Undorsements

It seems the Concord, NH paper has started an interesting trend. Many people have not decided who to vote for yet, but it is an interesting exercise to talk about those you have definitely crossed off your list. In fact, this may be a more important first step, as anyone familiar with instant runoff systems can tell you.

So here are my "undorsements" and the reasons for them.

On the GOP side, I undorse Guiliani. I think he has zero experience in the areas I care about - international economics/trade, foreign policy. And his reputation for being a strong leader is based on standing tall after 9/11. I am more shocked that there were politicos who didn't. Standing tall doesn't indicate any insight, just a presence. Personally, I want a president with talent as well. And his rep for crimefighting came with a lot of negative tradeoffs. For the same reasons I am against the most of the Patriot Act, I don't give Guiliani much credit for NYC's crime reduction. And running a major metro area is nothing like running a country, no matter how many people it has or the size of its economy.

On the dem side, I undorse Edwards. His fear mongering populism is the worst thing we can do now. He can claim to be for the middle class, working man/woman, etc, but the policies he proposes would not be good for them, let alone the wealthy or very poor. It is one thing for a candidate to intelligently pursue an agenda that I don't agree with. At least I can respect and understand that. But someone who just has no clue, or is being dishonest to attract voters, is much worse. If he is clueless, then he will easily be swayed by advisors who are either equally clueless or with a hidden agenda (i.e. Cheney). If he is dishonest, then we have no idea what he will really do, and thus can't afford to take a random leap of faith. Nor is dishonesty a trait I would like to see in the most powerful person in the world.