Thursday, March 15, 2007

Informal Poll

I'm curious about your thoughts on the early candidates and not-yet-announced candidates for 2008 - and let's stick to GOP for now.

Feel free to sound off about any or all of the following: McCain, Guiliani, Romney, Gingrich or Fred Thompson. Am I missing some? Feel free to address those, too.

I'll share some thoughts of my own on what I like and dislike about each. We're still a long way off, but it'll be August before you know it and this is going to start to mean something.

THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I've gotta find more time for this sort of thing and not get started on it at 10:00 every night, LOL. Here's the thing about the names I mentioned... the only one who seems any good is Thompson, and that's probably because what little we know about him is this: he's no BS-er. McCain and Guiliani are both horrible. I heard Romney on the Laura Ingraham show last week, and he was all over the place. First, he was suggesting that abortion should be decided by the states (!! - what the deuce??) and then, two sentences later, he's quoting the DoI. I was at one time thinking he'd be the guy, but after that incoherent drivel, I'm so over Romney.

Talk radio is already playing the audio clips of Rudy talking up federally-funded abortions. And don't get me started on John "clean government" McCain.

THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I'm happy to see that the most recent (3/23) edition of the Patriot Post does a nice job of plugging Fred Thompson. But guys, what took you 8 days to get caught up with the American Federalist Blog?


Call Me Mom said...

Missing someone? How about:
Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Brownback , Hunter, Huckabee, Keyes?

And check out the article at World Net Daily on Romney.

JWales said...

when a presidential candidate has integrity, character and isnt part of the D.C. good ole boy club status quo, the MSM wont give them the time of day (including FOX, Rush, Hannity and the other self proclaimed conservatives). Unfortunately they have no chance.

I'd vote for 4 out of your 6 listed probably, even if they dont have a chance.

Call Me Mom said...

Um... It's not an article that would recommend Romney to conservatives. And I'm not sure World Net Daily counts as the MSM ...yet.

JWales said...

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was talking about the list of people you wrote, not the article.

Daniel Webster said...

"First, he was suggesting that abortion should be decided by the states (!! - what the deuce??) and then, two sentences later, he's quoting the DoI."

I have a question for anyone who cares to answer it...

Of all those candidates so far mentioned, for the Chief Executive office of these United States, how many of them do you think can recite the entire Declaration of Independence (word for word), and at the very least can b.s. their way thru' a pretty fair explanation of its meanings? I'll even make it easier for them -how many of them do you think can quote it minus the list of grievances?

Then there's the question of executive experience when considering one for an executive seat. Legislators are generally not qualified to head the executive department. Let us always keep in mind that of the nine judges who threw out school prayer, seven of them were former legislators.

Then of course there's the question of moral character. Personally I'm of the firm opinion that if one considers himself qualified to serve as CEO of the United States, yet has no actual experience as an executive officer at the lower levels of government (city, county, State), that fact alone says something (and it ain't good by any means) about his/her character. Of course, the habit of marital infidelity -I say "habit" because people actually DO make mistakes that they're truly repentant for- is certainly a biggie for this guy. If one cannot be trusted to be faithful to his family, I for one can hardly see how he can be trusted to be faithful to his country...but that's just me.

I'm interested in knowing -what are some of the qualities you all look for in a presidential candidate...and why?

The Monarchist said...

Hey Webster,

I'm pretty much with you, except I'd weight character over experience. Executive experience at some level is necessary, but as an example, I'd take the unproven country lawyer (You-know-who) over the governor of Ohio (Chase) any day.

There's something else, although I guess you could call it character, too. Most pols can't relate to regular people because they aren't regular people. If you can find a character candidate, preferably with some executive experience, who is a regular person, well, that's a winning combo. I guess Reagan was the last one who really fit that description, and look at how he dominated the elections he ran in (of which I'd add G.H.W. Bush's victory, who was riding the man's coattails).

I agree with your stance on fidelity, too.


Daniel Webster said...

Ah, very good, Mr. Hamilton! The outstanding exceptions to the rule...

Reagan -the regular guy with executive experience; Lincoln -the regular guy/country lawyer/former legislator without it. Both exuding outstanding character qualities! Both having performed their duties exceptionally well! We are in agreement, sir. Alan Keyes??

Of the three of them -Lincoln, Reagan, Keyes- do you reckon any of them didn't/don't know the DoI forwards and backwards?

The Monarchist said...

As you can probably guess, I love Keyes. I had a Keyes sign in my yard when he ran in Illinois. He's good, which is why he probably turns off so many people.


