Love Life

I love that you blogged about politics!! Way to go - I'm voting for Mitt. :)

I agree that Huckabee is probably not viable in a general election (and think his answers to most questions in the debates lack substance). I also prefer Romney to the other candidates...but, that said if the main goal is sinking Giuliani, Mccain is in the best position to do that. He's diong better in South Carolina than Romney and if he wins Michigan could win there and Florida. I'd still vote for Romney because I can't stand McCain, but he probably is the one in the best position to stop Giuliani.

jhb - Mccain does have the base's support on the war but not at all on immigration so even though he's doing well in SC I'm not convinced that he's really got a lot more going for him then Romney (although I'll have to think about the poll question). But ultimately, when it comes down to it I just don't trust him. I trust in a "conversion" to get me results in the pro-life movement more then I trust in demonstrated apathy. Thanks for the poll point.

This'll be a long one...

Way to go for daring, Alexis! I've taken up politics as my new hobby until baseball season begins... GO TIGERS, by the way.

Anyway, I'm in a similar boat in that I don't have strong preferences regarding the Republican candidates, and that my main (though not only) goal would be saving babies. At the moment, though, I'm leaning towards agreeing with Brownback: McCain may be our best chance at a (mostly) pro-life president.

It seems, though, that there's innate animosity towards him among many Republicans. (I haven't been in the US long enough to have a good handle on the background there.) But from everything that I've read, his voting record is consistently mostly pro-life, and he doesn’t seem any less principled than the others, except Huckabee. For example, check out: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

The only candidate who is overwhelmingly pro-life is Huckabee. Giuliani isn't (though he'd still be better than a Democrat since he'd probably appoint conservative justices), and the other three (McCain, Thompson, and Romney - I'm not bothering with Paul) appear to be on the same page, though Romney only recently so: mostly pro-life, wanting Roe v. Wade overturned, and the issue left up to the states (no constitutional amendment). They also support the rape/incest/life of mother exceptions.

Huckabee doesn’t have much experience or name-recognition, though, and it's hard to see him winning the White House. Out of the other three, McCain may be the most likely to beat Giuliani and is probably the most likely to beat whoever the Democrat nominee is (that’s crucial), because he's popular among independents, palatable to some Democrats, and the media likes him too, which is important these days. He also has vast experience and would probably be more competent than most.

If only Alan Keyes were viable...

Hey Mark - I was curious what you were thinking since our conversation on New Years.
I think that the reason so many republicans take issue with McCain is that there doesn't seem to be any philosophical thread holding his positions together. He just rides the waves. The fact that he's strong on the war, weak on life, on immigration, and on taxes just makes you wonder what keeps him ticking? What holds his ideas together? He is not a conservative. So, if you put your conservative views ahead of your republican standing then he just makes your skin crawl. He seems very willing to let the old Reagan coalition conservatives die out. He's a republican but not a conservative and I don't want to see the Republican party made into his image.
He would abandon the life platform as soon as it didn't suit his interests, he's done it to other issues.

Ya, pinning politicians down to fundamental principles (as opposed to just policies) is a tough one. There are some exceptions, but unfortunately it seems that those with good fundamental principles, e.g. Keyes, Brownback, and maybe Huckabee, are unlikely ever to win the White House.

I guess I don't get the impression, though, that Romney or Thompson are any more principled than McCain. If they are, I have yet to see it. They all seem to have some good principles, but they also ride the waves and don't follow through enough on the principles they do have. None of them, for example, has followed through on their pro-life principles by supporting a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. McCain might be the most electable, though.

For the record, if I ran for office, my campaign slogan would be: SAVE THE BABIES! BAN THE STOP SIGNS! It has a nice ring to it, don't you think? :)

(For those unfamiliar with my aversion to stop signs... The Brits don't have them; roundabouts and yield signs do the trick. Stop signs waste time, gas, and brakes.)

Great post, Alexis. If I was in MI, I would be voting Romney for many of reasons you outlined. I do think he has the best chance of keeping the old "Reagan coalition" together and ensuring Rudy isn't able to win the nomination. Since none of the candidates excite me, my main interest in this primary is to see Rudy go down in flames!

(Plus, McCain worries me in his ability to win the election, especially if Obama is the Democratic nominee. The conservative base will not turn out big for McCain - too much bad blood - unless they turn out to vote AGAINST Hillary.)

Today's news that Rudy's top campaign staff is now working for free made me feel good about his chances. If he is that tight on money, it may be harder for him to mount as strong as campaigns as I thought on Super Tuesday.

