Assessing the GOP field: Mitt Romney

The final GOP candidate currently running with any decent chance of being relevant is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. In many ways, Romney is an ideal candidate. He has been a governor rather than a senator or congressman, meaning he has executive-level experience. That’s invaluable for anyone seeking the presidency. He’s also held executive positions in the private sector, including serving on the Olympics board at a time when it was besieged by steroid scandals; he was able to cut through the press and politics and deal out tough but fair decisions in each case, and gained broad respect in the process.

Those are Mitt’s strong points on paper.

On the other hand, he’s a late convert to many of his most conservative positions, including his opposition to abortion. While he claims to be pure now, it’s hard to judge if these late conversions are a genuine reflection of how he might govern, or a political calculation in his quest to gain the White House.

His perceived biggest weakness is his religious affiliation as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Being a Mormon is indeed a mixed bag outside of Utah in the political arena. Much like John F. Kennedy had to prove his Catholicism was an all-American attribute in the 1960s, Romney faces a similar uphill battle over 45 years later with his Mormonism.

For WonderfulPessimsit.com, Romney handled these questions about his faith with Reaganesque Americanism appeal in his recent address on the topic. He was at once optimistic, positive, and spoke in glowing terms of the American traditions of religious tolerance and shared, common American values.

For WonderfulPessimist.com, that speech settled any doubts. While Mormonism is not this blogger’s faith of choice (see MessianicMusings.com for details), I do know what it’s like to practice a minority religion. The Constitutional freedoms that protect my faith also protect Gov. Romney’s, and I have to respect his stance on moral issues, whether they descend from my brand of faith or another brand.

I will say that at times Romney has overstated his moral values just a bit; while I admire his long-term marriage and fidelity to his wife, claiming he and his wife have “never fought” during their marriage is just a bit of a whopper to swallow. I can believe they’ve never held grudges, but I know of no married couple who doesn’t have disagreements once in a while. It’s not a sin to disagree, or even to have mild fights, although it’s admittedly best to avoid fights. We all fall short now and then, though.

So Mitt’s Mormonism is a non-issue for WonderfulPessimist.com. What matters are where he really stands policy-wise. And while he sometimes comes off more like a term life insurance salesman than a great public speaker, his address on his faith set a much better tone for his campaign, and one worthy of a serious conservative contender for the office.

Mitt is not a pure Reagan conservative; but he’s not far off and if he’s good enough for the National Review, that says something. The National Review thoroughly vetted Mitt on his views and the important note they made is that while his rhetoric has at times seemed to lean to the middle, it must be kept in mind that he was running in Ted Kennedy’s home state, Taxachusetts, and what is more important is how he governed; he governed consistently more conservatively than did this election cycle’s “faux conservative de jour,” Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee is surging in Iowa and in New Hampshire, McCain is attempting to revive his near-death run for the White House, where he stands a chance of upsetting Mitt. Right now, if the choice is Huckabee, McCain or Romney during the upcoming caucus and primary season, it’s clear that the most conservative of those three is Romney.

This election cycle, the GOP must decide whether it wants to be a choice against the Democrats, or a faint echo of them. While WonderfulPessimist.com would love to see Fred Thompson carry the conservative banner back to the heart of the Republican party, his campaign seems to have stagnated; and as for Ron Paul, he is too closely associated with the conservative/libertarian version of MoveOn.org extremists.

Therefore, the man who strikes the most conservative profile in an admittedly weak field, and yet has the best chance to win the nomination, is Gov. Mitt Romney. Therefore, unless Fred Thompson’s campaign rises from the dead, WonderfulPessimist.com is proud to announce our full endorsement of Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination as President of the United States.

Give ‘em hell, Mitt, and whatever you do, don’t make me regret the endorsement!

Assessing the GOP field: Fred Thompson

Law and Order fans may associate Fred Thompson more with plasma TV lifts than presidential politics, but the former US Senator from Tennessee actually has a solid political background, securing two Senate terms in office and taking over the spot once held by Al Gore, but vacated when he joined Bill Clinton on the 1992 Democratic ticket.

