John McCain wins Florida and all the state's delegates, putting him in the lead both in polling and delegate count. This is what the McCain camp needed. And Rudy's Florida or bust strategy pushes him to withdraw.
29% of Florida's GOP Primary voters were Catholic. 37% of those who go to Mass on a weekly basis voted for McCain, 31% for Romney and 22% for Giuliani. McCain won over even more Catholics who go to Mass less often -- 41% compared to 26% for Mitt and 23% for Rudy. So McCain has a 6% lead on active Catholic GOP voter.
Diving into the exit polls reveals an interesting point of those who believe abortion should be legal --McCain won 48% of those who think abortion should always be legal, compared to 26 for Rudy and 20 for Romney. McCain continues to win this pro-abortion voter with 41% of those who think abortion should be "mostly legal". I assume these voters only oppose partial birth abortions.
With all his claim to pro-life credentials why is McCain losing among pro-lifers? Those who say abortion should always be or at least mostly illegal (this was 52% of those who voted) 35% went to Romney while McCain got 29%. Romney has a 6% lead among pro-lifers.
Curious and curiouser...
What happens to Rudy's supporters and even Mike Huckabee's? Rudy is to set to announce his withdrawal today. Huckabee says he stays in but I don't think he has any money to survive, but we shall see. Some pundits have talked about Rudy's supporters, in spite of Rudy's endorsement of McCain, going more heavily to Romney but that remains to be seen. According to exit polls the Giuliani voter and the Huckabee voter seems to split their second choice evenly between McCain and Romney. So McCain pulls into the lead but Romney is still in the game.
Next Tuesday, Super Tuesday, will tell us more but once again it seems to be a race between John McCain and Mitt Romney.
- Data from CNN Exit Polls
Quick Recap of the primary and the Catholic vote:
Iowa - Huckabee wins, but Romney wins Catholic vote
Wyoming - Romney wins, no data on Catholic vote available
New Hampshire - McCain wins, he and Romney split Catholic vote (38% of voters are Catholic)
Michigan - Romney wins, and wins Catholic vote (29% are Catholic)
Nevada - Romney wins, and wins Catholic vote (18% Catholic)
South Carolina - McCain wins, and wins Catholic vote (13% Catholic)
Florida - McCain wins, and wins Catholic vote (29% Catholic)
The Catholic vote trends with the victorious candidate, which will be much more important in the general election. Clearly those who did not do well among Catholics (Huckabee and Giuliani) are now exiting or considering exiting the race.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Our Founding Freedom
The United States of America holds a unique place in the world and not because of our military or economic might, not even because we control a diverse ocean to ocean land mass. America is unique and special because of our founding and the principles that brought us into being. In the midst of the primary season and bitter political campaigns it is good to be reminded of this. We ought to stop and reflect on how we are insuring that our rich heritage is not only remembered in history books but is alive in our culture.
Thanks to Fr. Berg for reminding me of this quote in your email today.
The Founding Fathers of the United States asserted their claim to freedom and independence on the basis of certain "self-evident" truths about the human person: truths which could be discerned in human nature, built into it by "nature's God". Thus they meant to bring into being, not just an independent territory, but a great experiment in what George Washington called "ordered liberty:" an experiment in which men and women would enjoy equality of rights and opportunities in the pursuit of happiness and in service to the common good. Reading the founding documents of the United States, one has to be impressed by the concept of freedom they enshrine: a freedom designed to enable people to fulfill their duties and responsibilities towards the family and towards the common good of the community. Their authors clearly understood that there could be no true freedom without moral responsibility and accountability, and no happiness without respect and support for the natural units or groupings through which people exist, develop and seek the higher purposes of life in concert with others.
The American democratic experiment has been successful in many ways. Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a model, in their search for freedom, dignity, and prosperity. But the continuing success of American democracy depends on the degree to which each new generation, native-born and immigrant, make its own the moral truths on which the Founding Fathers staked the future of your Republic. Their commitment to build a free society with liberty and justice for all must be constantly renewed if the United States is to fulfill the destiny to which the Founders pledged their "lives...fortunes...and sacred honor."
- Pope John Paul II Address to US Ambassador to the Vatican 1997
Thanks to Fr. Berg for reminding me of this quote in your email today.
