that a 7 year old is at a higher reading level than Mike Huckabee:
“Who is your favorite author?” Aleya Deatsch, 7, of West Des Moines asked Mr. Huckabee in one of those posing-like-a-shopping-mall-Santa moments.
Mr. Huckabee paused, then said his favorite author was Dr. Seuss.
In an interview afterward with the news media, Aleya said she was somewhat surprised. She thought the candidate would be reading at a higher level.
“My favorite author is C. S. Lewis,” she said.
When thinking about how I would vote in the 2008 Presidential Election there are several major factors that I can think of:
1) Balance. It is very important to me that balance be maintained. After 12 mostly uninterrupted years of controlling the House and Senate the Republicans got fat, lazy, and corrupt. The reform agenda they championed to gain control had been forgotten and things needed to change. Additionally, the President’s policies in Iraq where not directed at victory but at minimizing the political visibility at that moment — which was rapidly turning into a strategy for failure. The shakeup caused by the 2006 election while removing the Republicans from power it empowered some of the most reform minded to fight for what is right. And the President was forced to shake up the entire strategy for Iraq, which has led to some significant success. This is important for the Presidential Election because to maintain balance, I can see the advantage of having a Democratic administration. But there is more than the Republican/Democrat balance to be considered, for within each party there are power bases that need to rise and fall (i.e., the same family in a party should not be tapped regularly), and we should look to candidates from different regions of the US for new leadership (i.e., someone not from the South would be good).
2) Diversity. In general I couldn’t care less about the “diversity” that everyone seems enamored with. Working at a university, I regularly hear about how important diversity is and what we are doing to achieve it. But in the end all this diversity talk is really about racial or gender or class goals to meet some demographic medium. When I care about diversity is is usually for one of two reasons.
First, to ensure the quality of debate — and that means an environment where diverse opinions are debated, argued, and the favored is implemented. This environment of diverse opinions don’t necessarily come from people of different races, genders, or class (look at the mono-culture of most universities or NEWS organizations) but from empowering committed individuals that have rational and reasoned differences — as long as they are capable of respecting the rational and reasoned opinions that might differer from their own.
Second, I do see a value in the traditional diversity when it comes to firsts. There is additional value to breaking barriers that haven’t been crossed to demonstrate that they can. This means that I might give a candidate a small bit of extra weight or the benefit of the doubt to allow the first woman, black, latino, or Morman to be President.
3) National Security. I don’t want the next President to fuck things up. Islamic Terrorists are losing; Iraq is finally on a positive path; Afghanistan is OK, but needs help (largely because of the complete failure of our NATO allies to meet their commitments — particularly the Germans who promised to rebuild the Afghan police force and failed to do anything — requiring the US to step in — thus the police force is several years behind the Army in development). In the next few years we have a golden opportunity to rebuild some strained friendships, set Islamic Terrorists onto the path to oblivion, and help create a better more peaceful world. If I am reasonably sure a candidate will screw that up, I am extremely unlikely to vote for them.
4) Economy. Socialism sucks. Anyone that thinks it is better than capitalism will not get my vote. A light government touch to keep the market in balance is what is needed to keep us growing — large socialist plans will just screw things up and waste money.
5) Health Care. As above Socialism sucks. I will not support a single-payer healthcare system. We most definitely need reform, but the US provides the best healthcare in the world (and by that I mean that you are more likely to get the correct medical care in the US than anywhere else) and I don’t want that ruined. Access and payment strategies need to be improved, but market driven solutions will always be best. Heck in 2000 and 2004, Democrats put forward thoughtful proposals to empower people to control their healthcare rather than the government.
6) Likability. I really don’t want a President that makes me groan every time he/she speaks. G.W. Bush seems incapable of being thoughtful and eloquent. Gore was (and still is) a nightmare that makes me want to throw stuff at him when he talks. Dole couldn’t speak in complete sentences (and speaking of oneself in the third person is kinda creepy). Clinton always bothered me (I never got the “charm” that he supposedly exudes), he always seems like a used car salesman. G.H.W. Bush was a mix of Gore and his son. Regan though — he rocked. Of course, I was 11 during the 1984 election.
There are more policy positions, but I’m not looking for a perfect match for me — just someone I can live with.
So now a look and the current Democratic candidates:
Biden:
Yawn. Another Senator trying to become President. Get a real job first.
Clinton:
Sign. Another Senator and this time with 1-1/3 terms before the 2009 inauguration. I’m sorry but having a secret part in your husband’s administrations (Gubernatorial and Presidential) does not count as experience. But putting that aside there are two primary reasons I could not vote for Clinton (except maybe to thwart Paul):
1) The US is a democracy not a feudal oligarchy with two families trading off the reigns of power. There is a reason we limit Presidents to two terms (10 years max) — because when power stays in the same hands too long corruption flourishes (look at Republicans in Ohio and Alaska or Democrats in Hawaii and New Jersey). We need to have power flow between different power bases to ensure balance. If Clinton won two terms we would have two families controlling the presidency for 28 years — very wrong.
2) Clinton’s role in her husband’s administrations is quite disturbing. Not the Healthcare debacle, but her role in quieting the “Bimbo Eruptions”. She participated in a large number of highly unethical (and allegedly illegal - such as wiretapping) activities that speak to an individual that should never be given power. The casual disregard with which she lied, smeared, and dissembled is shocking and should not be tolerated. It is fortunate that their bag of tricks has been failing badly in the primary and has also hurt them significantly.
