a good measuring stick for politicians

As have we all, I've been seeing and hearing more and more hype about the presidential race. I don't know for sure and often try to stay out of the loop on such things, but I thought the next big election was still a year and a half away. Did I miss something? Did it get moved up to next month? I mean, there must be a good reason we should all care about all these minute details if they're being tossed around so much. Right?

Anyway, some time back this topic came up at the lunch table. Such discussions are often either boring as all heck, because some folks in the lunch crowd are hard-core ideologues capable of twisting any situation into an opportunity to support their homies and trash the other side, or quite interesting, because others in the crowd are more inclined to carry on intelligent discussion and make points that are worth pondering. This one was somewhere in the middle I'd say. But at one point our floor's new hire pointed out that any real leader will show leadership before he gets in a position which forces him to (such as president), thus proving himself to be more than a loyal and reliable follower. So he'll tend to have a track record that indicates not only consistency but a willingness to take charge and carry the flag for stuff instead of just join the throng. This may seem obvious, but it's worth mentioning because it shows that what one believes is nowhere near as important as one's willingness to stand up for those beliefs and take ownership of them whenever opportunity arises. And it is therefore a mark of any good leader.

So, using that as a measure of worthiness, let's look at the current slew of candidates. None of the Democratic candidates -- zero -- have shown that. All will talk about where they stand, but they can't say much about when they took that stance or how they were one of the leaders to stake out the position others later flocked to. For example, Edwards likes to claim "the poor" as his territory, but where's his walk to back up his talk? Heck, Barack doesn't even have a track record at all much less one of consistent leadership. Billary managed to butcher the only thing (health care) she's been asked to lead on. The rest stink as bad. I'll admit that Kucinich of all people gets some credit here, as he's not afraid to be unpopular and say what he thinks need to be said, but he also gets credit for being a total nutjob who is so out of touch with real issues and consequences he couldn't be trusted to run a 7-11 much less a developed country. None of the other Democrats have anything to speak of.

The Republicans as a whole are about the same. McCain has maybe shown some leadership here and there, but he's been all over the map ideologically and is far from a reliable conservative.* Fred Thompson is a joke when measured against this standard, having done nothing whatsoever of note during his political career and being better known for a brief side stint on a TV show than his years in office. Guys like Gingrich, Tommy Thompson, and Brownback have shown varying degrees of commitment to the party line but haven't distinguished themselves the way a gutsy leader would. At least Brownback has shown some defiance when it comes to moral issues and that alone is worth a bit, but we're talking about leadership and being proactive on issues, not just reacting to stuff like stem-cell research and right-to-life cases.

Others aren't quite as bad. Romney and Huckabee at least have some scattered accomplishments as governors, but to say Mitt's consistency isn't quite there would be to vastly understate his inability to take a solid stance for any length of time. And, well, Huck wrote a book about losing weight, but come on. We're talking about the presidency. We don't need a damn role model and encourager, we need a leader.

One might argue Giuliani has some cred here because of 9/11, but basically all he did was react and deal with a messy situation that was thrown at him. Seriously. Granted, he did a decent job of it, but that can't count for any proactive points. I'd look more at his willingness to call a spade a spade (his dissing of some NYC-funded modern art BS comes to mind) and be hard-nosed at times when dealing with opponents, but there's still not much to work with there. And as a leader, there's no telling where he'll land on too many issues after the political winds get done with him.

But two guys clearly stand out. And seriously, I didn't rig this whole thing just to put my favorite candidates on top of the heap. But I'm glad it does seem to show some consistency on my part in that issues I think are important also tend to be issues the guys I support are strong on. For one, Tom Tancredo has shown a very powerful willingness to get up in arms about what he thinks matters greatly and even isolate himself in unpopular positions for what he believes. He's of course solid on immigration issues and has led the charge there for some years, and he's shown consistency when dealing with other issues such as faith and economic matters. (I think he originally ran for office because he was disgusted with laws he had to deal with in the business world, but don't quote me on that.) And for the record, he was one of only three or so candidates at a Republican debate to raise his hand high when they were asked if they believed in creation. I don't remember the specifics of the question, but I know there were alarmingly few Republicans on the stage willing to claim that belief.

However, the one who is clearly leagues ahead of the others in this area is Ron Paul. He has been an unbreakable defender of the Constitution for many years and has shown a remarkable ability to think deep and address root issues as a politician,** which naturally has led to consistently rational and well-developed stances that demand consideration even from opposing views. Moreover, he's been waving the flag since he's been in office about the government's trampling of the Constitution on both well-known and ignored issues. He's even earned the nickname "Dr. No" for often being the lone opposing vote on bills he doesn't think are constitutional. He brings to mind the old "statesman" image of a guy willing to lay down anything for what he believed and what he thought had to be done. And yes, he was one of the ones besides Tancredo who raised his hand that night.

So...where does that leave me? This wouldn't be worth as much if I didn't admit my own bias by saying who I support. Tancredo and Paul are obviously the two who are up there, and believe it or not -- and some of you will love me for this one -- I'd rather see Paul as president for mainly the reasons outlined above. He's a reliable, proven leader who lets his views be known and sticks to them. Even if I don't agree with some of his stuff, such as his suggestion that we vacate Iraq post haste, I'm willing to concede such points in favor of his strengths. And he's great on immigration, which is Tancredo's pet issue. In other words, Paul covers Tancredo's bases and is easily the most fervent supporter of the Constitution to boot.

Unfortunately, as we all know, the populace in this country is far, far too dumb to think on Paul's level and give his ideas the consideration they deserve. And equally as dumb, people refuse to think outside the box and vote for who they think is best, choosing instead to "be relevant" and go with the flow. Am I the only conservative who finds it bizarre that those who would seemingly fear mob rule the most are some of its most ardent defenders when election time comes around? As I often say, truth is stranger than fiction.

----------
* I'm not trying to take sides here (though it's probably obvious anyway) but someone running as a conservative and claiming to be a conservative should actually be one.
** That of course doesn't win over crowds in debates, but he gets huge props for not degrading himself to the level of the populace by going for an emotional response and instead sticking to the issues and questions at hand. One instance that comes to mind is his calling out of America's historically bad foreign policy in the Middle East and how that certainly contributed in some way to what we've seen recently, and Giuliani's crowd-pleasing response that, basically, America was wrongly attacked and needn't be questioned further. Paul demonstrates an ability to think about root causes and understand deeper factors in play, and Giuliani goes straight for the mindless "we're right, they're wrong, end of story" patriotism that knows not what it stands for or why but that it simply is right. Roland Martin, CNN's "religious" commentator who seems to be reliably liberal, correctly points out that it was Paul who actually addressed something worth talking about and debating.