Thompson falls into the reliably conservative camp and while he may or may not be completely Reagan-esque in his values, he is probably as close as the GOP will get in this year’s race. Thompson has the boldness to balk at being expected to march in lock-step with the leaders of the religious right, like Focus On the Family, and the temerity to question the relevance and logic of certain debate questions, refusing to play along with ridiculous propositions.

Yet Thompson has had the good common sense to not alienate faith voters, nor has he kicked up a ruckus just to get attention. In fact, Fred Thompson has even been accused to not wanting the presidency desperately enough, although as Gregory MacDonald wrote in Fletch and the Man Who, would you really want to vote for someone who did?

Thompson’s Senate record verifies some exposure to foreign policy, and he is one of the few candidates consistently endorsed as reliably pro-life on the abortion issue. I trust his common-sense approach to most domestic issues, which he doesn’t sell from a viewpoint of ideological stridency, but from more of a blue-collar, “this is what makes sense to me” approach that ought to appeal to Reagan conservatives disaffected by both the MoveOn.org Democrats and increasingly big-government RINO Republicans.

In an ideal world, Thompson would be setting the polls and the electorate on fire. He has few negatives to speak of from a “Reagan conservative” viewpoint, and he’s a plain-spoken, to-the-point public speaker. Yet for some reason, he’s just not catching on; not yet, anyway.

In an ideal world, WonderfulPessimist.com would love to endorse Fred Thompson for the GOP nomination for the presidency during the caucus and primary season. He’s the candidate that is closest to our hearts, and would stand a decent chance of moving California into the GOP side of the voting column, much as Reagan did.

But the sad reality is, it’s not an ideal world and, so far, Thompson’s not lighting a fire under most of the GOP electorate. While we hope this turns around and Thompson emerges from the early primaries and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan, gearing up for Super Duper Tuesday with at least a couple wins under his belt, right now that doesn’t seem to be the way the tides are turning.

So for now, WonderfulPessimist.com can’t endorse the candidate it likes best; Thompson needs to prove he’s a winner before that can take place.

Assessing the GOP field: Ron Paul

A member of the House of Representatives with no executive experience, Rep. Ron Paul may be a genuine conservative with strong libertarian leanings, but he’s certainly not a Reagan-style conservative. And he’s not ready to be president.

If he were to pull off a miracle and win the GOP nod, WonderfulPessimist.com could conceivably support his bid in the general election, but it would be a guaranteed losing ticket. He’s not well-known enough, he’s absolutely wrong on the War on Terror and all foreign policy issues, but he is a breath of fresh air in the area of domestic policy.

Rep. Paul is solid when it comes to interpreting the Constitution to its founder’s intent, and is correct on our country’s drift away from true constitutional government. He has solid viewpoints on domestic spending and conservative, small government principals and seems at times to disapprove of wearing sexy corsets, at least on the campaign trail, which puts him at odds with Democrat Senator Barney Frank. So there’s that.

That said, Rep. Paul is a mess on foreign policy, embracing such outdated isolationist policies that he’d make the old 1960s John Birch Society look like liberals. Rarely has a Republican been so embarrassingly wrong on all things foreign policy, and with the War on Terror, Iraq, Israel, the looming threat of Iran and more all promising to be vitally important, Paul simply is the wrong candidate at the wrong time, running on the wrong issues.

The GOP simply doesn’t need an anti-war candidate; while some of his pure Constitutionalism is sorely needed in the GOP, he simply is not the right conservative for WonderfulPessimist.com to support in the primary and caucus season. (But at least he’s a conservative.) Our call is that, at most, Paul might make a half-decent running mate for whoever does win the GOP nod; but we can also think of plenty of other GOP faithful who would make stronger, and far more legitimate, running mates for whoever does top the GOP ticket in 2008.

And here’s a confession: Rep. Ron Paul himself doesn’t scare me. But the fanaticism of his supporters, their unwillingness to listen to a simple, “he’s not my candidate of choice this time around” response, their endless antiwar rhetoric, is nothing short of frightening. And no one can win the White House by frightening members of their own party. (It didn’t even work for Howard Dean over in the Democratic party, where fanaticism is far more acceptable and in fashion, thanks to MoveOn.org.)

