2008 Presidential Election

Ron Paul appears to be gaining a lot of momentum in his dark-horse candidacy for the '08 Republican nomination. He's receiving more mainstream coverage because of his grass roots supports that he's getting on the internet. It doesn't hurt that he's collecting more money than any other candidate not named Hillary or Barack. $3.8 in one day ain't too shabby.

So, why am I Paul fan? What differentiates him from the other Republicans?

Well, in order to be President, you have to want the job. I think someone forgot to tell Fred Thompson about that simple requirement. Secondly, you have to stand for something, rather than shifting in the wind, or flip-flopping. Scratch Mitt Romney from consideration there. Can't be a pro-choicer and then a pro-lifer when it's convenient. Genuine conversion's fine, but Romney's doesn't to parallel Reagan's conversion to the Republican Party in the 1960's.

You have to have some support for your candidacy. However much I admire John McCain record and see eye-to-eye with him on some issues, he's on the decline and doesn't appear to have any life left in him. He's no longer the darling of the New Hampshire independents. Similarly, Mike Huckabee stands no chance. The fact that Bill Clinton has alluded to his being the only "dark-horse" candidate out there amongst the Republicans gives him some iota of hope, but it could be Clinton's way supporting the weakest Republican out there. He also has very troubling populist economic positions. And Duncan Hunter, well, forgive me for not knowing much about him other than that he's a House member from California.

One may argue that Paul is the most poised to win the presidency against Hillary based on his clear and consistent opposition to the war in Iraq. No other major candidate, besides Obama (although he wasn't in the Senate when the Iraq war vote came up in Congress), can lay hold to the claim of having been against the Iraq War from the start. Dennis Kucinich has always opposed the war, but you can't really call his candidacy serious in any way, shape or form. The Iraq issue is one of the most important issues, and it seems that it will dominate the '08 campaign. A Paul candidacy may siphon away liberal Democrats who are loathe to vote for the centrist Hillary.

I completely agree with Dr. Paul on the issue of abortion. He believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but believes that the issue of abortion should be a states' right issue at this point in time. Doing that will, no doubt, be messy in the short-run, but doing so gives some flexibility to the issue and would honor the 10th Amendment principle of federalism to the forefront.

My initial support for Paul's candidacy stemmed from his economic views, which make a whole lot of sense. Part of my skepticism, actually, is that he makes TOO much sense. It's scary to think that there's actually a politician out there that formulates his own economic policies based on what he thinks is right rather than having a team of advisors package a viewpoint that is the most politically advantageous.

I completely support (in theory) Paul's idea of abolishing the 16th Amendment, which legalized the income tax as well as his idea that we should do away with the inflation tax, Federal Reserve, and fiat money.

What Paul stands for requires a lot of intellectual thought and education on what the heck "fiat" means and how this inflation serves as a tax on the public. It requires a studying of the issues. That's what's appealing about his candidacy. He's a charismatic speaker and conveys his message well, but the Ron Paul Revolution is based on principles and not his personality.

And that's why I donated another $25 to Ron Paul's campaign today.

President Bush, the unofficial chief-of-party (the Constitution makes no mention of political parties), has said that Hillary Clinton will more than likely become the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Considering the frontloaded 2008 primary schedule, such a political prognostication is most likely correct.

Bush should know something about having the aura of inevitability imbedded within a presidential campaign. His march to the Republican nomination in 2000 was one in which he raised an unprecedented amount of money. Sure, he traded on his father's name and the funds from the elder's generous backers, but after 8 years of a Clinton White House, Republicans wanted to unite behind a winner; George W sure looked like a winner. And the more money that poured into his campaign, the greater the perception was that Dubya was going to be the Republican juggernaut squashing Al Gore in the general election even though it was Gore who ended up winning the popular vote.

Bush talked the conservative talk and fervently courted the Evangelical vote. When asked in a Republican primary debate which philosopher he admired the most, Bush replied, "Christ, because he changed my heart." While I was in Washington, D.C., in 1999, carefully following the Republican primaries, I actually threw my support behind the socially conservative Gary Bauer. Bauer was nowhere near as big as Jerry Falwell, who founded the Moral Majority in 1979 (which happens to be an answer on your Economist exam), but his message was very similar. Although he did favor a flat tax and was an economic conservative, Bauer was known mainly for his staunchly pro-life and anti-gay marriage positions. And, I perhaps saw in him someone to move Bush to the right (socially, that is) on certain issues. Because the reality was that George W. Bush was anointed to represent the Republican Party in 2000 and nothing was going to get in his way.

