Category: General

This has been an interesting investigation. I knew, based on the fact that Dennis Kucinich ran in 2004, that this was a candidate who was serious. I found that personally I could probably like Dennis. His position in opposition to Iraq has been a consistent hallmark for Dennis so there was no doubt in my mind that it was not a matter of popularity.

Looking at his positions on various issues, I am forced to conclude that Kucinich is not the right man for the job in 2008. He wants to decriminalize marijuana, put us in more debt by guaranteeing a full retirement through social security at age 65 for everyone, leave NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, and he thinks that the federal government can guarantee a quality education through college for all Americans.

I was surprised to discover, after all those points of disagreement, that his position on abortion is quite similar to mine. He believes that abortion is a blight on society but that there are some situations where it should be a medical option. Combining that with a skepticism that the congress would ever bring the abortion decision to an up or down vote, Kucinich believe that there are many things that we can and should do to help reduce the number of abortions in our nation (including abstinence education).

Dennis Kucinich is a candidate for all the right reasons and I believe him to be a man of integrity, but I do not endorse him for President in 2008.

With positions such as the desire to institute the draft for the Iraq war, I was not sure if I could consider Michael Smith as a legitimate candidate. Further investigation showed me a man who is as realistic about his candidacy as he is serious about it – neither he nor I fail to recognize that his candidacy is limited to his home state of Oregon.

I commend him as a person for trying to do something, but I can’t endorse him as a candidate.

UPDATE 12/29/06: In case anyone sees this without seeing the comments – Michael Smith has dropped his position of supporting a draft. I think that was a wise move.

Mike Gravel is a candidate with lots of experience in politics as an ex-senator from Alaska. He even tried to get nominated as a vice-presidential candidate earlier in his career.

I heartily endorse Mike Gravel as a candidate for President, with the hope that he might help to keep the discussion from becoming stale. Realistically, he has no chance of getting on the ballot. There are two reasons for this: first, he’s from Alaska which only has 3 electoral votes; second, he is 76 years old. By the time he could get elected he would be 78. To put that in perspective – Ronald Reagan was our oldest president and he was 77 when he finished his second term. Mike Gravel would be 78 before he started his first term and would be 8082 (I got lazy – as noted in the comments) before his term ended. We will never have an octogenarian as President unless half the population of the United States is over 50.

Steve Kubby is running for president. That’s the only “positive” thing I can say here. Actually, I was wrong, he has the best looking MySpace page I have ever seen – it actually fails to look like psychedelic vision out of a drug-induced dream.

He waves the flag of his home state by giving plenty of time to his position related to medical marajuana. (We are a long way from that being a major issue in national politics.) He advocates an immediate pullout from Iraq and decries illegal immigration.

In short, Kubby is serious about his candidacy, but he is not a serious candidate. If he became the president, the United States would begin to look as quirky and unstable to the outside world as Venezuela has come to look under the presidency of Hugo Chavez. I don’t mean to imply that Kubby is like Chavez, only that he is equally far from the mainstream.

While I think that most voters would like to see a change in our political system, they don’t want this kind of change. Kubby will get up to 5% of the vote in California and not more than 1% in any other state where he can get on the ballot.

I cannot even think of endorsing such a “candidate”.

I was not sure what to expect from John Cox when I started me research. I had never heard of him, and without any of the titles in front of his name that are so common among the well known candidates (Governor, Senator, Representative) I half expected to find that he was one of those people who has a message but will be happy if they can just get that message on the evening news sometime because of their campaign.

What I found was a very serious, dedicated candidate who really believes in his message. He has years of experience in various political areas, just none that are in the spotlight so much as where better known candidates have usually been.

Instead of finding a man who had ideas and dreams, I found a man who had experience in making things happen in his own life and in the lives of people around him. I believe that he is a candidate who will not be overwhelmed by the office if he should win the presidency.

Having been pleasantly surprised in my findings, I still had to decide if I would endorse John Cox for president. My conclusion is that – although I do believe that he could fill the office of the president – I do not believe that he is the type of man that this country needs at this time.

His tone is slightly too divisive and idealistic. We need someone who can be grounded in their morals and pragmatic in their direction. Some of John’s ideas are not pragmatic. Others are good, but not focused on the issues that are the most important to us today.