My Choice for the Next President of These United States
By Jim Willis on Jan 2, 2008 in Elections, Government & Politics | Printable Version
Editorial Warning: This will be a long post. It’s a serious topic and needs “the full treatment.” My apologies in advance. Plan to spend at least 15 minutes reading it. If you want to know who I’m voting for, skip to the end of this post.
It’s taken me some time to work up to writing this particular post. One reason is that none of the candidates for president “light me up” and it’s a somewhat depressing thought for me that we may end up with a President Hillary Clinton. It will be no surprise that I cannot support any of the Democrat candidates for president as they all are socialists and would take their election as a mandate to expand socialism in America.
With the Iowa primary tomorrow, it’s now time to take a hard look at candidates on both sides of the isle as one of them will be President come this time next year. I’ve set about trying to capture what is, to me, the key issues on which I can evaluate the candidates. For me, it is their philosophies and ideas that are most important. Personality and leadership play a role in implementing one’s philosophies–but I assume all the candidates possess reasonably high levels of leadership ability or they wouldn’t have gotten this far.
The list of issues I’ve identified is highly subjective and is what is important to me. You may agree or disagree with the issues I’ve selected. I offer this post to stimulate your own thinking about what is important.
Below is a chart showing the major issues, the candidates that have the best chance of winning the nomination in their respective parties, and an indication of whether the candidate (S)upports or (O)pposes the issue listed. In some cases a candidate may have originally supported or opposed, and later changed positions. I’ve indicated that like this: S/O or O/S. While I believe the information below to be accurate, if you think I’ve misrepresented a particular candidate’s position, please email me (or leave a comment).
Here is the 2008 Presidential Candidates & Issues Chart (click to view):
A brief discussion of each issue, what it is and why it’s important to me:
Withdraw from Iraq Quickly - We are in a global war on terrorism. If George Bush had not “taken the fight to them,” I believe we would be fighting on our own soil today. Although the Bush administration (as well as all of Congress, including the Democrats) was mistaken about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that does not make our presence there any less important. We are in a war and we must defeat the enemy. We must not negotiate, we must not settle for “a draw,” we must defeat the radical Islamists and do it in their own home territory. That is the importance of Iraq. Any candidate who does not realize it and does not defend our country against this very real threat does not deserve to be president–period. It summarily disqualifies all of the Democrat candidates. As they will not protect our citizens they are not fit to hold the office.
Mandatory Caps on Carbon Emissions - This one is not as important as the Iraq War in the short-term, but may be in the long-term. That may seem like a strange statement to you. What is at stake is this: For those who have drunk the man-is-causing-global-warming Kool-Aid, their solution is to cede our national sovereignty to other countries. The Kyoto Treaty is one evidence of this (thank the good Lord it was never ratified by our Senate). Socialism is a disease that must spread through dishonest means. Socialism is the mass assumption of power and authority by governments and other organizations, and the limitation of individual freedoms. It is no secret that America is great because she is free. The more we limit freedom of the individual, the more socialist we become. Since we Americans are not easily fooled and not willing to simply give up our freedoms, socialism must be implemented by alternative (and deceptive) means. The latest is via the global warming nonsense that’s peddled by charlatans like Al Gore. We are told we are in the midst of a “global emergency” and that we must “change our behavior” immediately. Now there is a movement to place a cap on “carbon emissions” in a vain attempt to control global warming. These are all code words for limiting freedoms, increasing taxes, and granting control over our citizens to non-elected groups like the United Nations. Forget it. If you don’t realize what’s happening and that the left is using this as a Trojan Horse to introduce socialism, you don’t deserve to be president.
Path to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens - People come down on both sides of this issue with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, good intentions are not good enough to solve the exploding problem of illegal alien invasion. I have a very simple view. We are a nation of immigrants, of which I am a descendant as are 99% of those in our country. Immigrants are good for America. But if you enter our country illegally, I must ask “why?” Most likely it’s to abuse our largess. We grant immigrants–even illegal ones–access to health care and jobs and welfare. It’s idiotic on our part. If you’re here illegally, you’re a felon and you need to be deported forthwith post haste. End of story. And to help ensure there are less illegal aliens entering, we need to build up our borders. This is not xenophobic and not prejudiced. It’s just common sense. Unfortunately, many of the candidates lack this common sense. Unfortunately, President Bush also lacks common sense on this issue. Providing a “path to citizenship” for those who have entered illegally is dumb.
