Super Tuesday

Well, Super Tuesday is coming up next week. I've been mostly silent about this election up until now, but I know quite a few people in Alabama, Arizona, and Utah, and I would like to tell you how I think you should vote. No, I don't presume to say whom you should vote for, just what factors I think ought to be considered, and which ones ought to be left out of the decision.

First of all, I don't know many democrats, but please don't make it a question of whether America is more racist or sexist. Frankly, both Obama and Clinton are mediocre senators with almost identical positions and paltry records. You already voted off the candidate with the best resume (bonus points if you know who that was). You're obviously just looking for a candidate with the intangible quality of leadership.

I don't mean to imply that intangible qualities are bad criteria for selecting a president, although it is nice if they have a record to back it up. Leadership is one of the most important factors in my own decision, and I'll tell you why. Think back to the 2000 presidential election. What was the most important factor in that election? Trick question. The answer is obviously the ability to handle the 2001 terrorist attacks and the associated national security and economic problems. I don't remember what people thought was most important at the time, but whatever it was now pales in comparison.

What will be the next president's biggest challenge? We don't know, and don't believe any pundit who thinks they do. The ability to lead no matter what challenges come along is critical. How do I define political leadership?

• Optimistic. A leader sees every challenge as able to be overcome, and doesn't see problems where problems don't exist.


• Realistic. On the other hand, a good leader knows his limits. He doesn't promise things he can't deliver. He realizes that keeping policies from getting worse under heavy opposition is a greater accomplishment than advancing his agenda under heavy support.


• Able to work with both sides. "We're more bipartisan than you," is a popular message these days. I want a leader who has proven they can work with the other party to get great things accomplished, not just lament the great things they could do if the other side saw things their way.


• Not afraid to take unpopular positions. Followers do what's popular. Leaders figure out what is best for the country, and find a way to make that course of action popular.


• Vision. A leader is able to chart a clear course to somewhere maybe only he can see, without being deterred by short-term setbacks.


• Dependable. A leader doesn't shift positions without a really convincing shift in circumstances. A change in popular opinion doesn't count. On the other hand, going from representing a state or district to representing the entire country usually necessitates at least a shift of policy, if not position. Otherwise, you're not recognizing the limits of federal government, states' rights, and the simple fact that you're representing a different group of people.


• Thinks outside the box. A good leader comes up with ways to do things people thought couldn't be done.


• Doesn't seek glory. Leaders who are constantly worried about looking better than everyone else do not make good decisions. Good leaders share credit and give praise where praise is due.


• Puts principles above politics. I want a leader who will not compromise his principles for political expediency.


• Inspiring. People should feel inspired when they hear a good leader speak.


• Not a people-pleaser. I don't mean a leader shouldn't be charismatic. I mean he should worry more about what is best for the country than what other people or countries think of him.

Enough said about leadership. Now on to some other considerations.

Vote according to your own religion, not the candidate's. Don't vote for or against a candidate because he belongs to a certain religion. However, you should think about your own religious convictions, and whether the way a candidate will govern will support those convictions. Sometimes a candidate with a different religion will actually uphold your religious values better than someone from your own religion.

Look at their records, but be realistic and put them in context. Campaign ads are the worst for taking things out of context. A vote that on the surface appears to be pro-abortion or illegal immigration, may actually have been cast for states' rights or anti-pork reasons, or simply because there was a better bill in the works to accomplish the same thing. If something appears inconsistent, call the candidate's office and demand an explanation. Do your research. Chances are if you have a question, they've already answered that question to other people. Go back to the local newspapers at the time the decision was made, or better yet, look up the debate in the government record. National news, columnists, and campaign commercials are not good sources.

What I look for in a record is if the candidate showed leadership or just consistently made safe votes. I look to see if they actually proposed bold initiatives, or if they were all talk. I look to see the amount of support they were able to command for their ideas. I look for areas where they could have easily made a difference in a cause they claim to uphold, but didn't. In election years, where presidential candidates rarely make it to votes in Congress, I look at which votes were important enough for them to make an effort to attend. For a governor, I focus more on the areas he clearly has responsibility for, rather than areas he shares responsibility with the legislature.

