Header Picture

Header Picture

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

A Post-Hawkeye Look at the GOP Candidates

Sometimes the Iowa caucuses mean something, sometimes they don't. There is too much flux in the current GOP race for anyone to decide anything definitively, so anyone who tells you something finite is either looking for ratings or full it -- or both.

Here's a look at what we do know, and as always, the point of view here is of what is best for personal liberty and self-determination.
  1. Mitt Romney: (Rising) He has the money and the organizational skills culled from having lost the race in 2008 -- that's a good thing, even though the pundits and MSM would have you believe that once you lose a race you are a loser. I'm glad no one told Reagan that in 1976. Is Mitt a "Conservative?" Probably not, but then again, you most likely aren't either. Does he have some troubling legislative actions in his past? Yes, but he actually has a record as opposed to the guy currently in the White House, which allows us to question his views as they stand today and to hold him accountable. 
  2. Rick Santorum: (Rising) Because he is a former US Senator I don't believe he should be the nominee because Congressional foolishness put us where we are today. Like it or not he is a part of that problem. That being said the attacks against his "big government' votes notwithstanding, he is a small government-type. I'll support him if he is the candidate, but America is well-advised to put an executive in the Executive Office. We've got a legislator there now, and that's not working out so well.
  3. Ron Paul: (Rising) Too bad his son Rand isn't running, because Rand knows how to espouse the beliefs of the movement far better than dear old dad. For the record, Ron is for adherence to the 10th Amendment and a lessening of the Federal government's role in our daily lives. That's a good thing. The next time some dope tells you Ron is for things like legalizing drugs and whatever nonsense they've been spoon feed, simply point out that he believes it is a state issue, not a federal one. Paul's foreign policy is a disaster and far too extreme for the real-politik world we live in right now. Paul has also been in Congress for thirty years, so he cannot hide from the fact that he is part of the problem.
  4. Newt Gingrich: (Plummeting like a rock) Newt is like that friend or relative of your's who is brilliant and has tons of potential but will never amount to anything because his emotional well-being is suspect. His tantrums against Romney are just inexcusable for a grown man, let alone one who wants to lead the free world. Newt wants us to believe that when someone points out his weaknesses he is being attacked, but when he attacks someone he is merely telling the truth. That asinine logic should disqualify him immediately from taking part in the national dialogue, and that's a damned shame because Newt is a big thinker of brilliant thoughts and we could use his intellect -- if he could only manage to leave his tantrum-prone self at home.
  5. Rick Perry: (Falling gently like feather) Perry is not really interested in running for president. He might like to be president, but so would I, but I'm not going to stick my neck out to do it -- so I understand where he's coming from. He would make an excellent executive at a time when that is precisely what the country needs most, but he's just not the guy.
  6. Michelle Bachmann: (Thud) She lost any chance she had when she came out like a National Enquirer-reading housewife during the trumped up Gardisil-Rick Perry nonsense last summer.
  7. Jon Huntsman: (Drifting aimlessly through space) According to all of the pundits, Huntsman is suddenly now the conservative torch bearer with loads of foreign policy experience and he is going to crush everyone in New Hampshire and save America. Not likely.
So there you have it. Eleven months to go and the loyal opposition is doing exactly what it is supposed to do -- vetting its candidates for the most important office in the world. Which we should be reminding our Democrat friends at every opportunity they did not do when they foisted Barack Obama upon an unsuspecting world.

1 comment:

mpetrie98 said...

Regarding Rick Santorum, I do not necessarily see legislative-only experience as a disqualifier. He'll go into the White House knowing something about how Congress works. And after all, you could say that it was Barack Obama's Senatorial INEXPERIENCE, in part, that disqualified him for the job.

Rick Santorum also has a record, meaning we can hold him accountable for his past transgressions, just like Mitt Romney, compared to Obamao who, like you said, has seemingly no public record.