The Monarchist said...

And they probably all knew it forwards, and probably two of them, backwards. ;)

JWales said...

Unfortunately, the candidates with some character, integrity and without hidden agenda's are gonna get ignored by the MSM. Ron Paul is a pretty upstanding individual candidate, I have a friend in Texas that didnt even know he was runnning. That shows you how the media will squelch anybody decent.

Sad but true.

Daniel Webster said...

"Unfortunately, the candidates with some character, integrity and without hidden agendas are gonna get ignored by the MSM....That shows you how the media will squelch anybody decent."

Let's think about this for a second...

Most Americans get their news and information from what main source? The MSM? What's interesting (to the MSM or their viewers, listeners, whatever) about a candidate who has high moral character; one who has no hidden agendas?

I know what you're getting at, J, and I'm with you insofar as it's an aggravating fact that people choose the MSM over alternate (re: reliable) media sources. You sorta lose me though when you imply that the MSM has crafted an ongoing grand conspiracy to remove quality default? The people who depend on the MSM for their news don't care anything for these kinds of candidates, so why pay them any attention?

Something was mentioned in another discussion about "providing a grand backdrop for the struggle between the forces of good and evil." It seems to me that the idea may well apply here. I mean, what's fun about the idea that people actually choose the MSM over alternate media sources; that they prefer hyped-up news to just plain old good information?

My crew and I were eating lunch at a local restaurant a couple weeks ago. At the table adjacent to ours were sitting four men, one of which (the apparent self-appointed leader/educator of the group) decided to educate us all as to why Barak Obama is such an outstanding candidate for President -you know what I mean, his voice raised and his head turned our way a bit so as to get his vital message over to our table as well as his own. This didn't set real well with me, as you might imagine, but I allowed him to go ahead and speak his piece which amounted to this: "I've heard these ignorant people reject Obama because of his lack of experience. For me his lack of experience is a quality, not a deficiency. I mean, look at the way things are in Washington and tell me that inexperience can be looked upon as a disqualifier." This was my immediate response (voice raised, head turned slightly toward the other table): "I think I'm going to run you (pointing at one of my employees who is 19) for mayor...excuse me, for city manager next cycle. I mean, look at the way things are run in our city! Then tell me that your lack of experience can be said to be a deficiency, and a disqualifier!" My employee's response made it all the better: "Yeah, in addition to that I think I'll go build a house." *head turns more toward the other table, a nod and a wink*- your move, jackass! Dead silence.

Five meals -around $40.00. Tip to waitress -$5.00. Look on other guy's face -Priceless! ;)

The Monarchist said...


Webster, man, you're the best!

I know what people are trying to say when they talk about "experience" this way: they mean that the person in question hasn't been in Washington long enough to be corrupted, or something like that.

Not only does that not make any sense (there's plenty of people corrupted long before they get to Washington, and Obama might be one of 'em), but the sentiment, if true, qualifies everyone in the restaurant to be President, for none of you folks having lunch there had been corrupted by Washington!

Just another case of incomplete thinking. Seems like there's a bit of that going around.


JWales said...

What kills me about Obama Hussein (middle name if you didnt know) Barak is that he was educated at a Muslim school in Indonesia thats' curriculum is based on Wahabbism. Dont hear that from the MSM.

I dont completely know what the grand scheme of the MSM is D., but whatever it is smells something fierce.

I think there is alot of people that depend on the MSM (incl.Fox) for info., people that do want candidates with integrity, character and transparency. Unfortunately these folks are going to buy the MSM's baloney hook line and sinker, because they've been conditioned to do so.

btw, good restaraunt story.

michael hargis said...

What about the lust for power? Isn't that sort of a red flag right off the bat? Why else would anyone run for POTUS, the single most powerful office in the world?

I don't believe anyone has purely altruistic motivations for something like that, so it really comes down to who would do the least damage. That's why I'm a straight-ticket voter: Republicans, by and large, do less damage and violate the Constitution less egregiously than do Democrats.

Memorizing the DOI wouldn't impress me very much. All it would show is that the person had the self-discipline to sit down and do it. Hillary Clinton could do it and it wouldn't change my opinion of her one iota. It reminds me of a story about Henry Ford. He once sued a newspaper for libel after they ran an editorial calling him ignorant. During the trial, the newspaper's lawyer asked Ford a number of general knowledge questions in an attempt to prove that he was in fact ignorant. Ford finally tired of it and explained that he had a box on his desk with a lot of buttons on it, and any question he had about anything could be answered by pressing a button and asking the appropriate assistant. I think the jury awarded him some nominal amount, but the point is that's the way I look at memorizing documents. Unless there's a direct reason for doing so, then...why?

