As Campaign Season Begins, Only One Candidate Is Viewed Favorably by the Majority of Voters

And that candidate is John McCain.

I hadn't endorsed any candidate, even though Dana had asked all his contributors if they wished to do so. I just haven't been enthusiastic about any of the potential Republican candidates (and I vowed back in 2000 I would never again vote for a Democrat, so that is out of the question).

I liked Mike Huckabee for a while, but, as Rush Limbaugh says, he's no conservative. I drew that conclusion a couple of months ago, largely based on his views on immigration and taxation. But for me, it's more than that. While I liked Huckabee's populist persona, his inexperience in foreigh affairs has become painfully obvious through the past few weeks. This isn't to say that lack of experience in foreign affairs disqualifies anyone--I voted for George Bush in 2000 regardless of his inexperience. But in the dangerous world we live in, we need someone who has the tenacity to deal with both Iran and Pakistan.

Before Huckabee, I sort of liked Rudy Giuliani, largely because I saw him as a candidate who could beat Hillary Clinton. I liked the fact that, as mayor of New York, he had some executive experience and seemed to appreciate the importance of defense in a post-9/11 world. But his pro-choice stance and other more liberal social values disturb me. This is not to say I wouldn't be comfortable voting for Giuliani in the general election (I would), but I always felt that primaries were the time to vote for the person you really wanted, even if they didn't have the best chance.

I've never understood the Mitt Romney phenomenon, no matter how hard Hugh Hewitt pushes him. Are they paying Hugh now? The main reason I dislike Romney is that his nasty ads say much about how I think he would govern. The attacks on Huckabee and others is unbecoming and deceitful. Perhaps that's what politics is about, but I'm skeptical. And he reminds me too much of a Phil Hartman character.

Fred Thompson? I never watched Law & Order, so that hasn't impressed me. And, to be honest, Fred's never seemed to really want to be president; not badly enough to work at it, anyway. He may have all the right values, but he's less than inspiring as a speaker and a campaigner than I'd like.

Ron Paul? I'm from Texas and have watched Ron Paul run as a leftwing wacko for my entire adult life. He's no Republican, regardless of what he's calling himself now (that's just to get elected in Republican Texas). I think I saw some tattered "Ron Paul, Libertarian" bumperstickers on a light pole on Hulen Street yesterday. Sorry, Ron, being anti-Iraq War disqualifies you in my book.

And while there are other 2d tier candidates who have the right answers (Duncan Hunter, for example), there's no way they can win the election.

So that leaves John McCain.

I dislike McCain's position on immigration reform and campaign finance. And I don't think waterboarding is torture. Those are big issues to me. But, just like the Rasmussen poll referenced at the beginning of this post, I find McCain to be the most honorable candidate we've got. He also seems to be the only candidate (and I mean the ONLY candidate) who seems to understand the precarious relationship we have with the Middle East. He also understands the precarious relationship we have with the Democrats.

It's his ability to work with Democrats which finally made me start looking seriously at McCain. If a Republican wins the White House this year, he will most likely have a Democratic Congress to deal with. I'd like to see a President who can work with Congress to pass respectable legislation and not someone who simply knows how to wield a veto pen (thank God George Bush finally discovered that). That may sound like a flimsy reason to vote for someone--that I think he can get things done--but it's not unimportant. And besides, it is the reason I decided I'll vote McCain in the primaries.