My Take on the Presidential Race Thus Far

Here’s my take on the Presidential race thus far, from a conservative point of view.

First the Democrats:

Obama is running as a liberal populist who can garner a great deal of enthusiasm even though his liberal agenda will raise taxes significantly through an expansion of entitlement programs such as health care, etc. Where there is a populist, the people overlook the real issues and their consequences and are more concerned with how the populist makes them feel. The Clintons (I use the name in the plural because it would be truly a co-presidency) would also significantly increase taxes through the expansion of entitlement programs, but they would not be running as populists because of Mrs. Clinton’s high negatives.

Both would cause a massive increase in government spending with less emphasis on national security and our military and intelligence capability. However, Obama’s coat tails would probably result in an increase in the Democrat congressional majority beyond the point where Republicans could significantly stop the liberal agenda. Whereas, Clinton negative coat tails might thwart the Democrats from increasing their control or possibly losing control altogether. I understand that many congressional Democrats are very worried about this result.

If Obama gets the nomination, he will be much harder to beat because of his ability to make people feel good about him. If the Clintons get the nomination, they will be much easier to defeat and result in a much better chance for the Republicans to reduce or even eliminate the Democrat majority.

Edwards tries to be a populist but he just doesn’t cut it and will not be factor, but will steer a lot of his supporters to Obama if he drops out. Maybe he hopes to be a contender for the VP slot.

Now the Republicans:

Romney is trying hard to be a conservative but people aren’t quite sure that he means what he says. He appears very competent and I think will make a good President and leader, I am not quite sure he will stand up to the liberals when it comes to taxes, and immigration, but I could be wrong. He certainly seems to have more specifics when tackling the country’s problems.

Huckabee, like Obama, is a populist. People feel good about him, especially Christians, without much regard to the important issues of the day. Yes, he is against abortion and he calls himself a conservative, but his record does not appear to be consistent with core conservative values, such as smaller government, fiscal restraint, strong national defense, less government interference in our everyday lives, less taxes, less dependence on government entitlement programs, strong stance against illegal immigration, etc. I fear he has some liberal tendencies, but I have to see more to be certain.

Of all the Republicans, Thompson is probably the candidate who most stands up for almost all the conservative principles. He is not afraid to speak his mind and run a different kind of campaign. However, he doesn’t seem to taking hold, maybe because he seems “outdated” to some people and doesn’t speak with enough “fire in the belly”. I hope his campaign can get a little more fired up because, so far, he is my choice based on what he believes.

McCain is known for his honorable character but he may have too much “compassionate conservatism” leading to a more liberal view of increased taxes and government entitlement programs, as well as his softer stance on illegal immigration. He would certainly be strong on national defense and have the respect of the military. However, I was taken aback about his view of our health care system and feels big drug is cheating the public by making too much money.

Giuliani has shown that he can lead and I feel would continue the present war on terrorism with fervor but I’m not so sure he will be fiscally conservative. He seems strait forward on his ideas. However, I believe he falls short on some important conservative issues such as abortion and illegal immigration. I tend to believe him that he would support the appointment of strict constitutional judges.

Ron Paul, is basically a libertarian, and I agree with him on many issues including very limited government, but disagree on his stance on national defense and his isolationist tendencies. We no longer live in a world where we can ignore the global nature of our economies and the threats from within and outside our borders. We sometimes have to defend ourselves by taking preemptive action where deemed necessary.

Some thoughts on electability:

I believe Obama may be hard to beat if he is nominated. Although, Republicans could be successful in painting him as a tax and spend liberal and soft on national defense. His inexperience or naiveté could be his Achilles’ heel. The Clinton’s may be much easier to defeat because of Mrs. Clinton’s high negativity, and a much better chance of Republicans taking control of congress or, at the very least, achieving minimal losses.

It is hard to say who is best to win in the general election on the Republican side. Giuliani and McCain, maybe Romney, probably have the best chance against an Obama or the Clintons, but the risk is that true conservatism loses. They are not true conservatives and their winning will redefine conservatism moving it more to the left. Thompson is the closest to conservative issues, but may not be able to pull it off especially against a populist Obama, but he could pull it off against the Clintons.

Effects of a Third Party:

If Bloomberg runs, I think he could put the general election in a tailspin. I think he will pull mostly liberals, some independents, and maybe some moderate Republicans, but I think he could pull enough electoral votes to throw the election into the House of Representatives, that is, if any one candidate cannot get the minimum of 270 electoral votes. That would favor whoever is the Democrat nominee. Nader running would hurt the Democrats mostly. A Ron Paul running as an independent would hurt the Republicans mostly. If all three run as independents, anything could happen.

OneConservative