Assessing the GOP field: Mike Huckabee

It’s like the set-up to a gag: how would you like to nominate a former governor of Arkansas, who hails from Hope and says he’s a Baptist, for a bid to the White House? Surely we’re talking about former national disgrace, Democrat Bill Clinton, right? Nope. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is running for the GOP nod in 2008, and is being taken seriously by quite a number of misdirected “faith” voters who helped install Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush into the White House.

That’s because, ever since the so-called “Hucka-boom,” in which the media scrambled to puff a less well-known liberal Republican when it became obvious voters weren’t buying John McCain and were growing increasingly wary of Rudy Giuliani. They found their fair-haired faux conservative and genuine RINO in Huckabee. His conservatism is about as inflated as a flat garden hose; in other words, not much at all.

Huckabee talks a decent game; he has faced the Clinton political machine in Arkansas and won. But is he noticeably different from those Democrats the Clinton machine ran against him? It would appear not.

So how does he do it? How does Mike Huckbee fool so many conservatives into embracing liberal government solutions instead of Reagan-style conservative values? The answer is simple: religion.

Mike Huckabee wears his faith bonafides on his sleeve in a manner so outrageous, even George W. Bush would tell him to tone it down a bit. He mentions being a former Baptist preacher more often than he mentions being Arkansas’s former chief executive. Huckabee’s miscalculation is in thinking that he’s running to become America’s pastor, rather than its president; even Pat Robertson focused more on politics in his failed runs for the GOP nod.

Now, to be kind, Mike Huckabee has a nice personal story. As a man who once was challenging Bill Clinton for who had the fastest-expanding waistline, Huckabee conquered his overeating and, if he’d had a better career manager, might have even won an edition of NBC’s The Biggest Loser. Or at least MTV’s Celebrity Fit Club.

His tale of embracing fitness over fatness is inspiring.

But is he a Reagan conservative? He’ll claim the mantle, but the devil is in his policy details. The Huckabee record includes some controversial tax hikes, and perhaps he did inherit them; but he also did nothing to reverse them while in office. The Huckabee record also includes a permissive approach toward illegal immigration that could serious jeopardize national security. And the Huckabee record includes proposals mandating health and fitness goals that would make any big government, control your life liberal proud.

Bottom line is, Mike Huckabee has a lot to prove and leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to living up to the Reagan legacy. Of the six candidates WonderfulPessimist.com will be profiling, Huckabee rounds out the three we feel fall into the undesirable, liberal RINO candidates who would make poor choices that are only an echo of their Democratic rivals, not a clear choice in favor of a different, more democratic, federalism-centered, Constitution-based Reagan brand of conservatism that moves the country away from socialist drift and toward the type of government our founders intended.

Of these poor choices, both Huckabee and Giuliani are supportable in a general election, simply because they have some positives going for them (Giuliani) or a thin enough public record that perhaps they could grow in a more Reagan-esque direction (Huckabee) than they may appear. Only McCain is so anti-conservative and objectionable that his nomination would cause WonderfulPessimist.com to withdraw general election support in 2008.

But none of these three are worthy of this site’s primary- and caucus-season support; there are three better options on the table.

Assessing the GOP field: John McCain

In assessing the GOP presidential field for 2008, Senator John McCain is the favorite of the media and the GOP establishment. That much, right there, should disqualify him. Of all the lukewarm, liberal-leaning GOP candidates running for the nod this time around, none of them embody the definition of RINO – Republican In Name Only – the way McCain does.

When liberal newspapers endorse any GOP candidate in primary season, it should set off caution flares in conservatives across the nation, and no GOP candidate has received more media endorsements than John McCain. In all honest, McCain is someone who should have been purged from the party as a traitor long ago.