Friday, January 25, 2008
NY Times Endorses McCain
Wow, I don't think any Republican candidate wants the endorsement of the New York Times. I imagine his campaign is cringing right now.
Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona...We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate...That doesn’t make him a moderate, but it makes him the best choice for the party’s presidential nomination. - NY Times
I wonder if the Times is using the fact that they are loathed by GOP Primary voters to stir the pot and the GOP primary battle going since McCain is in the lead. I wouldn't put it past them... however they do state their real reasons of supporting McCain over the others.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Ron Paul on Life
It has been pointed out by a Ron Paul supporter that he was left off my list discussing the life issue. My only reasoning was that Paul currently and consistently polls around 4% nationally. (RCP) But to be fair here is a look at his record on life.
Paul is pro-life, he received most recently an 80% pro-life voting record from National Right to Life. I have heard about how pro-life Ron Paul was and never gave it much thought. Then I decided to do my own research. I noticed that in the 2005-2006 session of Congress he received a 55% pro-life voting record, which confused me. So I dug into his actual votes.
As a congressman Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, as well as a parental notification law, and voted to amend this parental notification law - a tactic designed by Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) to kill the bill. He also voted against the total ban on human cloning and only begrudgingly voted to ban partial birth abortion. The list of anti-life votes goes on (see a complete list here) . He also opposes the Human Life Amendment! So how or why does a staunch pro-lifer vote with the pro-abortion side on these issues important issues?
I assume his seemingly anti-life votes are all based on the belief that the federal government should not be protecting life in this way. I suspect that he believes it is properly decided by each state. If he believes abortion should be decided by state legislatures, why is he in Congress? And if elected to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government what will change on the issue of life? I am not sure, but we can tell from his voting record he will not support something that is pro-life unless it meet his standard of separation of state versus federal legislation. It seems to me that he is willing to sacrifice unborn lives on the altar of state's rights.
Judges - He says all the right things with regards to judges but again so have the others.
Pro-life leadership - He is an OB and can tell the great story of life as a doctor. But what does that translate to? What will he do for life? Again politics must be based on right principles but there must be a practical reality. He will continue the ban on overseas funding of abortion and with the federal military and, minus Giuliani, I think all the GOP candidates will continue this policy. He is adamant that the federal government should never over step states rights and according to him abortion ought to be solely decided by the states. So as president he would tie his own hands and may even veto pro-life legislation that he thinks the fed shouldn't legislate on. I do not understand how this would make him a pro-life president, if he would not use the force of his office to protect innocent human life.
When speaking of abortion and judicial appointments on his campaign site he states,
- You can view all of Paul's key pro-life votes from National Right to Life
Paul is pro-life, he received most recently an 80% pro-life voting record from National Right to Life. I have heard about how pro-life Ron Paul was and never gave it much thought. Then I decided to do my own research. I noticed that in the 2005-2006 session of Congress he received a 55% pro-life voting record, which confused me. So I dug into his actual votes.
As a congressman Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, as well as a parental notification law, and voted to amend this parental notification law - a tactic designed by Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) to kill the bill. He also voted against the total ban on human cloning and only begrudgingly voted to ban partial birth abortion. The list of anti-life votes goes on (see a complete list here) . He also opposes the Human Life Amendment! So how or why does a staunch pro-lifer vote with the pro-abortion side on these issues important issues?
I assume his seemingly anti-life votes are all based on the belief that the federal government should not be protecting life in this way. I suspect that he believes it is properly decided by each state. If he believes abortion should be decided by state legislatures, why is he in Congress? And if elected to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government what will change on the issue of life? I am not sure, but we can tell from his voting record he will not support something that is pro-life unless it meet his standard of separation of state versus federal legislation. It seems to me that he is willing to sacrifice unborn lives on the altar of state's rights.
Judges - He says all the right things with regards to judges but again so have the others.
Pro-life leadership - He is an OB and can tell the great story of life as a doctor. But what does that translate to? What will he do for life? Again politics must be based on right principles but there must be a practical reality. He will continue the ban on overseas funding of abortion and with the federal military and, minus Giuliani, I think all the GOP candidates will continue this policy. He is adamant that the federal government should never over step states rights and according to him abortion ought to be solely decided by the states. So as president he would tie his own hands and may even veto pro-life legislation that he thinks the fed shouldn't legislate on. I do not understand how this would make him a pro-life president, if he would not use the force of his office to protect innocent human life.