Alexis, thanks for posting about politics. Your mom and I enjoy discussing this stuff. I don't like Romney. Yes, he may have undergone a conversion but I'm suspicious of a man who only comes to realize a fundamental principle of right and wrong in middle age. Also, I don't think he could beat Obama. People tend to vote for rather shallow reasons and I think Obama is more likable. Romney does not come across as genuine. I do think he could beat Hilary though.
I'm still thinking Huckabee. At least he's solidly prolife. He's very likable and genuine. I think we may all be underestimating his electability. He could draw crossover democrats, particularly against Hilary. Im hoping he gets the nomination. Stranger things have happened. I would prefer someone more fiscally conservative, but a solid pro-life candidate is my first priority.

I forgot to say that, of course, a very high priority is defeating Guiliani. I just can't believe his candidacy is really going anywhere. His personal life is such a disgrace. How could anyone trust him with the country. What about Thomson? No chance?

Hey Mark, I totally agree that Alan Keyes is probably the only candidate out there with a real philosophy of life that hangs together and he's obviously totally unelectable. When I spoke of McCain not having an underlying philosophy I didn't really mean love-of-wisdom type philosophy (that would be asking far too much! :)), I was referring to the three branches of the old Reagan conservatism (fiscal conservatism, security-based conservatism and social conservatism). Those are the three "issues" that Reagan (and ultimately Russell Kirk) brought together under one banner to give the Republican party majority status for so long. Those three things make up what is known as "conservative" in America. Romney may not believe deeply in all three branches but he knows enough and has acted/voted in such a way that leads me to believe that he will continue to hold it together and not destroy what so many have worked to keep together (minus the healthcare thing). And since I generally believe that conservatism is the best way to ensure human dignity for each individual (including first and formost the unborn) it is very important for me that a candidate show some basic signs of respect for "coalition". McCain simply has not. He has picked and chosen at will - seemingly for purely political reasons. Even if Romney isn't any better (in terms of motivation) he seems to at least have decided that the best way to get what he wants is to play towards the "coalition". Echoing Maria's post - I have a hunch that even if you're right about McCain being very similar to the other candidates in voting record - there's too much bad-blood. He's played the "middle aisle" for so long that the base just can't stomach him. I could be wrong, maybe the base won't be as reticent to vote him in as I'm imagining. But he's been around for so long and ticking off conservatives for so long that it will be a very difficult recovery. Although you're doing your best to help him along :)!

Maria, I didn't know Rudy's peeps were working for free! That brings a smile to my face and warms my heart. :)

Hi Rose, thanks for posting. I have to say, I think that John (my John) could have written your post! We have a bit of a split household on this subject! I agree with you for the most part. That being said I think that Huckabee has abandoned fiscal conservatism and his immigration policies plus the fact that he pardoned 1000 people as governor has thrown his approach to security into serious doubt. Obviously his social conservatism is the most convincing of the bunch. But I don't think that holding up one branch of conservatism is enough to get him the nomination. It is enough for me, although I do care about the other issues I would not base my vote on them - Life is good enough for me! If I thought he had a chance of assuaging the base and getting the nomination I would vote for him because of the babies.

Rose - I forget the Thompson comment. Yeah, he's got no "fire in the belly". He doesn't even look like he wants to be president. I think he's out - unfortunately.

I would just really like to see a principled man in the White House (or woman, ahem). Romney and McCain come across as such politicians. How many non-prolife Supreme Court Justices have we been given by presidents who were considered conservatives but, apparently, were not solidly enough pro-life to make certain their nominee was? Washington also influences presidents. They start thinking about their place in history and what will be said about them. I'm leaning toward Huckabee. At least we would know we have a president on his knees. I'm not convinced that the social conservatives couldn't put him in the White House. Against Hillary or Obama even fiscal conservatives might vote for him as the better choice.

Romney for me. For now. I think his campaign needs to leak a secret video of him mudding with four-wheelers or something...really ANY manly activity that gets him covered in mud. He gives out the vibe that says, "I'm beautiful and we (you and I) both know it." and nobody likes that. He needs to kill that vibe before it kills him!

Have you ever had 15 comments on a post in the space of 1 day??? This is so interesting, and I am learning much thanks to all y'all. It's all soooooo different than in the UK. Yesterday my boss was explaining to me how the caucus and primary systems work - complicated! I need to find out more about that, and about the Reagan Coalition too. Seems like "change" is the Democrat buzz word, and "Reagan" is the Republican one.

Questions for everyone: Are you rooting for Hillary to win the nomination because she'd be easier for the Republicans to beat than Obama? Who do you think would be the best candidate to beat Hillary? Who do you think would be the best to beat Obama?

By the way, I don't have a blog, but the organization I work for just revamped its website, if any of you are interested: www.spoweb.org. We still have some work to do on it, though.

Joshie - I'm with you. It's that whole Huckabee ad thing - you want the president to look like the guy next to you at work, not the guy who laid you off.

