The (depressing) state of the Presidential race

I recorded Thursday night’s presidential debate so that I could watch it last night (MSNBC transcript, Part 1).  I was hoping to see and hear enough to end my neutrality and make an endorsement in the race.

No such luck.

In fact, I was more disturbed by the state of the race after I saw the debate than before.  I drifted from candidate to candidate during the debate, only to have the candidates themselves remind me why I stayed away from them in the first place.

I’ve mentioned my issues with Romney before, but he has presented himself as the most right-wing candidate in the race.  That didn’t explain this (Part 12):

I do support the Second Amendment. And I believe that this is an individual right of citizens and not a right of government. And I hope the Supreme Court reaches that same conclusion.

I also, like the president, would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that . . .

Hey, Mitt, “like the President” is not exactly the best line to use these days.  More to the point, as one who really does support Amendment 2, I’m pretty certain that does not included supporting an “assault weapons ban”  I know it doesn’t to me.

I’ll also admit McCain helped me stay away from Romney.  This McCain line on Iraq - ”There were others that called for a phased or secret withdrawal” – was a subtle shot aimed squarely at the Massachusetts Governor.

Giuliani has also intrigued me, particularly with his tax-cutting record in New York City and his ability to turn that city around.  That’s why his sudden support for a “national catastrophic fund” (sudden as in he never mentioned it until Florida became a must-win for him) was so depressing (Part 12).  He made McCain look like a supporter of limited government by comparison.

In fact, I found myself repeatedly drawn to McCain – only to have McCain himself swat me away.  The biggest problems I had were his insistence on a cap-and-trade scheme for “global warming” (Page 14) and his list of economic advisers (Jack Kemp and Phil Gramm are terrific, of course, but Warren Rudman?  Yikes!  Part 12).

I even started to question my wisdom of dedicating an entire blog site to stop Mike Huckabee; the Huckster was kind enough to erase my doubts on that one with an awful “prebate” notion that would effectively make every single working-class and middle-class American dependent on the government for their standard of living (Part 11).

As for Ron Paul, well, he’s Ron Paul.  Sadly, that means he can’t answer a question without ripping the WBK War (Part 4).

Thus, by debate’s end, while I did have a reason why I could vote for any of the candidates (except, oddly enough, Romney), I also had plenty of reasons not to vote for them (in the primary, that is – all five would be superior to the Democrats in the general election, Paul included).  The reaction from the rest of the ODBA makes it fairly clear I’m not alone.

There is one thing of which I’m certain: the GOP base will be badly demoralized – no matter who the nominee is.  Romney has a trust issue a mile long – made even worse by his doublespeak on gun rights; McCain is on the wrongside on some fundamental issues (political speech and “global warming”), as is Giuliani (abortion and gun rights), Huckabee (government spending), and Paul (the WBK War).  Meanwhile, on the one issue that has most of the Republican base up in arms (illegal immigration), all of them (save Paul) were within the margin of error of McCain’s amnesty position in 2006.  They would all like us to believe they have seen the light (except McCain, who has the valor of being honest on this one).

In short, the typical Republican voter will need something extra to be encouraged to vote – and volunteer – for the Republican ticket.  I’ll explain why I think that, and how it impacts Virginia, in later posts.