Actions Speak Louder than Words

Let us ignore, for the sake of this post, that it is far too early to be making credible conjectures about who will win presidential nominations from their respective parties. Look at what happened to poor Howard "Yah!" Dean. He was winning in the polls, but ultimately lost the nomination to a man with all the charm of an undertaker. Even after adopting the voice of a monster truck rally announcer ("Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! Monster trucks at Arco Arena! Be there!). There is a lot of "focus grouping" going on, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee a sure winner.

There are a lot of names being marketed to the conservative base of the Republican party, many of them are not conservative in the most complete sense of the word. Some individuals have not even formally announced their candidacy. My short list (for this post) includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Fred Thompson.

Rudy, as "America's Mayor" makes an attractive candidate for those who prefer to focus entirely on his fiscal and national security policies. However, as a conservative who's standard is Ronald Reagan, Giuliani is far from ideal. His positions on abortion, gun control, and illegal immigration are a bit too liberal a pill for us to swallow. He has tried to make himself more palatable to pro-lifers by saying that he would appoint more "constructionist" judges to the federal courts. What happens if these newly appointed, right-leaning justices overturn Roe v. Wade (which, by the way, is recognized on both sides as being a poorly reasoned ruling)? Well, it will be left to the individual states or Congress to pass legislation regarding abortion. Would Rudy sign pro-life legislation? In typical lawyer fashion, Giuliani would want more gun control legislation, rather than enforcing the laws already on the books. However, in a curious display of contradiction, he would not prosecute people who, by definition, break the law in order to reside here.

Mitt Romney is almost in the same boat as Giuliani. After all, one cannot be governor of Massachusetts and be a Barry Goldwater conservative. For starters, when asked if his faith as a Mormon would affect his policies as President, he said that they wouldn't. Does this mean that he would abandoned Christian values entirely, or the more controversial aspects of the teachings of the LDS? Apparently, his faith didn't get in the way of some of his positions as governor of the home state of Lurch and The Swimmer (that's Kerry and Kennedy). He is only recently decided to be pro-life. I can appreciate (and in fact welcome) a change of heart in anyone on this matter, but my inner cynic tells me this was for political expediency more than a matter of conscience.

While Rudy and Mitt are officially candidates, there are two other men being shopped. Fred Thompson, former Senator from Tennessee, is being billed as the answer to a Reagan conservative's prayers. Thompson won the election for the remaining two years on Al Gore's Senate term and served there until 2002 (when he retired). He has also seen camera time in The Hunt for Red October and on Law and Order. Screen credits aside, his voting record in the Senate is demonstrably far more conservative than that of many of the Republican candidates. Though he has not formally announced his candidacy, James Dobson has come out in opposition of a man who, at present, makes a strong conservative candidate.

In a phone interview with U.S. World News & Report, Dr. Dobson said "Everyone knows [Thompson is] conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for [..., but] I don’t think he’s a Christian. At least that’s my impression." A spokesman for Focus on Family sought to clarify Dobson's statement by saying "We use that word – Christian – to refer to people who are evangelical Christians." So, what was Dr. Dobson try to say, exactly? Why split hairs when the candidate is a strong advocate for policies that one supports? The notion that one should not vote for Fred Thompson because he is not an evangelical Christian (but a Christian nonetheless) makes about as much sense as people who voted for John Kerry simply because he tried to sell himself as a Catholic. It would appear that Dobson's premptive strike on Thompson may be due to his support of another unofficial candidate.

Dobson has come out in strong support of Newt Gingrich. Now, I like Newt. I agree with him about 90 percent of the time. I enjoyed reading the Civil War "what-if" trilogy that he co-authored with William Forstchen. However, there are a few reasons that I would withhold support at this time. The first being political liabilities. He has admitted to having an affair
(ironically) during the Clinton impeachment. I believe, as a Catholic, in the forgiveness of one's sins, but would voters be willing to overlook the perception of hypocrisy? Also, there is the cloud of suspicion under which he resigned from the House of Representatives. Despite the fact that any charges of unethical behavior were dropped by the House Ethics Committee, the "drive-bys" will still smell blood in the water. I fear that pressing Gingrich to throw his hat in the ring may be the same thing that happened when Bob Dole ran in '96. Some people may simply think it's "Newt's turn to run".

I would much rather see George Allen (narrowly defeated Senator from Virginia) run for President. Allen, wise man that he is, will hopefully run in the future. As far as I'm concerned, it is far too soon to tell. All I know is that we conservatives need to remind Republicans that they need to be conservatives first, not just campaign like them.