When speaking of abortion and judicial appointments on his campaign site he states,
"The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution." (Federalizing Social Policy)Conclusion- I agree with Ron Paul that the federal government has overstepped its bounds in many areas, but the most basic right, the right to life, deserves the full protection of the federal government.
- You can view all of Paul's key pro-life votes from National Right to Life
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Life Issue
Governments were established to preserve life. I thought it would be fitting to comment on the presidential candidates stance on life today the 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade.
First the Catholic Church states very clearly that life is the most important issue when considering a candidate, not one of many issues. Life is the issue.
Second supporting a culture of life ought to be seen in three different levels: record and rhetoric on life, judicial appointment philosophy, and leadership needed to get results.
Now that Thompson has dropped out of the race the field is leaner. If his supporters gravitate to one candidate this could be a turning point in the primary.
McCain - opposes abortion and has for many years (75% voting record from the National Right to Life), however he supports funding embryonic stem cell research, crafted campaign finance bill that damaged pro-life movement, and filed a friend of court brief against Wisconsin Right to Life, seeMcCain versus Wisconsin Right to Life. See also National Right to Life on McCain (2000), to be fair to McCain here is a defense of his pro-life record by Gerry Bradley.
Romney - opposes abortion and embryonic stem cell research. The greatest problem with Romney is that he has changed from being "pro-choice" to pro-life more recently. He clearly campaigned as a "pro-choicer" in his campaigns but his action seems to be decidedly pro-life. The first life issue to cross his desk caused him to veto funding for embryonic stem cell, and then again he vetoed an over the counter contraception bill. To be sure he did stop the advancement of evil while also expand abstinence funding. Each time he vetoed a bill he went right to the people with an op-ed explaining his rationale and reasoning. Not bad in such a liberal state. Far from perfect but not bad either.
Huckabee - opposes abortion and embryonic stem research. As governor he championed the passage of a number of pro-life laws. I think his pro-life record is quite impressive. See on the issues.
Giuliani - was pro-abortion, is pro-abortion, and promises to be pro-abortion in the future. His words and his record show him to fully support abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
Judges? I find all of the candidates saying similar things when it comes to the appointment of judges, even Giuliani. But obviously those who support abortion on-demand such as Giuliani can not be equally trusted.
Then comes the pro-life leadership question which I think goes clearly first to Huckabee then Romney. McCain has fought the Right to Life and pro-life leaders such as Santorum behind the scenes leaving me very concerned with his "leadership" on this issue, not to mention his role in the gang of 14 holding up judges.
Huckabee and Romney are clearly out in front on the issue of life in the race for president. Now there must be a more thorough look at both of these candidates on the other issues, and then what support for them means in light of the current landscape.
Who is most likely to achieve the most good? Politics is not a theoretical game but a practical reality.
First the Catholic Church states very clearly that life is the most important issue when considering a candidate, not one of many issues. Life is the issue.
Second supporting a culture of life ought to be seen in three different levels: record and rhetoric on life, judicial appointment philosophy, and leadership needed to get results.
Now that Thompson has dropped out of the race the field is leaner. If his supporters gravitate to one candidate this could be a turning point in the primary.
McCain - opposes abortion and has for many years (75% voting record from the National Right to Life), however he supports funding embryonic stem cell research, crafted campaign finance bill that damaged pro-life movement, and filed a friend of court brief against Wisconsin Right to Life, seeMcCain versus Wisconsin Right to Life. See also National Right to Life on McCain (2000), to be fair to McCain here is a defense of his pro-life record by Gerry Bradley.
Romney - opposes abortion and embryonic stem cell research. The greatest problem with Romney is that he has changed from being "pro-choice" to pro-life more recently. He clearly campaigned as a "pro-choicer" in his campaigns but his action seems to be decidedly pro-life. The first life issue to cross his desk caused him to veto funding for embryonic stem cell, and then again he vetoed an over the counter contraception bill. To be sure he did stop the advancement of evil while also expand abstinence funding. Each time he vetoed a bill he went right to the people with an op-ed explaining his rationale and reasoning. Not bad in such a liberal state. Far from perfect but not bad either.
Huckabee - opposes abortion and embryonic stem research. As governor he championed the passage of a number of pro-life laws. I think his pro-life record is quite impressive. See on the issues.