Mark - I'm with you also. Change is definitely the Democratic watch-word and Reagan has almost god-like status in terms of recent Republican presidents, sometimes it becomes a little ridiculous but overall I liked him. BTW - he was a Republican that originally ran as a pro-choicer and "converted.
Good questions about the Dems. Here are my opines:
Obama would be easier to win against. He's also be the worse president. So, I want him to win the nomination if we are going to win the general election but I'd rather have Hillary for president so if we are going to lose then I'm hoping that she'll get the nomination.
Obama would be easier to win against because he just really, really doesn't have enough experience. ONE term in the Senate?! No, he won't win this time around but if he doesn't screw the pooch then we'll need to keep an eye out for him next time around. Enthusiasm is well and good and being likable is also well and good but the American Idol voters generally don't show up to vote for important things so I just don't think he's going to really make a showing. IF he proves me wrong then I think Huckabee would stand a better chance against him - fight fire with fire and likability with likability.
If Hillary wins then I'm Romney's gal again. I think Romney has a chance against her.
Either way, there's a good chance that we'll lose this election given the recent past and because of how difficult it is to keep one party in for more then 8 years. Given that pessimistic statement I would have to say (to my great dismay and very great surprise) I'd rather have Hillary as president then Obama. I think the sky is falling!

Hmmm... I'm not sure... I think Hillary might be easier to beat. If she were the nominee, more Republicans would turn out to vote against her, some Democrats wouldn't vote for her, and a lot of Independents would vote Republican (somewhat depending on the Republican nominee). I don't think those three things would happen as much if Obama were the nominee. Yes, some people would be wary of his inexperience, but in the current climate of aversion to Washington, that might not hurt him too much. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

As for who is best-placed to beat them, at this point, I don't really have a clue! May God's will be done, whatever it is. Come Lord Jesus!

Better late than never. I'm also a Romney backer. I feel like he has a good sense of what makes the government and the corporations of the country tick. Maybe I'll draw some flack for this because I don't really know enough - but I feel like he might actually be able to do some good things as President - whereas Huckabee just seems to say things that sound good but are just hot air. And McCain seems to be a life-time politican.

Have fun making history with the Michigan primary - I wish VA was so exciting. :)

On this "conservative candidate" thing... Let's not forget that none other than Ronald Reagan nominated for the Supreme Court both Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens and Bush Senior nominated David Souter. Just being a good conservative does not necessarily mean you will get a pro-life justice.

Thought y'all would find this poll interesting...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcnn.htm

(My wife is making fun of me for using "y'all" as a Brit, but it's really quite useful!)

Mark - good poll. Very interesting. I am surprised to see that so many people would take a stand against Huckabee and Romney. Romney especially seems pretty non-inspiring and non-infuriating. But hey, I guess that depends on what infuriates you. I wish that I had just an ounce of trust in McCain - it looks like he would stand the best chance. But hey, that's his problem.

Rose - yup. Totally agreed. There are so many things that go into nominating someone and then getting them through congress that it almost doesn't matter if you have a conservative or not. What you are HOPING for is that a true-blue conservative will nominate someone with judicial restraint - enough to see that RvW was judicial activism and would be willing to overturn it. BUT I don't know how much Bush Sr.'s nominations to the Supreme Court were his intentional snowing of the pro-life movement, his neglect of good research, his being lied to, or none of the above. Maybe those justices changed their mind or their judicial style once they got all the way to the top. Regardless, I think that it is very difficult to predict which candidate will appoint pro-life/conservative justices. Just being "conservative" is no guarantee.

Alexis, yup, being conservative is a prerequisite it would seem but no guarantee. The only conservative president who has given us prolife justices as far as we can tell is George W. and, correct me if I'm wrong, he's also the only one who describes himself as a born-again Christian. Perhaps we need a humble and praying president to get a prolife justice, one who lets God decide?

Well, in being an experienced voter and political activist I would say...(just kidding). This will be my first time voting and I am very excited. I have watched some of the debates and come to a few very basic conclusions. No on Ron Paul and No on Giuliani. Unlike my sister, I like McCain and I do not like Romney. McCains foreign policy is the best out of the candidates (and that is the second most important issue for THIS election). He is pro-life, even if he isnt putting at the forefront of his campaign. Romney was caught off guard for many questions, one of which regarded homosexuals. As we all know, the issue of homosexuals is extremely important right know. Romney just didnt give me a very reassuring feeling that he would up hold my values. Although my decisions only came from the debates. I need to research there backgrounds a little more.

P.S I really really liked Thompson, Too bad he wont win. Huckabee is right behind McCain...Feel free to sway my vote (I want to learn)

Regarding judicial nominations, I would say it is a bit early to hand down a decision on GW Bush's nominees yet. I'm sanguine about them, but they haven't actually ruled on Roe V. Wade as of yet. I'm not counting my chickens before they are hatched!

