If I lived in South Carolina...

...I'd actually have a say in the Republican nomination for president. But since I live in Oregon, where our primary election is May 20, I have absolutely nothing to contribute (beyond my cash). So until they adopt my idea for a fair primary system, I have to pretend.

So who would I vote for? Honestly, I don't know the answer. If you put a gun to my head, I'd consider either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson, but that's due in equal part to their strengths vs. their opponents' weaknesses. Much of my support for both men lies in a line from a recent Townhall.com column by Al Cardenas, in which he talked about the broad-based coalition that brought the Reagan victories of the 1980s:

That coalition rested on a three legged stool, a message that the Republican party would support a strong national defense, a strong economy and strong families.
. . .
Yet today . . . some Republicans are considering junking the Reagan model and experimenting with a different approach. That approach comes down to one word – "electability." "Electability," a quality with little ideological meaning, has become a buzz word for surrogates seeking to make the case for a candidate who fails to unite our party and bring together all Republicans, including social conservatives.

I agree with this assessment, and Romney and Thompson come closest to uniting those three legs of the party.

For all my previous concerns about Romney, I've also seen things I like. As an evangelical voter, I have read and considered the idea that I should not consider Romney because of his faith, but I find those arguments short-sighted at best. We are not electing the nation's chaplain, we are electing its president, and I see nothing in Mitt Romney that suggests his faith differs from my own in the things it values in public life.

I also find myself sympathetic to Romney because of the, um, attention he's received over his faith -- attention that no other candidate has experienced. No one insisted that Joe Lieberman explain his Judaism when he ran with Al Gore in 2000. No one has demanded that Barack Obama explain his faith traditions, despite the Muslim influences of his childhood. No one has asked Hillary Clinton to shed light on how her faith might guide her in the Oval Office (and when she's broached the subject, the only thing preventing it from being a disaster is the media's willingness to pretend it didn't hear). Only Mitt Romney has received such demands. Mike Huckabee is catching up in that regard, particularly with requests (which he has refused) for his old sermons; but because his faith is a more mainstream flavor, I still think Romney stands alone in that category.

There is one significant exception to this statement, however. I reject the idea that a person's faith (or lack thereof) cannot be considered as one factor as he (or she) pursues the presidency. I believe that helped sink John Kerry in 2004 -- even though he was a self-proclaimed Catholic, voters of that faith identified better with the values of his opponent.

Perhaps the climate will change in the future, but if a Muslim ran for the presidency, his faith would be a key (and likely campaign-ending) factor in the race. And Americans would have every right (and, I would argue, obligation) to explore how his faith would impact his presidency. And if that is true for a Muslim candidate, it should be true of all faiths. I had been thinking this for a while, and then a few weeks ago on National Review Online, Andy McCarthy put into words what I had been thinking:

If a Muslim were running for high office, even if (however unlikely this seems) he never mentioned his religion or gave public indications of how he understood its doctrines, I would want to know his interpretation of jihad, and his views about such things as whether his first allegiance was to the Muslim umma or the U.S., whether sharia should be the law of the land, the authority of the governed to depart from Islamic doctrine, whether the Qur'an reflects the immutable word of God, whether Mohammed is the ideal role model, whether all people are equal regardless of gender or religion, etc. I think Islam is sufficiently troublesome, and we have enough experience with its being troublesome, that we are entitled to inquire and take these matters into account regardless of what signals the politician himself sends.

This is not just about Islam. If, say, a Christian presidential candidate believes the creation story as set down in Genesis is literally true, I'd like to know that, I'd like to know why he thinks that, and I'd like to probe what that says about how he regards science, history, epistemology, etc. It doesn't make his belief valid or invalid, but I think I'm entitled to evaluate how (if at all) his reasoning is likely to translate into governing.

There are objective reasons why some religions and some religious beliefs are unconventional. When a politician who wants to be president of the United States adheres to them, I don't see why we should hesitate to ask about what those beliefs are and why he thinks they are sensible. And when a politician holds himself out to be a person of deep religious belief, again I don't see why we should not probe. I don't think that's hostility to religion; I think it's common sense.

Others criticize Romney because of his recent conversion from pro-choice to pro-life. I find this difficult to criticize, as I was radically pro-choice less than 15 years ago. This is not to say Romney doesn't have his problems -- the life issue isn't the only thing he's changed his mind about, which causes some to distrust him. His embrace of the current administration causes hesitation in those who are fed up with Bush's missteps. His economic history has some holes (though some of the criticisms are downright silly, such as this drivel from the Wall Street Journal).

