Recently I posted about who I would NOT be voting for among the Republicans. Now I am ready to tell you who I will be voting for -- provided that I switch my registration to Republican in time for the D.C. primary -- Fred Thompson.
My path to Thompson was two-fold, prompted both by dislike for many of his opponents and admiration of some of his qualities. First the opponents:
Tancredo: A one-trick pony that is obsessed with immigration. It's an issue that needs to be addressed, but it's not the apocalypse he makes it out to be.
Hunter: Thinks the biggest threat facing the U.S. is China, which is ridiculous. China is a huge boon to the U.S. consumer and a country that needs to be engaged, not isolated.
Huckabee: Thinks his biggest qualification is that he believes in God. Only Republican presidential candidate to be endorsed by the leftist National Education Association. Abysmal on economic issues.
Paul: Lets the perfect be the enemy of the good -- e.g. for free trade but against the WTO and NAFTA, which help advance the cause. His supporters are nuts and include neo-nazis.
Romney: Airbrushed, chameleon-like candidate with no apparent guiding philosophy.
Not mentioned are Giuliani and McCain, both of which I will get to in a second. But first back to Fred. I was initially quite skeptical about his candidacy which seemed to be built on this faux portrayal as a good-old boy from Tennessee that likes his guns and rides around in a pick-up truck. If there's one thing I hate in politics it is people who seem false or contrived. But I started doing some digging and discovered that he has an excellent economic record. He's also about the only candidate running with a plan for social security.
And he's lazy. As a Senator he sponsored almost nothing. He is plainly not interested in changing the world -- and this might be his biggest virtue. As a firm believer in the principle that the government that governs least governs best, I find this to be an outstanding asset. Franky I would like few things more than a president who vetoes 90% of what Congress passes while engaging in constant running battles with them on the budget.
I'm completely serious.
Now, for most of the past 7 years there has been a Republican Congress and a Republican President and the result, on balance, has been...crap:
Achievements:
* Tax cuts
* Free trade agreements
Disgraces:
* No Child Left Behind (expansion of federal role in education)
* Medicare Act of 2003 (drug entitlement)
* Campaign finance reform (clear abridgment of free speech)
* Energy bills
* Farm bills
* Wild increase in earmark spending
* Bankruptcy reform bill
At best it seems a wash (strange to me, BTW, how people can reconcile the above record with the portrayal of Bush as a wild-eyed conservative determined to destroy the federal government). The reality is, while people decry "gridlock" and divided government, it's a true blessing given that Congress usually busies itself trying to get more involved in our lives and expanding their reach. Anything that keeps these hyenas at bay is fine by me. Is it coincidence that Bush seems to be having his best year in recent memory at the same time that he has begun to wield his veto pen?
And it isn't just Bush. Look at the Clinton Administration -- Congress accomplished almost nothing while Billy C was in the White House. The only significant pieces of legislation that were enacted under divided government were welfare reform and a capital gains tax cut -- both of which were measures that reduced government. Meanwhile, when Clinton had a Democratic Congress all kinds of attempts were made to shove things down out throats -- tax increase, assault weapons ban, health care reform -- while the only good thing to come out of that era was passage of NAFTA (which has since proven wildly successful and naturally was opposed by most Democrats).
Point being: anyone who promises to veto everything in sight while avoiding grandiose plans is fine with me. Sure, ideally we could get a president that would veto Congress's worst excesses while simultaneously pushing for much-needed reforms on taxes, spending, entitlement reform etc. but I just don't see that as terribly realistic.
All this said, I don't have major problems with McCain or Giuliani. My opinion of McCain in particular has greatly risen in recent years. While I found him to be a media darling in 2000 that reveled in his role as a "maverick" that pushed for campaign finance "reform" and expressed skepticism on tax cuts he has also been resolute on Iraq and excellent on spending, most notably opposing farm subsidies even during his presidential campaign. My greatest concern is that his time was 8 years ago, and not now. He just doesn't seem to be in great shape.
Giuiliani I can also live with. While I question his management style, his stance on guns and Iran and to a lesser extent his qualifications, I would thoroughly enjoy the poke in the eye he would deliver to religious conservatives.
