Santorum A Weak Choice For Georgia Republicans

Today’s Courier Herald Column:

Georgia is rapidly nearing the time where we will stop talking about the GOP Presidential nomination and do something about it.  Next Tuesday is Super Tuesday, and Georgia will be the largest single prize of GOP delegates available.  There is also strategic value to Georgia’s primary, in that it will likely decide Newt Gingrich’s viability.  Gingrich has staked the future of his campaign on Georgia’s results, though he vows to continue regardless of the vote count.

Super Tuesday will also likely be kind to Mitt Romney, with his most recent home state of Massachusetts and his likely win of Virginia (where Ron Paul is his only opposition on the ballot) to add to his delegate totals. Romney seems to have regained momentum in this week’s Michigan and Arizona primaries, likely returning his “front runner” status.  Polls out of Ohio indicate that Rick Santorum will not be shut out of Super Tuesday’s largest prizes.   With each of the three leading candidates looking like they will pick up a large prize on March 6th, the GOP contest will likely plod along for some time to come.

But Georgian Republicans must cast their lot on March 6th, and as such, indicate what vision being offered for a GOP Presidential nominee is our choice for the direction of not only the country, but for the future of the Party.  The entire race has been framed as Mitt Romney versus the “not-Mitts”.  The Real Clear Politics average of Georgia polls indicates that Newt Gingrich still leads on familiar turf, but Rick Santorum continues to be within striking distance with one week to go.

Each of these three have not won an election in 10 years.  Each brings specific strengths, along with weaknesses too glaring too ignore.  Georgia Republicans voting between now and next week will have to quit pining for perfection and make a realistic assessment of whose strengths outweigh their weaknesses, and more importantly, who is the most likely to be able to beat Barack Obama.

Within the weaknesses of each candidate are a multitude of what Rick Santorum calls “team player” moments.  Santorum now excuses votes he made during his last term of Congress as part of what had to be done because politics is a “team sport”.  In doing so, Santorum has called attention to what is likely his biggest Achilles heel. 

Both Gingrich and Romney have had team player moments and decisions.  Counteracting these, however, is the fact that they have also exhibited demonstrable leadership.

Despite his tremendously heavy baggage, Gingrich still must be credited as being both the architect and implementer of the biggest movement for conservatives since Reagan was elected in 1980.  The 1994 Contract with America and subsequent rout of Democrats in Congress cannot be ignored when considering if Gingrich has the potential to execute some of his “grandiose ideas”.

Romney, likewise, was able to get elected and govern as a Republican in Massachusetts.  It’s not like he had a state legislature filled with social or even fiscal conservatives as he governed.  He was, after all, Ted Kennedy’s Governor.  Much like Republicans recently cheered when Scott Brown was elected from Massachusetts to go to the U.S. Senate, Republicans were equally happy to have Romney pick up the Massachusetts governor’s mansion for the team.  And much like Scott Brown, those expecting a voting record to match Deep South Republicans were likely to be disappointed.

Santorum, however, has generally been a legislator whose biggest talent is demagoguery.  He’s held the Republican party line, even when the Republican party lost its way.  As the Republican majority was headed off the cliff that is now known as the 2006 elections, Santorum was at the front of the pack.  He lost his re-election by a 59-41 margin, losing 4 Pennsylvania Congressional seats and a majority in the state House with him as the head of the ticket.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said of the 2006 elections that Republicans were “fired for cause” after they had clearly lost their way.  He urged the nation to trust Republicans again, vowing to demonstrate that the lesson was learned.

Of the three leading candidates, the quickest way to demonstrate that Republicans learned nothing from the 2006 election cycle is to nominate Rick Santorum for President.  There are no great accomplishments on his record to mitigate his go-along to get-along voting record during his last Senate term.

Newt Gingrich offers the ability to brutally articulate the differences between the incumbent President and a Republican alternative.  Mitt Romney offers a track record of success in capitalism and an understanding of economic turnarounds to offer the country.  Either can be weighed against past failures and current miscues.