The list of conservative-stifling crimes is long and dismaying. McCain-Feingold? He’s the co-author of one of the most anti-Constitutional campaign “reform” laws in US history. Foreign policy? He’s a nightmare on most of the wars that have been fought since he took public office; McCain even whined when Ronald Reagan bombed Libya, even though that one action has kept Qaddafi nice and quiet ever since. If you want a list of measures in which he’s voted against Ronald Reagan conservative values, one need look no further than just about his entire voting record. It would be easier and quicker to cherry-pick his rare conservative-compatible votes than to point out his instances of voting with the opposition.

John McCain for president? I’m not even convinced he should be a GOP Senator from Arizona. His history as POW should not make him an expert on torture; it should disqualify him from becoming the chief executive because when push comes to shove, I’m just not convinced he has the stomach to do what’s necessary in the War On Terror, especially if winning is the goal.

McCain is probably the only GOP candidate that, if he secures the GOP nomination, WonderfulPessimist.com could absolutely not get behind in the general election; if McCain gets the green light from the GOP, WonderfulPessimist.com may just have to endorse a third-party conservative, because there really would be no difference between a potential McCain administration and the Democratic alternatives. If he wins, this site may have to spend the next four years on a series of Carnival Cruises.

Assessing the GOP field: Rudy Giuliani

In looking over this election cycle’s field of GOP candidates for president, WonderfulPessimist.com finds itself at odds with itself. On the one hand, just about any of this field of competitors is a vast improvement over the Democratic alternatives: Hillary Clinton? Nightmare! John Edwards? Equally so. Barack Obama? Well, at least he has a charming smile while being deeply liberal… which won’t buy him a cup of Starbucks with this conservative.

But nitpicking at obvious liberals like those are “easy pickins,” and there will be a long election cycle to engage in that. At the moment, WonderfulPessimist.com is more concerned with zeroing in on the right candidate to carry the conservative banner, the Reagan legacy, and the War on Terror into the next administration. There are six main GOP candidates remaining; it’s time to get honest about how they measure up.

First up: Rudy Giuliani

Let’s admit something right up front: Rudy Giuliani is a likable candidate. He has a self-deprecating sense of humor, going so far as to have been a guest star – more than once – on Saturday Night Live. He has the ability not to take himself too seriously, and that’s a plus.

But let’s also be honest about something else: he is a media creation of convenience. Giuliani was savaged by the liberal New York media, and the national media in general, for much of his run as New York mayor. His in-office affair, divorce and remarriage is messy, even though it’s in the past. And the only reason he media was kind to him in the wake of September 11 was because he was about to leave office, and it gave the liberal media someone to praise who wasn’t President George W. Bush.

That’s the only reason he, not Bush, was Time’s Man of the Year in the twilight hours of 2001. The media puffed Giuliani only because he would soon be out of power and because he was the only person they could find to praise other than Bush that year. That’s the simple, brutal truth of the matter.

Now that he’s running for the GOP nod as president, Giuliani will continue to receive the kid gloves treatment by the media, right up until the moment he would secure – if he can anymore – the nomination. Then, watch the fur fly as the liberal media work overtime to crush him like a bug to usher Hillary, Barack or John into office. It’s that simple.

While most GOP voters admit Giuliani is the candidate they’d trust most with handling the War On Terror after Bush leaves office, they trust him very little on any other issues, especially domestically. In fact, on the domestic front, there’s very little on which Giuliani and the GOP agree.

Abortion? Sure, he promised Sean Hannity he’d appoint originalist justices to the Supreme Court, but given his own personal pro-abortion stance, that’s hard to swallow. He’s the darling of the Log Cabin Republican crowd with his pro-gay marriage stance. And on illegal immigration, he’s as much of a mess as the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I trust Giuliani on taxes and controlling spending, to a degree; but I think he’s actually far too inexperienced and under-educated on issues like education reform, school vouchers, health care and various biomedical issues, like fetal stem cell research and other such issues. On the foreign policy front, I simply am not sure what we’d be getting from Giuliani in terms of support for Israel, which is the key to any presidential candidate’s foreign policy, for me. In my view, we must support all Middle Eastern democracies, and beyond infant democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, or loyalty to the oldest democracy in the Middle East, Israel, must never waver.

