Ranking the 'Pubs

Well, well, here we are about midway through January 2008, and, with New Hampshire and Iowa in the bag, the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary is nearly upon us. Of course, the Republican race for President is quite a horserace this year, although ultimately only one of these animals will represent us in November. After long months of thought and having closely followed this race from the start, I am finally ready to make my bets and pick my favorite. Thus, here are my rankings of the Republican candidates starting with the one I'm endorsing, and moving on down, in order, of who I'd vote for after that, if so forced.

1. Fred Thompson - Fred is my guy, and I'm going to vote for him in the primaries Saturday. Yea, I know he's run a really bad campaign up to this point. Yes, he has to finish either 1st or a strong 2nd in SC to remain in the race. And yes, he's going to need a strong, late surge to accomplish that. But let's take a step back and give this thing an honest look - primaries are, first and foremost, where you vote your principles. Sure, in the general election, you oftentimes have to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils (think '04), but in the primaries you don't have to do that. The primaries are where you get to try and make your voice heard, so that by the time the general comes around, the stench won't be near as bad - and that's why I'm picking Fred on Saturday.

He's the only candidate who's offered up real, believable plans for dealing with the major issues. He's the only guy with a plan that deals with Social Security, to try and prevent it from going bankrupt and save the people of my generation (who apparently have to pay for all these dang Baby Boomers) some money. He was also the first of the big boys to come out with a legit border security plan (click here for the details), and unlike some of the others in this race, Fred is not a new convert to the right side of this argument.

Moreover, on all the other important conservative issues, Fred gets it right as well. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and believes in the need to not only cut taxes further but overhaul the current tax code. He was endorsed by National Right to Life and has a 100% pro-life voting record. He had one of the most pro-gun voting records in Congress during his tenure in the Senate. He understands the need for growing the military and keeping it strong. And, finally, he understands the true meaning of Federalism and States' Rights (and the importance of this concept to the very structure of the Constitution), setting him apart from most everyone on the political stage these days. He is an actual conservative on all the important issues - and, more importantly, a trustworthy conservative on all of these issues.

These aforementioned reasons, along with others, are why I'm voting for Fred Thompson to be the Republican nominee for President.

2. John McCain - The key word here is electability. McCain is likely the Republicans' best shot at winning the 2008 election. He pulls Independent voters like crazy, partly because he has a reputation for, well, voting like one. He, naturally, has the best credentials on foreign policy and other military matters (the guy is, least we forget, a bona fide American War Hero), and given that we are, in fact, at War, those credentials mean more than they usually do (even in the generally pro-strong national defense Republican primary).

Of course, McCain has a rather broken relationship with 'true' conservatives on many issues; but at least when he does go into 'Maverick' mode, he doesn't try and lie to you about it and pretend that he agrees with you (*cough*Huckabee*cough*). Besides, on the one issue on which he ticked off Conservatives the most, immigration, he doesn't differ much from the current President - which means that, ultimately, he can't do anymore damage to the issue unless he miraculously scrapes up 60 votes in the Senate (which is highly unlikely). So, yeah, at the end of the day, Senator McCain is far from a perfect candidate but he's rock-solid on the issue that matters the most, and is, at least, better than those below him on this list; plus, if you're looking for a winner, Johnny Mac is your guy.

3. Rudy Giuliani - Rudy is the guy who was originally supposed to be all the things that McCain has now become. Sometime late last year, McCain surpassed him as the National Security/sure-winner candidate. In reality, both McCain and Giuliani are very similar on the big issues; with the only real differences being that: (a) Giuliani is more anti-gun, (b) he talks a better talk on immigration (the walk is still questionable), and (c) he has a better history of sticking up for Conservatives/Republicans than McCain (who has a penchant for throwing us under the bus when it suits him) does. The big gamble with Rudy, and the reason I put him below McCain, is that he is a moderate social liberal - and while that doesn't really bother me, there are a whole lot of folks in the Religious Right who really might consider running a 3rd Party, 'bring-back-the-Inquisition' candidate if he's the Repub nominee.

4. Mitt Romney - I'll be blunt, I still simply do not trust this man. I've watched nearly all the Republican debates, and almost every time, after watching his performance, the word that comes to my mind is 'plastic' - in other words, fake and over-polished. Perhaps the best example of this is his position on health care. Sure he says all the right things about the need for free-market health care, when behind the podium; but, while Governor of Massachusetts, he enacted what amounted to a 'Universal Health Care' program - one complete with those insurance mandates that I abhor so greatly. Indeed, so far, I have seen nothing to convince me that the health care plan he instituted in Massachusetts is any different from Hillary's new health care plan - and if that's not enough to scare a man away from voting for Mitt, I don't know what is.

