Surveyed About Republican Presidential Candidates

Last week I was surveyed by the National Republican Party. I found the survey interesting for asking for demographic information and party affiliation (independent) I was asked two questions about Hilary Clinton. No question was asked about other Democrat candidates. Both questions on Clinton related to my views as to her trustworthiness which suggests that they expect her to be the nominee and the the current planned primary focus for their attack ads.  

The survey than asked me to rank various current and anticipated Republican candidates on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "most definitely would support" and 10 being "most definitely would not support".

  

The following were all given a 10, most definitely would not support score…Cruz, Christie, Trump, Carson,  Fiorino, Graham, Huckabee, Jindal, Perry, Santorum, Walker. Interestingly I was not asked about Bush, but then again he has not yet to declare.

I also found it interesting that I was then asked why I ranked each of the above so poorly. Below was my response:

Jindal....a ideologue who has governed his own state poorly leaving his state in economic shambles. If he has brought harm to his state how can I trust him with a national office. May well be one of the first out.

Trump....I seem him as a self-promoting egotist who is serving as the comic relief, and who is exposing the depth of the ugly side of the Republican base. Whether he says outlandish things because that is what he believes or it is designed to draw attention to himself by garnering the attention of the press and thereby create public buzz makes little difference. The one is mean ugliness and the other suggests manipulation with little thoughtful policy substance. How much traction he will gain depends upon attention and the depth of the ugly side of the Republican base. He is the wild card who will either be gone quickly after the first primaries or be a long term player if he is willing to commit his own resources and keeps getting media attention.

Walker....his ethics are of the level Tricky Dick. A golden tongued divider who says whatever needs to be said to appeal to the crowd of the moment which has resulted in a plethora of statements on different sides of an issue. He has a history of discrepancies between what he says in campaigns to win votes and how he governs. His state which has often outperformed in the region has underperformed in the region. I do not trust him. Like Trump, he will be out early or be a major player...it all depends upon media buzz and financing.

Cruz....he is an aggressive divisive candidate who reminds me in many ways of Senator Joe McCathy. I don't trust him. He postures himself as the outsider but he is an insider who postures himself as an outsider. He will use dirty tricks much like Nixon. Many of his ideas and statements suggests that he is a Christian equivalent of a Khomeini-like character who with enough like-minded people in Congress would turn a secular religiously neutral nation into a evangelical Christian nation. 

Christie....he comes across as belligerent, demeaning and dismissive...not characteristics needed for a major leader on the national level. He has a history of signing agreements but soon after breaking them while claiming circumstances have now changed. For me he is not trustworthy. I don't think he will last long...possibly gone before or shortly after Iowa.

Carson and Fiorino...neither has experience in governing and working around government. It seems that they are in the race to promote their way into a higher profile position (cabinet or ambassador) or as an entry onto the lucrative conservative speaker circuit.

Huckabee....a talented speaker with well crafted soundbites that lack balanced thoughtful policy content. I disagree with his rewriting/interpretation of history.

Perry....repackaging and years posturing does not cover a deeply flawed and shallow candidate of yesteryear. He is likely to be one of the first to go.  

Santorum....too far out of the mainstream of the nation to have great traction in a national election. He rightly lost to Romney....he is even in a poorer position 4 yrs later. He has been out of the spotlight for years and out of influence. He may be in the race more out of ego and/or to posture himself for a cabinet or ambassador position. I don't think he will go much beyond Iowa if his finances get him that far.  

Graham...too narrow focused with highly hawkish views regarding gunboat diplomacy. He has a good head but narrow appeal.

If I was asked about Bush I would have said, he has to overcome the baggage of family and an exterior that seems to suggest a lack of passion. He has been out of the spotlight too long. Money will carry him deep, but will the country want a Bush III? I don't think it does. Will the party? 

An Alarming Argument Against Healthcare Reform

The healthcare debate in America has become increasingly heated. It is wrapped up in a host of misinformation, obfuscation, red herrings and illogical statements. Fear of illness and worry about not receiving care are powerful spectacles that color what one hears. Whether those concerns are grounded in facts or not is not as powerful as the emotions attached to the issue. These are the similar to the emotions that stand in the background that cause young couples and families to spend tens of thousands more than they can afford on weddings. These feelings are similar to what has led families to pay ten thousand or more for a casket for a loved one, and for costly options to funeral services.

Well educated who often are logical people can readily act irrationally when emotions are raging. Today I heard a statement on FOX News against healthcare reform that stunned me. The statement was that if the middle class was concerned about waiting an hour or more in a doctor’s office or in an emergency room, if healthcare is passed just think how much more the wait will be when all those who are uninsured have health insurance.

I was stunned, I thought I misheard him but he said something a few seconds later that confirmed I had heard correctly. He was implying that people should resist healthcare reform because it will mean that those who currently have insurance will have more people demanding the attention of their doctor and hospital which means that they will get less. In other words, I should keep others out of the system, leave them on the sidelines of receiving care so that I can receive care more swiftly.

This argument reminds me of the kid’s game king of the mountain of pushing others down so I can remain on top. I do not accept this self centered perspective and it is most unbecoming for it to be on the lips of Mike Huckabee, a minister of the Gospel.

