Pejman who?

What is it about typing in one's pajamas that breeds such arrogance? Frankly, I think endorsements are pretty silly on their face. They aren't so much about the candidate as they are a statement of how great and powerful the endorser is--vote for this candidate my minions...

Few people or institutions can legitimate claim to have the power to influence votes by decree--unions certainly, Oprah perhaps, bloggers?

Nah.

What bloggers can do, and should, is provide educated opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of candidates. Pejman does make the attempt, but ultimately I find myself scratching my head as I do with so many bloggers running down their pros and cons on the candidates.

Giuliani has less foreign policy experience than many other candidates? Can we please get a definition of experience and some specifics about who is superior in this regard? By some tokens, Ambassador Joe Wilson has way more foreign policy experience than any single candidate in either party.

In my mind, foreign policy is less a matter of experience than it is a matter of realism and philosophy. What are a candidates views on what the foreign policy of the U.S. should be? Do they understand the limitations of U.S. foreign policy? Can they strike an acceptable balance between the objectives and the reality?

The abortion issue is only relevant in the context of the make up of the Supreme Court, because no president is going to make or break law on the issue other than to nominate sufficiently conservative justices. I'm not a Giuliani booster, but I believe him when he promises to nominate candidates with the appropriate judicial philosophy.

So to quote Walter Mondale--where's the beef? I can think of a number of reasons to oppose Giuliani's nomination, but these aren't two of them.

Pejman's criticism of Romney is even more obtuse. Romney is soft on immigration? I've heard and read lots of criticism of Romney, but I've never heard him declared and open-borders guy. Interestingly, Pejman doesn't criticize McCain for his stance on immigration, which begs belief since he was the coauthor of McCain-Kennedy.

In the end, his support for Thompson is based on a detailed and specific proposals to eliminate entitlement programs and implement a flat tax.

Are you kidding me?

Are there really still conservatives out there who remain unaware that politics is the art of the possible? Neither proposal has any chance of ever becoming law no matter how specific and detailed it is. Thompson as a former Senator knows this beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that makes his proposal incredibly disingenuous--a promise he can't possibly keep.

I'm being tougher on Pejman, whom I don't know and whose prior work I'm am only superficially familiar with, than I intended to be, but its this kind of populist nonsense and naivety that is going to kill the Republican party.

The president is not a monarch. He is co-equal to Congress, which a realistic outlook suggests will stay in Democrat thrall for at least one, possibly two more election cycles. While a presidential candidate should run on stated policies as a means of forging a mandate, the reality is that a successful president will have the right personal characteristics:

An authentic but not reflexively conservative philosophy. Sclerotic ideological consistency is a poor way to deal with a rapidly changing world. The ideals of conservatism should be tempered with the discipline and humility to work the problem before imposing a solution.

Executive skill. It is after all, an executive office--THE executive office. We desperately need a president who can whip this morbidly-obese bureaucracy into some kind of effective shape. George W. Bush has his heart in the right place, but from Katrina to Iraq, he's consistently been bludgeoned by an antagonistic, incompetent and directionless federal bureaucracy. One simply can't discuss foreign policy WITHOUT considering how the bureaucracy is hobbling the country.

Communication skills. George W. Bush has gotten a lot better, but his lack of native skill has been among his greatest weaknesses as president. We need a Republican president who can articulate policy, who can make the case for why this or that action is necessary and appropriate and in the interests of the country. Even more importantly, we need a president who can personally refute the opposition spin. Why personally? The left owns the media and in spite of the brilliant work of conservative pundits, the reality is that in today's information environment, they preach to the choir. The president has the unique ability to be heard by the entire country, which is why he needs to be the one who provides the balance.

A president with the right character and skill set is a much more valuable asset in advancing conservative policies that someone with properly orthodox credentials.

Rule yourself accordingly.