Giuliani - was pro-abortion, is pro-abortion, and promises to be pro-abortion in the future. His words and his record show him to fully support abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
Judges? I find all of the candidates saying similar things when it comes to the appointment of judges, even Giuliani. But obviously those who support abortion on-demand such as Giuliani can not be equally trusted.
Then comes the pro-life leadership question which I think goes clearly first to Huckabee then Romney. McCain has fought the Right to Life and pro-life leaders such as Santorum behind the scenes leaving me very concerned with his "leadership" on this issue, not to mention his role in the gang of 14 holding up judges.
Huckabee and Romney are clearly out in front on the issue of life in the race for president. Now there must be a more thorough look at both of these candidates on the other issues, and then what support for them means in light of the current landscape.
Who is most likely to achieve the most good? Politics is not a theoretical game but a practical reality.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Catholic Voters in early primaries
Iowa - I am amazed at how many have blogged on how Huckabee lost the Catholic vote in Iowa, has a Catholic problem etc. etc. Some interesting maps and county vote counts compared to Catholic rich areas. (Matthew Yglesias, Inside Catholic, PolySigh and more). Essentially Romney picked up the Catholic rich counties and Huckabee lost them. No question was asked about religion for Iowa.
New Hampshire - Catholics were 38% of NH GOP primary vote. 39% of Catholic GOP went to McCain and 39% for Romney. Interestingly Hillary did get 44% of Catholic DEM vote compared to 27% for Obama. 35% of Dem Primary voters were Catholic.
Michigan - Catholics comprised 29% of GOP voters with 38% going for Romney and 36% to McCain. Of the Catholics who go to Mass weekly Romney got 41% with McCain remaining at 36%.
Looking ahead South Carolina, with a small Catholic vote around 10%, Southern Evangelicals supposedly determine this vote. McCain leads at 28% with Huckabee trailing by 4 pts. Nevada with 25% Catholic vote has Romney leading with a 5 point lead over his nearest rival McCain. Florida, usually with at least 28% of their voters being Catholic, latest polling showing McCain (20), Giuliani(21), and Romney (20).
Then come the big states: California, with 28% Catholic vote, has McCain at 25%, Romney 15, Giuliani 14, and Huckabee 13. New Jersey, with 44% Catholic vote, has Giuliani leading with 28% followed by McCain by 25%.
If currently polling remain it looks like Giuliani can only survive if he wins Florida but even then he will be in third behind McCain and Romney. Huckabee looks like he is coming in second in South Carolina which may be the end of his swing. He will remain in but without this win he can't raise money and climb in the polls.
The race as of this moment is between McCain and Romney. Nevada will go to Romney and it appears SC to McCain. Florida will be a big bump for either of them which Catholics will have a big role. Then on to other Catholic rich states.
Conclusion, Catholics will choose the primary nominee.
- Exit polling data from CNN
New Hampshire - Catholics were 38% of NH GOP primary vote. 39% of Catholic GOP went to McCain and 39% for Romney. Interestingly Hillary did get 44% of Catholic DEM vote compared to 27% for Obama. 35% of Dem Primary voters were Catholic.
Michigan - Catholics comprised 29% of GOP voters with 38% going for Romney and 36% to McCain. Of the Catholics who go to Mass weekly Romney got 41% with McCain remaining at 36%.
Looking ahead South Carolina, with a small Catholic vote around 10%, Southern Evangelicals supposedly determine this vote. McCain leads at 28% with Huckabee trailing by 4 pts. Nevada with 25% Catholic vote has Romney leading with a 5 point lead over his nearest rival McCain. Florida, usually with at least 28% of their voters being Catholic, latest polling showing McCain (20), Giuliani(21), and Romney (20).
Then come the big states: California, with 28% Catholic vote, has McCain at 25%, Romney 15, Giuliani 14, and Huckabee 13. New Jersey, with 44% Catholic vote, has Giuliani leading with 28% followed by McCain by 25%.
If currently polling remain it looks like Giuliani can only survive if he wins Florida but even then he will be in third behind McCain and Romney. Huckabee looks like he is coming in second in South Carolina which may be the end of his swing. He will remain in but without this win he can't raise money and climb in the polls.
The race as of this moment is between McCain and Romney. Nevada will go to Romney and it appears SC to McCain. Florida will be a big bump for either of them which Catholics will have a big role. Then on to other Catholic rich states.