In the end, Guiliani is a nightmare on domestic issues and a mixed bag at best on everything else; if war with Iran seemed imminent, my concern for strong leadership on that front might nudge me in Guiliani’s direction. Failing that, there’s really no other reason to support Rudy Giuliani in the primary and caucus season. Reagan-style conservative values would not be well-represented under a potential Giuliani administration, and that’s the fiber cable of any strong endorsement from WonderfulPessimist.com.

While Giuliani would be far better than the Democratic alternatives if he secures the GOP nod, there are better alternatives still in the field than the man from City Hall who wants to bypass any state house and go straight to the White House.

Review: Gold Medal Wine Club

I recently had a change to try out the Gold Medal Wine Club of California. Here’s what I can tell you: as far as wine clubs go, this one is quite solid. My introductory package was impressive; it included two bottles of wine, a gift certificate toward future orders, and a newsletter.

The first bottle was a 2004 Madroña merlot. Shipped in a dark bottle with a handsome silver, blue and purple label, this wine is a classy selection from one of California’s better small vineyards. A red wine with a bold nose, it possesses a deep and complex character; hints of pipe tobacco, dark plum, molasses and hints of raspberry and cherry blend together with an overall mild peppery taste to surprise the palate with a bolder character than most merlots possess. It took me by surprise when I first tasted it, but after the first sip I grew to appreciate its unique taste.

The second bottle was also a red wine, a 2004 Madroña cabernet sauvignon. Aged in French and American oak, this wine picks up some of its character from the oak casks. With a stronger peppery character than the merlot. It blends hints of black current, olives, herbs, sweet pipe tobacco and black plum, to name a few of the influences. Although quite bold, it goes down with a surprising smoothness. While I could appreciate what this cabernet sauvignon was trying to achieve, however, it was a more aggressive wine than I normally appreciate. Although it challenged my palette, it was a treat to sample a wine that normally I might overlook.

The newsletter included with the package is an all-around solid read for the wine aficionado. The articles and bright and lively, the layout professional and slick, and an all-around good read. Although my two samples came from the same vineyard, the Gold Medal Wine Club of California features wines from a large number of small, prestigious California vineyards, and joining up would present anyone who appreciates a fine wine with exposure to a wide selection of top-notch brands, some of which are not well-known.

If you enjoy sampling fine wines, or know someone who does, this is one wine club that knows how to select and present some truly hidden treasures. They even offer four different levels of membership, from gold to platinum to diamond, as well as an international wine club. One of the better wine clubs you’re likely to find!

HuckaBUST?

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, vying for the GOP presidential nomination, really put his foot in his mouth when trying to take a swipe at fellow GOP nominee, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. In a comment apparently designed to stir up doubts about Romney, Huckabee recently commented, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?”

What a mess.

First off, as a former Baptist preacher, Huckabee not only should know better, he probably does. Second of all, for all his religious supporters, Huckabee needs to remember that he’s not up for a Baptist pulpit opening; he’s aiming for the White House, not the Pearly Gates.

While Huckabee’s support is booming at the moment, if he keeps up such cynical slurs, that support will quickly dry up. Maybe his campaign buses need new espresso machines to keep him on a more even keel. I’m not sure if Huckabee, Romney or Thomson have my support in the Minnesota caucus quite yet, but Huckabee’s offended this “religious conservative” by the use of such hardball smearing tactics.

Seems Huckabee inherited some of Bill Clinton’s leftover disdain for opponents when he took office in Little Rock, AR, shortly after Clinton left. One would hope for a bit better than this from a Republican. The Politico claims the Huckster has at least apologized for his remark. That’s a good step; now, don’t go out and do the same thing again, or your apology is worthless; let’s see a real change in how you campaign from here through Super Tuesday, Mike.

Three die, six wounded in attack on church, YWAM

Nine people were shot, with three dead and six of them wounded, this past weekend in Colorado.

Four of the victims, including two of the deceased, were murdered at Youth With a Mission (YWAM) headquarters in Arvada, CO, just outside of Denver. A young man came to the door of the YWAM dorm asking for a place to stay, according to a press release; when he was told he could not be accommodated, he pulled out a handgun and opened fire. Two youth staffers were killed and two were wounded. The gunman then fled on foot in the snow.

