As the first primary approaches, some snap judgments on the remaining Republican candidates:

Huckabee: I have said it many times, but I will repeat, this is Bill Clinton with a Bible. He is s tax and spender who says the right things on social issues. I am also terribly concerned by his statements which sounds soft on Iran and his history of pardoning murderers and others who underwent sudden jailhouse conversions. What killer doesn't find Jesus right before the needle goes in his arm? Especially if "finding Jesus" is a ticket off death row.

Romney: I don't care that he is a Mormon, so that is a non-issue. He did some things in Massachusetts that I don't like (health care, etc.) but he was saddled with a far left legislature, so I am not sure how much was his own belief and how much an attempts to cooperate with the legislature. He says a lot of the right things on war and social issues, but he has changed his tune a few times, so I am not sure if it is an honest conversion, which is fine, or a strategic flip-flop, which is not. Also a bit troubling on the border, though he seems to be very slowly moving in the right direction.

Giuliani: Let us just ignore the "cross dresser" slanders, and his confused personal life, as I am not marrying him, and a man with a messy private life can still be an adequate -- or better --leader. (Julius Caesar, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, all come to mind.)  I find him a likable fellow, though, again, that doesn't matter in a president. I don't have to like the president for him to be a good leader, nor will a likable fellow necessarily lead well. So, his positions: Well, Giuliani is similar to Romney, he did things in NYC with which I disagree, but has since had a conversion, and he is starting to say some right things on the border. So, if he is honest, great, if he is just saying the right things but plans to act differently, that is a problem.

Thompson: I was an early booster of Thompson. He says a lot of the right things, even losing points with the social conservatives to support federalism. He has said a lot of the right things before he announced and since. However, either he has been a bit lethargic or he has allowed the media to paint him as lethargic. The latter is a bad thing, as it means he allows the media to run things. On the other hand, the former is a good thing, in my mind. I would prefer a president who has no passion for running. Someone who accepts office reluctantly, and has no love for either campaigning or politics is pretty much my ideal candidate.

Paul: Paul is fine on domestic issues, as I knew he would be. On foreign policy he is completely insane. I know there will be four or five enraged supporters who will take me to task for that, but I have explained in other posts why I believe that to be the truth. Regardless, if all the other candidates die and leave him the only choice, I will vote for him, but there is no other way I could support him given his mad foreign policy.

Hunter: I have read a lot of glowing reviews from Hunter supporters, and if what they say are Hunter's positions are accurate, then I do like the man on most issues. (Some have suggested a protectionist tendency I do not like, but that could just be the supporter, not the candidate.) But there is a real problem. If Hunter has not managed to get out his message to a political junkie like me, then he really is not getting his word out at all. That leads me to believe he does not have any real chance.

McCain: As it says in the notes below, I forgot McCain entirely when I wrote this, and continued to forget him for seven days. That should say everything you need to know on how I feel about McCain, but if you need a more detailed analysis, here it is. McCain is a media hound who turns against his fellow republicans and his constituents to get media praise and because he enjoys being called a "maverick". Unlike the media, I think turning your back on your constituents makes you a bad senator. He has been wrong on free speech (as "campaign finance" is just a restriction on speech), on immigration, on the supreme court, and probably a few others that are slipping my mind right now. I know he was a POW, but that only gets him so much credit, and McCain spent that a long time ago. He needs to do something pretty impressive to gain any credibility as a truly conservative candidate. (On the plus side, his Barbara Streisand impression*** was hilarious. There, I said something nice.)

The Rest: Gilmore, Brownback, and Keyes all have no chance. Again, I am a political junkie, but I have intentionally avoided going to candidates' sites. I want to experience this election like a normal voter. So I have avoided doing any research on my own and have let everyday media coverage (and some reading on Townhall) form my impressions. And, to be honest, I forgot completely about Gilmore and Brownback, and, though I remember Keyes, I was not certain if he was actually running or if there was just a write in campaign trying to draft him. So, again, if they can't manage to remind me they are running, then I don't think there is much support for any of the three, outside of the tiny circle of true believers every candidate seems to attract.

One word on Alan Keyes here. I met the man back in college, when I was drafted to be vice president of the campus Republicans. He (and Pete DuPont, who I also met at the same event) was one of the nicest people I have ever met. And I support his positions on social issues quite strongly. He is a very smart fellow, and, if he had a chance of ever winning a nomination, he would be my first choice. But even when he is formally campaigning, he just can't seem to get traction. Just like another favorite of mine, Phil Gramm,  Keyes is a man who would make a great president and makes a lousy campaigner.*

So what is the final analysis:

Happy to Support: Thompson, Hunter, Keyes (though he has no chance)

No Tears Over Voting For: Giuliani, Romney

Hold My Nose And Vote: McCain

No Idea Since I Just Remembered They Are In The Race: Gilmore, Brownback

Hillary/Obama '08: Huckabee, Paul

Well, those are my impressions. I am sure I will get a few happy, and twice as many angry, comments about my analysis (if anyone reads it at all). So, go ahead and let loose, I expect to be thoroughly abused over this one.