Actually, Huckabee worries me on judicial nominees. Not that I don't think he isn't completely pro-life - I think he is very principled on these issues. However, from what I know he is not well-connected with social conservative "intelligensia," for lack of a better term, who could really help him find and vet good conservative nominees. I can see him - just like Bush - putting up a Harriet Myers because, heck, "she's a good Christian woman," completely overlooking the nominee's real credentials.

Still, I would rather have Huckabee in charge of judicial nominations than McCain. McCain doesn't care one bit about social conservatives. He has a decent voting record on life issues (though he is FOR federal funding of research on human embroys!! - it is hard for me to see you as a pro-life candidate if you want to use my tax dollars to destroy human babies), but no leadership or passion on the life issue. And on judges, he was part of the "Gang of 14" that screwed the Bush administration over on judicial nominations in the Senate.

Just to expand the converstation, I think Ron Paul is THE MAN on life issues at the federal level. Instead of relying on this ridiculous strategy of waiting on the Supreme Court to change its mind on abortion - which it has no jurisdiction on in the first place - Ron Paul actually has introduced legislation that simply and clearly limits the Supreme Courts' jurisdiction on the abortion issue, sending the issue right back to the states where it constitutionally should be decided. To me this is the strategy pro-lifers should have taken about a decade ago when we realized the Human Life Amendment was politically dead and the Supreme Court route was going to take a lifetime. Not only is it a viable consitional option, it makes members of Congress actually take some responsibility in the abortion debate instead of laying all the blame on the Court.

Regarding judicial nominees, to be fair it should be kept in mind that Reagan (later in his term) and Bush I were appointing nominees with a Democratic Senate after Bork (romney supporter) had been 'Borked'. There was also less information available about candidates because the MSM had basically sole control of the news at that point. W had it a bit easier - and it's not clear that Roberts or Alito would actually overturn, rather than just chip away, at Roe.

In this election, it's not clear what kind of nominees Mccain would appoint (although it makes me nervous to think); Rudy has made some promises, but I'm not sure they are reliable; Romney has explicitly said he would appoint judges that would overturn Roe; Huckabee of course is pro-life and presumably would do the same.

To me Huckabee seems under-qualified; 2.5 years of Baptist college and a year of seminary before dropping out don't demonstrate the kind of achievement I'd prefer a president to have - and he raised taxes a lot in AK and apparently has done a 180 on immigration. When I listen to Huckabee, he sounds disingenuous but personally charming. I may be wrong though...

I came across my uncle's blog today. (Well, I say "uncle" loosely - 3rd cousin once removed, actually, but that's still "uncle" in Polish culture.) I'd be VERY interested in your opinions. He's quite the thinker and writer on politics and more...

http://voyons-potsdemiel.blogspot.com/

Maria, on the subject of judicial nominations...Harriet Myers. I have a close pro-life friend who is an attorney and was working in the White House with Harriet Myers. She considered Myers very capable of the Supreme Court position, very intelligent and very principled. Maybe Bush knew something we did not. I think the media lambasted her because she was too unknown.

Hey Mark - I read the post that your "uncle" did on the campaign. I certainly agree with him that the campaign will look very different in November. I also agree that there are some important issues that seem to be flying under the radar (as he says, security, economy and budget) more or less right now. I don't know if I totally agree with everything he says about the war on Islamo-fascism. I don't think it's very prudent to say that they are not well-organized enough to really do damage. True that right now there they are just smallish cells but if we don't keep some pressure on them they will get bigger and more brazen. And even one more 9/11 would be too much.
But I agree with his overall opinions.

My two cents on the judicial nominees - ALL of the major Republican candidates have said that they will nominate conservative justices to the bench. We have won the battle in the sense that it is not a fight within the party whether it is a good idea or not to have strict constructionist judges. That's good. At least we (and they) are all acknowledging the objective desirability of judges who heed the constitution.
BUT since we have so often been snowed by either the president, his vetting staff, congress's judicial committee or the judge themselves I don't think that we can really see into the future with confidence to a candidate that will give us several Scalias in a row. No, there are too many variables to make a voting decision mainly based on justice appointments.

Hey Jamus Loganus:
welcome to the pro-life voting block bro! I would just say, ask dad. No, just kidding. McCain does have a pretty good foreign policy, but he undermines is with a really wimpy borders/immigration plan. Most of the guys responsible for 9/11 lived in the U.S. at one point or another. McCain's problem is that on lots and lots of issues he is inconsistent. He done good when it came to the surge in Iraq but he turns around and lets people come over our borders in droves and wants to nationalize them asap without stopping up the flow first. But a better example of this is that he says he's pro-life but the votes in favor of federal FUNDING for research of embryos (stem-cell). A man who actually BELIEVES that a "person is a person no matter how small" could NEVER vote that way. It would be different if he said he had a "conversion" (like Romney) but he doesn't even seem embarrassed by this HUGE inconsistency. He's not really pro-life and that trumps all.