The American Conservative Union at their annual Political Action Conference (CPAC) this last week presented several Presidential candidates for review. Among the speakers were Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo. Noticibly absent was John McCain. The effort at correct posturing was ever present. This was never more evident then when Romney gave his wife the opportunity to give him her endorsement. Each candidate spoke carefully, saying the right emotionally charged words, invoking the name of the great conservative legend, Ronald Reagan, forcefully addressing critical issues, and pausing at the right times for audience approval.
It reminded me of a first prom date when both people present their best side, display proper manners, and hope they do nothing to offend the other. The evening concludes with the appropriate thank yous and expressions of joy about what a wonderful time was had. A question, however, lingers. Did either get to know anything significant about the other? Probably not! Very likely the only thing really decided was whether they would proceed to a second date. At the conclusion of the speeches at CPAC all candidates had favorably impressed their audiences, no one was offended, and everyone felt good about the event. It was all but asured that the "dating" process would continue. But, did any one come away with anything that helped them reach a decision about who they would support? Hopefully, some did. However, I sensed that Guiliani supporters remained Guiliani supporters, Romney supporters remained Romney supporters, etc. This brings up an all important question. What is it that persuades people to change their support from one candidate to another or for one candidate to emerge as a front runner?
The dating process can again offer some guidance. It takes time to really get to know another person. One must see him/her in all kinds of settings, not just in ideal settings. He/she must be viewed in pressure situations that reveal character. Over a period of time his/her actions must be checked for consistency and his/her statements verified for truthfulness and accuracy. This same criteria will work for evaluating political candidates. They must be men/women of character evidenced by their veracity and consistency over time. Is any one gullible enough to believe that the sole motivation for a candidate to change his/her position is anything other then political expediency? I hope by now most Americans assess flip flops for what they are--the attempt to gain more votes by aligning one's views with opinion polls. This most definitely is a negative and should remove that candidate from any consideration for public office.
At this time I will continue the "dating" process with Romney, Brownback, Hunter, and Huckabee while I continue to look further into their past records and observe their future actions. I urge you to do the same!