Thoughts on the top 8 presidential candidates

My previous post on immigration got me thinking about what I think about the candidates overall. Here are some thoughts, from least desirable to most.

Not surprisingly, Democrats lead the list for me. I've generally refrained from commenting on that race, since it's not my party and they can nominate whoever they like. I'll try to not be relentlessly negative about any of them (but it's pretty hard!).

Hillary Clinton
An argument was being made a few months ago in conservative circles that Hillary would be the most preferable Democrat to be president. The reasoning was that she was such a tough, pragmatic SOB (if that can be used to describe a woman), that she'd at least not be a naive Jimmy Carter-type. That's true, but I just can't stand her. She's overly ambitious, calculating, corrupt, and dishonest, and I don't want to see her rewarded with the presidency. Plus, four more years of Bill back in the White House? The thought is nauseating. I'd crawl over broken glass to vote against her (unless it's against McCain, as I write below).

John Edwards
It's tough between him and Obama, but Edwards is so patently phony that no one really knows what he stands for. It's breathtaking that Mitt Romney gets pounded for this but Edwards doesn't. When he was in the Senate he was a left-leaning southern Democrat, meaning he was only mildly ideological and had a moderate streak. Now he's got that silly act of Two Americas and such. What a load; consider that with obesity being the big nutritional issue among poor people, how does anyone believe his stories about kids going to bed hungry? He's also ridiculously hypocritical in his personal life. One positive is his mildly attractive daughter.

Barack Obama
The tallest midget. He's your standard big-city liberal on everything, but at least he's honest about it. The danger is in his horribly naive foreign policy views. If you liked what Jimmy Carter was doing with the Soviets and Iran, you'll love this guy. For me it comes down to him being a good, honest, non-hypocritical guy, and since the views of these three are so similar, that's enough for me.

John McCain
He's got some strengths (spending, defense, social stuff), but he's spent his entire career kicking his party in the teeth for approval from the New York Times and others in the media. That just cannot be rewarded with that party's nomination. Plus, immigration's my #1 issue and he's a total failure there. He would cause tremendous damage to the Republican Party brand. I'd rather stay home than ever cast a ballot for him. Republican strategist Patrick Ruffini has more on his history.

Mike Huckabee
On immigration, it's a mystery on what he'd do. He's pretty awful on everything else. His record as governor on spending and taxes is abysmal. He's a big nanny-stater who wants a national indoor smoking ban. Whether or not you like cigarette smoke, is it the federal government's business to regulate it? The only reason I have him above McCain is immigration, but his instincts on the role of government are like those of a standard Democrat. His foreign policy views are only surpassed on the Carter scale by Obama. He'd also damage the party, but he fact that I'd prefer him to McCain shows just how much I dislike McCain.

Rudy Giuliani
He's crappy on immigration, but he'd kick a lot of ass all over terrorists and the states that support them. If you think Bush is a warmonger, he's like Ghandi compared to Rudy. Yeah, he's crappy on social issues, but I don't care much about those. He promises to appoint originalist judges anyway, which is by far the most important thing that can be done in that area. His instincts are for smaller government, too, so he'd be good enough there for me.

Mitt Romney
I actually think he'd be a very good president, but I worry about his electability. I'm also not sure about his conservative bona fides, but since he's Mormon I assume that he moved to the left to win in Massachusetts and that he's mainly conservative. He's succeeded in everything he's done, and his temperament and management style is excellent from everything I've read. I'm somewhat unsure how he would approach problems given his business background; would he come from a conservative, small-government point of view, or would he try to tackle the issue in a non-ideological way? I prefer the first way, so that makes me somewhat wary.

Fred Thompson
Anybody who reads this blog knows I like Fred. The first thing he thinks when he comes across a problem is, "Should the federal government be doing this?" That seals it for me.

Others:

Joe Biden and Chris Dodd - Wouldn't be bad (compared to the other Democrats), since they are at least serious on big issues.

Other Democrats - Pretty bad

Duncan Hunter - Great

Ron Paul - Mild thumbs down. On domestic issues, he gives me wet dreams. On foreign policy, he's worse than everybody except Dennis Kucinich.

In review, fully 40% of the big Republican contenders are really bad. Please, Iowa and New Hampshire, do we have to wait until South Carolina to fix things?