Posting about politics is dangerous. I want you all to be my friends, not my enemies. But at the risk of alienating all you important folks in internetland, here I go spouting off! By the way, I am an independent. I think my analysis is Fair and Balanced(TM), but you decide.
None of the three Democrats are acceptable.
Hillary Clinton -
Tied to special interests, including multinational and foreign companies outsourcing US jobs to India: "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences" http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html , ...as she courts two competing constituencies: wealthy Indian immigrants who have pledged to donate and raise as much as $5 million for her 2008 campaign and powerful American labor unions that are crucial to any Democratic primary victory. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702780_pf.html
In the New Hampshire debate, she scolded Bush for not planning for evacuating translators, etc. from Iraq. From this I infer that she has already accepted our defeat, which I imagine as a Saigon style evacuation of Baghdad.
On the other hand, I can't believe the venom from folks upset about her crying. Dick Morris said on MSNBC that she was on the verge of a mental breakdown. So the coverage and the journalists and analysts are not helping. She also has enough experience for the job.
Barack Obama -
He doesn't have enough experience. I have no idea what he would do as president. He reminds me so much of Mass. Governor Deval Patrick with his "change" campaign that it is scary. Actually, he is the candidate that I know the least about, but I feel I know enough.
John Edwards -
When he ran for president in 2004, he was the kind of "Pander Bear" that Sen. Paul Tsongas warned us about, promising everything to everybody. But in the last NH debate, he seemed to channel Teddy Roosevelt, vowing to take on special interests like drug companies and companies that are taking advantage of everyone. I thought, wow, he's got fire in his belly, could it be that he has grown and is ready for some old-fashioned trust-busting? A day or two later in an interview, he was promising tax cuts for child care, tax cuts for this and the other thing, all paid for by repealing George Bush's tax cut for people making over $200K. Nope, he's still the populist Pander Bear. I want a candidate who is all about closing tax loopholes, not creating new distortions in the tax code.
Four of the Republicans are acceptable.
John McCain -
The only candidate with military experience. He should have been our president in 2000, the world would be a different and better place. I can't believe how stupid people were to vote for George Bush in the Republican primaries. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/05/bush.popquiz/
Pros:
1) He is the only politician pushing for the surge, which is working, and we should reward politicians for policies that are successful and punish those who repeatedly mess up (i.e. George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney).
2) We are fighting two wars at the same time, which is very bad, and need a leader with military experience and judgment.
3) Iraq is not Vietnam or Korea. Vietnam and Korea had unlimited resupply from China and the Soviet Union. The Iraqi guerrillas are backed by Iran and Syria which are small countries, and by Al Qaeda which has a limited supply of suicide bombers, believe it or not.
4) He has proven he is not the Manchurian Candidate that was whispered about eight years ago.
5) Able to work with Congress.
Cons:
1) He has been in Congress for a long time. There is a reason that John F Kennedy was the last time a member of Congress was elected president, two score and eight years ago. See also, John Kerry, Bob Dole, and...
2) He is soft on illegal immigration. He is completely wrong on this issue. It is unfair to let people come to this country illegally, and make those who follow the rules wait for years. He is lying when he says he is not for amnesty for illegal immigrants. One should be compassionate to people and treat them as individuals, but it is impossible to be nice to 12 million people.
3) He is old, and will likely run out of energy. Choice of vice president is critical as there is a good chance the vice president will end up as president. And we won't find out who the vice presidential candidate is until after the primaries.
4) He investigated the "Big Dig" (I-93 project through Boston), but didn't follow through after the federal contribution was capped, effectively screwing Massachusetts taxpayers and leaving the project without federal oversight.
Mitt Romney -
Like Ronald Reagan Lite (but Less Filling). He will be a CEO type of president, a super project manager.
Pros:
Very smart. Great, top notch business consultant. Tended to veto spending that he didn't understand. Majority of the people he hired as Governor were competent. Hates corruption and tries to remove corrupt government officials. Doesn't like freeloaders. He's a Mormon, get over it, it's not like he's a Scientologist. Knows how to delegate (should scale up from Governor to president, like Reagan, unlike Carter). Some ability to inspire. Waived his salary as Governor. Has good manners. Strong on illegal immigration. Can think on his feet. Can quickly get up to speed during a crisis. Wants to win in Iraq (but doesn't have the military knowledge that McCain has). Fired an ineffective agency official after girl was killed because sidewalks were not plowed. Said he would serve his full term, not quit in the middle like the previous three governors. Didn't run for president while he was still Governor. Got budgets done on time unlike previous Governors, and with less smoke and mirrors than some previously. Married his high school sweetheart and is still married to her and apparently hasn't cheated on her. Not as partisan as many of the national republicans.
Cons:
Not tenacious; Pushed to remove William Bulger but then backed off. Pushed to remove Matt Amorello http://www.boston.com/news/traffic/bigdig/articles/2005/03/16/ag_probes_big_dig_firms_romney_rips_amorello/ but then backed off. When part of the tunnel collapsed and killed a woman, he vowed to fire Amorello, but instead cuts him a deal letting him stay for several weeks with a big severance. The correct response would have been, "we don't negotiate contract buyouts with corrupt officials". Didn't lift a finger to groom his lieutenant governor to become governor, and didn't campaign for her. Will probably appoint few women to his cabinet. Not always compassionate, can be a hard case.
Rudy Giuliani -
Pros:
Did a good job reducing crime in NYC. Excellent crisis manager, able to implement disaster plans effectively. Has issues that he cares about. Able to communicate effectively with the public.
Cons:
Fire Dept communications systems were not fixed after the first World Trade Center bombing, despite ample notice.
Duncan Hunter -
Strong on illegal immigration, claims to be the politician who pushed for the Mexican border fence. Speaks well and makes a lot of sense in interviews. I actually don't know much about him, and it doesn't really matter as he won't be president.
Republicans that are Not Acceptable:
Mike Huckabee -
Pros:
?
Cons:
Look at how many people he has pardoned. This demonstrates bad judgment. http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Ad_Roundhouse_Kick
He is a small state governor, unlike his predecessor Bill Clinton.
Ron Paul -
He is really a Libertarian. Although I think small government is good, I don't think his positions are realistic. Plus he is from Texas. I don't want another president from Texas right now.