Clinton does not have the experience for me to consider he qualified for the Presidency, and my experience with her and that team gives me serious qualms about her fitness for the office. Additionally, I would like the next President to not rehash old battles, but actually work toward resolving the issues we face.
Dodd:
Yet another Liberal Senator running for President. Get over it. Run for Governor of Connecticut — then I might consider you.
Edwards:
That anyone considers Edwards is shocking. There is nothing I find compelling about him. He got filthy rich off medical liability lawsuits (using theories now discredited) and was elected Senator once — and didn’t run again for his office because he would have lost. His populist “looking out for the poor” message rings hollow since before he ran for President in 2004 he did nothing about poverty issues. Next
Gravel:
Heh. Not going to happen.
Kucinich:
Congressman with a desire to create the Orwellian Ministry of Peace. <Shudder>….Next
Obama:
Let’s be clear. Obama really doesn’t have a resume to justify being taken serious as a Presidential Candiate. He was a State Legislator and will have served 2/3 or a Senatorial term by in inauguration. But even with that I kinda like the guy — and likability matters. Although I disagree with him on far more issues than I agree, he is respectful of those that differ from him (or at least so much more respectful than other that it seems like he is being respectful) which is a huge plus in my book. As I mentioned in my thoughts on Romney, I prefer a candidate that disagrees with me in an honest, respectful manner than someone I don’t trust or dislike that seems to agree with me. Obama has shown that he can work with those that have very different political outlooks and that is a skill that the next President definitely should have.
Richardson:
Until 2002, there is no reason to support Richardson. Was a Congressman (snore), a (largely ineffective) UN Ambassador for a year, and then was the Secretary of Energy that presided over a series of embarrassing scandals. Wow, what a record. But now he is the Governor of New Mexico, which carries weight with me. Executive experience is critical. And even though New Mexico is a small state, Richardson has had to deal with serious relevant issue. During his administration he has gained (at least from what I’ve heard) a reputation as a problem solver that has avoided ideological confrontations and gotten things done. The Cato Institute even likes him. My only issues with Richardson are that he seems to be a bit of a bumbler (and I fear that he might get eaten alive in waters less friendly than New Mexico) and his “Retreat at all cost” position on Iraq. I could live with Richardson as President and I could vote for him over someone that creeps me out…but I’m not a huge fan.
So in the end, I the only candidates I don’t find overwhelmingly objectionable are Obama and Richardson and if the Republican candidate wasn’t to my liking (and Obama/Richardson’s current positions on Iraq soften or become irrelevant), I could vote Democratic.
Looking at the current crop of Republican candidates for President I have the following views:
Giuliani:
I’ve always like Giuliani. He was an extremely effective Prosecutor and Mayor, who tackled serious challenges and succeeded despite significant opposition. His beliefs on social issues are also fairly close to my own. My concerns with him are his chaotic personal life (which can cause issues, real and political) and that he isn’t the strongest fiscal conservative. As of now, I can definitely vote for him and would be happy with him being President.
Huckabee:
Huckabee was a successful Governor — which is always a plus in my book. Apart from that I really don’t like anything else about him as a candidate. He is extremely conservative socially and an advocate for government intervention in our personal lives — Very Bad. His scientific literacy seems to be non-existant — he doesn’t believe in evolution and wants to move to Zero Energy Consumption by 2017 (probably a verbal gaff, but still…). There doesn’t seem to be any substance to his positions/policies — they strike me as fluff masking a giant chasm of ignorance. I just get the impression of an Arkansas huckster trying to sell be a bill of goods — the flashbacks are very disturbing . Huckabee is the opposite of what I want in a President the only way he will not get my vote in the primary and if he were the Republican candidate only the most vile opponent could make me vote for him in the general.
Hunter:
A congressman, next.
McCain:
McCain has some advantages with me — he has, during Republican and Democratic administrations, stridently supported the US Military and their mission. Additionally even though he is a Senator, he can speak fairly clearly and persuasively. But in general I don’t like McCain. He has no respect for the First Amendment (McCain-Feingold; and he has specifically said that if he could trade in the First Amendment and get zero government corruption he would). He supports amnesty on immigration. And he is enamored by the media. All are bad things in my book. I could only support McCain to prevent a worse person from being President.
Paul:
I do have a Libertarian streak, but I find Paul repugnant. I have endless issues with his viewpoint, but his behavior during this campaign is all that I need to put him at the very bottom of the barrel. During the campaign he has accepted money and support from some very unsavory groups: from the Truthers (9-11 was perpetrated by the US Government) to White-Power/Nazi groups. He will not disavow theses groups nor return their money. I would vote for any other Republican or Democratic candidate over Paul.
Romney:
Very early Romney was my #2 candidate after Giuliani, but my view of him has dropped. As a business executive and Governor he accumulated an excellent record that demonstrated that he was qualified to be President. But in the race he has essentially repudiated his record, his previous views, and his moderation in his campaign strategy to win the social conservative vote in the Republican Primary (a strategy that is falling apart with the rise of a genuine social conservative — Huckabee). This is disappointing and disturbing - I will vote for a principled candidate with reasoned positions that I disagree with (as long as she doesn’t claim that I’m an ogre for having my viewpoint) over a flip-flopper. I could still support Romney over some other candidates (Republican and Democrat) but I’m much less of a fan.
Tancredo:
A congressman, next.
Thompson, F:
In general I like Fred Thompson. His low key, thoughtful personality is refreshing and I agree with him on many issues. But to be a successful president you need to have energy and drive — Fred just doesn’t have it. I could certainly support him over many others, but it is extremely unlikely to matter since he isn’t going anywhere.