All in all there are currently 23 candidates officially running for President of The United States of America. Some of them you'll never have heard of. And they're from all over the political center, with a few exceptions to the wings.
As things get close to the primaries, we face some crucial challenges. None of the three leading Republican candidates are really that conservative. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are both only partially conservatives, whilst Ron Paul's answer to our problems is basically to burn everything down (part of which is turning our back on all our allies including Israel) and then see where we can get. Sadly there does not seem to be anyone who has enough backing to win and who is actually conservative and would move forward to help the country recover and improve. None are actually good choices, but they might at least be improvements over Barack Obama.
To add to it, possibly major players Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump have both threatened to run as third party, independent candidates. O, and the ever humble Ron Paul has as well.
Most if not all of the runners who continue on as third party candidates will take votes away from the Republican candidate.
Rumors of Hilary Clinton running against Obama are making the rounds again, but not likely to bear fruit this late in the game. She is the only one who could really take a chunk out of the Democrat votes.
So we're back to facing internal conservative battles as the truest threat in 2012.
As conservatives how do we choose between Romney, whose Romneycare was the basis for a lot of Obamacare; Gingrich, who is politically and morally ambiguous; and Paul, who whilst likely being the most honest politician ever is...well just scary?
Romney simply isn't conservative, he says things that are, but his growth of government control shows his true colours. And how much the main stream media protects him is disturbing as well.
Paul, well his idea of balancing things is to start at zero, which is totally a bad idea and about as destructive (if not as much (or maybe even more so)) as Obama's growing the government as quickly as possible. Starting at zero reeks of anarchy, rather than the Republic we are supposed to be.
Which leaves us with Gingrich. And that about says it, he's the lesser of the evils. Of the three leading Republican candidates he is most inline with conservatism. He is the least threatening to our freedoms and safety, and the most likely to actually get us on the road to recovery. In no way is he the "perfect candidate", but no one ever will be.
So of the three I choose Gingrich. But no matter what, in the end we must remember to Hang Together or Separately, our nation is at stake.
Newt Gingrich? He and Nancy Pelosi make quite a pair, I must say.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154
Ron Paul is the candidate I am supporting now, and this coming from someone who voted for candidate Obama in 2008. Romney is a corporatist just like Obama has turned out to be, and so while he seems to be the most electable, it would just be replacing one corporatist for another.
Ron Paul, as you say, is the most honest one of the whole lot of em, as I see it, and that is a refreshing change of pace. For me, more so than that, he does not appear to be in the pockets of monied special interests which are and have completely corrupted the political process.
If Dr. Paul does not survive the Republican nomination process and does run as a third party candidate, it is he that will be getting my vote. Not any of them other jokers.
Good piece, Cuz -- I support every single bit of your reasoning. THE PERFECT CANDIDATE isn't going to show up for this one -- we have no Ronald Reagan today, more's the pity.
ReplyDeleteWell, try as I might, your logic on these three seems pretty solid. Romney rubs me the wrong way - I think he's just too damned smug with himself, like he believes this is his destiny - maybe it's the corporatist "feel" about him (like Obama) that Will mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI can't support Ron Paul for two reasons: his followers almost remind me of the same rabid supporters of Obama, and implementing his foreign policy would be disastrous.
Gingrich, at least has a track record of his "Contract With America", which he fought tooth-and-nail to implement. I want a guy with some fire in his belly, and some thought in his head. Newt seems to be the only one of these three that has those two properties.
I am curious, from anyone who does think that Ron Paul's foreign policy would be a disaster, why is this so? And who would it be a disaster for? If USA, how? I often hear this statement repeated but without a good explanation as to why...
ReplyDeleteJonathan, anyone, anything, would be an improvement on Obama!
ReplyDelete