Narrowing field

Fred Thompson and I are in sync on the biggest issues and challenges facing our nation. So even though he has left the race, the finish line hasn’t moved. Fred Thompson’s short list of the biggest issues and challenges faced by our nation today still stands as a good measure for those still in the race.debate

  • The ongoing threat of Islamist terrorism
  • The unresolved economic threat of entitlements
  • The need for lower taxes to ensure our nation remains economically competitive and innovative
  • The need to secure our borders
  • The need to support families and to protect our children from the harder edges of culture
  • The need to remain engaged in the world while remaining true to America’s principles

Just a cursory look has narrowed the field pretty significantly. First, if you’ve read here much, you should know by now there will be no Democrat at the top of my list; socialism just doesn’t solve these issues and in the financial cases doesn’t even acknowledge them as issues. That leaves the list of candidates under my consideration as either those running as Republicans or those on the long list of fringe candidates. Ron Paul running as a Republican is sort of a weird situation, but I quit thinking of him as a potential way back last spring. And Rudy Giuliani? Well pro-choice and pro-domestic partnerships… I said I wasn’t going to consider Democrats.

So realistically, using this elimination process, I’m looking at Mitt Romney, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. The next step is to look at who is the best fit for addressing the list of biggest issues and challenges in our nation today.

For expediencies sake I’m going to set John McCain off to the side on shelf. Due to frequent modulation on issues, I may have to restart my analysis each time he opens his mouth. If neither of the Mitt Romney nor Mike Huckabee pass muster I’ll pull John McCain back off the shelf for a look see. So for Wally, the field has narrowed to two; Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

7 thoughts on “Narrowing field

  1. Re: Analysis.
    There are many folks in the peace movement. My own dear mother for one, (she wonders where she wrong by raising two good progressives and one greedy pro business so and so…)
    Anyway, It seems that the folks in the peace movement were awfully silent when we displaced so many folks during the former Yugoslavia mess. Sometimes I ponder if the peace movement is motivated by Partisan politics rather than a consistant effort to think beyond Warfare.
    There was a book written (compiled) back in the early eighties called TO END WAR, thinking beyond warfare, and it had many scenarios and solutions to moving the human species beyond warfare. Of course their were several very skeptical articles, too. It was given to me by a friend who was in the original OSS.
    Their was an interesting scenario that had the Soviet Union collapsing and the US inheriting a Wahhabist middle east nightmare. Most folks that I knew who read the book scoffed at this, and many folks in Reagan’s administration scoffed at Herbert Meyer who told Reagan that the Sviets were collapsing and that we will inherit a problem in Southern Europe and the Middle East. this would be the case. He was correct. ( the author of this article predicted that a world war would escalate out of this, and most thought that was absurd as India Pakistan Dragging the World into a world war. The two most “popular scaenarios were that the cold war between the US and the Soviets would end the world and the second was that China would invade Taiwan causing the Same. (I grew up as a small child “knowing” that the Russians would nuke us then we would nuke them, then China would nuke everybody.)
    Another author wrote that the human species is warfare prone and will never change. His “proof” was that there was only 290 non congruent years of non-warfare of which he emphasised that this was not peace, but a lack of warfare since the advent of recorded history.
    I have been looking for a copy of this book, and have been unable to find it.
    I would presume that there must be someone at the Peace Justice center with a copy. It may appear to be outdated, but definately worth the read, if one can locate a copy.

  2. Okay.

    Problem One: Musharraf.

    Analysis One: Bush’s gay lover avoiding the question of state-sponsored terrorism. Let’s not get into the money trail from Mohammad Atta, because, like I said, I don’t like thinking about conspiracies. Do you remember back in the Gore/Bush race when a reporter asked “W” who was “president” of Pakistan? Don’t you remember when he couldn’t answer?

    Solution One: One way or the other. Either we aid state sponsors of terrorism, or we destroy them. I know which one you would opt for, not being a stop-lossed PTSD-suffering soldier.

    Problem Two: Yugoslavia.

    Analysis Two: I was a kid, but I still remember reading about the Christian Nationalists (any parallels here?) waving their flags in a theretofor peaceful post-communist multi-ethnic area and initiating ethnic cleansing. Am I wrong? Oh, and what about the point of democracy? I thought it was supposed to make the world safe? What about Yugoslavia?

    Solution Two: Read Chris Hedges’ “War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning”. He was there. Maybe that will shed some light on the issue.

    Problem Three: Klinton.

    Analysis: ? Do you mean by dropping bombs? When did a peace person ever say that that was an acceptable solution?

  3. You know as well as I do that Mushariff is obstructing our efforts in Pakistan. I’m almost certain that your buddies in the peace/ love movement would support our efforts in Pakistan, if we so chose to direct our efforts there. Where were all the peace love folks when Klinton created over 2 million refugees in the former Yugoslavia? Silent. as were those whom you have called chickenhawks. As for me, I’m as ignorant as I choose to be. Do tell me all about your solutions. The few I have heard so far are, um, interesting. and in writing, too…

  4. PPP don’t make me laugh. The whole idea that you have bought into of pan-islamofascism is totally bogus; or only as credible as the idea of New World Order conspiracies. Taking the war to the terrorists. Ha. I laugh at the idea.

    And besides, how can you call Iraqi refugees and farmers terrorists? There are very few in the whole of Iraq. There are probably many more in the Pakistani ISI than in the whole rest of the world combined, and your GOP fuhrer is giving them weapons and money. And Petraeus is giving out money and alms to terrorists in Iraq. How is that “taking it to the terrorists?”

    Why don’t you listen to Obama’s plan to get Bin Laden? Or don’t you think we should be better off arming and killing farmers in some unrelated country?

    Your persistant ignorance almost makes me sick, dude.

    GOP does make me sick.

  5. Guys,
    I still lean towards who I think will best carry out continuing taking the war to the terrorists. THe economy is critical too. But this is point in history that will determine if western civilization survives, or if the fanatics will succeed in creating a worldwide caliphate. Kim Jung Il is still bent on threatening japan and their neighbors in that region. In indonesia, the Wahhabist extremists are still waging terror on innocents. Even if one has trouble with a GOP candidate it is a far better choice to support any of them over Billary, Obama, or the Breck girl.
    If Romney takes the Nod, I hope that he picks up General Jerry Curry as a VP on the ticket. I have reservations about McCain, especially as a second amenment guy that I am. But even with his temper, I think that he may be more capable than Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Keyes and especially Paul at handling the war defending Western Civilization against those who would shove a Caliphate down our throats or cut our throats. I hope to see you both at county convention with support for the candidate that you choose! Caucuses are February 9th. Don’t miss it! Again, NO matter who we as the Big Tent GOP choose, we need to stay United.

  6. If I had to cast a vote right now it would be for Mitt Romney. I am though, reserving my support until after I’ve done more research.

    I would definitely prefer what I call a true Christian candidate, but I don’t see anything in the Mormon variety Christian that would make me discount him. And there are a lot of moral and family value positives.

  7. Since Fred dropped out of the race, I’ve decided to support Romney. The only issue I had with him was his religion, but as time went on I decided that him being a Mormon didn’t really bother me that much.

    If Romney doesn’t win the nomination I would have a hard time voting for any of the other Republicans…