Friday, March 9, 2012

From where I sit--The Republican Candidates

I firmly believe that this election is an incredibly important one for this country.  I've heard many say that the survival of this nation is at stake.  How true that is I don't know, but I am getting quite disturbed by the direction the Obama presidency is taking.  To wit, Obama has 1) engaged in war by fiat (contrary to the War Powers Act, and thus illegally), 2)  put peaceful pro-life and Tea Party  groups on the domestic terrorist lists at the FBI, 3) used "recess appointments" while Congress is in session to avoid Congressional approval of his picks, 3) use back-room deals to get legislation passed that increases the Presidents' authority over individuals (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), 4) failed to uphold current law (as in immigration law), 5) conceiving, implementing, and ultimately covering up Fast and Furious, which led to the murder of a US Border Control Agent, and 6) used Executive Orders to side-step Congress because he faces opposition in Congress.  This is in addition to the blatant anti-Christian measures he has resorted to, not only with the HHS mandate (the Catholic Church is not the only Christian group that opposes contraception, sterilization, or abortifacient drugs), but with Belmont Abbey College lawsuit, the covering of the Holy Name at Georgetown, and his lack of support for Christians being persecuted as a result of the Arab Spring (he explicitly referred to Muslim victims of an Islamist attack on a church when no Muslims were injured or killed in the attack).  Of course, we can't forget the steps that the administration has gone to push the abortion agenda, suing states who've rescinded Planned Parenthood funding and more. It isn't just the President, however, but it seems that the entire Democratic Party in Washington is complicit in the madness, cheering him on, and encouraging him to do more.  Sure, Democrats may have a different idea of how to keep America great...but the things that this Administration is doing is beyond the pall.

So, this brings me to the Republican candidates for President.  I will give you a disclaimer: I have supported Rick Santorum from the beginning, for reasons I will not outline here.  Below will be my impression of the candidates, from where I sit.

1) Mitt Romney--I put Romney first because he was the front runner since 2008.  Romney presents a formidable challenge to any of the other challengers because of that fact.  Romney, it appears, maintained much of his campaign structure and infrastructure since 2008.  He's got guys on the ground in every important state, and they've been working to not only promote Mitt, but ensure that his message is on target.  Besides that, he's got a large warchest with which to operate now and in the general election.  There is an issue with that, however.  I think Romney and his handlers were expecting to all but walk away with the nomination.  A protracted primary simply drains his coffers.

In terms of policy, Mitt is surely not conservative, and most definitely not "severely conservative".  His record as Mass. governor shows that.  What is concerning about Mitt is the different ways he's attempted to show himself when ever he's been up for election.  When he ran for the Senate in Mass., he ran to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy...as if that is possible.  When he ran for President in 2008, he labelled himself as the "conservative" (and compared to McCain, he was).  Now, he's labeling himself as the moderate.  His record shows that as governor of Massachusetts, he oversaw a net loss of jobs, and the Massachusetts economy suffered with him at the helm.  He constructed the current health care law that governs Massachusetts, upon which President Obama's monstrous health care law is based.   The problem is, he hasn't walked back from it, not one iota, and he hasn't admitted that Massachusetts needed to beg the federal government to help it pay for the implementation of the law because it was so darn expensive.  As Americans begin to feel the effects of the Affordable Care Act, namely higher insurance premiums and employers dropping coverage altogether, this is going to be the noose or millstone around Romney's neck.  Unlike any of the other Republican candidates, Romney will not be able to use Obamacare to his advantage.  Even Mitt's organization of the Salt Lake City Olympics was less than stellar, as they needed to borrow state and federal cash to get the job done.  Like Romneycare, this does not bode well for the financial problems we are in.  Romney's big selling point is his turning around of private industries, like Bain Capital.  This shows his commitment to the free market and an acumen to at least understand how the economy works (unlike President Obama).

Socially, I don't know if I can trust him.  LDS adherents tend to be socially conservative, so that's a plus.  However, Romney seems to be more of a vote-grabber, and will pursue those things that will promote himself.  I mean, first, he runs to the left of Ted Kennedy, then he tries to paint himself as THE conservative in 2008, and now he's saying he's a moderate.  It seems too calculated to me.