Fred Thompson is a tougher nut to crack. Nearly everything I read about him is appealing to me, Thompson's policy positions are similar to mine, yet it's like he's campaigning on Mars and the signal is very weak. I can't figure out if that's because the criticisms of Thompson are accurate (lazy, lacking energy, etc.) or if it's because the media aren't giving him attention due to his unwillingness to play their game. I like that he thumbs his nose at the "establishment," whether that be the political machine or the media, and runs his own show. I like his realistic approach -- if it's meant to be, he will be the candidate -- but I also think back to something my mother used to say: "God can't steer a parked car." Thompson may be destined as the candidate, but sometimes destiny happens in conjunction with busting your butt. I'm just waiting for some indication that Thompson's butt is sore.

That leads me to the other candidates, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Rudy Guiliani.

Mike Huckabee is the biggest problem for me, for a variety of reasons, but one of my biggest concerns -- believe it or not -- is his faith. Or rather, not his faith, but the way people react to it. This may be a surprise coming from a so-con like me, but my problem is spelled out nicely by a man I respect (but disagree with in this case): Randy Alcorn. The head of Eternal Perspective Ministries wrote (on his personal blog) of his support for Huckabee, but it was based almost entirely on how he makes Alcorn feel: Huckabee is winsome . . . witty . . . self-deprecating . . . authentic. It's clear that Huckabee's faith resonates with Alcorn, and that the candidate's position on life issues put him at the head of the class.

All those things are admirable. But if Candidate A is wrong on enough issues, and if other candidates are similarly committed to the issue most dear to you, it seems ludicrous to base your vote for Candidate A on how he comes across in a TV interview.

Don't get me wrong -- character is huge. A candidate who shares my faith is a big plus. Someone like Rudy Guiliani will not receive my primary election vote due to his position on social issues. But those are not the only reasons for a vote, and I feel like Alcorn typifies voters of faith who check the box next to the good Christian without reasoning through any other issues. My impression of Huckabee is that he seems to have made decisions without a guiding principle. His economic and crime decisions are all over the board, and that's bit him in the rear on his tax history and his decisions to pardon certain crimes.

(To contradict that last statement, however, I sometimes struggle with people who think they have to maintain a predetermined set of principles regardless of the circumstances. Life is not so black and white, and sometimes -- such as in the conflicting Republican values of small government and protection for the unborn -- doing the right thing precludes the use of predetermined principles.)

I like Rudy Guiliani's record on defense & crime, and his economic issues seem relatively sound. Like with Romney (and Huckabee), I take his liberal environment into account on the latter issue. But his social history is atrocious. If he wins the Republican nomination, I will support him because he will be better than his opponent on the issues, and that includes the issue of life -- the unborn have a better shot at protection under Guiliani than with any Democrat.

John McCain has a variety of issues that make it difficult for me to support him in the primary -- primarily the Gang of 14 deal and his votes against the Bush tax cuts -- but his national security credentials are unimpeachable, and I can live with his social positions.

Almost any Republican who wins the party nomination -- I make a definite exception for Alan Keyes, and I'll decide about Ron Paul if the unexpected happens -- will have my support in the general election. But only Romney and Thompson are in a position to get anything from me before then.

Quote of the Day: the next president

Mark DeMoss, a prominent evangelical and founder of the DeMoss Group public relations firm, wrote an open letter to evangelicals this week asking for their support of Mitt Romney for president. It was reprinted on Hugh Hewitt's website, and while I haven't made up my mind about Romney or any other Republican candidate, I found this section extremely critical (emphasis mine):

Perhaps most troubling to me is the idea I keep hearing that electing someone like Hillary Clinton would “actually be good for the conservative movement,” since it will “galvanize our forces, enable us to build our mailing lists and raise more money…therefore, I’m not going to vote for anyone this time around.” Well, I am not willing to risk negatively changing the Supreme Court, and our entire judicial system, for the next 30 years in exchange for building our conservative mailing lists and operating budgets for the next four or eight years. That, in my opinion, is selfish, short-sighted and dangerous.

Here is what I believe is at stake in this election: Someone is almost certain to appoint two, three, or four justices to the Supreme Court. Do we want that person to be Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney?

It all goes back to the question of whether voters should insist on purity in their candidates, or whether they can recognize that purity will never be found this side of heaven and choose the best winnable option. I recognize that, for instance, Rudy Guiliani would present an unpleasant choice for those who value the life of the unborn, but if he's the Republican nominee, it will mean the next president is either Guiliani or (most likely) Hillary Clinton; no third-party candidate will have a chance, so voting for Guiliani is a no-brainer.

And the same (though the unborn have a much better shot with him) goes for Mitt Romney.

I call bull

Earlier this week, John McCain and Rudy Guiliani announced they would not participate in the Iowa's Republican Straw Poll in August. That's August 2007, a full 15 months before next year's general election.

