What Makes a Good Candidate?
One of the things that has been going around this election season thus far are "Candidate Match" quizzes. They work like this: you answer some questions about your own positions and it matches you with the candidate(s) whose positions match yours best. Lots of websites have them, and I've taken a few with varying results of everyone from Joe Biden to Duncan Hunter to John McCain (who at one time, was my archnemesis). The best one I've seen/played with is USA Today's, surprisingly.
The results for me depend a lot on the wording of the questions. My policy beliefs are very specific, as well as varied, and so in supporting any candidate, I'd probably be compromising on something somewhere. Not a big deal really, as I don't have much of a choice. The only person with whom I've ever agreed 100% is me, and even I don't always agree with myself over time (see above, even. I'm still not sold on McCain, but I'm not as angry about it).
So for me, these candidate "Dating" games aren't really all that conclusive. While you can adjust them for your priorities, they aren't adjusted for the candidates'. For example, say believe that Mitt Romney has the best position among Republicans on the environment. While he may mention it from time to time, it really is impossible to tell how much emphasis he would put on that issue if elected.
The other thing they can not bring into play is character. Though I disagree with him on many policy issues, I believe John McCain to be of excellent character. Character isn't measurable, can't be answered on a questionnaire, or otherwise distilled. About a year ago, I saw every Republican candidate for president (except John McCain, who declined to come, and Fred Thompson, who wasn't running yet) speak in person. And while character is not easily discerned through canned speeches, being in the same room with someone can often just give you a sense of who they are.
I value honesty and integrity in my presidential candidates to a degree that is about equal to their policy positions. That's why I like Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter, and am cold on Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. I may be able to support them if they get the nomination, but I'll have to make that decision then, not now.
The results for me depend a lot on the wording of the questions. My policy beliefs are very specific, as well as varied, and so in supporting any candidate, I'd probably be compromising on something somewhere. Not a big deal really, as I don't have much of a choice. The only person with whom I've ever agreed 100% is me, and even I don't always agree with myself over time (see above, even. I'm still not sold on McCain, but I'm not as angry about it).
So for me, these candidate "Dating" games aren't really all that conclusive. While you can adjust them for your priorities, they aren't adjusted for the candidates'. For example, say believe that Mitt Romney has the best position among Republicans on the environment. While he may mention it from time to time, it really is impossible to tell how much emphasis he would put on that issue if elected.
The other thing they can not bring into play is character. Though I disagree with him on many policy issues, I believe John McCain to be of excellent character. Character isn't measurable, can't be answered on a questionnaire, or otherwise distilled. About a year ago, I saw every Republican candidate for president (except John McCain, who declined to come, and Fred Thompson, who wasn't running yet) speak in person. And while character is not easily discerned through canned speeches, being in the same room with someone can often just give you a sense of who they are.
I value honesty and integrity in my presidential candidates to a degree that is about equal to their policy positions. That's why I like Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter, and am cold on Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. I may be able to support them if they get the nomination, but I'll have to make that decision then, not now.
Labels: 2008 Watch
| Permalink | 
