Since this is my last Blog of 2011 - "Happy New Year" everyone.
Next week will start the Republican primary season and the gloves are already off with the candidates taking shots at each other. I guess this is expected, but as they attack each other I hope none of them will forget the "end game" - defeat Barack Obama.
The beauty of "Blogging" is you can give your opinion, whether anyone agrees with it or not. Like many of my generation we have been waiting for another Ronald Reagan to come along, but sadly that will not happen in this election cycle. So here are my thoughts about this field of Republican candidates in order of their recent polling:
Mitt Romney ("the Suit") - Romney at this point looks like the front runner. He has impressive business experience; I do remember when he turned around the Utah Olympics; he has the executive experience of being a Governor; and he seems "Presidential". But Mitt, show us some "fire in the belly"! And what about your "Obama-Lite" insurance program in Massachusetts? He seems to be a competent manager, but I hate the term "moderate", and will someone mess up this guy's hair just once!
Ron Paul ("the crazy uncle") - OK I'm going to catch hell from my youngest son for this comment. But does anyone believe Ron Paul could win this primary, and if he did, beat the Obama machine?
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the fed, cut the budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us, quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his comments about leaving Israel to fend for themselves; or let Iran develop a nuclear bomb; or 911 could have been an "inside job" by the Israeli Mossad makes me wonder if this guy has thought out his foreign policy issues. Here's my suggestion: Keep Ron Paul on the back burner until after the election and then if the Republicans win, make him Secretary of the Treasury and let him do his thing to get our finances back from the edge of the cliff.
Newt Gingrich ("the bomb thrower") - I'm not sure about Newt. I do remember when he pulled off one of the great feats in political history leading the takeover of the House in the mid 90's after 40+ years of Democratic rule. But then the power went to his head. He was thrown out due to ethics violations and alienated many of his fellow Representatives along the way. His personal life has been a bit of a train wreck but he now claims to be "older and wiser", so I guess he deserves the benefit of the doubt. But on this subject I have one nagging question: Cheating on one wife; OK everyone deserves to be forgiven for one serious indiscretion, but twice?
Newt is attractive because he is a "fighter" and would not take it from the liberal press, and could destroy Obama in debates, especially when Obama doesn't have a teleprompter to tell him what to say. But the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac $1.6 million consulting fees, his flip flops on Global Warming, mandated health insurance, and the fact that he is just such a "slick" life-long politician makes me nervous.
Rick Santorum ("the Evangelist") - Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian myself, and I like former Senator Santorum. I agree with him that "restoring the family" in this country is paramount to getting our social climate back on the right track. A classic example is the black community with 70% of children being born out of wedlock (and in many cases without a father in the household). Without some basic cultural changes, they haven't got a chance to improve their situation in our society.
Santorum is a solid "pro life/pro family" candidate and should have much of the evangelical constituency locked up. But this is not an election about social policies. This country is in such serious financial and economic trouble that social principals just can't be a determining factor.
Rick Perry ("the Texan") - I was a Rick Perry fan at the beginning, but he blew it in many of the debates. Not because he wasn't a good debater, he just doesn't seem to be ready to run this country and whether anyone agrees with me or not - giving "illegal" immigrants preferential treatment over out-of-state US citizens for college tuition is something I can never agree with. Governor Perry comes across as a likable politician but just doesn't make it to my short list.
Michelle Bachman ("Sarah wannabe?") - OK that's not fair. She is a bright, impressive woman and will be a future star in the Republican Party, she is just not there yet. She is a former attorney and strict constitutionalist - how about Attorney General in the next Republican administration?
John Huntsman ( "Slick") - He claims to be holding back for the New Hampshire primary and recently said: " Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks Presidents"...we'll see John.
Gary Johnson (the "Libertarian") - Former Governor of New Mexico who has just announced that he will run as a Libertarian candidate. If you listen to this guy he makes a lot of sense and it has been surprising that he never rose above being an "obscure Republican", even to the point of not participating (or being invited) to the debates. But if you are a "Libertarian" (and I have those leanings) this guy is rock solid, even more so than Ron Paul in my opinion. Hopefully the Libertarian candidate will not draw enough Republican votes to give Obama a victory.
So there it is; I am as undecided as anyone at this point, but whoever becomes the Republican candidate we all need to remember the "end game" - we cannot endure four more years of Barack Obama, or this country will never be the same. If something is not done about our massive debt and ridiculous social entitlement policies, the USA as we know it may reach the "point of no return".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Chuck,
Happy New Year.
I think you got it right.
Olav
Let me offer my commentary by way of candidate-by-candidate response to your analysis:
- Romney: If you're looking for more of the same, a status quo Establishment politician, but can't stomach a vote for Obama, then Romney's your man. This is why the media loves him. Nothing to be afraid of, or even to expect, with Romney.
- Paul: Anyone who honestly wants to change things for the better, and has a strong belief that our country should be run according to the Constitution (as the Founders wanted), can't help but get behind Ron Paul. But too many people in this country have been turned into sheep by the mainstream media machine. Conservatives are afraid of his foreign policy ideas, liberals are afraid of his pro-life stance, and nearly everyone buys into the fallacy that he is "unelectable" (perpetuated by a corporate media establishment that is afraid of the real change he would bring). The truth is, you will never come across another politician as consistent and principled as Ron Paul. As for the specious claims that he's a 9/11 truther, a racist, etc., if you take just a moment or two to look into the claims further, you'll see they're just unfounded attacks from fearful opponents.
Gingrich: I think you summed him up pretty well. A garden-variety corrupt and amoral politician, albeit a smart one. No thank you.
Santorum: You can accurately apply the "unelectable" label to him. He appeals only to the religious right, a faction that doesn't represent a majority of voters. As you say, social issues are a luxury right now; for example, what does the abortion issue matter (whichever side you're on) if the country goes bankrupt? Also: he has even less charisma than Ron Paul.
Perry: The better nickname for him is "George W. Perry." We don't need another village idiot in the White House. 'Nuff said.
Bachmann: She's like Sarah Palin, but with an extra helping of crazy. That's all I have to say about that.
Huntsman: Another decent candidate suffering at the hands of the mainstream media. Why do the media get to decide how much air time/coverage to give candidates?
Johnson: You're right about him. Nobody has heard of him, and even you get his name (Gary Johnson) wrong. You are right that he is perhaps even a better candidate than Ron Paul, but with such a microscopic base of support, I don't know how he could possibly get elected. I don't believe, however, that a third-party run by him (or even by Ron Paul, if he doesn't get the nomination) will ensure victory for Obama, like Nader's run did for Bush, or Perot's did for Clinton. There are a lot of people out there disillusioned by the state of our political establishment -- liberals, conservatives and independents. A viable, Libertarian-leaning candidate would appeal to both sides, for different reasons. I can easily envision a scenario whereby a third-party candidate in this election wins a plurality of the vote. Especially with this piss-poor slate of candidates.
A final opinion: if anyone planning to vote in their Republican primary is undecided at this point, then they're either not doing their homework, or they're just waiting to see which way the wind blows, and let the media tell them who to vote for.
@Mike -
I knew it was Gary Johnson, just mixed it up with another politician named Ron J.
No one ever said Ron Paul wasn't consistent, he is. But without media bias I still say he would never get elected. And whether he said those things or not, his name was on the Newsletter. It would be like me letting something be printed in this Blog and then saying "I never saw it".
Californians can rightly say they have not completely made up their mind because our primary is so late, we are never sure who will be left. In the last Presidential primary our candidate Rudy G. dropped out the week before we were to vote.
Post a Comment