The official reason for both campaigns: they want to focus on the January caucuses. However, there's lots of speculation that this means McCain and Guiliani are trailing Mitt Romney badly in Iowa (Romney's internal polls reportedly show him with a 17-point lead) and don't want to hand Romney an early victory.

Of course, the Romney campaign is playing this up:

Our plan all along has been to play in the Iowa straw poll, and that hasn't changed. Campaigns that have decided to abandon Ames are likely doing so out of a recognition that their organizations are outmatched and their message falls flat with Republican voters in Iowa.

It looks as if we just beat those campaigns in Iowa two months earlier than we had planned on beating them.

Never mind that Romney's campaign is spending money hand over fist to make a good showing in Iowa. Never mind that the Straw Poll is hardly a harbinger of future success. Yes, President Bush won the 1999 poll by 10 points over Steve Forbes, but was followed by Elizabeth Dole and Gary Bauer. In 1987, Pat Robertson won the poll ahead of Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush, respectively. In 1995, Phil Gramm tied Dole.

Shortly after the inevitable Romney victory (heck, even before the poll!), you should expect to hear his supporters spin it as a huge victory and momentum booster. But they're wrong -- this is a lose-lose for Romney. If he posts a spectacular win, the press will dismiss it as a meaningless win against meaningless opposition. If he doesn't win by at least 25 points, the press will ridicule it as a failure in an open field. And if he somehow doesn't win at all, well, Romney might as well drop out.

Romney may win the nomination, but it will not have anything to do with winning the Iowa straw poll.

Quote of the Day: Rudy vs. Mitt

National Review's Rich Lowry, writing about last night's GOP debate, sums up the problem many people have with Rudy Guiliani:

Near the end, Romney talked about "the stool" of the Reagan coalition having three legs — national security, free-market economics, and moral issues. He's absolutely right about and it is extremely important to conservatism that that continue to be our coalition. Rudy, immediately afterward, talked about the "two big principles" that unite us, a vigorous national defense and the free market. He basically wants to cut one leg off the stool which is the greatest substantive weakness of his candidacy.

Quote of the Day: Guiliani on abortion

Rudy Guiliani, in this interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, comes across as someone who wants to be perceived as a conservative but really holds a fairly liberal position on the issue of abortion.

Hewitt asks Guiliani about how his Catholic faith has affected his life ("It’s been a very, very important part of my life"); turns the tables to ask if the pro-choice Guiliani can keep the Catholic majority enjoyed by President Bush against the Catholic John Kerry ("I hope that people look at the overall record . . . and realize that there’s not ever going to be agreement 100% with anybody that’s running for president"); and finally asks Guiliani to describe his position on abortion.

RG: My position is that I hate it, I don’t like it, I would advise anyone on a personal basis that they’d be better off using the option of adoption if…but ultimately, it’s an individual’s choice that I don’t see dealing with by trying to put somebody in jail over it.

HH: Would you like to see Roe V. Wade reversed, Mayor?

RG: I would [hesitates, not indicating agreement]…what I’d like to see are abortions reduced, and adoptions increased. And I reduced…abortions declined about 15, 16% while I was Mayor, I think more than the national average. But most importantly, adoptions went up over 60%.

HH: But would it be a good day or a bad day for America if Roe V. Wade was reversed by the Roberts’ Court?

RG: Oh, I think that’s something the Court has to decide.

HH: All right.

RG: And I think that I would appoint strict constructionists as judges, I would not have a litmus test, there’d be a general test, a philosophical test, and that is are you going to interpret the Constitution as best you can based on what it means, not what you’d like it to mean? I can see conservative, strict constructionist judges coming to the conclusion that it should be overturned, or I could see some of them coming to the conclusion that it’s been the law for a substantial period of time, it is precedent, and applying stare decisis. So it’s not a litmus test.

He absolutely refused to respond to the question on Roe v. Wade, instead taking a very Clinton-esque approach by emphasizing the abortion rate during his time as mayor of New York City. And even his defense of the abortion rate in NYC was interesting, in that he started to take credit for the reduction, but then changed his statement to note simply that it dropped while he was mayor.

His invocation of a classic liberal canard -- "it’s an individual’s choice that I don’t see dealing with by trying to put somebody in jail over it" -- makes me suspect that he hasn't given the pro-life position much thought. It implies that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would result in the jailing of women undergoing illegal abortions, but no serious pro-life advocate would advocate such a penalty.

And then, seeming to know he's dug himself a hole, he tries to throw a bone to pro-lifers by using the "strict constructionist judges" language of conservatives. But even then he refuses to be pinned down, saying that a real conservative judge could rule either way on Roe.

Can you feel Rudy Guiliani twist and turn?