Looking ahead to 2008

Lately I've been obsessing about 2008. The electoral disaster of last month is part of it; winning is a great deal more pleasant than losing, and I'd prefer to do the former next time out, rather than the latter. But the truly odd direction in which things seem to be developing also attract my attention at this early stage even more than is usually the case for a political junkie like me.

On the Democratic side, I continue to be convinced that Hillary Clinton will lose if nominated (Dick Morris to the contrary). No candidate who starts out with Hillary's negative numbers can be elected. In fact, I wonder whether she will even be nominated. Barak Obama, in my opinion, isn't ready to wage a credible campaign for the White House; Evan Bayh and Mark Warner have opted out. Bill Richardson is somebody to watch, and Al Gore may yet rave his way to the nomination should he choose to make the effort.

But my money right now is on John Edwards. He is articulate, well-known, and shares a quality with every Democrat elected to the White House since 1964: he's a Southerner. Beware John Edwards!

Meanwhile, on the side of the angels, I am not particularly impressed by the huge lead in the polls enjoyed by Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. They mostly register name recognition. When Republican caucus and primary voters become aware of Rudy's positions on abortion and other social issues, his candidacy will melt away like the last snow of winter. I would be amazed if he is still viable after New Hampshire.

McCain, a candidate with strong qualifications especially in the national security arena, shares Giuliani's aura of electability (misleading, I believe, in Giuliani's case; I am hardly the most rigid conservative in the Republican party, and will not vote for Rudy in November if he is the nominee. I do not believe that he can carry the base- and if that is the case, how can he win the election?). But McCain is strongly disliked by a great many conservatives. Frankly, I'm pragmatic enough that I could buy McCain if it were not for his utterly unacceptable position on fetal stem cell research, which is a deal-breaker for me. If he were nominated, I would probably hold my nose and vote for McCain, but I would rather not face that option. McCain's positions on fetal stem cell research and abortion are mutually exclusive, logically, and it's troubling that he apparently doesn't see it. And my gut tells me that McCain's candidacy isn't going anywhere.

Mitt Romney's Mormonism, if anything, predisposes me in his favor. As a Lutheran who believes in the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, I relish the opportunity to assert the point that it is simply not important that a president be a Christian to fulfill God's assigned role of enforcing justice- a point on which many so-called "evangelicals" are confused. But his experience in government is limited to a single term as governor of Massachusetts, and his credentials are simply not that impressive. He is a smart man, and by all accounts a quick study, but somehow when I look at Mitt Romney I'm reminded of his dad, whose own candidacy for the White House went down in flames in 1968 when he chose to express his dissent from the Johnson administration's policy in Vietnam by claiming to have been "brainwashed" by administration briefings on the subject. I'm not sure Mitt is politically experienced and sophisticated enough to avoid inserting his foot into his mouth just as disastrously. I haven't ruled him out, but something about him makes me nervous despite his charisma and compelling personality.

Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas is also a compelling speaker. Unfortunately, his experience is also limited to having been governor of a small state, and he once was punked into writing a letter of condolence to the Canadian government concerning the alleged melting of an important government building said to have been made of ice. Then, too, there have been a series of minor and rather insubstantial ethical questions raised about Huckabee which- though of dubious merit- still would be a distraction at a time when the electorate is especially sensitive about corruption in government. He is not afraid to be compassionate as well as conservative, though- and that's a major factor I'm looking for as a conservative with a social conscience. Also, his status as a southern governor is a major plus, electabilty-wise. Republicans cannot afford Democratic inroads in the South, which last month's elections demonstrate are far from impossible.

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, who recently chose to spend some time behind bars in order to learn about what life in prison is like, also displays a healthy combination of social conservatism and a social conscience. I have it on good authority that one of his aides is heavily into Opus Dei, the ultra-conservative Catholic organization whose members do such things as wearing barbed wire under their clothing. This sort of thing makes me nervous. But I do like what I see of Brownback, who seems to be a genuine man of conscience. How formidable a nominee he'd be, I don't know. And like Huckabee, he doesn't seem to have done much here in Iowa so far, and it's getting late. Romney has the strongest organization here, and time is running out. Talented operatives are still out there to be recruited, but they won't be for long.

My dream candidate is former senator and current Law and Order district attorney Fred Thompson. Thompson- who played a key role in the Senate Watergate investigation as Republican council ("What did the President know, and when did he know it?" is said to be a question he personally framed) is about as impressive a debater as I've ever seen- and a man who radiates authority. I'd back Thompson in a heartbeat if he ran. Alas, he isn't going to.

One guy I have my eye on is a man who has not only been a large-state governor, but one with excellent national security credentials: former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore. Following Senator George Allen's defeat, talk about Gilmore running for president has begun to be heard, and there is even a movement to draft him. But again, time is running out- and if he's going to make his move, he'd better move fast. I have serious doubts about whether anybody not already competitive here in Iowa will be able to win the race later on.

So I continue to observe, and hope that a social conservative with a social conscience- ideally, a Southern governor or former Southern governor with national security credentials- will emerge. So far, nobody on the scene meets all my qualifications. So I wait, and watch, and hope that somebody who does comes forward. If not, at some point I'll have to do what citizens of a democracy usually do, and make the best choice I can- not so much as a matter of choosing the least of several evils as of dealing with the implications of living in a pluralistic society in an imperfect world.

Romney, at the moment, looks to me like the nominee.