The only thing that stood in Bush's coronation was John McCain and his Straight Talk Express. Bush's campaign strategy, as designed by Karl Rove, was a 50-state campaign. To give you an overview of presidential campaign strategy, one must understand the primary calendar. The first presidential electing contest that really matters ( D.C. technically goes first) is held mid-late January. One controversy brewing in Wyoming is that state's decision to move its delegate selection date to January 5th. That might sound like it's not that big of a deal, but national party rules prohibit having dates earlier than the caucus and primary held in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively.

Iowa is where John Kerry basically wrapped up his nomination in 2004, and John Edwards solidified his status as the VP frontrunner with a strong 2nd place showing while liberal darling Howard Dean flamed out. It's where George H.W. Bush defeated Ronald Reagan in the 1980 contest and famously quipped about having the "Big Mo," which ultimately didn't help him in securing the Republican nomination.

The second place where a candidate needs to succeed is in New Hampshire, which traditionally holds the first presidential primary contest. New Hampshire prides itself on its political independence and requires of its politicians to diligently court its vote. Or, perhaps, there's just a big anti-Bush population in the state; Pat Buchanan actually won the 1992 primary over Bush Senior.

New Hampshire was where Bush lost to McCain in 2000 and had to muster his conservative support in South Carolina to regain his status as "The Anointed One." There was no way to spin this in Bush's favor. Bush's 50 state campaign strategy hit some turbulence in New Hampshire, and his campaign found the extra drive it needed in South Carolina.

This year will be a lot different. Right now, moderate Rudy Giuliani leads all Republican candidates in national polls. Here's the problem, though. Republicans do NOT nationally elect their candidates. The contest is won in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and perhaps Wyoming. It appears as if the Mormon candidate Mitt Romney will win Iowa. He was the only "major" candidate to campaign in the Iowa straw polls, so he's the favorite there. John McCain will do his best to recapture his 2000 magic to win in New Hampshire. But it appears that Romney is the most well-positioned to win the early states with his strong fundraising and appeal to conservatives. If he is able to convert social conservatives into voting for him and looking beyond the "Mormon factor," Romney will be the Republican to beat in '08.

Here's the problem. Because California and 20 or so states will hold its primary on Tuesday, February 5th, this front-loaded primary schedule will serve to help moderates such as Giuliani who are going to make the appeal that they are best suited to slay Hillary Clinton.

So what's my take on all this? I'm hoping that the Republicans will take a strong stand on principle over flexibility in the '08 election. I've actually been selected as a delegate to represent Dr. Ron Paul should he manage to wrest away the nomination from Rudy McThomabeeney. I want a Republican who stands for either its social or economic values and stands firm. Does Paul have a shot at winning the presidency? Probably not. I actually talked to a faculty member who was libertarian at heart yet refused to consider supporting a candidate like Paul. In a way, I see his reasoning. What's the point in supporting someone you know probably won't win? Why throw away your vote? I'll tell you why - because I suppose the only causes worth fighting for are the lost causes...

I've donated $25 to Ron Paul's campaign and now I get e-mails every other day asking for me to contribute the rest of the $2275 that I am able to give to the Congressman's bid for the presidency. At this juncture, I have decided that what I have given thus far is enough. I'm not even sure if I'll cast my vote for Dr. Paul in the Republican primary on Tuesday, February 5th. Shouldn't logic dictate that I vote for the person for whom I have donated my hard-earned money for?

Well, yes and no. There's the one part of me that wants to vote for the eventual winner. If my sole goal was to vote for the Republican candidate who has the best shot of winning, I would opt for the socially liberal Repubican (pro-choice, pro-gun control, soft on illegal immigration) ex-mayor from New York, Mr. Rudy Giuliani. But do I really want to vote for someone who is comfortable being kissed by Donald Trump while dressed in drag? I'll pass. I'm Dead Certain that I will not vote for Giuliani in the primary. General election, maybe, but primary, no.

Okay, so I'm not voting with the general election on my mind, which will take place on Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 when I cast my primary ballot in February. So why not vote Ron Paul, the libertarian? Why not vote for the most articulate Republican out there, a guy who sits on the House Finance Committee and has delivered over 4,000 babies? While he may represent the a ideologically pure wing of the Republican party (abolishing of the 16th Amendment, Federal Reserve, return to gold standard), there's the theory that it's not wise to waste one's vote on someone who has not shot at winning the nomination. Still, I admire Dr. Paul, or Dr. "No" (nicknamed so because of his refusal to pass any measures dealing with tax increases) for his steadfast principles in a non-interventionist foreign policy and an economic policy based on seemingly sound monetary principles.