Learn economics. If you're like me, you had a few weeks of economics instruction in high school, and spent a semester in college with 1000 other students in a lecture hall. I had to supplement that with reading Adam Smith and others before I felt qualified to vote on the issue. If you don't know how taxes, interest rates, housing, welfare, trade, oil prices, wars, the stock market, and other factors affect and reflect the economy, find out. If you don't know the pros and cons of different potential solutions related to those factors, find out. Statistics show a huge disparity between the way people perceive the economy, and the way it actually is. Politicians take advantage of that ignorance. The best solution is education.

Ignore polls. Don't vote for someone because you think he has momentum, or because the polls of the day say he's the only one who can win the general election. There's a lot of time before November, and any one of the candidates can do the job.

Clarify your positions, and pick a candidate who closely matches your positions. You can ignore a president's personality, but not his policies.

Character matters. If you think that a president's personal life doesn't affect the ability to do his job, you're wrong. First of all, private indiscretion can lead to public compromise. Imagine if Monica Lewinsky had wanted something only a president could give, before the story broke.

Second, the presidency is a political job. Some of the political power comes by virtue of the office, but not all of it. Like it or not, political opponents can and do use problems in a president's personal life as excuses to ignore his public policies. What did Bill Clinton accomplish after his impeachment? There is no doubt that his personal failings severely crippled his political power. Arguing about whether that was fair makes little difference. A president that remains beyond reproach personally will retain more power politically.

Now that I've explained my selection process, I'm ready to tell you who I'll be supporting. I'm hesitant to do so, because I prefer for people to make up their own minds, without being unduly influenced by other people's opinions. I'll give you the same caution about my own opinion that I give for everyone else's. Verify the facts, and honestly evaluate the opinions.

If I were a democrat, I would support Barack Obama. I wrote to him well before he announced his candidacy, and told him if we absolutely had to have a democrat president, I would want it to be him. The reason is that he exemplifies leadership as I described it above more than any other democratic candidate. That's really not saying much, as his record stinks, but it is what it is.

I'll be voting for Mitt Romney. Ironically, as a Mormon myself, that actually made me more reluctant to support him at first. I didn't want my personal feelings to overshadow my judgment. Being from Arizona, I remember what a disaster Evan Mecham was, even though I was very young. I recently did some research to complement my general feelings about Governor Mecham with some facts. Harry Reid is another good counterexample that made me wary.

That being said, knowing Romney's religious beliefs made it easier for me to trust him on social issues. I know even if he once held a pro-choice political position, that he would never make that choice for his own family. His record as governor shows that when it came down to actually implementing policy, he never felt strongly enough about choice to do anything to advance that agenda. In fact, he did a lot to prevent the pro-choice agenda from advancing, earning recognition from pro-life advocacy groups. Yes, that's not as good as actively advancing a pro-life agenda, but in a state as liberal as Massachusetts, I think it was a significant accomplishment.

Romney is a man with good character and strong family values. I talked earlier about why I think that's important in a president.

I like that Romney is not a career politician. He's been successful in business and with the olympics, and if his political career ended today, he wouldn't be devastated at the loss of his identity. I think this makes him more likely to resist the corrupting influence of political power.

Romney has definitely proven himself as a leader. I don't care who you are, getting elected as governor and actually getting useful things done with the liberal legislature in Massachusetts is no small feat. We need a president who can do the same thing with the democratic majority in Congress. His olympics experience is another great example of turning around a failing system.

Romney is a Washington outsider. He's been criticized for pouring so much of his own money into the campaign, but who is more susceptible to corruption, the man who uses his own money or the one who uses other people's money? I like the idea of a president who starts out owing no one in Washington any favors.

I won't talk about the weaknesses of the other candidates. Other people have covered that topic to death. However, I would like to point out that there are also many things to be excited about with the other candidates. Their presidency would definitely be different than Romney's, but I won't despair if Romney doesn't get the nomination.