Candidates of Change
It seems as if each candidate in both parties is touting him or herself as the candidate of change. Romney started saying something to that effect back in February 2007, other candidates have been saying it for months as well. Recently, however, it's become the catch-phrase of the candidates. "I represent change" says one. "I'm not part of the establishment" says another. What's humorous is yes, all candidates are technically candidates of change. They would be someone different than the current President and therefore a change. That's not what they mean but in that sense their chants of change are redundant.
Who has the most ability to create noticeable change in the executive office? Any of the Democratic candidates certainly would (by raising taxes, starting a national socialized medicine plan, etc.); we've had a Republican president in office these past 7 years. All Republican candidates would bring real change as well, although I think that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani would try to change less than the other candidates. McCain would work with Democrats more than Pres. Bush has done (although No Child Left Behind is an example of working with Democrats - it is actually a liberal policy, as much as I hate to label things liberal or conservative). Other than that, McCain wouldn't change very much except for immigration. Romney would try to fix the economy and budget. He would also try to fix immigration. He would also work with Democrats to try to effect change. Giuliani would, well, I'm not sure what he would do. Huckabee would try to expand the federal government; Paul would try to cut it down.
I don't believe that any of the Democratic candidates would try to reduce the size of the federal government (other than reducing defense spending). Romney is the only viable Republican candidate who would - McCain might try to fix some things - and he might fix the budget - but there is nothing in his past experience that demonstrates that he actually could fix it. Huckabee is a "neo-conservative" (as much as I dislike that term, it applies) - he does not stand for small government.
All candidates trumpet their status as the delta candidate (i.e., change [over time]) - the candidate of change. All would be a change but few could effect positive, lasting change.
Economic Experience
The overwhelming number one concern for people in political polls is the economy. This should be very good news for Romney who clearly has the best economic policies and experience of any candidate. I think he should tout his economic experience a little more than he has been doing. Romney was a venture capitalist who invested in companies and helped them turn around financially; he was very successful. He swooped in on the SLC Olympics and turned them around from a financial disaster to the most successful Olympics from a financial standpoint. He also helped turn around the budget of Massachusetts as governor.
Huckabee's budget plan is radical, it's untested and likely untenable. He's running on promises that can't be fulfilled. McCain has great foreign policies but doesn't have strong plans to fix the economy. Clinton's plan for the economy (and budget deficit) generally would be to raise taxes, as would be the other Democratic candidates. You can't fix a broken system by throwing more money at it. Romney wants to cut out waste, trim budgets, and keep taxes low. It is possible that just by cutting out excesses (i.e., redundant, ineffectual programs; needless pork) we could solve our budget problems - all without changing tax levels. Our tax system is paraplegic and needs to be fixed but it should only be fixed after we remove waste. Then we can start changing and tweaking and simplifying the system.
Again, I think that the Romney campaign, while focusing on all its strengths, needs to highlight Romney's economic strengths more. People certainly should not give up on Romney either - he is leading the delegate count for the Republicans, as my colleague mentioned in his post earlier today. So Romney has 2 silvers and a gold - he's still in the lead overall. It's funny that New Hamshire receives so much attention and McCain's win received so much attention when Romney won 8 delegates in Wyoming to McCain's 7 in New Hampshire. Romney has staying power. I like McCain and I like Huckabee but they would not do as well as President as Romney would.
Recent Romney Ads
A recent analysis by CNN showed that recent Mitt Romney ads are bending and playing with the truth. I think that Romney has a strong enough position that his campaign should not resort to such tactics. I'm disappointed. He shouldn't resort to such tactics regardless of his position. While it may be good campaigning and certainly good politicking, it is just wrong. Romney should know better; after all, it is a common Anti-Mormon tactic to bend the truth. Part of this stems from my dislike of negative ads in general. Even though they are highly successful, negative advertisements often come across as spiteful and disingenuous - even if they are not. I believe that candidates need to address the qualifications of other candidates (or the lack thereof) but should mainly focus on their qualifications and skills and their past performance and goals for the future.
On the other hand, as President (and in other political offices), you do have to bend the truth sometimes (mainly for national security reasons). However, there is no room for such bending of truths while campaigning. However, I do commend the Romney campaign for making the negative ads pretty respectful overall with time taken to praise his opponents. The Presidency isn't worth the damage to your character that spreading such half-truths can cause. Then again, I'm not a politician and don't have a desire to be one because you often have to deal with half-truths.
Will such tactics result in me not voting for a candidate? Certainly not. Campaigns are, after all, mostly about dousing yourself in perfume, donning formal-wear, and turning your good side to the public while sloshing a little dirty water on you opponents. In other words, you can't fully trust campaigns. You need to look at the record of the politician as well (if there is one). This is why, as I stated in an earlier post, that I stopped liking Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate. I started liking her more than the other Democratic candidates but quickly realized that what she was saying was at odds with her record as First Lady and on the Hill.
