Like it or not, the 2008 presidential race is underway. Republicans, in particular, seem desperate to quickly identify their nominee. In part, their concern stems from the agony of November defeats. They fear that recent congressional losses will soon be followed by the loss of the White House. Worse, many Republicans worry that the next President could be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Republican fears are justified, but the manner in which they are responding to these fears is unwise. Many Republicans have allowed their search for a 2008 presidential candidate to become dominated by their desperation to avoid President Hillary. They are acting too hastily and are in danger of settling on a candidate too quickly. Many grassroots Republicans have already plopped themselves firmly in the McCain, Giuliani, or Romney camp. Unfortunately, there are potential problems in each candidate’s background that could spell disaster for Republicans.

John McCain . This Senator is not the man to lead a Republican Party that has lost its way in recent years. To the contrary, McCain is so proud of his most egregious assault on free speech and small government principles that the legislation bears his name: McCain-Feingold. Is it a coincidence that the incumbent-protecting restrictions in this bill could make it easier for him to win? But McCain’s violations of conservative principles don’t stop there. McCain has been a fierce opponent of President Bush’s tax cuts. He favors federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He recently voted to allow illegal immigrants to participate in Social Security. Perhaps worst of all, one always gets the feeling that McCain’s decision-making is driven primarily by his analysis of what the media will applaud. What kind of Supreme Court Justice would McCain appoint, given his desire to obtain accolades from The New York Times? Republicans need a man of principle to lead them. They do not need a media hound.

Rudy Giuliani . It is not hard to admire the former Mayor of New York, the man who showed leadership and courage on 9-11, when our country needed it most. In many ways, Giuliani’s innate ability to lead would make him a great President, but he has an unfortunate shortcoming. Giuliani is drastically out-of-sync with Republicans on most social issues. Indeed, he can be downright liberal in many of these areas. Nevertheless, a commitment to federalism could cure many of these concerns. Giuliani could be a good leader for the Republican Party if he were to make a priority of restoring much of this social decision-making to the states, where it belongs. In many ways, such a project would be more in line with the Republican Party platform than the many big government, “conservative” initiatives of the current administration. So, the question remains: How dedicated is Giuliani to upholding federalism? Republicans should wait to coronate him “their guy,” until they find out. Finally, Republicans need to investigate Giuliani’s commitment to nominating good judges. Anyone can mouth a sound bite about the importance of “strict constructionism” and “interpreting the law, not making the law.” President Bush mouthed similar sound bites . . . shortly before he tried to appoint Harriet Miers to the bench.

Mitt Romney . The former Governor of Massachusetts is a tempting nominee for the Republican Party. As the Republican governor of a blue state, he seems to have discovered the trick for appealing to conservatives and liberals alike. Romney is articulate, charming, and charismatic. If he is the candidate that he claims to be, then he could be a wonderful choice for Republicans in 2008. But Republicans need to spend more time evaluating Romney. Is he the person he says he is now? Or is he the person that ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994—the very liberal candidate shown on a recent and startling YouTube video? Naturally, anyone is entitled to change his mind. One of the nation’s greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, did exactly that—even switching his political party. But Reagan took time to explain his choices to the American people. Americans knew that Reagan was merely relaying his experiences and his life lessons learned. So far, Romney has not done that. His response to the YouTube video merely lobs an “I’m older and grayer now” rationale, but offers no particular reasons for his change in perspective. His weak explanation stands in sharp contrast to the very detailed and specific arguments that he gave for his liberal positions in 1994. Then, he argued that an experience with a “close family relative” gave him a personal reason for being pro-choice. Only a very striking experience could reverse such a personal conviction. To be believable, Romney should tell the American people the specific events that changed his mind.

Some Republicans make seemingly irrefutable arguments for hopping on board with one of these three candidates, immediately, without further investigation. The arguments usually go something like this: Conservative Republicans can’t have everything they want. They have to nominate someone electable. Perhaps McCain/Giuliani are too moderate, but they are the only ones who can defeat Hillary.

Admittedly, the Republican nominee can’t be expected to satisfy the party’s more conservative members in every nuance. America is a nation of diverse interests, and compromise in the political process is a healthy part of the presidential campaign process. On the other hand, there is a point at which compromise goes too far. Sadly, once-conservative Republicans seem to have hit this point in recent years. In their misguided efforts to acquire or retain power, they have compromised even the most basic principles of their party’s platform. Today, the Republican Party can spend money and grow the size of government with the best of them. Indeed, Republicans have made so many compromises that they have lost their identity. Surely Reagan would be horrified.

The election of 2008 is an opportunity for Republicans to recover their identity. But if they select the next leader of their party too hastily, they will undermine their ability to find themselves again.

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment