True to my word, I did not pay serious attention to the election until after January 1. Since I don’t have the patience to listen to the political argument shows, and Limbaugh, et al., are either beating up the Democrats or spinning other matters, I decided to watch and listen to the candidates themselves on YouTube. I wasn’t planning to vote Democrat anyway, so I’ll leave it to someone else to do that analysis.
I went first with Fred Thompson’s 17-minute pre-recorded message to Iowans just prior to the caucuses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VblJq4j0_SE
Thompson is not exciting. As Limbaugh has noted, he doesn’t do sound bites well. He does have that down-home folksy charm to him, and that unmistakeable “gravitas”–seriousness–the media felt George W. Bush lacked. (Notice how no one talks about gravitas, now that John Edwards and Barack Obama are the front-runners?) Here’s a wild thought, though: do we want exciting? Thompson is unexciting in an Eisenhowerish sort of way: he exudes quiet competence. He also has the Senate ties and experiences that others do not have. After all the wars Bush has had with Congress the last 8 years, aren’t we entitled to a little political quiet? I’ve watched Thompson’s live speeches on his site as well. While Thompson’s speech is long, it is short on specific policies and long on principles and leadership philosophy, and that philosophy emphasizes limited government.
Rudy Giuliani’s HQ posted a 34-minute speech, recorded live from Tampa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj8SkQGf0EU
Because it is live, it has an audience cheering here and there, and Rudy has to throw in comments to keep the audience motivated and involved (”Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!”). Rudy is more animated than Thompson (even live). He has a lot more specific policy notions, from taxes to health care to the death tax to energy independence. He is very gung ho on wanting to be a Leader with a capital L (”I have the will, I have the way to do it…” “I have a goal in Iraq” “My solutions” “I’m ready to lead, and the time is right now”) while at the same time talking about the power of free individuals to achieve. He talks a great deal about characterizing (in his view) what America is like. There is much more ego visible, and Giuliani shares Bush’s reputation for pursuing victory, not compromise. That’s fine, as long as you don’t mind another four to eight years of rambunctious politics between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
One note from Giuliani on Apollo 11: “This was not a Republican success, this was not a Democrat success, this was an American achievement. We were at our best when we put a man on the moon.” Yaa hoo! But then why did he tell this story about Apollo 11? As an example of how America can “focus” to create energy independence. Does this mean an Apollo-type program for energy independence? One must wonder. Government is better when it funds research and lets the private sector develop it economically. What exactly does Giuliani have in mind?
Here’s one Rudy-ism I don’t buy: he believes that the majority of Muslims are moderate; we just need to “reach out” to them. As someone once wrote, “There might be moderate Muslims, but there is not moderate Islam.” I suppose my biggest gripe with Giuliani is that he sounds more like a motivational speaker (a la Tony Robbins) than a presidential candidate. Perhaps that’s a holdover from his time on the actual motivational speaking tour, but the people being empowered are not the audience, but the speaker himself.
Next on the list: 10 minutes and 15 seconds from Mike Huckabee in Iowa(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqPAsKZPH44).
First thing I noticed…Chuck Norris in the background. Some quotations: “People are more important than the purse.” This recalls Limbaugh’s take that Huckabee is posing as a populist. “This is not about ‘me’, this is about ‘we’.” Barf. Which is a self-deprecating way of saying “It’s all about me!”
I didn’t find a lot of campaign content here; it was mostly a victory/thank you speech for the troops, so I found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plmnxWpgnDI&feature=related. It’s more of a fan video, but at least it offers specifics. Huckabee comes across much like his first calling: an evangelical preacher. His positions are mostly Republican, but not hard-core conservative. He reminds me of George W. Bush on the 2000 campaign trail, before he became a neocon: somewhat of an empty suit. Again, an empty suit isn’t all that bad (see my comments about Thompson above). He just doesn’t wow me. I can’t put my finger on it, but he’s not my first choice.
Mitt Romney gave an excellent speech on religious freedom in America: “Faith in America,” so I’ll go with this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Mr-2mff6Q.
The first thing that strikes me is that Romney is undoubtedly the slickest (dare I say best?) looking candidate on the Republican side: crisp hair, decent suit (I think he’s wearing one of my ties), and chiseled features. One cannot overlook appearance in our TV-obsessed political culture.
Quotations: “Freedom endure together or perish alone.” “I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion.”
The Weekly Standard wrote a rather lengthy disputation of this speech. Their biggest gripe is Romney’s belief that there are some questions of religion that are “out of bounds.” Why is this a problem? Because if we give Romney a pass based on this “conservative multiculturalism,” we will not be able to make similar inquiries if and when a candidate from another religion ever runs for the presidency (examples: would a Muslim president allow a fatwa to affect his policies here? would a Bhuddist committed to non-violence be willing to commit our armed forces to defend the nation?). That said, I found Romney’s speech strong and convincing and in keeping with American doctrines of church/state relations.