Raise Taxes - It’s my money and I want to keep it. It is immoral of the government to stick a gun to my head and make me pay it to my neighbors. Yes, the government needs money for the common defense of the country, roads and bridges, other infrastructure, and to pay our fat and lazy politicians (oops, did I say that out loud?)…but beyond that, it is immoral to forcibly take and transfer my money to others. Which is what Medicaid does, welfare of many different kinds, Pre-K programs, etc. Democrats think your money belongs to them and they’re happy to take it and redistribute it as they see fit. As a rule, most Republicans think you should keep more of your money. Some of our Republican candidates have been wobbly on higher taxes (Romney and Huckabee raised them as governors of their respective states, McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts), but they all (now) pay lip service to lower taxes. Let’s hope they mean it.
Keep Abortion Legal - This is one is extremely important to me–that is, NOT keeping abortion legal. A country’s morality is represented in its laws. To say that abortion is a “personal choice” is ridiculous. Is it a “personal choice” whether or not to rob someone? Or kill someone? Or speed? Or any of a thousand other laws that we have? We indicate as a country, with our laws, what is important to us as a people. Abortion kills the life of an unborn baby–the most helpless class of humans on the planet. What does it say about our country to endorse, even enable and extend, such a barbaric practice? All issues require compromise at some level, and this one is no different. If our candidate supports abortion, but is “right” on other issues, I can support that candidate. But I only do so by holding my nose. I believe the Republican Party remains a great party because of its stand on this important issue. If we compromise this one, we start eroding the very heart and soul of our party and our country.
Legalize Gay Civil Unions - Like abortion, this is a morality issue. Homosexuals already have full protection against discrimination under existing laws. Gay civil unions go beyond basic protections and grant something we should not grant as a country–official sanction and approval. The family unit is the basic foundation of our society–it is a mother, father, and children. Two same-sex people with or without children are not a family no matter how loudly they protest. This issue is not as critical as some of the others–but it is important nonetheless.
Appoint Liberal Judges - Conservatives want to appoint judges that interpret the law based on the U.S. Constitution. That is, they do not “color outside the lines” and find things in the Constitution that don’t exist (like Roe v Wade did). Liberals, on the other hand, like to appoint judges that take liberties with our Constitution and make up new laws. It results in an end-run around the original system of three-branch government. Our Founders designed the American republic (not democracy) with a system of checks and balances. The Executive branch manages the affairs of state and generally runs the country. The Legislative branch makes laws to protect the citizens. And the Judicial branch interprets the laws made by the Legislative branch, to be sure those laws don’t violate the Constitution. When activist judges start making up new laws and finding loopholes in existing laws it has the effect of short-circuiting the system. The whole thing breaks down and no longer works. That’s why it’s critical we appoint strict constructionist (conservative) judges.
More Gun Control Laws - The only people who prosper under stricter gun laws are the criminals who don’t bother with filling out forms and waiting a month to get a gun. We need a president committed to the Second Amendment rights of all citizens.
Universal Health Care - Socialized medicine. As in the government taking over health care for all citizens. On the surface it may sound great, but it’s a bitter pill once you’ve swallowed. Just ask our friends to the north in Canada, or across the pond in England. We currently have the best health care in the world right here in the U.S. Don’t mess it up by socializing medicine, please!
Conclusion: When I look at the issues that matter most to me–the issues that are a measuring stick of the character and how the candidate will govern, it’s obvious to me that Fred Thompson is a true-blue conservative down the line. He’s the one I support as of today. There is a (big) problem with Fred…he isn’t catching fire like some of the others. His mainstream media-created image is that of a tired old has-been who really could care less if he wins or not. I hope that image will change after Iowa and New Hampshire, but I’m not holding my breath. The mainstream media is still a powerful force in our country.
Let me hasten to add I can comfortably support any of the candidates on the Republican side. Any of them would be infinitely preferable to the socialist left that is today’s Democrat Party. Whereas I can comfortably support any of them, I can enthusiastically support Fred Thompson because he’s stayed the course, he is a true conservative and he will govern conservatively if elected. Fred has his problems–like they all do. But I believe he would make the best president from the entire crop of candidates running and I sincerely hope he is the Republican nominee.