Rick Santorum, by contrast, renders a decisive advantage for the re-election of President Barack Obama.  With three years under the President’s belt, it is getting harder and harder for him to blame Bush for the current state of the economy.  Nominating Santorum is the easiest way for Republicans to hand him that argument back for the general election.

73 comments

  1. The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

    Oh come on Charlie, you are such a buzzkill! Anybody with half-a-brain knows that either of these three guys could hand Obama his backside on a platter in November…

    …If by “backside” you mean “landslide victory in the general election”?

    I think I speak for many Republicans when I say that I think that I might need stiff drink after this is all over. Truth is, after seeing the Repubs cleverly baited by the left into campaigning against birth control over the last few weeks, I pretty much need a stiff drink NOW.

    • SallyForth says:

      Worse than weak is downright slimy. Santorum is inviting Democrats into the Republican primary to vote against Mitt Romney. He’s beyond just “taking one for the team;” he is now wearing the other team’s jersey if he thinks it will get him more votes. Gingrich has long since established himself as a no-class dude who will say or do anything. So it looks like the only respectable choice is Romney to have some class at the top of the ticket (not to mention basic sanity :-\ ).

  2. Bucky Plyler says:

    I can’t say that I agree with your thinking about Santorum. However, I can say that most conservatives have given up on voting for the “perfect” candidate this time around. (and the last time around, the time before that, etc.) Charlie, just don’t write in Barnes !

    • Charlie says:

      You’ll be happy to know I can’t write in Barnes. After all, you can’t write in names on a primary.

      That said, the above reflects where my thoughts are personally. They are all flawed, but my choice is to weigh the greater strengths of Newt and Mitt versus their inherent weaknesses, and have an answer by Tuesday.

      • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

        Picking between Newt and Mitt to go up against Obama in November is like not being able to decide between rat poison or cyanide as no matter which one you choose, both of them are eventually going to do you in, hence the conundrum that Republicans face in choosing between Gingrich, Romney and Santorum.

        Oh well, when you can’t quite decide which poison to choose from you might as well pick the candidate that’s going to be the best at telling you what you want to hear, no matter how improbable it actually is.

      • Cassandra says:

        “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” – Voltaire

        The three amigos, Mitt, Newt, and Rick, have either made verbal gaffes or show severe background deficiencies making perfection a dim hope. Congress remains the enemy of the good.

        Mitt – “I don’t follow NASCAR, but I have friends that are team owners,”
        Newt – Has more baggage than the Louis Vuitton Outlet Store.
        Rick -http://online.wsj.comarticleSB10001424052970203918304577243133837070396.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

        An unvetted, gimmicky plan that is less appealing than the 9.99 “Pizza Plan.”

        Mitt will be the nominee, and the only two questions that I have are:

        Who is the running mate and can Mitt win a debate against POTUS ?

        My primary protest vote is for Gary Johnson.

  3. Calypso says:

    The national Republican Party and the Georgia state Democratic Party–twin children of different mothers.

    • CobbGOPer says:

      Since most of the Republican leadership in Georgia used to be the Democrat leadership in Georgia, it’s more like a severe case of multiple-personality disorder.

  4. drjay says:

    ugh, i still don’t know who i’m going to vote for next week, i don’t think i have ever been this undecided this close to an election of any kind before…

  5. MouthoftheSouth says:

    I like the hand wringing of many Republicans about their candidates. They seem surprised that these are the choices, but why? Crazy social conservatives and selfish yet not self-aware businessmen without a backbone or rudder are exactly what you would expect out of a tea party driven electorate. So what to do if you are a logic based Republican? Ron Paul wants you to believe the flight to quality leads to him, but when you get there, it turns out he is racist and doesn’t believe in paper money. I guess the only option is to vote for Obama.

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      “I guess the only option is to vote for Obama.”

      Or better yet, just exercise your God-given right to sit on your hands and not vote for any of them. This isn’t some heavy-handed, iron-fisted totalitarian regime where people are forced to vote for the only option on the ballot which is a psychotic dictator, this is still a democracy where people don’t even have to vote if they don’t want to.