I found the Book of Mormon akin to some sort of King James version of science fiction, difficult to read, and impossible to finish. I haven’t had much experience with the Latter Day Saints, aside from a friend who was a self-confessed “lapsed Mormon.” I’ve heard some third-hand stories about the cliquishness and harsh exclusion of Mormons toward their lost sheep, but nothing to make me deeply suspicious of their motives. The atheists’ complaint about this speech is both silly and petulant. Romney is not calling for enforced religiosity or a state-sponsored theocracy (much less a Mormon one). This is a good speech. I just don’t know if it’s enough to get him elected president.
For John McCain, I took a couple of speeches (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm5mmL-W4xk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jezSX2Q_DZY), one on economic policy, and one on the war in Iraq.
On economics: “Give me the pen, and I’ll veto every single pork-barrel bill congress sends me.” Save Social Security or Medicare. “If they won’t do it, I’ll take care of it.” Executive actions? “I’m not running for president to be somebody, but to do something.” Hmmm.
On the war: “I fought for more troops.” “I fought against search and destroy…and for counterinsurgency tactics.” “No political solution is viable as long as Al Qaeda is free.” McCain is a true believer in the Bush Doctrine, or at least victory in Iraq. I wonder if he proposes to keep remaking the Middle East in our image. My big gripe with McCain is over campaign finance, which only shifted rather than eliminated the influence of money in elections. His good press from the establishment media makes him a target of suspicion among the conservative faithful, regardless of his positions. It’ll be interesting to see how he does this year. My guess would be that he’d end up on the ticket as VP.
And lastly, I’ll take a look at Ron Paul, my original primary choice (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkVJtz0bNI).
It looks like he was introduced by Laura Ingraham. Interesting.
This is another live speech from the Iowa Caucuses. He seems to bounce around a bit, like Giuliani, so his “core message” gets lost in all the specifics. That’s a problem.
“Our campaign is all about freedom, prosperity, and peace!”
“Life begins at conception.” Financing abortion has to stop. “Roe vs. Wade must be reversed.” Emphasis on limiting government and protecting liberties.
“We are now overreached and we have been weakened.” “There has to be a better understanding of the cause of terrorism.” Oh, jeez. “9/11 could have been prevented if we had a lot more respect for the Second Amendment.” True.
“Every single problem we have today stems from a lack of respect for the rule of law.”
He defends home schooling, getting rid of Departments of Education and Energy.
“The Founders would be ashamed with what we’re putting up with.”
“We need a Fair Tax system.” Getting rid of the IRS and the 16th Amendment…not gonna happen.
“The neoconservatives…have no respect for our borders.” He rips on welfare for illegal immigrants.
I can’t find anything wrong with most of what he says, but he hasn’t got a hootin’ chance in hell of getting elected or passing what he’d like to see passed. He has a very young audience, given his age. Interesting.
He supports gold and silver-based money? Wow, that’s a blast from the past. Haven’t heard those sentiments since I read Ayn Rand back in the ’90s. There’s another thing that probably won’t happen. However, it might make for an interesting experiment if we ever form a space economy.
“We were not meant to be the policemen of the world.” True.
He’s against national IDs.
“I would not want to do a lot of things…I do not want to run your life, your family, or your religious beliefs. I do not want to run the economy, and I don’t want to police the world.” In this, he’s sort of like Fred Thompson, only a lot more strident about it.
TV weaknesses: bad ties; occasionally hesitating speech; loud, high-pitched voice; bags under the eyes; disorganized speech-making, giving him the air of a whacko.
The other problem with Paul, as my father pointed out, is that “he doesn’t take terrorism seriously.” Indeed. There are ways to prevent making terrorism an existential threat to our nation, but those ways would require serious changes to our current policies: serious investments in nuclear and space-solar power; serious border security, including a wall; a reduced presence in the Islamic Middle East–all things I’m sure Ron Paul would approve–but has that sort of thinking got a hootin’ chance in hell of passing in this climate? Not when the media ignores him, except when they ask him questions to deliberately make him look like a kook. It’s amazing that an honest-to-gosh limited government Republican with specific policies for ensuring that government is limited is now a fringe figure. My, how times change.
So now what? You, dear reader(?), have your own choice to make, as I do. Perhaps I really will vote for Ron Paul in the primary. He might come the closest to seeing things as I do. Come November, of course, I’ll probably hold my nose and vote for the Republican of my choice. It’s going to be a long, long, long campaign.
