DANIEL Ranks the Candidates

You can view last night's debate here. Also, I caught the debate on Foxnews tonight...my reflections....

I like the format...the staged high school popularity contests "moderated" by self-important liberals were farcical imitations of serious discussions. In these last two debates, we were actually able to hear the candidates talk ideas, though I do wish there were more of them.

When asked about principles last night, here's what they said:

McCain - military service, the transcendent nature of our war with radical Islam, cites Declaration
Romney -- family, principles of an "eternal nature", importance of strengthening families, economy and military. Strong in all areas. I, for one, don't want the federal government attempting to "strengthen" my family.
Giuliani -- Safety. Cited Reagan.
Huckabee -- Not policies, principles. Cited Declaration, humans created equal. Rights come from God, not government.
Thompson -- First principles based upon Constitution. Goes on with a very important explanation of the Constitutional principles. Something that no other candidate does.
Paul -- Peace and Prosperity

My take on the candidates:

Huckabee -- he says good things (strong military, secure the border, etc.). You can see Newt's influence here and there (large monetary incentives for energy inventions). He cited the Declaration when asked about principles. However, he's having a hard time coalescing his record with his current rhetoric. He was nailed on the immigration issue when he tried to explain that he wasn't punishing the children with his now-tougher stance on illegal immigration. When asked if he could honestly say he is ready to lead given his lack of foreign policy experience, he gave answers that shows that he indeed, has no foreign policy experience. When talking about health care, he went on about prevention and said the system is upside-down. Ok, so what's the plan? Nothing.

Romney -- The Foxnews focus group was all about Romney. They saw him as very convincing. Much talk about change and leadership from all the candidates, but especially Romney. He emphasized his executive experience, saying that we don't need experts, but leaders. He played the change card from outside Washington.

McCain -- says that he is an agent of change within the government and has been for twenty years. He said that Americans want "leadership" not "management." He actually mentioned McCain-Feingold at this debate...that's one piece of history that he probably should not have brought up. He talked about his leadership in the military and his breadth of experience in foreign policy. He repeated how he was ahead of the curve on the Iraq surge. I think that he and Thompson are the most knowledgeable candidates on foreign policy.

Thompson -- I think obviously the most knowledgeable and committed to Constitutional principles. The others never even bring it up. He explained well-thought out plans to address social security, health care, tax policy, illegal immigration and homeland security. He was like a professor explaining to Huck about the habeas corpus rights that enemy combatants would receive if they were detained at Leavenworth, rather than Guantanamo (which Huck said should be closed down).

Giuliani -- I don't have much time for him. I respect him for what he did in New York and would vote for him if he was the nominee, but he seems to me to be a hedonist whose highest principle is safety.

They talked about the Fair Tax -- Thompson made the point that it's not a bad idea, but that it would require a Constitutional Amendment to ensure that the income tax never comes back. Instead, he proposes an option for the taxpayer that is flatter and much more easily workable.

So, which candidate meets The King's Academy's standard of leadership? The standards of

• knowledge - a firm grasp of founding principles, current issues facing the nation and engaging ideas.
  
• wisdom -- willingness to apply founding principles, able to predict consequences of decisions and demonstrated ability to act toward results in line with principles.
  
• and godly character (I'm not guessing at spiritual condition, but a publicly demonstrated quality of integrity).

Now, for the time you've been waiting for since reading the title of the post... See my terribly scientific and thoroughly unbiased ranking here on a scale of 1-10 on these three criteria.

After this debate, I still stick to my original analysis that any of these guys will be acceptable as President. They are not all leaders, but they would manage well.

For two good analyses, see Michelle Malkin and the guys at Powerline.

Huckabeeing Examined

An interesting take on Huck from his home state.

HT: NRO

The Language Barrier

Why has Mike skyrocketed in recent weeks? I think I know, and it has little to do with a national sales tax or his positions on immigration, taxes or foreign policy.

He speaks our language. As evangelicals, we have an ear for particular phrases and thoughts that seem to go together naturally (ex. showing that the crux of the evolution debate is a debate over God's existence, emphasizing the sanctity of life at all levels). When we listen to those who are obviously not one of us, it is painfully obvious, and generally we humor the person politely, but know that he is not one of us.

At PBU, there was a woman who spoke in chapel. She was there to give out an award, I don't remember exactly what it was for. But instead of merely giving out the award, she attempted to take a whole assembly of Bible college students through several passages of Scripture. Now, if I was presenting an award to students at the physics department of any college or university, you can bet your britches I am NOT going to be discussing string theory from the stage. After three words, they just know that you don't.

This is what she did and it was painfully obvious as she took passages out of context and made them say things that fit the purpose of her award, but not the intent of the passage.

On another note, I have been complimented on my inflection when I speak what little Spanish I know. When I was on a mission trip in Venezuela, I boldly ordered a hamburger (so far so good), pointed at a napkin and said "Dame la cerveza, por favor", which translated means, "Please hand me the beer." They smiled and handed me the "servieta." They knew. The inflection sounded good, but the words didn't fit.

Listening to secularists espouse "values" is bit like these two varying examples. One, the words are the right words, but the inflection or pacing or something is off. Two, the words just don't fit. For some reason, religion has come back into vogue, and the secularist politicians know when it's time to get on the catwalk, sashay with proclamations of belief in God and dazzle you with their wise and tolerant embrace of "faith", (all the while campaigning in churches without the slightest apprehension while the ACLU intimidates conservative churches over voter guides).

Well, Huck does not have that problem. He says things the way I'd say them. When he made the point that if one can just set aside faith when he assumes office it is no faith at all, he might have read some of my writing (I flatter myself).

He firmly understands the sanctity of life and speaks well in support of it.

But...

I clearly remember when I was 3, that there was a gentleman who wooed evangelicals with his Southern Baptist charm and was elected with great hopes. In my book, that man is running neck and neck with Buchanan for "worst...ever."

National Review had this to say

He wants to anthropomorphize international relations and bring a Christian commitment to the Golden Rule to our affairs with other nations. As he told the Des Moines Register the other day, “You treat others the way you’d like to be treated. That’s to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries.”

This is deeply naïve. Countries aren’t people, and the world is more dangerous than a Sunday church social. Threats, deception, and — as a last resort — violence must play a role in international relations. Differences cannot always be worked out through sweet persuasion. A U.S. president who doesn’t realize this will repeat the experience of President Jimmy Carter at his most ineffectual.

At The King's Academy, we emphasize godly character...but also knowledge and wisdom. I have no doubt that he is one of us...I don't doubt his sincerity, just like I don't doubt Carter's. I will not vote for Huck in the primaries as the specter of another Carter gives me the willies.

When the general election comes just remember, though he's from Arkansas...he's no Clinton.