How about you? I know some of my readers strongly support other candidates. Leave a comment and feel free to disagree with me. Or ask questions. Or offer your own endorsement for the candidate you’ve chosen. The more the merrier.
Technorati Tags: presidential primary, Democrat presidential candidates, Republican presidential candidates, presidential candidate positions, presidential political issues, Fred Thompson endorsement
William | Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
It’s a very good sign that you’d decide a president on the basis of abortion, gays, and guns.
Think to yourself, how many people close to you are gay and fighting to get their marriage recognized, have had an abortion, or have been held up by gunpoint? My guess is probably not many if you’re honest.
The bottom line here is that we’ve seen the result of what a “moral values” platform has achieved. A new abomination every week.
This week it is the criminal investigation against the CIA’s destruction of torture videos, of which the President’s closest associate Harriet Meirs was fully aware of. Bush says he knew nothing about it. Only an authoritarian fool would believe that lie. There’s values for you, covering up evidence of torture, reserving the right to torture by subverting the McCain bill by issuing a signing statement.
The week before, it was revealed that Bush continued to tout the Iran nuclear threat despite knowing the NIE disproved it. There’s integrity.
The week before that we hear Bush’s former press secretary Bush’s former Press Secretary Scotty McClellan said that Bush and Cheney were among those “involved” in his passing along “false information” regarding the Plame scandal. Bush obstructs the investigation by denying the House Oversight Chair’s request for Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s FBI files. These files contain Bush and Cheney testimony that was not before the Grand Jury and therefore not subject to secrecy laws. He’s againg, trying to cover his lying ass.
It reminds me of when it was revealed that the convicted felon Jack Abramoff had 485 contacts with the White House and raised at least a quarter million dollars for Bush/GOP campaigns. After Abramoffs conviction, Cheney ordered the Secret Service White House visitors logs destroyed, and millions of White House emails were somehow ‘lost.’
After all this, President George Bush says of Abramoff: “I don’t know him” despite the many White House photos of him with Abramoff and the entire Abramoff family.
I could literally go on forever, one lie after another and we are supposed to vote on the basis of GOP values after 7 years of lies, incompetence, abuse of power, and hypocrisy??
Yes, be a loser. Vote Thompson. He has no chance. Here’s why
William | Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
Game over for Thompson
Jim Willis | Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
Once again William, you misjudge me if you think I don’t have friends who have had (or believe in) abortion or are gay or in favor of gun control. Granted, we may not have in-depth discussions of those topics, but you seek to paint me as someone who hates and is aligned with your perceived shortcomings of the Bush administration. Your argument seems to say that those for whom values are important are somehow morally bankrupt themselves. I’m sorry you view me that way. My liberal friends certainly don’t. I happen to believe people can and should be good friends even if they strongly disagree on politics–or religion. I have plenty of good friends with whom I disagree.
As I stated in my post, these are my rather subjective criteria. I also pointed out Fred likely doesn’t have a prayer’s chance. Thanks for the link to the Politico article. I expect it is correct and Fred may well drop out of the race after Iowa if he doesn’t do well. A shame if that happens…but he won’t want to throw good money after bad. I will need to select an alternative to vote for in February if Fred is gone from the race. I haven’t yet made that decision.
So William, who are you supporting?
Justin | Jan 3, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for in-depth discussion of these crucial issues Jim! I agree with your opinions, but conclude differently. My vote goes to Mike Huckabee…I believe he would most accurately represent me. (I have nothing against Thompson, other than his wooden-Bob Dole type demeanor.) That said, Huckabee’s two conservative “weak spots” seem to be immigration and taxes. He has taken a lickin’ for both of these issues, but I believe the truth is yet to be told. In fact, I like his tax idea (23% consumption tax, no other taxes and no more IRS - I know, it will never happen!) and appreciate the way he treats immigrants, both legal and illegal, as human beings. He is an eloquent speaker, an uncompromising Christian, a solid statesman, and a loving father and husband. I was thrilled to see him do so well in Iowa tonight, and would be even more amazed to see his support continue. I did not think America wanted another white southern born-again Christian man to lead them…but hey, you never know!