July Fourth

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a high ranking conservative Iranian cleric recently stated that the ongoing unrest has foreign roots, in particular British roots. As we know foreign press has not only been restricted in its coverage of the protests but they have now been forbidden to be on the streets and interview Iranian citizens. The spin of the messages coming from the religious and governing authorities is ungodly foreign influences are destroying the orderly calm of the Iranian nation.

Nationals who were employed at the British embassy have been arrested, interviewed/interrogated aggressively and have confessed to being puppets of the ungodly foreign power. Jannati told the thousands of worshippers that the British "had designed a velvet revolution ... In March, they said (in their Foreign Ministry) that street riots were possible during June elections. These are signs ... revealed by themselves." He went on to tell the throng that those involved in the protests "need to repent and ask God to forgive them" and that regardless of what the pre-election polls showed, the election process was “pure” and that reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was truly a landslide victory.

Though he did not name Mousavi directly, Jannati implied Mousavi and his followers were committing treason when he quoted Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, as saying that "anyone disrupts unity has not only committed a sin but also has committed treason against the Islamic Republic and the system." There is no room for honest disagreement and dissenting views are crushed.
My initial reaction is that this rhetoric is typical of the Iranian fundamentalists.

Despots, whether they are religious or secular, have a way creating bogey men and escape goats, and decrying how these outsiders and other non true believers are conducting an evil conspiracy in their midst. I would like to say that that happens “out there” and yet when I look at the church I ask if our hands are clean. Do we not have church leaders over the centuries, and even today, suggesting that if you disagree with them that you are fighting God and therefore you are evil? Do we not have those who define so narrowly that if you disagree with them then you cannot be a Christian? Do we not have many in the church who hold that those who accept and support abortion cannot be true Christians? In America do we not have a large number of evangelicals who functionally cannot fathom how anyone can be a true Christian and be a Democrat? And the questions could go on and on.

I fear that similar words of Iran clerics, has been heard on the lips of American and Canadian clergy. I fear that the same the same hard line agenda and spirit of Iran clerics have been and is still found within segments of church leadership today.

On this Fourth of July my mind turns to an American fundamental founding principle, religious freedom. Religious freedom has two sides to it, freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Freedom of religion allows people to worship freely as they so choose. We often forget the handmaiden of free worship, allowing others to worship and hold views different than mine without me degrading them or thinking that their faith is less valid than mine. I should not be so arrogant and bold as to claim to have the corner on truth and view others as being less enlightened than me.
Separation of church and state rests upon freedom from religion. Whereas Europe and other countries had their official religion the Founding Fathers determined that not only would the United States not have an official religion but it would allow its citizens to hold any religion they deemed to hold, or even to have no faith. Coupled with that posture means that no religion or set of beliefs should dominate government or be advanced by government action.

I do not agree with those who extend separation of church and state to mean that a person who is running for or in public office should not speak of their faith. Hearing about a person’s faith helps me to understand what motivates the person who is running for office and even what types of legislation he or she will push forward. Though a candidate like a Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin may be a Christian, their fundamentalist views and statements about entrenching Christian believes in national legislation and their dismissive attitude toward liberal, adherents of non-Christian faiths and atheists scares me tremendously. Their type of thinking and demonizing is the American equivalent of what Ayatollah Jannati and the followers of other Iranian conservative clerics are saying and doing.

On July 4th 1776 the United States was founded upon freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Such freedoms are part of its nobility and strength as a country. Such freedom allows for diversity of religious expression and open political discourse. Those who signed the Constitution recognized that when one set of religious believes hold sway across the land and in government, that a nation is only a short distance away from the a society that claims to be benevolent while being far from being benevolent.

I am thankful for Jannati’s recent statements and the Iranian governing authorities reaction to the recent protests as they help me to celebrate this 4th of July with greater appreciation.

Mike Huckabee

Lest anyone think otherwise, Mike Huckabee will be running for President in 2012. He has his own show on Fox News that will expose him to the general population who are open to voting for a Republican candidate. In three years his campaign staff will be using the demographics of the show and its appeal to substantiate their argument that Huckabee will win over the middle undecided voter. Of course once he announces that he is a candidate he will have to give up the show, but it will have served his purpose of keeping him highly visible and broadening his appeal.

On Friday I received a taped telephone call from Huckabee. It was a robo survey on abortion. Each question was carefully crafted to elicit a “yes” response. If you tried to respond with a response other than “yes” or “no” the recording informed you to answer yes or no to the question. The results of the survey will be used to identify four groups of people: a) those who are clearly on their side, b) those that are open to their message that through future surveys could readily become Huckabee supporters, c) those that will need cultivation but still could become Huckabee supporters and d) those that are not worth their marketing efforts.

Though many things bother me about the survey, one of the main things that bothers me is the simplistic thinking that stands behind a yes and no only option. Such thinking is dangerous as it ends up distorting complicated issues, misrepresents issues and vilifies opponents….which is the mindset of George W Bush, Chaney and Rove, and what the Republican party and the nation does not need in a candidate.