The Republican Presidential version of “Last Man Standing”

I last wrote on this in early October, and had intended to revisit the Republican presidential field after the next major event, whether it was a major candidate getting in, dropping out, or the first caucus/primaries.  So I’m a little behind.  Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann have dropped out (and Gary Johnson… Who?  Yes, exactly.)  Iowa and New Hampshire have come and gone, and it seems the writing is on the wall for Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman.  Perry seems to know it, Huntsman not so much.

So here’s my take on where we stand going forward from here…

MITT ROMNEY:  I still think Romney will be the eventual nominee.  He keeps winning, and avoiding any major mistakes.
And I also think that Gingrich and Perry are abandoning principles and hurting the party as a whole by attacking him for being a capitalist.

Since when do Republicans attack other Republicans for having worked in the private sector, as opposed to being a career politician?  Seriously, WTH?

I can get behind Romney.  He wasn’t my first choice.  But I like him far more than the only other options who are still competitive (Newt & the Nut).  And the more I think about it, I can’t imagine Mitt Romney being a bad president.  At worst, he’d still be OK… and much better than the current occupant.

* * * * * * * *

NEWT GINGRICH:  I’ve always thought Newt had too much “baggage” to run for President.  But it seems that the not-Romney movement can overlook that.  Sorry, I can’t do it.  If we were just talking about the adultery while impeaching Bill Clinton, maybe.  There’s so much more.  And not all of it is in the distant past.

Sitting down with Nancy Pelosi for a global warming commercial?  Raking in $1.6M lobbying for Freddie Mac?  Calling the Paul Ryan budget plan “right wing social engineering”?  (Gee, I wish Congressman Ryan had run.)

For any of you in the not-Romney crowd who believe that Newt is the true conservative in the race, I need you to understand this — Newt Gingrich is a conservative when it suits him to be.  He’ll also jump on any “grand idea” that makes him feel smarter than everyone else, even if it’s far from conservative.
     That’s the key to Newt…  his sense of his own brilliance.  He’s absolutely convinced of it.  Republican voters, please beware.  This man is every bit as much a megalomaniac as Barack Obama.
Don’t believe me?  Try this:
“I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I’m doing it…Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I’ll get credit for it…As a historian, I understand how histories are written. My enemies will write histories that dismiss me and prove I was unimportant. My friends will write histories that glorify me and prove I was more important than I was. And two generations or three from now, some serious, sober historian will write a history that sort of implies I was whoever I was.”  ~ Newt Gingrich (1985)

* * * * * * * *

 RON PAUL:  Wow… where do I start?  As I said before, Ron Paul says a few things, mostly on domestic policy, that I agree with.  But there’s way more stuff that he says, or has said in the past, that gives me flashing red lights and alarm bells.

His anti-Israel stance comes across as anti-Semetic regardless of how many times he tries to explain it as a monetary (foreign aid) position.  There’s always just a little too much animosity sprinkled into his statements.

His position on Iran is non-intervention taken to dangerous extremes.  He tries to argue that a nuclear Iran would be no more a threat to world peace than the United Kingdom or France.  That alone, to me, means he can not be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

And then there’s the newsletters…
Chock full of conspiracy theories and racists rants.
Not the “mainstream media” / Chris Matthews / Keith Olbermann definition of racist.  Seriously racist.
Paul’s excuses?  It wasn’t an official, authorized newsletter… and besides, he didn’t write the objectionable stuff.  Really?  That’s the best he can do?
It was published in his name and he occasionally wrote articles for it.
It was your newsletter, Dr. Paul.  Own it and everything in it.

And don’t get me started on the Alex Jones / prisonplanet.com / 9-11 “truther” connections.  No, no, no.  Another reason not to take him seriously.

* * * * * * * *

RICK SANTORUM:  I didn’t say much about him previously except that during his Senate time, I considered him a one-issue politician.  He’s still mainly known for social issues only, but I suppose he must have positions on the economy and foreign policy.  If he continues to do well, I might have to find out what those are. 

* * * * * * * *

RICK PERRY:  Still my personal favorite, but I think the fat lady is singing, Governor Goodhair.
The Texas economy and jobs record couldn’t overcome poor debate performances.  People got worried that if he couldn’t hold his own against the other Republicans, he’d be toast against Obama’s perceived oratory skills.  I don’t know if that’s accurate, but it seems to be over for Perry.

* * * * * * * *

 JON HUNTSMAN:  Former governor of Utah, Obama’s ambassador to China.  I keep hearing that his record in Utah was quite conservative, but that doesn’t change the fact that he chose to run his campaign in a very bizarre fashion.  Who is he trying to appeal to?