Conclusion, Catholics will choose the primary nominee.
- Exit polling data from CNN
The Catholic Vote
Since I have spent a couple of years working with campaigns and coalitions, particularly connecting with Catholics I thought it would be worth exploring the Catholic vote in 2008.
Here is some background on the Catholic vote. When you look at the election exit polling you find the Catholic vote going back and forth between both political parties -- essentially trending to support the winner. This often leaves pundits to say there is no such thing as "the Catholic vote". This is true of those who simply identify themselves as Catholic, they are often reflecting the prevailing cultural or political opinion of the day.
However further research revealed a tangible group - those Catholic who not only self-identify as Catholics but those who are active Mass attending Catholics. This is when you begin to see patterns and shifts and a real group emerges. This constituency has been rightly termed the Catholic vote. This is a group who views the world with a similar lens based on a shared cultural, values based identity.
According to press and pundits the Catholic vote helped define many elections and I believe both parties recognize this will be the key constituency for 2008.
Here is some background on the Catholic vote. When you look at the election exit polling you find the Catholic vote going back and forth between both political parties -- essentially trending to support the winner. This often leaves pundits to say there is no such thing as "the Catholic vote". This is true of those who simply identify themselves as Catholic, they are often reflecting the prevailing cultural or political opinion of the day.
However further research revealed a tangible group - those Catholic who not only self-identify as Catholics but those who are active Mass attending Catholics. This is when you begin to see patterns and shifts and a real group emerges. This constituency has been rightly termed the Catholic vote. This is a group who views the world with a similar lens based on a shared cultural, values based identity.
According to press and pundits the Catholic vote helped define many elections and I believe both parties recognize this will be the key constituency for 2008.
Monday, January 14, 2008
A Conservative Case against McCain
Okay so McCain is in the game with a win in NH and a re-surgence in the polls so the question is do you like his position on the issues and his record?
Well according to former Senator Rick Santorum:
“The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him, 6 years in the United States Senate as leader, one of the leaders of the Senate — the number-3 leader — who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.” Kathryn Lopez's article continues with chapter and verse on examples of domestic and foreign problems with McCain. Read the full article
I have great respect for Santorum and value his opinion. What do you think of this?
Well according to former Senator Rick Santorum:
“The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him, 6 years in the United States Senate as leader, one of the leaders of the Senate — the number-3 leader — who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.” Kathryn Lopez's article continues with chapter and verse on examples of domestic and foreign problems with McCain. Read the full article
I have great respect for Santorum and value his opinion. What do you think of this?
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
What does New Hampshire mean?
This will be a long primary season for both parties.
John McCain and Hillary Clinton won their party's primary tonight in NH.
Hillary is back in the game but because it was a narrow victory she does not reclaim her title of the sole front runner - this will be a two person race for a while. Dick Morris now thinks this victory is decisive for her since she took a lot of pounding in the past weeks, but I am not so sure. I think Obama will keeps it competitive even though he now will get more scrutiny from the media. Edwards will continue to get 15-18% of the vote but won't get more than this.
On the Republican side the primary it is wide open.
Huckabee made a very good showing in NH which keeps him very much alive, which is contrary to many pundits pre-Iowa. But he will need to keep this up as the scrutiny of his campaign continues.
Romney coming in second in both IA and NH keeps him in the front, but the heat is on for him to get a win. "Negative" campaigning may have influenced this second place in NH. (Note: Romney has won the most delegates overall.)
Giuliani continues to lose in these early primaries. His strategy seems to be ignore smaller states to focus on Florida which is made up ex-New Yorkers, where he is currently polling in front. This once front runner is now looking very vulnerable even though he does well in larger states.
McCain's victory in NH is what he needed. To be honest I agreed with many of the pundits in the fall that said McCain was no longer viable. NH was ripe for McCain and he has made an effort to reach out to Independents making the difference. McCain got a greater number of Independent voters than Obama, which was contrary to the expectation. This helped sure up his win tonight.
Next Tuesday is the Michigan Primary and the following Saturday will be the Nevada Caucus and the Republican South Carolina Primary. This will be non-stop through January right into Super Tuesday Feb 5th. Hold on this will be a bumpy ride and there will be more shifts in the GOP front runners.