More Anti-Mormon Tactics
A disturbing event in South Carolina came to light recently. Christmas cards purported to be from Mitt Romney were sent to a number of people around the state. They state that they were "Paid For By The Boston Massachusetts Temple," which is not remotely true. They also highlight a number of "differences" between LDS doctrine and that of Protestant Christianity. The cards are simply classic Anti-Mormon tactics.
The real problem with the cards is that they suggest that Mitt Romney and the LDS endorsed them. First off, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not endorse any candidates and very rarely becomes involved in politics (and then only to make a statement against same-sex marriage, for example).
Whoever produced these postcards should be prosecuted - not for the Anti-Mormon statements but for the pretense of acting on Romney's behalf. Should the person or persons be jailed? No, but they should at least receive fines or some other fitting punishment. We don't need any underhanded antics or other illegal, unethical, or immoral actions by individuals trying to falsely attack the beliefs of a candidate.
You can read more here.
The Rise of Huckabee and the Status of Romney
Mike Huckabee has been in the news a lot recently. He suddenly flew up in the ranks in polls and is now a front-runner. Why do voters like him so much? Well, he's charismatic. He does decently well on the stage and is witty. He's also a minister - people tend to like ministers and trust them. The evangelical contingency in the country really like him and are throwing their support behind him. After all, he's easy for them to support, he is one of them; whereas someone like Mitt Romney is a member of a cult and well, we just don't talk about any of the other candidates' religious views. After all, the only Republican candidate who really needs to pass a religious test is Mitt Romney.
This is what is so hypocritical of so many evangelical Christians. Why are they so threatened by the LDS Church? What is it about Mormonism that they don't like? I'll address a few of the issues.
- Mormons believe that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit) are 3 distinct personages who are completely united in purpose but still separate individuals. They also "look human" because humans were created in the image of God.
- Relatedly, Jesus Christ has a glorified, physical, resurrected body.
- Mormons also believe that God did not stop speaking to prophets after the Bible; He speaks to prophets today. Thus, the Bible is not the end-all of God's Word. God provides new revelations to His servants, the prophets. So, the LDS canon of scriptures is not fixed, set, and closed like evangelical or Catholic scripture is; the LDS canon of scripture is open and expanding.
- Expanding point 3: Mormons also believe that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and called him as a prophet. Most other Christians do not believe in prophets in our day. They believe that God stopped speaking to prophets when the last page of the Bible was written (which, by the way, was not the book of Revelation; also, ignoring the numerous edits of the Bible that occurred before and after it was compiled into the format we know now. The Bible is true, it just might not be completely translated correctly. God did not write the Bible by hand, humans did and people are imperfect and make mistakes).
I could go on but a lot of the clash between Evangelicals and Mormons is over the fact that Evangelicals (at least their theologians) don't believe in the God of the Bible - they believe in the Trinity, which is a view of God tainted with Greek philosophy. Mormons believe in God as described in the Bible (Who talked with prophets face to face, Who sent His Son to atone for the sins of mankind {which Son expressed numerous times His separateness from His Father}, Who created humans in His own image).
So what does this have to do with Huckabee and Romney. Well, as I stated above, Mike Huckabee is a minister. He worked as paid clergyman for his profession. He has the support of evangelical Christians. Mitt Romney is a member of the LDS Church. His values are the same (largely) as evangelical Christians. However, because LDS doctrine is undeservedly viewed as heretical by evangelicals, many of them can't overcome religious bigotry (or, to use a new term - religism) and support a Mormon. It's a shame because Mitt Romney is really the only true conservative of the major candidates (i.e., Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee). This also means that Huckabee is the most threatening to Romney because evangelical Christians would likely (and probably begrudgingly) support Romney over Giuliani and McCain.
I think that Mike Huckabee is an OK candidate but it seems that most of his support is because he said some witty things in a debate and he's a minister-turned-politician. He just does not have the skills that Romney or McCain have.
Now that the economy is a top issue for voters, Romney looks like an even better candidate given his successful business and fiscal background. Maybe Huckabee would be a good president (and Romney not so good) - we have no way of telling that at this time - but it just seems that so much of Huckabee's support is based on shallow motives without substance. Then again, maybe I just don't know enough about him.
