January 14, 2012

Republican Race Update

Romney is not going to be the Media’s favorite in the general election.  I don’t care if they don’t love Obama as much as they did three years ago.  I don’t care if the unemployment rate goes up two points before the election.  I don’t even care if Obama goes back on his promise to the left to hold off the Keystone pipeline.  At the end of the day, Obama will look better to them philosophically than any Republican, even Romney.  The delusion that we should pick him because he is the ‘cleanest’ and will ‘get along with’ the media is sheer lunacy.  I know I’ve made this comparison before, but don’t forget McCain.  He was The Maverick, remember?  The guy that was supposed to get us better press coverage.  But what happened when the general election came up?  It was brutal.  They ripped him up one side and down the other, while falling over each other to get in line to praise the Chosen One. 
What does this mean?  It means elections are won by turning out the base, and not trying to get a few percentage points of independents by relying on a positive media message.  The independents are quite willing to abandon Obama as long as they get someone with a clear message that is willing to point out Obama’s faults, and will fight.  People like a fighter.  The whole “be nice to Obama” bit certainly didn’t work last time, and it won’t work this time.
This is one reason (don’t kill me) that I kinda like Gingrich.  He’s not afraid to say it exactly like he sees it.  And people respond to that.  While Gingrich is my top, ‘campaign against Obama’ candidate, I’m not sure how consistent he would be in office.  Certainly he would be better than Obama, but other than that I’m not sure.   Bachman was one of the most consistent, but she is now out.  Herman Cain had an amazing ‘citizen candidate’ thing going, but he’s out as well.  I like what I hear Santorum saying, but then I remember some of the people and policies he has supported, and I’m afraid of a Bush rerun (conservative, but with some populist tendencies that can really hurt us). 
Ron Paul I can’t take for obvious reasons… the guy doesn’t have a good handle on the enormous responsibility we have to prevent radicals from getting nuclear weapons.  Someone appoint him to the Fed or something.
This brings me to Rick Perry; I have almost identical issues with him that I have with Santorum (Bush rerun), except I think he would be willing to be a little more radical on the economic side.  The fact that he is willing, and promoting, cutting whole departments of the federal government is a good thing.  The vaccination catastrophe still bothers me, but I could deal with it. 

Where does that leave me?

Despite what I said at the beginning, I can support Romney although I would prefer Santorum, Perry, or even Gingrich.  I don’t trust Huntsman for similar reasons as to why I can’t support Paul plus some additional issues I won’t get into here.  I guess we will have to see how things play out in South Carolina.  It may well be that a couple candidates drop after that.

6 comments:

  1. Here's an informative video about Ron Paul's foreign policy I enjoyed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=K3N0s_Ibau4

    My view is, if you're bankrupt and they're about to repossess you're home, you can't be too picky about what your neighbors are doing. You have to manage your own house before you can manage others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I watched the video to make sure I didn't say anything unfair. First, I agree that cutting spending is imperative, but the number one job of any government is to protect it's people from outside hostiles.

    Your house metaphor has some issues. First, who has the US mortgage that we are worried will "repossess" us? Second, do you still ignore your neighbors if you happen to know that a couple of them hate your guts and were actively working to destroy you?

    I'm totally good with eliminating subsidies to most nations we currently give to, but there are something it would be lunacy to cut, and I don't trust Paul to make that distinction. He is a Libertarian, not a traditional liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's not a perfect analogy. My basic point is, should we be buying things we can't afford? America may have noble intentions (as well as some not so noble intentions at times), but I think we're far too eager to go into war. Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers", yet every time somebody quotes that in regards to foreign policy, they're looked at as a crazy liberal. Why is that? There are most definitely evil people out there who want to destroy us. But Christ said to love our enemies. We should be defenders of the innocent, but the decision to enter a war should weigh very heavily on any president's heart, and they shouldn't be haphazardly advocating it. Besides that, I think we make it easier for them to kill us by being over there. Don't we end up weakening our national defense by spreading ourselves too thin and spending beyond our means?

    America can't fix the world, even if we think we can. If we continue our current foreign policy we'll run completely out of money and be unable to do any of the lofty things we'd like to do overseas and the debate about wether to go to war with Iran or not will be a mute point, because we'd be physically unable to do it even if everyone wanted to. It's like telling a teenager who maxed out all his credit cards that he can't give a donation to his favorite charity cause he's out of money, and he just looks bewildered and confused. The thought never occurred to him that you can't spend money you don't have. That's America's foreign policy the way I see it - unrestrained spending on foreign activities.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We may have to agree to disagree. You mix a whole bunch of arguments together, and I actually agree with many of your points... but I think that Ron Paul will take things way to far in the opposite direction, ignoring threats that cannot be ignored. When it comes to things like radical Islamists, it is no longer a matter of "fixing the world" (I'll leave that job to Jesus and the Church) it is a matter of protecting American Citizens.

    The matter of Iran is something that is on us now, we can't wait 5 years to deal with it. We can recover from mountains of debt, we cannot recover from multiple nuclear blasts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Understand your fear of that. But also consider that wars and rumors of wars are predicted in the Bible and are (by common interpretation of Revelation) a sure thing that are bound to happen. But in the midst of all that uncertainty, our hope is secure in Christ. He'll keep his hand on us.

    With that being said, we do have a voice in our government and we should be active in world affairs. So we can agree to disagree on the threat of Iran but I think we can agree that our hope is ultimately in Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "My Hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness."

    My only quible with Ron Paul has nothing to do with foreign policy. It is the fact that He is a Doctor that took care of pregnat women. Helping giving birth to new life and yet he does not see the need to defend the innocent with legislation.

    ReplyDelete

Please be respectful. Hateful, abusive, or explicit comments, will be deleted.