Call Me Mom said...

Ah yes, the MSM.
Gentlemen, I hope you don't think me cynical, but something must be done. I have been thinking about the role of the MSM in presidential bids ever since Mr. Clinton was elected and here's why:
The first time I saw his picture, the sound was off and I thought "Another Kennedy running for office." As the campaign progressed It was always "Bill Clinton and 10 other candidates are running...Bill Clinton and 9 other candidates...and etc. Not until it was down to 3 other candidates did those other candidates get names. Having made the mistake of thinking him a Kennedy, I watched closely and became amazed at the way he changed his appearance to fit the group to whom he would be speaking. (Mostly hair color, but also bearing and manner of speech)

In another area of MSM manipulation, I saw a "60 Minutes" piece titled:" Terrorists Take Recruitment Efforts Online" the other day and they were interviewing some military folks. I just caught the tail end of it, but the gist was this: Our opponents in this war on terror have done their homework. They have realized that it is a battle for public opinion and they are using the internet to promote their point of view. The public needs to wake up to that fact and start taking an interest in where their news is coming from and how it is presented.

"It’s a different type of warfare. It's a battle of perceptions, and al Qaeda understands it — and America needs to understand it."

Brig. Gen. John Custer

I saw this on 60 minutes, I saw it nowhere else. This is the kind of information America needs, and yet they will not get it, because the MSM thinks they know that America would rather watch The Simpsons.(The Simpsons runs opposite 60 minutes here.)

The MSM need to be reminded that the people are looking to them for the reporting of facts, not the shaping of opinion. A free press must be a responsible press first. How can we as citizens address this issue?

Daniel Webster said...

"Ford finally tired of it and explained that he had a box on his desk with a lot of buttons on it, and any question he had about anything could be answered by pressing a button and asking the appropriate assistant."

Yeah, I see what you mean...

Anytime I have questions about my faith, I can call brother Ben and he'll tell me what I believe.

There's a similar story floating around out there that I once heard...more likely read. Perhaps it's merely an altered version of the same story, I don't really remember. But it goes something like this:

The CEO of a large corporation and a personal friend are watching one of these trivia game shows together. The friend is impressed by the extent of knowledge possessed of one of the contestants. He asks the CEO: "how much would you pay that guy to work for you?" CEO answers: "No more than it'd cost me for a good set of encyclopedias."

Mom, you answered your own question...within the question. Think about it.

Daniel Webster said...

One more thing...

I was once shopping for calligraphy supplies at a local art store, probably 20 years ago. The attendant was a man in his late 50's - early 60's. While shopping I noticed a large copy of the DoI apparently for sale, but without a price tag on it. I approached the attendant (who turned out to be the store owner) and asked what the price was for that item.

After giving me the price he mentioned that he was in total disagreement with one aspect of the document: "...the idea that all men are equal is about the dumbest idea I ever heard of!" I said to him: "Sir, the DoI does not state that all men are equal, it states that all men are created equal..." Then I showed him.

What he was getting at was this "equality of outcomes" idea that Hamilton mentions from time to time. But it's amazing how folks can take an idea like that and insert it, or attach it to a document which they otherwise know very little, if anything about.

There's nothing wrong with being thoroughly familiar with our founding documents. And memorization of them is a pretty good place to start that process.

Call Me Mom said...

"The public needs to wake up to that fact and start taking an interest in where their news is coming from and how it is presented."


JWales said...

Looks like former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson is going to toss in his hat for presidential candidacy (R). This guy is another RINO snake that should get plenty of publicity from the MSM and lots of pats on the back from the good'ole'boy kronies in D.C..

michael hargis said...

"Anytime I have questions about my faith, I can call brother Ben and he'll tell me what I believe."

A better analogy would be "any time I can't remember a Bible verse I can call brother Ben and hel'll tell me what it is." Faith and empirical fact aren't the same thing. I do get your point, though.

I wonder how many of us base our beliefs about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness directly on what is written in the founding documents. For myself, I can say that my interest in the subject probably started with my interest in history, economics, and political philosophy and ultimately led to reading the founding documents. But I think I'd believe what I believe regardless of what it says in the DOI or the Constitution.

Of course, a lot of it has to do with being born here instead of Mexico City, or Mongolia, or Borneo. One cannot discount environment and training. The fundamental truths expressed in the DOI were just as true five thousand years ago as they are now, but no one would have recognized them as such.