Monday, September 17, 2007

Conservative Presidential Candidates Side by Side

Jesse and Crystal Paine live-blogged the values voter presidential debate that happened tonight. Their post provides a nice cross-section of the views of the most conservative presidential candidates.

So far Huckabee is my favorite, having strong answers on pro-life and fiscal issues, along with executive experience as governor of Arkansas (even though I know there are bad associations with that distinction!).

From what I can tell, Ron Paul is a favorite among my other ultra-conservative friends and bloggers, but he's too extreme. He deifies the constitution, and has an isolationist view unpractical in the technological 21st century. I'm pretty libertarian myself, but I do believe the government has the God-given authority to legislate morality, even morality affecting Christians. Because our government is elected by the people, we need to be proactive in voting for people who share our faith and values, men we can trust to make decisions for our country.

Tancredo is from Colorado, and I agree with him on most issues, but he's not very eloquent and has a reputation for being extreme.

Brownback seems like he would be a repeat of President Bush, which is not favorable to me or to most people. I support Bush, and believe he was God-ordained to carry our country through the last eight years. Hopefully he was only a step in a more conservative direction.

Alan Keyes was my dad's choice for President when I was in fifth grade (I think). So he's been around for quite a while. I think he's Catholic, strongly prolife, and conservative. Just doesn't have a big image.

I'm not sure what I think of the economics-focused Cox, and whether any of his other values and faith are deeply held and sincere. His stand on the need for statesmen instead of career politicians is encouraging. And he's from Chicago!

Duncan Hunter has been second in my support so far, but I don't know much about him, and he's from California.

Fred Thompson wasn't in the debate, but gives the appearance of being the most conservative front-runner. I distrust him for being an actor, but not only for being an actor. It's the show in which he most recently acted that makes me uncertain of his values stand.

Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney all have shaky stands on several values issues. And I am a values voter.

Make your choice. Vote your conscience.

To God be all glory.

4 comments:

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Ron Paul...if you don't mind me asking, do you have any more information on him? Your dislike (if I can say that) of him interests me.

And Thompson? I thought his last show was Law and Order. Or did I miss something? (I too see some possible objections to that show, though.)

Lisa of Longbourn said...

Dr. Paleo,
Right on about Thompson. I actually didn't remember which TV show he did, but recalled that when I heard which one, and saw clips from it, I disliked it. So yes, objections to acting in such roles on a show with such content.

On Ron Paul, I appreciate his constitutional perspective, and maybe two hundred years ago he would have been a good choice for president (though there were better choices available then, so I guess not). However, our country has so moved past actually following the constitution as conceived by the founders that to have a president in office who refused to do or cooperate with anything except his constitutionally enumerated responsibilities would be disastrous. We either need a revolutionary comeback to the constitution or a gradual pruning of the oversized federal (and now even state and local) governments that exist right now.

Secondly, a major concern I have with all the ultra-conservative (libertarian and Constitution party) candidates is their stand on foreign policy. From Ron Paul's website: "The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations."

1. We were not lied to in entering Iraq. Sadaam did support terrorists. He was mass-killing his people. And the US military has released proof since we invaded that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, just as we were told.

2. We are not losing the war in Iraq. We can win if we keep fighting. A sure way to lose is to announce the date of our withdrawal or to elect a president who doesn't believe in foreign wars.

3. Foreign wars were more practical to avoid in Washington and Jefferson's day. First of all, as a new nation, we did not have the military might or industrial support to engage in unnecessary conflicts if we were to survive past infancy. Obviously we did. Secondly, to fight a foreign war required traveling months (?) across oceans to transport troops. Europe and Asia couldn't threaten us with surprise attacks or massive invasion forces. That has CHANGED! Technology since the Revolutionary War and ratification of the Constitution brought us airplanes, steamships, and inter-continental ballistic missiles. The threat to us here, sitting at home, minding our own business, is too great for us to survive by just minding our own business. "It takes but one foe to breed a war..." Also we have made treaties with other nations (particularly Israel) which we are obliged to keep, even if it means defending our allies against terrorism, invasion, and attack.

4. The fact that 3,000 American lives have been lost in Iraq is sad, and we obviously don't want anyone else to die. But when you're fighting a war, you expect casualties. In fact this has been a relatively low-casualty war when compared with the conflicts of the twentieth century.

So that's what I can think of off the top of my head about Ron Paul, but that's mostly what I have picked up from the snippets I've heard about him.

I know Dr. Paleo is pro-military, and my brother wants to be a Marine, plus I can intellectually and morally justify international defense, in fact I can condemn the pacifists or isolationists, so I'm not voting for Ron Paul. There are better options.

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Interesting. I didn't know he wanted to pull out...argh.

Back to the drawing board.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Oh, and thanks for the information Lisa! :-)