1/27/2008

My blog on presidential candidates is a work in progress. I may do some editing as I learn more.

Mike Huckabee
Social conservative--pro-life, pro-God, pro homeschooling, traditional marriage

Economically--his website says the right things. Practically, as governor of Arkansas he raised some taxes, lowered others. He grew government during his tenure as governor and imposed moral incentives and guidelines regarding healthy behaviors--reducing personal freedoms and choices.
Clubforgrowth.org
The above blog lists all candidates and their economic positions and policies.

War, Terrorism--he hasn't had experience in this area, but his ideas and policies seem good.

Mike Huckabee is a decent candidate. His economic policies may be a problem for some. His outspoken beliefs regarding his Christian faith will keep some people from voting for him.

Ron Paul
Pro-life, strict constitutionalist, Lutheran background, libertarian, limited government

The summation below is directly from the Club for Growth website. The difficulty with Ron Paul is that he wants perfect law and perfect changes. He won't accept positive changes that are good. If he can't have it all, he votes for none. He often ends up voting with liberal democrats because new laws are not exactly what he wants.

Summation

When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding. While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size.

But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.

Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.

Ron Paul has the most unique perspective of government among the candidates. I personally agree with him on many issues. According to his website, he would be more of an isolationist--staying out of other countries and avoiding war.

Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani made excellent economic progress as mayor of New York city. He turned a crime ridden city around with tough standards and laws. He was impressive in his work after 9-11. He would be good with foreign policy and fighting terrorism. He believes in God. I don't know his specific faith.

Cons: May be difficult to work with--personal life shows this--he has been married 3 times and divorced 2 times. He may not protect the constitution, although he says he would select conservative judges. He is the most socially liberal of all--most pro gay rights. Even though he is personally opposed to abortion, he doesn't believe the government should ban abortion.

(more is coming--I have to go to church!)