A brief aside for the day

Marcie and I do appreciate feedback, whether it is here on the site, or in e-mails. However I'd like to address the recent batch we've received in response to our new column at Common Conservative. The column asked a simple question that we believe we answered:

Do the "also-rans" in the field of GOP candidates have what it takes to win the White House?

I believe wewere fair to each candidate. We broke down their strengths and their weaknesses. This is no different than the columns we wrote on rudy Giuliani, Mitt romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. the reason they each received a separate column is because they are front-runners, first and foremost, and that they have a history people can draw upon. The "also-rans" really don't have much of a history that warrants a full column.

Some criticism has come from Tancredo supporters, hunter supporters, and even a couple condescending Brownback supporters (for the last time, he DID change his vote on cloture for shamnesty. Don't believe it? Then read the roll call yourselves) that still choose to disbelieve facts presented to them.

The majority of people complaining about our piece comes in the form of Ron Paul supporters. We don't berate or demean those supporting the man, but in all honesty he doesn't have a shot. We don't care how much money he's raised (still dwarfed by Rudy and Mitt), or how much support he has (registering 1% to 3% depending on the straw polls you read), he has as much of a chance of getting the nomination as the rest of the pack does, minus the frontrunners. Aside from some of the nuttier statements he's made regarding what is and isn't constitutional, he appears to be a pretty decent guy. But in our opinion, he just doesn't have what it takes to hold onto the White House for the GOP.

The 2008 election is going to be one of those that's going to get nasty and that's because there is so much at stake for the nation. Our war with radical Islam will not end when President Bush leaves office. And while things in Iraq may turn enough for us to begin a gradual drawdown, the war in the region won't be over. Looming on the horizon are still countries like Syria and Iran, and the power struggle between Fatah and Hamas in Israel is only going to get worse. We need a strong commander-in-chief that recognizes these situations, and will do their best to assure that this nation is kept safe, and our enemies are kept on the run.

While each candidate brings their strengths and knowledge to the table, as the saying goes in Highlander, there can be only one. More than one of the "also-rans" could easily be a vice president, but in terms of the chief executive they just don't have that certain something. With presidential candidates there is an air, a quality, about them that makes people see them as a potential candidate. Fred has it. Rudy has it. Mitt has it. John McCain HAD it in 2000, but the last six years has seen him turn his back on the base. (We'd file him under the "also-rans" if he weren't still polling in double digits.)

The purpose of the column wasn't to upset supporters of other candidates. As I often tell others, we simply read the tea leaves. The column was the last in our series of covering presidential contenders on the GOP side. We're still mulling over the possibility of doing a series on the Democrat nominees, but we've yet to decide on that. We do know this much: After Super Duper Tuesday the nominees will be set, and the election cycle will go into high gear. For any of the "also-rans" to have a chance, they must place in the top three spots. I don't think any of them will. (We see a possibility of Huckabee, Tancredo, or Hunter possibly placing in one of the primaries, maybe two, but not much else will come out of the lower-tier candidates.)

So do us a favor, we always enjoy feedback from readers, but quit demanding that a retraction be printed. We don't do retractions or corrections unless they're warranted. We're not going to give into a few people who seem offended by our opinions. They are ours alone, and if you choose to disagree with them, fine. We do have that freedom. But nothing we wrote in the latest column is a fabrication or a lie on a candidate. We don't do that. It tends to blow our credibility. Likewise, caving into demands that we retract certain statements also blows our credibility. We're not going to be bullied by a bunch of cry-babies. You don't like what we said, either complain to the editor, and have him pull our column, or get a column/blog of your own, and write why you think we were wrong.

Publius II