But this year I'm tired and far more cynical. It's only a week into announcements and I can't even with my Facebook newsfeed. I feel, deeply, sorry for my friends over the past 12 years who have put up with seeing my insanely partisan politics everywhere social media allowed. Because, let's face it - none of the candidates that have announced, nor the proposed candidates, are ideal. At least not the electable ones.
Hillary Clinton:
And while I respect the fact that she has cut a path for women who follow her, my respect pretty much ends there. She's a political opportunist who will tell the electorate anything to get elected. Like her husband, she operates on public opinion rather than sound ideology, though i'm sure her personal ideology is pretty far to the left. Still, she is pragmatic. We wouldn't have to worry about her making insanely bad nuclear deals with Iran out of naive stupidity.
On the plus side, she's socially progressive. Well, let me qualify that. She is pro-gay marriage, though her husband is responsible not only for the Defense of Marriage Act, but also Don't Ask Don't Tell. I do not believe she was ever anti-gay rights, I think her previous stance against gay marriage was purely political. But that does call into question how well she can be believed. As for abortion, she's pro-choice, obviously. I'd be interested for her to clarify her position on late-term and partial birth abortion which I think all reasonable people can agree is barbaric.
One final point: Hillary is at the center of many scandals and controversies, and I think it's safe to assume that it is not all a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. She doesn't fuck around. And you can expect, with Hillary Clinton as President, there will be NO scaling back of the Federal Government. She supported both the Invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act before it was unpopular, and she has a legacy of secrecy as Secretary of State. No self respecting libertarian could even consider
her as an option.
Gary Johnson
He's in total opposition of the 'War on Drugs', supports reform of the penal system and abolition of victimless crimes.
He supports lower taxes, drastic spending cuts, decentralization of government, states' rights, and pro-growth economic policy. He wants balanced budget legislation immediately. He opposes corporate welfare and the lobbying system that buys monopolies from corrupt politicians.
He's socially progressive, supporting both same-sex marriage and abortion rights. In fact, he rated the highest score of ALL the candidates by the ACLU in advancement of civil liberties.
He opposes the Patriot Act and government spying (yay!) but also is a staunch anti-interventionist who wants to scale back all military programs including intelligence and nuclear capabilities (boo!). However, these are other things that he has no hope of actually achieving, so I can live with it. All in all, he ticks most of the boxes for me, but not all.
Rand Paul
There are things about Rand Paul that are very exciting. He does actually want to shrink government. That's not just a talking point with him to invigorate Millennials and pot smokers. He sees things that the political establishment has been ignoring for decades.
For instance, he's talking about poverty and race in America in the only productive way since the Civil Rights Movement. That is to say, government overreach, the War on Drugs, and the failed penal system unfairly hurts minorities and puts them at a life long disadvantage. Welfare will not fix these problems. Speech censorship, rioting, New York Times op-eds by elitists will not help poor minorities pull themselves out of poverty. The only thing that can is more opportunity, a freer market, and a penal system that does not contribute to more crime and punishment. Rand Paul is the only GOP candidate talking about these very real issues. That might be enough for many people to vote for him. I certainly can understand that.
He has other good points. He wants to rewrite the tax code. He has no hope of getting that through Congress, but at least he sees the problem and is willing to point it out to the rest of us. He wants a balanced budget and to audit the Fed. Again, not likely to happen, given the corruption of Congress, but all points are totally valid.
Libertarians will like that he's much less 'hawkish' on foreign policy. My belief is that, once he takes office he will realize his father's idea of international relations is totally out to lunch loony and he will come down on a more reasonable limited intervention stance.
All that said, he's not an ideal libertarian choice. He as said that 'gay marriage offends' him and a lot of people, though he's trying to wrap it in the flag that the government shouldn't use the word marriage for anyone. We all know, he didn't care about this until gay marriage became an issue. For abortion, of course, we can reasonably disagree about when life begins and what rights should be attributed to the unborn. That said, taking a hardline view on abortion, given that most of the population believes abortions should be safe and legal at least in the first trimester is going to be a political minefield come time for the general election. Expect PLENTY of 'War on Women' rhetoric with Rand Paul as the candidate.