2)  Rick Santorum--I'm discussing Santorum second because he is currently the runner-up.  Santorum is known for going on "tangents" and thus people lose what his message is.  I blame this not only on Santorum (and his handlers), but also on the current generation who rely on 10-second sound bites for their information.  This tendency is not an overly good thing, especially seeing what happened after he gained momentum after his three state sweep a few weeks ago: by going "off message", he gave his detractors some sound bites to use against him.  In addition, Santorum spent a good 12 years in the Senate, enough time to compile a less-than-stellar conservative record (his votes on unions and some spending bills are evidence).

Santorum isn't your standard, run-of-the-mill politician, like Romney or Gingrich.  He is genuine, and actually believes what he says, so much so that he practices it.  In addition, he is consistent.  You really don't have to wonder what new position or new spin he's going to come up with on the campaign trail. Santorum has built a reputation as being consistent and genuine, which is definitely a plus when going against an opponent who has created a 3 year portfolio of hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Mr. Santorum's record on social issues is unquestionable.  His appeal to evangelicals (who helped to carry President GW Bush over John Kerry) is based on this.  Unlike Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who parrot the pro-life, pro-marriage positions as outliers of their basic platform, they are part and parcel of Santorum's basic platform.  You aren't going to get a tabling or a truce on social issues with him...that is why he wrapped up the evangelical support early on.

 3) Newt Gingrich--Newt was an admirable Speaker of the House, and has several things going for him.  First, his record as a legislator and negotiator during the Clinton administration is astounding.  To really consider it, we must remember that under Clinton, politics became more polarizing: the strategy was to appeal to your base and get out the vote, not pander to the center.  It was in that climate that welfare reform was passed.

However, a career as long as Newt's is not without problems.  Not one of Newt's colleagues while Speaker has endorsed him.  Some have argued that this means that Newt's leadership qualities are lacking.  I see it differently.  First, there were some Republicans who questioned and challenged Newt as Speaker, that cannot be denied.  However, they were not the  majority.  Newt still had the support of a great deal of Republicans in the House.  Second, under Newt's leadership, Congress controlled spending and balanced the budget.  When Newt left, the floodgates opened.  Thirdly, the face of Congress has changed considerably since 1998, when Gingrich was Speaker.  Republicans lost the House in 2006, and only regained it 4 years ago.  Finally, the attitude of the Republicans in the House has changed.  Americans were unhappy with the Republican leadership in the House in 2006, and subsequently voted them out.  When Republicans regained the House, they elected as Speaker one of the good-ol' boys from the Bush-era spending spree, John Boehner,who coincidentally, was one of the architects of the anti-Newt movement.  Suffice to say that Congress in 2012 is very different than it was in 1998.

Clearly, Newt has political acumen.  He knows how to play the game.  He is bombastic and not afraid to back down.  Where Romney has vowed not to really go after Obama, Newt will attack with a vengeance.  Newt understands that he is up against the media, as well (to be fair, Santorum has shown that he gets it too, and can use it to his advantage).  Newt knows his stuff, which is clear in the debates.  I firmly believe that in any debate setting, Newt would run rings around Obama, and would go for the jugular (which McCain wouldn't do, and Romney has refused to do).

Newt, however, is a bombastic, egotistical, attention seeker.  His attack campaign on Romney was viscous and spiteful.  He's prone to doing and saying stupid things (sitting on a couch with Pelosi agreeing with global warming, condemning Paul Ryan budget as "right wing social engineering"), which gain him just enough notoriety to remain a household name (sort of).  Of course, there is the whole marital infidelity thing.  On that, there is only one thing that comes to mind: Bill Clinton's response to his involvement with Monica Lewinski: I did it because I could.  Such an attitude reveals a character flaw that I don't want in my presidents: unwavering selfishness. 

4) Ron Paul--Clearly, Ron Paul is the outlier in the process.  His ideas on the size of government and spending are mainstream, well, at least they are not opposed by the other Republican candidates.  Fiscally and economically, Paul's proposals make sense.

Paul's foreign policy is what loses me.  At best, its naive, at worst its simply moronic.  He completely does not understand the ethos or the threat of radical Islam.  Fundamentally, radical Islam is aggressive and imperialistic.  His lack of historical perspective on the conflict with radical Islam, which is the single biggest threat to America today.  In addition, he fails to grasp that as a result of a globalized economy (which isn't a bad thing), its not sound policy to circle the wagons around our borders in case of an attack.