Round One in the fight to win the Republican presidential nomination is over. Score one for Mike Huckabee, once a long shot, but now the winner of the Iowa Caucuses. We’ll soon know if his victory will have long-term ramifications in other states’ primaries. In the meantime, this is the way that I see the field:

Mike Huckabee. A Huckabee nomination would be an unmitigated disaster for Republicans. Huckabee presents himself as a fiscal and social conservative, but the image he has created for himself is only partially accurate. He probably is a true social conservative in many ways, but on other issues, he has proven himself to be too sympathetic to big government. Indeed, he tends to be a bit of a bleeding heart, big government “conservative.” (Such an oxymoron!) Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas. He increased spending, and he signed a minimum-wage increase. This primary election cycle was supposed to be about ending precisely this type of big government attitude, which has been on display all too often during the past eight years. Republicans need a return to their conservative platform, not further violations of it. Worse, Huckabee lacks the foreign policy experience that America needs during a time of war. Have you noticed that he always seems to deflect questions about international matters when being interviewed by reporters? One almost gets the feeling that he doesn’t know as much as he should about our allies and enemies abroad. Not good.

Mitt Romney. A Romney nomination and presidency is a nice idea in many ways, but there are many potential pitfalls. Is Romney the conservative candidate of 2008 or the more liberal version that emerged in the Massachusetts Senate race in 1994? The former candidate would be wonderful. The second candidate would not accurately represent the Republican Party. Romney’s conflicting statements have left me wondering if his positions are based on political convenience or heartfelt ideology. Perhaps that is unfair. Maybe he did no more than change his mind on a handful of issues—and even Ronald Reagan changed his mind from time to time. But it is hard to be sure, and it is hard to vote for someone if you are not quite sure that you know who he is.

Fred Thompson. A Thompson presidency would have been the best of all possible worlds. Unfortunately, the Thompson candidacy has been slow to take off. Thompson has been painted as someone who is lazy and unwilling to work as hard as a President should work. I, for one, believe that media image to be unfair. Thompson strikes me as someone who believes that politics should be about substance, not about flash and charisma. He wants to believe that, deep down, voters feel the same way and will respond positively to such an attitude from a candidate. Thus, he seems to have found it more worthwhile to spend time fleshing out policy ideas than to pound the pavement, shaking voters’ hands. I am afraid that he may be wrong. Politics is often about flash and charisma. But Thompson’s positions were substantively the best, and it’s sad that voters are slow to see and value that. Perhaps Thompson’s third place finish in Iowa will be enough to rejuvenate his campaign a bit. But I am afraid that America will miss out.

John McCain. I appreciate McCain’s service in Vietnam and would never try to undercut the value of his sacrifice. But I will never vote for him, either. McCain is not a true conservative. His policy positions often seem driven by his interest in obtaining praise from liberal media outlets. He fought Bush’s tax cuts. He pushed for massive government regulation of campaign finance—the resulting legislation bears his name and stifles free political speech in this country. He has joined Al Gore’s ill-founded crusade against global warming. McCain would probably be tough on the war, which is good, but he can’t be trusted on judges. After all, this is the same man who participated in the Gang of 14, undermining Bush’s efforts to appoint qualified, originalist judges to the federal bench. McCain can’t be trusted to lead the Republican Party back to its roots.

Ron Paul. Good for him for running. His candidacy has made an important point about the value of reducing spending and the size of government in this country. But let’s be serious. Paul would be a terrible President. Reducing the size of government (unfortunately) will involve more than merely vetoing every bill sent to his desk. He’d have to work with Senators and Representatives from a variety of backgrounds to produce bills that he could sign—much as Reagan did in the 80s. Without such bills, it is hard to imagine how we do much more than maintain the status quo.

Rudy Giuliani. This leaves only Giuliani. I originally had no intention of voting for him, mostly because his social positions are pretty liberal for a Republican candidate. However, he gave a speech last November that changed my mind. Giuliani’s speech can be found here, and it is worth reading in full. In it, he made a pitch for federalism—the recognition that state and federal governments each have their own sphere of authority. The Constitution explicitly leaves much power in the hands of the state governments. A centralized authority does not have to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution for every policy issue. To the contrary, Californians, New Yorkers, Iowans, and Texans can and should come up with their own approaches toward many domestic matters. If Giuliani seriously intends to do his utmost to restore much governmental decision-making to state and local governments, then my qualms regarding his socially moderate positions are largely appeased. I don’t care if New York is socially liberal, as long as I can live in socially conservative Texas. Moreover, Giuliani’s November speech was fairly specific about the process he would rely upon for judicial nominations, and he seems serious about his intent to appoint good, originalist judges. Finally, Giuliani can be trusted to lead our country in a time of war. He would be no doormat for the terrorists who seek to kill us. Of course, one does kind of wish that his personal life were less of a mess. I think I can live with a President Giuliani, but I still wish there were a good, viable alternative.

And that’s the way I see it.  Here’s hoping that the nomination won’t be all but decided by the time we Texans get to cast our votes in March.

Comments (10)

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