For awhile it seemed he was working hand-in-hand with the “mainstream media” to promote himself as the only “sensible” Republican choice.
Then he went out of his way to position himself as the only Republican who believes in evolution and global warming.
Whose votes is he trying to win?  Evidently not mine.
UPDATE:  Shortly after posting this, it was announced that Huntsman will drop out tomorrow.

* * * * * * * *

So…. that’s where we’re at right now.  I still like Perry, but here’s my prediction…
eventual Republican nominee and next President of the United States:
Willard Mitt Romney

And if you’re curious to know who I liked at this point 4 years ago?

That’s all for today, folks!
If you agree or disagree
(and want to debate)
any of these opinions…
hit me up in the Comments!
I’ll be glad to play some more.

            Nick

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “The Republican Presidential version of “Last Man Standing”

  1. Romney would probably be a lot like our current and last few presidents: Bought and paid for by Wall Street. His top contributor is Goldman Sachs, for goodness sake.

    If you manage to see through the propaganda, Ron Paul is the only rational choice. His top contributor is the US Armed Forces, which speak volumes about the sanity of his foreign policy proposals.

    • Thanks for the comment. If you read the blog, you’ll know I’m never going to be a Ron Paul supporter. I don’t know why he gets as much monetary support from the military as he does, but I’m a 20 year Navy vet and he’s never received a dollar from me. The only guy I knew who was a big Ron Paul fan was also a hardcore conspiracy buff who could talk your ear off about the CFR, Bilderbergs, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, and if you let him talk long enough, Reptilians.

      Sorry, Scott, there are any number of reasons I can’t support him. His close ties to Alex Jones’ mad paranoia and 9/11 “trutherism” make me roll my eyes. His insistence that Iran with the bomb is no different than France or the UK with the bomb is dangerously ignorant. I could go on and on, but we’re not going to agree.

      I could go on much longer with my objections to Dr. Paul, but I believe you’d just dismiss it all as propoganda.

  2. From the many interviews I’ve seen of active duty military, they like Ron Paul because he defends the Constitution much more strongly than the other candidates. And that’s exactly what military men and women take an oath to do.

    • I know. I took that oath myself, and upheld it for 20 years.
      And I agree that both parties in Washington could do with a lot more respect for the Constitution. That being said, it’s the other things I mentioned about Ron Paul that make him an unacceptable candidate for me.
      As a military vet, “9/11 Truthers” offend me because that would imply significant involvement by the military/intelligence community. But evidently, Ron Paul feels differently.

  3. Speaking of Bin Laden… Ron Paul wouldn’t have killed him, or authorized the mission that went after him. He also wouldn’t have sent Americans to Europe in WWII to stop Nazi Germany.

    Again, Scott, we’ll have to agree to disagree. You like Paul… great. Too isolationist for me, and too many links to conspiracy nuts like my friend who believes in Reptilians.

  4. I said it before, and it is still true. Ron Paul scares hell outa me. He has the same views that the hippies of 1968 would love. I know. I was there, a voting adult. O.K., perhaps I didn’t act like an adult, but ’67, ’68, and ’69 were fun years, and I was over 21. I fear Paul will split the conservative vote just like Ross Perot did to George Bush 41. Newt might make a good VP because of his knowledge of how the Houses work, and might even keep them working together. Top chair…no. We need to make sure Ron Paul’s massive ego (oh, yes – he has one) does not cause him to run independent. That would insure Obama’s re-election, just like Perot caused Clinton’s election. This country cannot afford 4 more year of socilalist control of the Presidency.

    • Allan, I think you’ve got a good point. That said, I know that even his son, Rand Paul, has said that a third-party run would not be good for the country.
      If he does mount a third-party run, it would be an act of pure ego, to play the spoiler and hand the election to Obama.

  5. We can’t afford to be policemen of the world anymore. And it stirs up too much trouble, aka blowback.

    As it stands now, the debt we incur from our military (900+ bases in over 100 countries) will have to be paid by our children grandchildren. Not a good legacy to leave for them, debt and hatred from our needless military intervention around the world.

    Bring the troops the home, and spend on our money on Americans, protecting OUR borders, not borders and people halfway around the world.

    It’s the only sensible way.

    • Scott, we can’t change the past… but we do have to protect ourselves in the world we live in. You have a lot of good talking points, but let me ask you a few direct questions:
      1. Do YOU feel that a nuclear-armed Iran is no more dangerous to the U.S. than the United Kingdom or France?
      2. Would YOU have given the order to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden?
      3. Do YOU feel the U.S. had no business intervening in Europe to stop Nazi Germany and the Holocaust?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s