5. Duncan Hunter - I have no freakin' idea why he's still in the race. He's polling less than 1%, and, at this point, has no chance at anything (including the VP slot) - and yet, I'd still rather throw my vote away by giving it to him than vote for either of the 2 retards that follow.

6. Ron Paul - Ron Paul would be a great candidate if it was 1920 and we still had the ability to believe that isolationism worked. Unfortunately, here in the modern world, not a single iota of this man's foreign policy ideas (or at least what I've heard) make sense. To make matters worse, the guy has a whole host of really excellent domestic policies; and, had he chosen to, he could have used his extreme fiscal conservatism to pull the other candidates closer to his positions on these issues (like Tancredo did with the issue of illegal Immigration). Instead, Paul decided to be a whiny-ass crank, making a mockery of the Libertarian movement he supposedly represents.

7. Mike Huckabee - Wow, where do I begin? I can't even tell you how much I despise what this man stands for. Yes, I ranked him below even Ron Paul, because, honestly, I'd rather worry about a greater threat of jihad than have to listen to the Huckster tell me how much he loves Jesus every day of his god-danged presidency. Seriously, Mitt Romney is the Mormon in this race, but Huck's the only candidate I can picture as one of those idiots knocking on your door at 8:30 Saturday morning asking you if you've "found Jesus." Well, no, wait, Huck doesn't have the courtesy to wait 'till Saturday to ask you if you've found Jesus. He spends every minute he's on television doing something to that effect. Indeed, Mike Huckabee is everything anyone ever hated about the Religious Right all rolled into one lying, liberal idiot from Hope, Arkansas. I'd say Huckster reminds me of that other 'man from Hope,' but that would just be an insult to Bill.

Mike Huckabee raised the overall Arkansas tax burden 13% while governor. He gave free education to illegal aliens. He opposed vouchers and increased spending on public education. He seems to know nothing about the most basic parts of American foreign policy. But hell, I could write for hours on all the things I dislike about Mike Huckabee, and since this post is already kindda long, I need to stop and simply leave you with the two ways in which he grates on me the most.

The first is the way in which he uses Christianity as a political tool. As a Christian myself, this is particularly annoying. He makes all Conservatives who are Christians look bad by reinforcing the negative stereotypes people have about us. Moreover, those of us who, for example, believe in Evolution but still get a bit annoyed when Christmas celebrations become multi-cultural shams, essentially get shrugged out of the debate on God's role in America when people like Huckabee come along and cast such debate in terms of The Next Inquisition vs. Idiotic, Multi-Cultural Atheists. Furthermore, the Huckster continually calls himself a "Christian Leader" - and he does so in much the same way that Rudy calls himself a "strong leader," or that Mitt calls himself a "business leader." In other words, he makes being Christian a political aspect of a person's candidacy.

Oh, he would never admit that he does it, and when asked about it he would turn the issue around and ask what the problem is with his being Christian - and, in and of itself, there is nothing wrong with him being Christian. The problem lies with it being the central issue of his political campaign. Why? Because it raises a rather difficult question: how does one make a political argument against God? Herein lies, I suppose, the 'genius' of the Huckster; one simply cannot make a political argument against God without gravely offending the mindless evangelicals who have been lining up behind Huck all over the country. It is a cheap, dirty, political trick which, like all other forms of identity politics, has but one intention: the maintenance of power for those in charge. As such, Mike Huckabee has made himself the Al Sharpton of Evangelical Christians.

The second big problem I have with Huckabee is the way he explains away his liberal record as Arkansas governor. When called on this record, Huck never denies that it is liberal; preferring instead, to say that it was necesarry in order for him to "govern" effectively. Well, forgive me Governor, but I'm just not of the school that believes you have to compromise on your core principles just for the sake of 'governing.' I don't care how Democratic your State Legislature was. Notice, sir, that Mitt Romney was Governor in Massachusetts, and he isn't making the same stupid excuse (indeed, he doesn't even have these kinds of questions hanging around his head to begin with). Furthermore, I'm tired of hearing you tell me about how Democratic your state was in one breath, and then how you "must've done something right" since you were re-elected (twice!) in the next. Someone who kept getting re-elected by a bunch of Democrats shouldn't be the Republican nominee for President.

Well, there you have it, my personal opinions on the remaining '08 Repub Candidates. It turned out to be a lot longer than I intended - c'est la vie. Now all that remains is to wait 'till Saturday and see if enough of my fellow South Carolinians agree with me.