UPDATED 12/30/2007

I have to admit that the "Hillary/Obama '08" line above is just a joke. Much as I think Huckabee would be a disaster for the US, or Ron Paul would be a foreign policy disaster, I would still vote for either before I would vote for any of the Democrats running. Maybe if it were Joe Lieberman, or, better, Zell Miller**, I would vote Democrat, but not with the lot running now. So, don't write and tell me about party loyalty. After all, I was the one arguing against "sending a message" in 2006, I am quite a proponent of fighting things out in the primaries, not the general election, so I would, in reality, be a very reluctant Huckabee or Paul supporter should either end up the choice of my party. I just wouldn't like it.

Also, before anyone asks: No, I am not going to review the Democrat field. Why not? First, is there really any chance I will like anyone running on the other side? Second, does anyone voting in the Democrat primary care what I think of their candidates? Isn't it obvious that I will rate them from (at best) disappointing to horrifying? So, what would be the point of rating them?

----------------------------------------------------------------

* It is one of the ironies of our system that the traits that make a great campaigner (glib tongue, willingness to promise anything, ability to make 30 second sound bites) make for a lousy leader, while the traits that make a great leader (thoughtful, deliberate, consistent, principled) make for a lousy campaigner. It is a problem, but the alternatives to our electoral system are even worse, so it is a weakness with which we must live, I am afraid.


** If Zell Miller were running, I would probably vote for him over anyone except Thompson, Hunter, or Keyes. If most of our candidates are RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), then Miller is a DINO. The guy fits his party as well as Olympia Snowe fits ours. Any way we can trade a few of our RINOs for Lieberman and Miller?

*** Since YouTube seems to remove links over even the hint of copyright violation, it is quite possible this link will be bad in the future. If so, please post a comment to that effect and I will either remove it, or try to find a good link to the same clip. I try to keep my links working, as I hate sites with broken links, but I can't check all of them every day, so please add a comment if you find a link that has gone bad.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction 12/30/2007

I accidentally spelled "Thompson" as "Thomson". As I once worked for the relatively massive Thomson family of companies, and had to train myself NOT to use a "P" in the name, I now have a bad habit of dropping the "P" from the name "Thompson". Sorry about that.

Another Correction on 12/30/2007

Just to show how little impact Keyes' campaign has had, my first draft of this essay had his campaign described as  a "nascent write-in campaign". Only later did I begin to question my assumptions and check on-line references, finding at last that Keyes actually had announced and was formally running for office.

The fact that I thought he had nothing more than a "draft Keyes"-type write in campaign says it all. If people who actually like and would support you don't know whether you are running, then you are doing something wrong, and your chances of winning are pretty remote.

I was a little reluctant to admit to this mistake, as it makes me sound a bit out of touch. But, after some thought, I decided that, whatever it may say about me, it says a lot more about this campaign. That there are a number of candidates that I either forgot, or was unsure whether they were actually running or not,* says something about the field of candidates. If you can't keep people aware that you are in the race, it may be time to call it a day.

-------------------------------------------------------------

* In addition to my mistake about the status of Keyes' campaign, I was also not certain whether Tancredo had finally dropped out or not. About halfway through this essay, I finally recalled an article about him throwing his support behind Romney, making me pretty certain he had actually withdrawn, but, prior to that, I was not sure if Tancredo had withdrawn, or was just doing so badly that I had stopped hearing about him recently.  And, again, as in the case of Keyes, I would be a likely Tancredo booster. He may have been a single issue candidate, but it was an issue I thought important, and I liked him enough in general that I would have given him my support had he remained in the race longer (and a few better candidates dropped out).

As I said earlier, if your potential supporters don't know whether or not you are running, it is time to drop out. And, in the case of Tancredo, it appears he realized this too.

UPDATE 01/06/2008

I just realized I forgot McCain when I wrote this, and then again when I edited it, and yet again when I edited it the second time. It is a little embarrassing, but it took me 7 days to remember that McCain is running. (Wishful thinking, perhaps.) It is funny, but I recalled Alan Keyes, and Phil Gramm's unsuccessful presidential run in years past, but I couldn't recall that McCain was in this race.

So, just to be fair, I will add my McCain entry to the list above, and put him in the list, but I am not making an effort to hide the oversight. I really did forget him for a week. I am not making the change to try to hide my mistake, only to make the list complete.

And, to save a little face, I DID remember him enough to put him in the second list, I just forgot to include him in my first list of candidates. So my memory isn't completely shot, just somewhat defective.

UPDATE #2 01/06/2008

I must have been asleep at the switch on this one. It appears I was evaluating candidates who withdrew. At least I think they withdrew. The media has been so full of Huckabee-fever that I can't find much about who is left in the running.

So, it appears that both Brownback and Gilmore withdrew quietly in the recent past, and I somehow missed it. Shouldn't surprise me, as I didn't notice Keyes' official announcement either. I suppose I have been a bit ill-served by my plan to experience this primary as an average voter would, rather than a political junkie. Without doing any additional research, just relying on the media and some Townhall articles, I appear to have missed some developments.

On the other hand, I now know why the average voter knows so little about Thompson. After the flurry of attention before he entered the race, there has been something of a Thompson blackout. The same way I managed to hear little about anyone except the top 3 or 4 candidates, I also heard very little about Thompson.

So, I suppose my experiment has been informative. At least I now better understand how much the media shapes common perceptions. Except for a few political junkies, the public sees almost exclusively the top 3 or four candidates thanks to media myopia.