Endorsement Time

***Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are my own and not necessarily reflective of the senior partners here at the Llama Butchers, Steve and Robbo, nor do they represent those of any of the other contributors to the site. I ask them all for their indulgences in this matter.***

There’s been a lot of chatter amongst the punditry that the Republican base (however you define that) is unenthused about the current crop of candidates vying for the nomination for 2008. To some extent, I think that’s true. Republicans were spoiled with Ronald Reagan, whose appeal across demographics and interest groups made him someone everybody could be enthusiastic about. Of course, at that time, I was a Democrat-in-training so even though I liked him personally I had a loyalty to other “team” to consider.

Continued below the fold...

YIPS from Steve-O: Geez louise, with a build up like that I thought Gary was going for the Paulnutz. I can live with Rudy/Admiral Ackbar, although it's not the true Republican dream ticket of Plisskin/Ackbar.

Many Republicans were initially enthusiastic about George W., but have since come to feel that he hasn’t lived up to expectations. Unfortunately, those expectations seem to be tied to the memory of Reagan. Did Republicans expect Bush 43 to live up to that legacy? Perhaps only subconsciously, but I think the answer is “probably”. Some of Bush's negatives are disappointing by normal Presidential standards. But by Reagan standards they seem all the more magnified. Reagan was a man right for his time. He had some incredible successes, made some regrettable mistakes and made a lasting impression in the minds of those old enough to remember him. How on earth can a George W. Bush live up to that? How can any President live up to that?

It’s really not fair to judge the current crop of candidates as the potential heir to the Reagan legacy. Nor is it fair to try and find the candidate that most “resembles” Reagan politically. It ain’t happenin’ because it’s really an apples/oranges comparison. Reagan was one of those Presidents that – if you’re lucky – comes around once every couple of generations.

So for me, trying to use the “Reagan standard” in choosing a candidate to support is mere folly.

At any point in time, a good Presidential candidate needs to demonstrate three things: solid leadership skills, a genuine desire to act in the best interests of the country as a whole and an ability to articulate his or her vision for why they believe they are the best person for the job. In times of peace, even two out of three of these would be good enough. However, at a time of war not only are all three absolutely necessary but you need to add a fourth: a firm grasp of the threat the country is facing and the cojones to make difficult and even unpopular decisions to combat that threat.

Say what you want about Dubya’s shortcomings. In one respect, he has been steadfast – his resolve in the Terrorist’s War On Us. I don’t use that phrase flippantly, because that’s what it really is. As sure as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor pulled us into WWII, Islamic Terrorism has brought us into a conflict that the enemy so adamantly wants to fight. And I don’t mean just 9/11. This War has been waged against us for almost thirty years. It just took the events of six years ago to make (most of us) finally come to acknowledge it.

I am a registered Republican but this wasn’t always so. I’ve been a registered Democrat and a registered Unaffiliated in the past. In 2000, I made the decision to register with the Republican Party so that I could participate in the nomination process. I generally vote Republican these days because I more often than not tend to agree with that candidate over the others. As an individual, I have my share of criticisms for the party I belong to. But the bottom line is that, philosophically, I can support and even defend the Republican position over the Democrat one as much as 80% of the time. If you want to rephrase that as the “Conservative” position over the “Liberal” one, that’s fine. The fact is my votes are driven more by personal philosophy than party orthodoxy.

There are a number of issues out there that I have strong opinions about but they don’t spur me to political activism. There are other issues that “grind my gears” more than others. But there is one issue that absolutely dominates all others for me, that Terrorist’s War on Us that I have already alluded to. These are not "freedom fighters". They are people who fight for the elimination of freedom. This is an enemy that actively seeks to inflict as many innocent civilian casualties as possible. This is an enemy that will gladly give their lives to blow women and children to smithereens. This is an enemy that truly believes that God is on their side. And they will never stop until we are all dead or converted.

Some may throw up their hands and say that such a conflict is hopeless. I don’t. And I absolutely will not. And I will continue to support candidates at all levels of government who are committed to not only fighting back but also fighting to prevent attacks in the first place. I don’t understand a politician who looks at “root causes” of the enemy’s hatred for us. I don’t understand a politician who thinks we can reason with a person who willingly helps strap a belt of explosives to his own son’s torso. I don’t understand a politician who thinks the opinions of other countries take precedence over their Constitutional duty to protect U.S. citizens or take actions to defend this nation from hostile individuals, groups or nations.

In a perfect world, I’d like Ronald Reagan back. This isn’t a perfect world.

I’ll take the best candidate that – in my opinion – feels as strongly about this issue as I do. This is my priority and all other issues (no matter how important) come after it.

No single candidate in the Democratic field even comes close in this respect. In fact, in my opinion, not one of them is worth bag of fertilizer as a potential Commander-in-Chief. True, I have a personal animosity towards She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named but if any of these Democrats were elected President we might as well raise the white flag over the Capitol Dome.

Of the top five viable candidates in the GOP field, I could frankly vote for any of them in November with varying levels of enthusiasm. They all have strengths and weaknesses. They all fall short of the “Reagan standard”. But that’s OK. I wish them all the best in this contest but I can only chose one to support until that person wins or concedes. And it’s not a vote against any particular candidate because I don’t want them but rather it’s an affirmative one.

That candidate is Rudy Giuliani. Living most of my life in Southwestern Connecticut, I’m very familiar with his record as Mayor and as the U.S. Attorney who went after the mob. Giuliani’s efforts in both of these capacities were successful despite having very powerful opposition. He’s always demonstrated strong leadership and shown the ability to make the difficult choices. He has an unflappable optimism about him – not the kind of idealistic optimism that Reagan had but rather a more practical, can-do kind of optimism that fuels his tireless efforts to get things done.

Rudy’s been tested in crisis. He doesn’t wither under criticism. And he knows how to handle the pressure of the spotlight and deal with the media. His position on terrorism is that the country must always stay on offense. On the issue most important to me, Rudy fits the bill.

As I’ve already stated, it’s not that I don’t like the other candidates it’s that I prefer Giuliani the most. And even if I didn’t think he had the best chance to win in November, he’d still be my preference. But, honestly, on top of all the other positives of his candidacy I do believe he is also the candidate with the best chance of winning in November. Rudy can carry all the Bush States of 2004 and flip at least a few more – New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Connecticut (yeah, I know, a whopping 5 Electoral Votes there). He’d also put many States that would be normally "gimmees" for the Democrat in play.

Part of the reason is his appeal to unaffiliated voters. I believe also that – just as he did in New York City – he can attract the votes of Democrats. There is a silent minority in the Democratic Party that doesn’t like the direction that their party has taken but haven’t gone so far as to leave it (as I did). I believe Giuliani gives them someone they can make an affirmative vote for.

So now I’m on record. Feel free to weigh on what an idiot I am if you like. But until he either wins or drops out, I’m a Giuliani guy. And as much as can I will adhere to the 11th Commandment during the process. This isn’t to say I won’t be having opinions on what the other candidates do or say. But being an advocate for Rudy Giuliani doesn’t mean I feel it necessary to rip into the other guys.

Again, my vote is a positive one. And I wish all the contenders the best of luck and may the best man win.