This puts the GOP front runners as Huckabee (21), McCain (19.7), Giuliani (17.7), Romney (13.7), and Thompson (10.7). It is wide open for any of these guys. This is the average polling from Real Clear Politics.
Huckabee - won Iowa 3rd in NH and is polling out in front in SC, while holding tight to second place in MI and FL
McCain - won NH, polling third in MI and a distant second in SC but tonight's win could increase his chances
Giuliani - no wins or places yet but leading in FL and is tied with Romney in NV
Romney - second in both Iowa and NH, polling first in MI, tied for first in NV, but third in both SC and FL
Thompson - no wins and in fourth or fifth place in all of these early states
A lot can happen in the primary and I wouldn't count anyone out just yet. But by Feb 5th there will be a clear front runner.
John McCain and Hillary Clinton won their party's primary tonight in NH.
Hillary is back in the game but because it was a narrow victory she does not reclaim her title of the sole front runner - this will be a two person race for a while. Dick Morris now thinks this victory is decisive for her since she took a lot of pounding in the past weeks, but I am not so sure. I think Obama will keeps it competitive even though he now will get more scrutiny from the media. Edwards will continue to get 15-18% of the vote but won't get more than this.
On the Republican side the primary it is wide open.
Huckabee made a very good showing in NH which keeps him very much alive, which is contrary to many pundits pre-Iowa. But he will need to keep this up as the scrutiny of his campaign continues.
Romney coming in second in both IA and NH keeps him in the front, but the heat is on for him to get a win. "Negative" campaigning may have influenced this second place in NH. (Note: Romney has won the most delegates overall.)
Giuliani continues to lose in these early primaries. His strategy seems to be ignore smaller states to focus on Florida which is made up ex-New Yorkers, where he is currently polling in front. This once front runner is now looking very vulnerable even though he does well in larger states.
McCain's victory in NH is what he needed. To be honest I agreed with many of the pundits in the fall that said McCain was no longer viable. NH was ripe for McCain and he has made an effort to reach out to Independents making the difference. McCain got a greater number of Independent voters than Obama, which was contrary to the expectation. This helped sure up his win tonight.
Next Tuesday is the Michigan Primary and the following Saturday will be the Nevada Caucus and the Republican South Carolina Primary. This will be non-stop through January right into Super Tuesday Feb 5th. Hold on this will be a bumpy ride and there will be more shifts in the GOP front runners.
This puts the GOP front runners as Huckabee (21), McCain (19.7), Giuliani (17.7), Romney (13.7), and Thompson (10.7). It is wide open for any of these guys. This is the average polling from Real Clear Politics.
Huckabee - won Iowa 3rd in NH and is polling out in front in SC, while holding tight to second place in MI and FL
McCain - won NH, polling third in MI and a distant second in SC but tonight's win could increase his chances
Giuliani - no wins or places yet but leading in FL and is tied with Romney in NV
Romney - second in both Iowa and NH, polling first in MI, tied for first in NV, but third in both SC and FL
Thompson - no wins and in fourth or fifth place in all of these early states
A lot can happen in the primary and I wouldn't count anyone out just yet. But by Feb 5th there will be a clear front runner.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Rate the Presidential Candidates
This has been a very difficult political primary for me and I know many of you. So in order to help myself and perhaps you in this process I developed a PRR (Presidential Rating Rubric).
I have gone back and forth regarding who I am supporting in the primary over the last 6-12 months never finding the ideal candidate. To be honest there was a point when I disliked all of them and was very frustrated. There was also another moment when I equally supported all of them except for Rudy (due to his pro-abortion and other anti-family record). Likewise this didn't help me in making the choice.
However this rubric helped me rate the candidates and gave me a basis to see who I thought was the best overall candidate. So let me explain it briefly and perhaps this will help you in making up your mind. I don't want to force your hand in this race - you need to decide but this can help focus your thinking.
Presidential Rating Rubric - I believe America is need of a leader who is moral, principled, right on the issues, and has a record to back this up. But we don't want someone who excels in one area but is utterly incompetent in another. We want the best overall candidate and this rubric looks at broad areas in order to rate a candidate for President of the United States.
Areas Evaluated in this rubric:
A. Founding Principles - does the candidate understand that America is unique? Does he/she understand that individuals have been given inalienable rights...gifts from God and not the state? And governments were established to preserve and protect these rights... our politics and the economy are in the hands of the people... etc.