Which leads me to either Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, or John McCain to round out the more serious of the Republicans. The other Republicans who are in the race include Alan Keyes, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, among others. While Romney's Mormonism is honestly a concern for me, his religion alone would not preclude my voting for him. I may end up voting for the guy. His "convenient" conversion to being pro-life, however (more on Romney in Hardball and turn to the right on other social issues may conjure up images of a flip-flopping Republican cut out of the same cloth as Demicrat John Kerry in '04. With Thompson, I'm withholding judgment until he makes more of a positive splash in the race. Which leaves me with Mr. John McCain.

I appreciate McCain's principled stance on issues almost as much as Dr. Paul's. McCain's view of Iraq and his insistence on staying there to finish the job is as admirable as Paul's insistence that we leave on principle and that our interventionist foreign policy has had "blowback" implications, such as the 9/11 attack. And McCain's got enormous credibility. Who can question the patriotism and heroism of a Vietnam vet who spent 5 years as a POW, refusing to be released early on account of his heritage? It's not to say that McCain is not without his flaws. He married his wife, Cindy, many years his junior, after having abandoned his first wife who became disfigured in a car accident while courageously waiting for McCain to return home from Vietnam. I suppose life happens and who am I to judge, but that part of his life appears very politically expedient.

So, as yet, I am an undecided Republican. It's certainly more "hip" to be a Democrat today with the choice of Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and the rest, but don't count out the Republicans. Although Bush has claimed that he won't be "pundit-in-chief," he predicts a Republican defeat over Hillary. And that's not such a bad political prognostication given that the American public has given Congress low approval ratings and may be disinclined to give the House, Senate and the presidency to the Republicans. Don't forget that the Republicans have traditionally conveyed the more presidential image over the years and more Republicans have occupied the White House than have Democrats in the post-FDR era (a narrow 6-5, but more total years). But, make no mistake about it. Democrats are craving the White House after 8 years of abstinence and will do their best to carry the party of the ass, or donkey, that is.

I was a Senior at Claremont McKenna College during the 2000 presidential elections. Having followed the Republican primaries and the likes of Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, John McCain in the Fall of 1999, I naturally rooted for Governor George W. Bush to defeat Vice President Al Gore. So on that Tuesday night in November, I spent the evening watching the returns at the Athaneum and was happy when the Republican candidate won. But then he unwon, and the there was a bit of unsurety, and then he won again. But then Al Gore came out and challenged the victory, and so we had to wait another month and a half to figure out who would win the electoral college.

---

In terms of my evolution as an informed voter, I certainly have become a bit more economically conservative and less socially conservative as time has progressed. Right now, I'm supporting Ron Paul in the 2008 Republican primaries which will be held on Super Duper Tuesday, February 5th, 2008. More than likely, the Democratic and Republican parties will have anointed their candidates by that time. So America will have to brace herself for 9 months of non-stop campaigning between Hillary and Rudy McRomney (or whichever Republican gets the nod).

goes by really quickly. My theory of teaching goes as follows: Slug it out in September and October. Survive until Thanksgiving Break, and just wait it out until Christmas. Upon returning, just get through the last two weeks of the semester. Make it through an easy February with the 28 days and 2 Mondays off. March on in March until Spring Break, and after that, the school year is practically over.

Ain't teaching grand?

Does draft order matter in securing top baseball talent? VORP will be the dependent variable. 80 pages? No problemo.

It's been awhile since I've been coaching baseball. In fact, I'm returning to my original position as head JV Baseball Coach after a 3 year hiatus as an assistant Varsity coach, statistician/webmaster, and assistant JV softball coach. While it should prove to be fun, it will be challenging to get back in the groove of being the head coach. I have to structure practices and give some overall structure to my squad.

Sometimes I wonder what my "calling" in life is. I think this is the question that every Korean-American Christian deals with. As for me, I'm a teacher, baseball coach, econ master's student, and financial advisor with a yearning to do something that's a bit more quantitative. The conclusion that I've come up with is that I have to simply do the best job that's given to me at the moment and then play it by ear.

Will I be the only Korean in Nebraska?

"Many crave and seek the ruler's favor, but the wise man (waits) for justice from the Lord."

Sometimes I'll focus on pleasing too many constituencies. Not unlike a Congressman who has to take into account representational, attitudinal, and organizational considerations when voting, I have to make decisions that may or may not displease administration, students, co-workers, friends, professors, and even myself. This Proverb reminds me to simply do my best in all that I do for the sake of His Glory. It's simple reasoning. On that final day, when I have to give an account for my life and my deeds, I will have to defend my actions not unlike a lawyer in front of Supreme Court justices.

My prayer is that God will grant me a writ of certiorari.