Jim Willis | Jan 4, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for that Justin. You know I highly respect your opinions and you personally. But as you point out, we will disagree on this one. I believe the Huck would be the least attractive candidate on the Republican front. I agree with his theology–but disagree with his politics. He’s a good man, no argument there. I just believe he would not stand a chance in the general election and I can’t support some of his positions–ones important to me.
Thanks for commenting!
- Jim
Roger Thornhill | Jan 4, 2008 | Reply
Rumors swirl today at the Thompson camp: He’ll be dropping out after Tuesday’s defeat in NH and throwing support to McCain.
It may happen even sooner.
Hollywood actor Fred doesn’t have the ‘fire in the belly’ to continue, nor the support.
Say hello President McCain.
Jim Willis | Jan 4, 2008 | Reply
You may be right Roger. I expect Fred to drop out soon too. He fumbled the ball early on by letting his wife mess up the campaign structure (she fired the campaign manager). In today’s political hard ball, one fumble is all it takes. He never has shaken the image that he doesn’t really have the fire in the belly, as you say. Too bad. I’m an issues voter and Fred was right on the issues.
I know you support McCain. I have tremendous respect for him. He is hands-down an American hero. I also have tremendous misgivings about some of his positions over the past 4-5 years (illegal aliens, the environment, taxes, his law limiting free political speech). Like I’ve said, I can support any of the Republicans over the Democrats, including McCain. The problem is, we need a candidate people don’t just accept but get excited about. The Dems are getting excited–which means they will turn out in large numbers. We need to be excited too. Let’s hope McCain or one of the others catch fire and convince those of us who are issues voters that they will govern as a conservative and not compromise our freedoms away to socialists.
Justin | Jan 4, 2008 | Reply
Just out of curiosity, why do you find Huckabee the least attractive Republican candidate? It seems more and more conservatives are lining up against him, but I am still waiting to hear the reasons. Thanks!
Jim Willis | Jan 4, 2008 | Reply
Hi Justin. See my newest post analyzing the Iowa results. In it I list some of my objections to Mike Huckabee. It’s not the whole list, but it gives you an idea. My biggest fear with many of the candidates on both the left and right is the ongoing expansion of government.
Let me sum it up this way…whenever our leaders give money to various causes–even good causes–it means some citizens (taxpayers) have had to give up their money for their neighbors–involuntarily. I believe that to be immoral and unjust. One can argue for a safety net and some basic level of support for those who are destitute. What we have today is robbery of some citizens and a mass transfer of wealth–giving those who do the transferring incredible power. And it’s not just the rich who get fleeced.
We do not need to fund Pre-K programs (good though they may be), or food stamps or welfare of various kinds. We don’t need to pay for pills for old people or young people. Or give those who don’t work better medical care than I can give my own family because I choose to work.
I’m afraid Mike Huckabee wants to use our money in the same way those on the left do…to fund “good” causes. There is no doubt it’s with the best of intentions. Americans are big-hearted people. But it’s wrong–plain and simple. The size of government needs to shrink–drastically. Taxes need to go down. Charity needs to be performed by individuals and groups like churches. People must re-learn to take responsibility for themselves and not depend on the government to force their neighbors to give up their money. I’m afraid Mike does not “get it” when it comes to these very important issues. He increased taxes and the size of government in Arkansas, and I believe he would do the same nationally. I may be wrong! Please correct me if you think I am.
We must not yield to the enviro-nuts who want to control our economy and limit capitalism by using back-door methods like caps on carbon emissions (Mike is for it). We must not grant those who are here illegally, getting massive government transfers of money and free health care in our emergency rooms, to stay here by giving them a “path to citizenship” (Mike is for it). Again, I don’t question his good intentions. I question his judgment on how to handle such issues.
By the way, so I am an equal opportunity offender–I have problems with McCain for the same reasons. For some, secure borders and environmentalist activism are not major concerns–that’s fine! They are for me…which is how I will judge this contest (in part).
Just trying to give you a bit of insight into how I think about these things. I am not the least offended that you support Mike, or that Roger Thornhill supports John McCain. You’re both people whose opinions I respect. I’ll likely end up voting for someone other than Fred Thompson (expecting him to drop out)…so I’m giving them all a close look. I don’t rule out any of them, but Huckabee will have a lot of convincing to do for me to vote for him. He is socially conservative and that’s great, but on other issues I have a problem with his positions.