B. Moral Leadership - Record and rhetoric on the non-negotiable issues. What is his/her stance on the culture of life, defense of marriage and the family.
C. Leadership - The ability and record to lead and get results. Principles and values are vital but can this candidate lead and get results on this? Have they run a business or been an executive official before?
D. Domestic Policy - Where does this candidate stand on taxes, education, health care, welfare etc.?
E. National Security & Terrorism - I believe this is part of the broader protection of life. A modern extension of being pro-life is protecting innocent Americans from terrorists.
F. Political Acumen - This should not be a deciding factor but ought to be a part of the consideration since we are not voting for an college professor but a political leader. Does this candidate look presidential? What is this candidate's ability to win elections, in fundraising, and in campaigning nationally?
The rubric rates each of these areas on a scale of 0-4 except for Moral Leadership which I scored on 0-7 scale. Then I considered the overall average of these areas. By weighing Moral Leadership it makes life the overarching issue without completely removing our prudential judgment in considering all the areas. Some candidates are pro-life but not as strong as others and this ought to be considered. Candidates with 100% pro-life record have greater opportunity to score high but also does not eliminate those who are more pro-life than say Hillary Clinton.
I am pro-life and for me this make Rudy an impossible choice in the Republican primary. But I don't believe we, pro-lifers are single issue voters. Life should only be the beginning or our basic requirement and the over arching issue. So how do we choose among imperfect candidates? I think we look at the overall competency of the candidates and judge them based on a standard.
This rubric requires work and research on your part . It is not going to tell you how to rate each candidate or each area this is your job. For this to work you need to research each candidate and hold each candidate to the same standard. This should not be used in a vaccum, however I think it can significantly help those who are struggling with whom to support.
Look at each area objectively and honestly one by one. Who does best overall? Who is your runner-up?
I doubt you will find anyone who is top in all, if you do you may need to cut back on drinking the campaign cool aid. Likewise there are probably very few who score zeros in every area. This is where the prudential judgement of an informed voter must be active.
So rate the candidates and let me know what you think. How does the rubric work for you? Was it helpful? Did the results surprise you? Are there areas you would add more weight to?
Download GOP Primary Rubric: /PRR.xls (ver 1.0)
I have gone back and forth regarding who I am supporting in the primary over the last 6-12 months never finding the ideal candidate. To be honest there was a point when I disliked all of them and was very frustrated. There was also another moment when I equally supported all of them except for Rudy (due to his pro-abortion and other anti-family record). Likewise this didn't help me in making the choice.
However this rubric helped me rate the candidates and gave me a basis to see who I thought was the best overall candidate. So let me explain it briefly and perhaps this will help you in making up your mind. I don't want to force your hand in this race - you need to decide but this can help focus your thinking.
Presidential Rating Rubric - I believe America is need of a leader who is moral, principled, right on the issues, and has a record to back this up. But we don't want someone who excels in one area but is utterly incompetent in another. We want the best overall candidate and this rubric looks at broad areas in order to rate a candidate for President of the United States.
Areas Evaluated in this rubric:
A. Founding Principles - does the candidate understand that America is unique? Does he/she understand that individuals have been given inalienable rights...gifts from God and not the state? And governments were established to preserve and protect these rights... our politics and the economy are in the hands of the people... etc.
B. Moral Leadership - Record and rhetoric on the non-negotiable issues. What is his/her stance on the culture of life, defense of marriage and the family.
C. Leadership - The ability and record to lead and get results. Principles and values are vital but can this candidate lead and get results on this? Have they run a business or been an executive official before?
D. Domestic Policy - Where does this candidate stand on taxes, education, health care, welfare etc.?
E. National Security & Terrorism - I believe this is part of the broader protection of life. A modern extension of being pro-life is protecting innocent Americans from terrorists.
F. Political Acumen - This should not be a deciding factor but ought to be a part of the consideration since we are not voting for an college professor but a political leader. Does this candidate look presidential? What is this candidate's ability to win elections, in fundraising, and in campaigning nationally?
The rubric rates each of these areas on a scale of 0-4 except for Moral Leadership which I scored on 0-7 scale. Then I considered the overall average of these areas. By weighing Moral Leadership it makes life the overarching issue without completely removing our prudential judgment in considering all the areas. Some candidates are pro-life but not as strong as others and this ought to be considered. Candidates with 100% pro-life record have greater opportunity to score high but also does not eliminate those who are more pro-life than say Hillary Clinton.