But right now I'm going with Fred.
My path to Thompson was two-fold, prompted both by dislike for many of his opponents and admiration of some of his qualities. First the opponents:
Tancredo: A one-trick pony that is obsessed with immigration. It's an issue that needs to be addressed, but it's not the apocalypse he makes it out to be.
Hunter: Thinks the biggest threat facing the U.S. is China, which is ridiculous. China is a huge boon to the U.S. consumer and a country that needs to be engaged, not isolated.
Huckabee: Thinks his biggest qualification is that he believes in God. Only Republican presidential candidate to be endorsed by the leftist National Education Association. Abysmal on economic issues.
Paul: Lets the perfect be the enemy of the good -- e.g. for free trade but against the WTO and NAFTA, which help advance the cause. His supporters are nuts and include neo-nazis.
Romney: Airbrushed, chameleon-like candidate with no apparent guiding philosophy.
Not mentioned are Giuliani and McCain, both of which I will get to in a second. But first back to Fred. I was initially quite skeptical about his candidacy which seemed to be built on this faux portrayal as a good-old boy from Tennessee that likes his guns and rides around in a pick-up truck. If there's one thing I hate in politics it is people who seem false or contrived. But I started doing some digging and discovered that he has an excellent economic record. He's also about the only candidate running with a plan for social security.
And he's lazy. As a Senator he sponsored almost nothing. He is plainly not interested in changing the world -- and this might be his biggest virtue. As a firm believer in the principle that the government that governs least governs best, I find this to be an outstanding asset. Franky I would like few things more than a president who vetoes 90% of what Congress passes while engaging in constant running battles with them on the budget.
I'm completely serious.
Now, for most of the past 7 years there has been a Republican Congress and a Republican President and the result, on balance, has been...crap:
Achievements:
* Tax cuts
* Free trade agreements
Disgraces:
* No Child Left Behind (expansion of federal role in education)
* Medicare Act of 2003 (drug entitlement)
* Campaign finance reform (clear abridgment of free speech)
* Energy bills
* Farm bills
* Wild increase in earmark spending
* Bankruptcy reform bill
At best it seems a wash (strange to me, BTW, how people can reconcile the above record with the portrayal of Bush as a wild-eyed conservative determined to destroy the federal government). The reality is, while people decry "gridlock" and divided government, it's a true blessing given that Congress usually busies itself trying to get more involved in our lives and expanding their reach. Anything that keeps these hyenas at bay is fine by me. Is it coincidence that Bush seems to be having his best year in recent memory at the same time that he has begun to wield his veto pen?
And it isn't just Bush. Look at the Clinton Administration -- Congress accomplished almost nothing while Billy C was in the White House. The only significant pieces of legislation that were enacted under divided government were welfare reform and a capital gains tax cut -- both of which were measures that reduced government. Meanwhile, when Clinton had a Democratic Congress all kinds of attempts were made to shove things down out throats -- tax increase, assault weapons ban, health care reform -- while the only good thing to come out of that era was passage of NAFTA (which has since proven wildly successful and naturally was opposed by most Democrats).
Point being: anyone who promises to veto everything in sight while avoiding grandiose plans is fine with me. Sure, ideally we could get a president that would veto Congress's worst excesses while simultaneously pushing for much-needed reforms on taxes, spending, entitlement reform etc. but I just don't see that as terribly realistic.
All this said, I don't have major problems with McCain or Giuliani. My opinion of McCain in particular has greatly risen in recent years. While I found him to be a media darling in 2000 that reveled in his role as a "maverick" that pushed for campaign finance "reform" and expressed skepticism on tax cuts he has also been resolute on Iraq and excellent on spending, most notably opposing farm subsidies even during his presidential campaign. My greatest concern is that his time was 8 years ago, and not now. He just doesn't seem to be in great shape.
Giuiliani I can also live with. While I question his management style, his stance on guns and Iran and to a lesser extent his qualifications, I would thoroughly enjoy the poke in the eye he would deliver to religious conservatives.
But right now I'm going with Fred.
No comments:
Post a Comment