Only a few hours later, another gunman of nearly identical description – dressed in black, wearing combat boots and holding an assault rifle and at least one handgun – opened fire in the parking lot of the vast New Life evangelical church in Colorado Springs, CO, after Sunday services, according to a police statement. A New Life security guard shot and killed the gunman before police arrived on the scene.

While authorities have not yet released the identity of the slain gunman, they are currently not commenting on whether the two attacks were linked, either by a common assailant or a conspiracy of two or more assailants.

It’s an unfortunate loss of life, although it is clear that losses could have been greater were it not for the swift response of the New Life security guard who took out the gunman at the Colorado Springs church assault. At the Colorado Spring New Life church assault, the gunman wounded four people before he was taken out by the security guard.

Such apparently random violence is a disturbing societal trend. Makes a person want to sleep with a strong flashlight, powered by NiMH batteries, close at hand, as well as – if not a gun, at least some pepper spray or something similar for self-defense, near enough to be readily accessible in an emergency.

The Oprah Factor

Illinois Senator Barack Obama has apparently opened up a big lead over Democratic rival Hillary Rodham in the race for the Democratic presidential nod; the latest Des Moines Register poll indicates his support is strongest among female voters, the heart of Hillary’s support base.

Chalk it up to the Oprah factor. Since the queen of daytime talk has thrown her support behind Sen. Obama, he’s been surging. Although celebrity endorsements typically carry little weight at the polls, few celebrities are as selective as Oprah, who has rarely actively endorsed or campaigned any candidate.

Still, the heartland had grown accustomed to giving Oprah’s picks consideration in the book-buying decisions, car-buying decisions, even her advice on platform beds and more. Has Ms. Winfrey now garnered the influence to become a king-maker and, in the process, a potential queen-toppler, by favoring Senator Obama over Senator Clinton?

It’s an intriguing question that could swing the Democratic nominating process away from the Clinton machine. Considering former Bush advisor Karl Rove has even jumped on the bandwagon, offering Obama advice on how to topple Queen Hillary, we can be sure the 2008 fireworks have only just begun!

NBC reporter calls Bush “monkey,” apologizes

I wonder if NBC reporter Erin Burnett will get some White House custom pens after apologizing to President Bush after calling him a “monkey” on the air. The comment, more than a mere slip of the lip, happened last week around the same time CNN aired its joke of a Republican debate in which so-called “undecided Republican voters” have been revealed to be nothing but a lot of Democratic operatives.

And yet, some idiotic MoveOn.org types want to seriously suggest that the media, by and large, has a conservative bias? Please; we have brains.

Also, according to a recent survey, Republicans report a higher rate of good mental health than do liberals or independents. Maybe that’s why, when our candidates do lose, we don’t need grief counseling. Instead, we learn from it and go on to battle another election.

All I know is, if Barack Obama were president, that “monkey” comment wouldn’t have been excused by a simple apology; she’d be on the permanently unemployed line!

Putin putting Russian “band” back together?

There are charges of fraud, intimidation, suppressing the vote, and an attempt to stay in power beyond the limit of the term he was elected to. No, we’re not talking about Bill Clinton’s hoped-for puppet presidency through his wife, or about the Bush-Gore or Bush-Kerry election showdowns.

This time, the dirty politics is taking place in a location most folks who remember the 1980s will recognize as a home to real political corruption and dictatorship: Russia.

Vladimir Putin, whose term at Russian president comes to an end in March 2008 on paper, seems to have his political machine well-stocked in body shop supplies and running smooth as silk, as he prepares for Parliamentary elections that promise to sweep him into a United Russia party leadership position that could keep him at the helm long after a new Russian president is selected next spring.

Former chess champion Garry Kasparov has warned that Putin’s pre-election moves bear all the signs of setting up a dictatorship and a puppet presidency, similar to what transpired in the pre-Glastnost Soviet Union, prior to the fall of the Soviet empire. Only time will tell if his words bear the hallmarks of truth. Is the old Soviet band back together?