I am pro-life and for me this make Rudy an impossible choice in the Republican primary. But I don't believe we, pro-lifers are single issue voters. Life should only be the beginning or our basic requirement and the over arching issue. So how do we choose among imperfect candidates? I think we look at the overall competency of the candidates and judge them based on a standard.
This rubric requires work and research on your part . It is not going to tell you how to rate each candidate or each area this is your job. For this to work you need to research each candidate and hold each candidate to the same standard. This should not be used in a vaccum, however I think it can significantly help those who are struggling with whom to support.
Look at each area objectively and honestly one by one. Who does best overall? Who is your runner-up?
I doubt you will find anyone who is top in all, if you do you may need to cut back on drinking the campaign cool aid. Likewise there are probably very few who score zeros in every area. This is where the prudential judgement of an informed voter must be active.
So rate the candidates and let me know what you think. How does the rubric work for you? Was it helpful? Did the results surprise you? Are there areas you would add more weight to?
Download GOP Primary Rubric: /PRR.xls (ver 1.0)
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa Caucus
Clearly the most interesting outcome from Iowa is Hillary coming in third. I must admit this is something we prayed for - so you can thank us. I jokingly said this to friends who informed me that we were not alone in this prayer. Obama finished with 38% to Edwards' 30% and coming in third was Clinton at 29%.
As of today this is nothing more than a small set back but if this happens again in NH it could have a ripple affect for Hillary. According to Real Clear Politics the average of NH Polls Obama has 2.4 lead over Clinton. This will be interesting to watch.
Huckabee led the GOP pack with 34%, compared with 25% for Romney with Thompson and McCain tied at 13% each, and Ron Paul at 10%.
As of today this is nothing more than a small set back but if this happens again in NH it could have a ripple affect for Hillary. According to Real Clear Politics the average of NH Polls Obama has 2.4 lead over Clinton. This will be interesting to watch.
Huckabee led the GOP pack with 34%, compared with 25% for Romney with Thompson and McCain tied at 13% each, and Ron Paul at 10%.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Historical Perspective
November is election month in the United States. As this year’s political activity draws to a close, anticipation of next year’s presidential race ratchets up a notch. The questions surrounding Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani’s Catholic faith recall the boisterous history of Catholics in American politics.
In most of the colonies through most of early American history, Catholics were barred from participating in the political process. At the time of the Revolution, however, Catholics began taking an active part in political affairs. Charles Carroll was an early champion of independence and the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence. In the formation of the new nation, Catholic patricians Daniel Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons represented their states of Virginia and Pennsylvania at the constitutional convention and both signed the resulting Constitution... Read full article
In most of the colonies through most of early American history, Catholics were barred from participating in the political process. At the time of the Revolution, however, Catholics began taking an active part in political affairs. Charles Carroll was an early champion of independence and the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence. In the formation of the new nation, Catholic patricians Daniel Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons represented their states of Virginia and Pennsylvania at the constitutional convention and both signed the resulting Constitution... Read full article
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Primary Election Calendar
January 3—Iowa Caucus
January 5—Wyoming caucus
January 8—New Hampshire Primary
January 15—Michigan Primary (allowed on appeal)
January 19—Nevada Caucus / Republican South Carolina Primary
January 26—Democratic South Carolina Primary
January 29—Florida Primary
February 2―Maine caucus
February 5―Super Duper Tuesday: Primaries/caucuses for both parties in 19 states, plus three Democratic-only caucuses and one Republican-only primary
Source: Wikepedia
More Info: Republican Primaries & Democrat Primaries
January 5—Wyoming caucus
January 8—New Hampshire Primary
January 15—Michigan Primary (allowed on appeal)
January 19—Nevada Caucus / Republican South Carolina Primary
January 26—Democratic South Carolina Primary
January 29—Florida Primary
February 2―Maine caucus
February 5―Super Duper Tuesday: Primaries/caucuses for both parties in 19 states, plus three Democratic-only caucuses and one Republican-only primary
Source: Wikepedia
More Info: Republican Primaries & Democrat Primaries
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Begin Again
I have been asked by friends and collegues to begin a blog that would continue the discussion of politics and virtue. I welcome your feedback and thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