Ted Cruz:
Cruz is the 'Tea Party' favorite, and by 'Tea Party' I don't mean the normal Tea Party people who just want lower taxes and less regulation. I mean the 'Obama's a Muslim and Communist' Tea Party. Unfortunately, after the media scared the normal ones off, that is what is left of the Tea Party.
To be fair, Ted Cruz has good points. He does want to cut government spending and lower taxes. He, rightly, wants to repeal Obamacare rather than trying to put lipstick on a pig. And, generally, he wants smaller government (though not in the case of telling people they can get married or have abortions).
But, often, he is tilting at windmills. Shutting down the government, while it never bothered me, was nothing more than a public temper tantrum and did no good. We are still a bloated state with too much spending and Obamacare is still here to stay. Principles are a wonderful thing, and I fully support sticking to them. However, standing by your principles to no result and for no purpose can be easily seen as stubborn heel digging. That is especially true when your manner is one of a petulant child more than an impassioned idealist.
But those are personal issues. All in all, Cruz is a bad candidate because he's stubbornly stuck in the 1950s in social policy. He'd expand the War on Drugs, even as he claims the Federal Government is bloated. Reforming the Prison system isn't even on his radar. And, as far as foreign policy, I wonder, often, if he is getting his view from watching too many movies. I don't think he has much chance, so I'll leave SNL to the mockery of him.
Marco Rubio:
One thing going for Rubio is that he's charismatic, likable, and exciting. That is something the GOP hasn't seen in a while. It is certainly a plus, going into an election against Hillary Clinton. He's principled but nuanced. He's young and idealistic without being unreasonable. He's a thinker. He doesn't jump on the bandwagon, as is best seen in his support of immigration reform that is sensitive to illegal immigrants.
He opposes gay marriage, but has said that he respects the Supreme Court's decision on the matter. That's about the best you are going to ever find in the GOP whose base is at least 20% people who are ardently against gay marriage. He is staunchly pro-life and painfully wrong about pot legalization.
He's a hawk. But that isn't unusual in this pack of candidates. I care far less about what the candidate thinks about foreign policy and far more about who they will appoint to make the real educated decisions about foreign policy and international relations. We'll see.
I do think he's electable, if he can reform how he discusses social issues, and avoid saying anything stupid.
Jeb Bush
I almost don't even want to give Jeb the space on this post, especially since I know the media will be working overtime to thrust him upon us. He's easy to beat after all. He's not really liked by anyone.
But undoubtedly, he will announce and in the interest of fairness, I have to talk about him.
He's even more 'moderate' than his brother if by 'moderate' you mean willing to cross party lines to be wrong about nearly everything.
While he supports school choice (yay!) he also is an ardent supporter of common core (boo!) which is as terrible an idea as he's brother's 'No Child Left Behind'. A federal standard on education will not make it better, only more regulated. The two are not equal.
He also is a social conservative, though, perhaps not as conservative as some of his rivals...at least he knows better than to talk openly about it, and for that he gets a rare compliment.
Hey, in reality, Jeb isn't so awful, but he's suffering my criticism because I know very well that the media will be hard at work getting him the nomination to make Clinton's chances at the Presidency better. Jeb is as exciting as a rock with even less exciting policy.
Rick Santorum (just for fun):
I can't stand the guy, but I honestly hope he throws his hat in the ring. It might take some heat away from the other candidates on social issues which is the noose around the GOPs neck. He's out to lunch and living in a different decade. Yes, Rick...we know you love Jesus and Jesus hates gays, abortions, birth control, etc. Now, sit down and shut up. :)
He actually isn't bad on SOME issues, but his social policy and advocacy for it is so upsetting you don't even care.
THE PERFECT CANDIDATE (In my humble opinion):
The economic and social policy of Gary Johnson, with special attention to protecting viable fetuses. The charisma, electability, and immigration policy of Marco Rubio. The humor and developing foreign policy of Rand Paul. The tenacity of Hillary Clinton.
When can we have THAT candidate?