Romney’s Faith in America
Mitt Romney recently gave an address titled "Faith in America." I believe it was one of the defining moments in his campaign. I also believe that it was a defining moment in recent U.S. politics. As mentioned in the talk, our nation is becoming too secular. We are forgetting our Maker, forgetting the foundation of our nation, and thus, forgetting who we are. America is only as strong as her faith. There are many who clamor for the suppression of religion, who see it only as a limiting force in life. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended; they were by and large deeply religious men. Many of them did not regularly go to church because they were not very impressed with the churches of the day but all of them believed in God and established America as a place where people were free to worship how and what they would.
I thought Mitt Romney's speech was stirring and powerful. He has great charisma and presents himself well. He is a man of faith who not only says that he believes but lives his life in accordance to his beliefs.
YouTube Debate Thoughts
Now that the Republican debate is over I'll post a few thoughts and reactions.
1) I enjoyed the candidate videos from Ron Paul and Mitt Romney and the other candidates who did not show attack ads. Fred Thompson attacked Romney and Huckabee while other candidates attacked Sen. Clinton. There are too many issues to address in campaigns; candidates do not need to resort to attacking other candidates.
2) Mitt Romney came across as wishy-washy in some instances (especially when asked about water boarding). You have to understand his personality and modus operandi to understand why he came across that way. Mitt Romney is very analytical. He likes to have all sides of issues presented to him before he makes decisions. So even though there were a couple times that he did not appear to answer questions directly (e.g., water boarding and gays in the military), I think he did the right thing even if it appears to be dodging questions. He basically said that if he is elected president, then he'll make firm decisions; it is hard to make good decisions without all the facts.
3) Ron Paul made some good points but did not present himself well. I actually was not very impressed with him during the debate. I want him to do well, he could make a lot of positive changes in the country, but he just might not be political enough.
4) John McCain made a great point about water boarding. He has good moral ground to stand on regarding the use of such interrogation techniques.
5) The three candidates who stood out the most and came across the most positively were Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. Fred Thompson did relatively poorly and Tancredo just didn't stand out. Huckabee and Romney both have a lot of charisma though. John McCain is just too grizzled. He's a great guy but he just does not have the polish of the other two candidates and unfortunately image matters a lot in politics.
I thought the debate was good overall but not enough issues were addressed. The final question was about Giuliani supporting the Red Socks. There are too many real issues to talk about to spend time on that, no matter how humorous it is. We needed to hear about education, science (not just space exploration), and other important issues. Granted, immigration, taxes, and the Iraq War are major issues but I would have liked to hear more.
Romney and Giuliani
The Thanksgiving weekend proved to be active for two leading Republican Presidential candidates: Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. They traded comments about their past performance in office (gubernatorial and mayoral, respectively). Giuliani's attacks proved to be juvenile.
Romney had appointed a judge during his tenure who allowed a man out of prison. This man has been charged (since his release) with the murder of a young married couple. Romney asked for the judge to step down. I don't know all the circumstances regarding the release of the prisoner but it does seem a little harsh to call for the judge's resignation after one poor (albeit, major) decision. This particular judge could have a history of other poor decisions though - I don't know. On the other hand, judges are placed in positions of great responsibility and should be held to higher levels of conduct and judgment. In any case, Giuliani's barb at Romney was puerile.
Giuliani questioned Romney's judgment in the appointment of this judge: "The governor is going to have to explain his appointment." So now Romney is personally responsible for every poor decision someone he appointed makes? If this is the case, he must be responsible for every good thing that his appointees do. Parents aren't - much of the time - even responsible for the choices their young children make and never are for their older children, let alone adult children. Romney didn't even try to cover for the judge, he called for her resignation. Giuliani is an intelligent man but he certainly made a less-than-intelligent jab at Romney.
This just shows the problems with negative campaigning. Both sides often come across as looking a little foolish because it is easy to come back with a swift retort that isn't well-formulated or well-researched. Slinging mud at others gets your own hands dirty. It's the bystanders (other candidates) that usually benefit from traded barbs like this one between Romney and Giuliani. Even if the other person started it, you can't say that without sounding childish. I think it would be best to ignore as many attacks as possible but respond calmly and certainly if the attacks are outrageous lies. Even that can be problematic though. You should certainly never come back with a, "Yeah, but you...." That's my main criticism of and advice for Romney right now - don't get drawn into negative campaigning. It just gets ugly and makes you look bad. Even if it wins you the election, it's a poor way to win. Take the higher route, take the cleaner road - don't get trapped in the gutter of mudslinging.
Tags
Blogroll
Recent Posts
- Which Party Ruined the Economy?
- Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns
- The Shooting of Rep. Giffords
- Truth, Freedom, and Religion
- Respecting the President
Recent Comments
- Miranda on Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns
- kem on Why McCain Should Not Pick Romney as VP
- Lonnie on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
- Tweets that mention Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties | US Political Scene -- Topsy.com on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
- Jonathan on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- January 2011
- April 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007