Thompson.
- The only 100% pro-life candidate among the top tier (the only one who opposes embryonic stem cell research).
- Says all the right (in both senses) things in all three areas.
- He's the only candidate grounding what he's saying in the Constitution, for which I really like him.
- But... except for the most recent debate when people said he was "on," he's hampered by not projecting any vigor or enthusiasm. If he can't reverse that view swiftly, he's out of it.
- (And I harbor the additional doubt that any Howard Baker protege --or any Senator from Tennessee-- can turn out in the final analysis to be truly Conservative).
- Says the right things in all three areas.
- Supports embryonic stem cell research.
- His "flipping" on abortion doesn't trouble me per se --that's the kind of conversion I want to see.
- But... the sincerity thing. It will be very hard for him in my mind to overcome the "I've been a hunter all my life" incident. A throw-away remark, but solidified him in my mind as a shameless panderer. I look into his eyes and see a man I don't trust.
- It will be equally difficult for him to overcome the "call the lawyers" remark regarding prosecution of the war on terror. A dumb debate answer, but it gave a window into his political soul, I think. Washington's problem is that it listens too much to lawyers, and lawyers cannot think out of the box of "how do we get this by the Court?" I want to see some Presidents & Legislators willing to push back at the Court.
- He's an efficiency expert --he'll make things run smoothly, but he doesn't seem to me to have any deeply held sense of how things ought to run. Now's a time we need a President who has a vision of how things ought to be.
- He could be a good Sec. of Transportation or even Homeland Security, where he could fix our stupid security screening system.
McCain.
- Awesome on the war on terror.
- pro-life but supports embyronic stem-cell research.
- Completely unpredictable on everything else.
- He should be our next Sec. of Defense.
- In the old days, Giuliani would be a Democrat. He's not really Conservative, although he's certainly running as one now. The reason Giuliani is so appealing --even to very reluctant Values Voters-- is because he projects tenacity and courage. We are living in dangerous times, and the idea of turning the reigns of government over to anyone lacking vigor is unpalatable to most people. So everyone's trying to figure out how bad Giuliani will be on the social questions --because, frankly, the other, "better" guys, seem to be what C.S. Lewis called "men without chests."
- If you trust him to keep his promises at the Values Voter Summit, Giuliani's current stand is not worse than Romney's or McCain's on abortion. He supports embryonic stem cell research, but he says he'll hold the line on public funding of abortion, parental notification, reasonable restrictions. And he has that dimension of fight --of not just waiting around for bad stuff to happen and vetoing it, but having an agenda of restoring civility and decent life in our cities to pursue --anti-porn, anti-blasphemy, pro-adoption.
- Who do you trust more to keep his promises about judges --Rudy or Mitt? The problem for Mitt Romney is that it ought to be a slam dunk for him, and it isn't.
- Call me old-fashioned, but I would like the President to be a personally admirable man. It's not in the Constitution, but the President is a role model for our nation and others. Because of the generation we're dealing with, I guess we now practically have the "get-out-of-one-marriage-free" rule for politicians. But how will we talk about marriage and family ever again if the head of the party is Rudy G? (I'm really asking. I could make an argument that in a post-modern Christian sort of way, Rudy might be great for social conservatives & their issues given the right circumstances. But everything rides on whether you trust what he's currently saying --even when it contradicts his entire record.)
- It's not obvious to me that RG is the most electable. I think the idea that he could put NY and CA into play for the Republicans is GOP happy talk. The election will be fought in the same 5-6 battleground states as always. In those states, which trend Democrat naturally, if voters are given a choice between a real Democrat and Democrat-lite, they always go for the Democrat. I'm not certain we don't need a pro-life, pro-marriage candidate to establish the difference between Hillary & the GOP choice. My husband is the only Republican in his family, but several life-long Dem/Union voters in NJ pulled the lever for W. last time solely because the Kerry/communion question came up and they read in the papers that Kerry was pro-abortion. If the topic hadn't come up, they'd have done the same as always. So is it wise --even from a pure electoral politics perspective-- to take all those topics off the table?
- The Values Voters are criticized (sometimes fairly, and including by me) for not understanding how to build coalitions. But RG is not a coalition-builder, either. He has the personality of a petty tyrant --and although he promised to listen to the Values Voters at their summit, he alone among the candidates has refused to meet with Dobson, Perkins et.al. (as of last Sunday anyway). He's not trying to work with people, and before 9/11 he was famous for not being able to work with people. It's not a disqualifier --it's the same quality that makes him a scrappy fighter in an age we need a scrappy fighter. But it ought to give us pause.
