democrats could defeat that ticket.
Posted by: OTC at January 17, 2008 07:40 AMIn reading your description of candidates, I think you may have left some facts out.
RE-Obama: I see no discussion of his links to the Chicago Political-Mob combine, which is not surprizing because the national press is not covering it. Look up Obama and Tony Rezko. The Chicago Tribune has articles. Barack Hussein is not only dirty (bought and paid for by the combine), but he has a MOST sterling record for voting straight line liberal with his Senate buddy that DICK Durban.
Re-McCain: He has been roundly attacked by Rush, Laura, and Ann for not being conservatie enough. Could this be because he has bucked the "earmark crazy" Republicans who spent like drunken sailors when they were in power, or is it McCain-Feingold which seems to have touched Rush's pocket book, or is it McCain-Kennedy on immigration? In McCain I see an honest and honorable man who does not hesitate to do what he thinks is right for the country regardless of the polls, even his own party's. He has seen the light on immigration, he is strong (and right) on defense, AND he can get past the sniping and work with the Democrats to get something done. I do not think he has too much confidence in government, and he realizes that the American people do not have confidence in it at all. I proudly call my self a Reagan Republican who feels that he has not left the party, but the party has left him. I may now be classified as a conservative McCaininite (or Lieberman-Independent). McCain can win because he is honorable and reasonable.
We don't need an ayotollah Huckabee, a closet corrupt Obama, or amoral Hillary. My dream ticket is McCain-Giuliani!
Posted by: Dad at January 19, 2008 01:02 PM