Justin | Jan 5, 2008 | Reply
I definitely understand your position Jim, and I agree with your principles wholeheartedly. The government’s job needs to be greatly limited. If gov’t were to go back within the confines of the constitution, there would be so much less of D.C. and its pork! It always amazes me what they can categorize under “regulate interstate commerce”!
Huckabee is the most appealing candidate to me for many reasons, but I doubt he is viable in the long-term. Sometimes these packed primaries produce a strong leader who fought to the front of the pack. Other times, all the in-fighting just weakens the eventual winner. Unfortunately, it looks like the latter is happening.
That being said, there are many issues that are important to me in an election. Some issues are “trump issues” - such as abortion. Because of my conscience, I could not support a pro-choice Republican like Giuliani, even if that means Hillary is our next commander in chief. I am praying that the eventually Republican nominee is a person I could vote for with a clear conscience!
WHB | Jan 6, 2008 | Reply
Jim (and others who bother to read),
I agree with your assessment of Fred Thompson. He is the only traditional (classic) conservative in the field. A true advocate of small government and people responsibility. In my mind he is the only legitimate choice. The rest are all neo-conservatives who will spend more of our money, raise taxes (even if they say they won’t), and get us lost in fringe battles.
The simplest way to express why I support Fred Thompson is that I think he would be a president who did nothing. Which is exactly what we need. A do nothing president. Not raise taxes, not get us into another war, not fight lost causes.
Ideally there is a lot Thompson stands for that I agree with (immigration and abortion are 2 examples). But realistically I doubt he would do anything about roe vs. wade and have to compromise on immigration. But at least he is to the right enough that any compromise would be far more to my liking.
As much as we (liberal and conservative) talk about the constitution. Both sides grossly abuse it. Thompson is the only candidate who I see living more in the realms of constitutional presidential authority. Bush has grossly overstepped his bounds and Hillary or Obama will be even worse. Huckabee with his activist/socialist (supposedly christian)idealism would run the constitution into the ground in the name of faith. The last thing we need is an activist. We need a president. Go THOMPSON! (so much for my idealism, we are doomed as Thompson is unelectable) WHB
Jim Willis | Jan 7, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for commenting WHB! I agree with your sentiments. We do abuse the Constitution–way too much. And about the best we can hope for is a slow-down in the abuses. Not so sure Bush has overstepped his bounds…but we can always debate that one. Preemption as a policy must be seriously considered in a world where even one nuke going off in one of our cities is too much. We walk a fine line between being the world’s policeman and being isolationist. We often make errors on both sides of that line.
But overall, I agree with you. Less action, less government, is what we need. Not more. And certainly not in the name of faith.
I also agree on the electability of Thompson, unfortunately.
P.S. Loved the Survivorman bit on Sunday!
WHB | Jan 8, 2008 | Reply
Jim,
For clarification purposes (not to engage in an extended discussion of Bush and the Constitution)I do not recall Congress declaring war on Iraq, nor Afghanistan for that matter. They (Congress) gave Bush the authorization to invade. I have and for the most part still do support these conflicts “in theory.” My problem is that I see Constitutional negligence out of both branches of government. Nor am I currently convinced that preemption is an issue in either of these cases. WHB
Jim Willis | Jan 9, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for that WHB. Now I understand! One of the problems with a text-based forum like a blog…sometimes you miss the intent/nuances. Absolutely right…we would be in better shape as a nation right now if we followed the Constitution and actually declared war and Congress “signed on the dotted line” so they could not renege later when the political winds change, as they’ve tried to do. Well said.
WHB | Jan 10, 2008 | Reply
Jim,
You (and all others) should go to itunes and listen to Mark Levin’s podcast from 1/7/08. He does a fantastic job of exposing the evil liberalism of Mccain and Huckabee WHB
Jim Willis | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
WHB - Thanks for the info on Mark. I had been listening to him pretty regularly but haven’t for a while. I’ll do just that!
Funny thing… I used to work with Mark in the Reagan White House once upon a time. Not that he would remember me (I was a young intern/later staffer at the time). But I’m sure he remembers my boss at The White House: Becky Norton Dunlop - a truly great lady and true conservative. Both Mark and Becky later worked for Ed Meese when he was Attorney General. Becky is now a VP at the Heritage Foundation.