      The so-called right-to-vote also includes the right not-to-vote, especially if none of your choices are worth voting for.

      • MouthoftheSouth says:

        By not voting, do you mean vote Libertarian? That’s still the same thing, right? There are other issues on the ballot, though, for some reason, like whether people who use the city of Atlanta’s water should have to pay for the improvement of the system.

        • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

          If you don’t like any of the choices for President, just simply go and vote on the other issues on the ballot that are revelant to you and bypass the Presidential candidates.

          It’s a way to exercise your right to vote or not vote while not voting for total crap, if you’ve grown tired of only having the choice of voting for the lesser of two evils who will hurt you the least rather than having the preferrable choice of being able to vote for the best or even better candidate who will help you the most.

          • GTKay says:

            Not voting is still voting. In the primary, not voting is copping out and letting others vote for you. In the general election, not voting is the same as voting for Obama. In my opinion, not voting is juvenile. It’s throwing a fit. It’s putting yourself and your dislike of the choices before the good of the country. Voting is a precious right, and you take that right for granted when you only use it when it suits you. That’s selfish. As much as you like to complain, you better darn well do your research and figure out who you think will be the best candidate of the ones available or you forfeit your “right” to complain about whomever gets elected. I don’t really care if your tired, each one of us has a responsibility to cast the most educated vote that we can for our president whether we’re enamored with our choices or not.

            • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

              I have done more than my fair share of research and my research says that the best candidate is likely none of them, though I like Ron Paul’s small government and liberty constitutionalist message, he has his significant political liabilities as well.

              But when it comes to choosing between the remaining three Republican “candidates” and our sitting President, why should I have to choose between what are basically three socialists and a communist (marxist)?

              It’s not only my right as an American, but it’s also my God-given right to decide that I’m not going to vote for any of this crap.

              Why should I vote for two parties that have gleefully run up close to TEN TRILLION dollars of debt over the last 12 years (three Presidential terms)?

              I don’t necessarily know if I will vote for a candidate for President in either the primary or the General Election yet, but, none of the four “legitimate” choices in front of me (Gingrich, Romney, Santorum or Obama) really inspire much confidence, though, in my humble opinion, it seemingly appears, I would hope, that Romney could at the very least be a candidate that could possibly hurt the nation the least, but his support of the individual mandate as governor of Massachusetts that later became the centerpiece of Obamacare, as well as his continuing aloofness on the campaign trail, no less, doesn’t necessarily say very much about his potential as a candidate.

              • GTKay says:

                One of those four men you mentioned will be your president, and three of them will be exponentially better than fourth. It’s kind of like when Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have.” This is the field we have – make the most of it. Not voting will do nothing for your country. Why should you “have to choose?”

                “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual–or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. ”

                Samuel Adams

  6. Samuel says:

    I think we can all thank Brian Kemp for not scheduling the Ga. Primary to coincide with Florida’s Primary; half a delegation or not. Ga.’s primary is now pretty much moot whereas we had half a shot at nuetralizing Florida’s impact a few weeks back. Now, it’ll be like pissing upstream in the wind!

    What the hell; I’m still too upset over Rick Perry’s inability to add and articulate to even care about the GOP nomination!

    2016 I say!!!!!

  7. Three Jack says:

    Among the 3 mentioned, Newt would get my vote. But as one of many ficons disgusted with the unrelenting talk of social issues (especially by Santorum and Newt), I am seriously considering a protest vote for Ron Paul. Reasoning — none of the 4 remaining candidates can or will beat Obama in November because not one of them will be able to excite a majority within the GOP much less the country.

    Might as well face it, 1600 PA Ave. will continue to be occupied by ‘team players’ no matter who wins. Fiscal conservatives need to reassess priorities in order to make sure we are well represented in congress.

    • bowersville says:

      I have reassessed my priorities. I’m going fishing. Again. North Carolina. On the coast. I’ll cast an R ballot. If the machine takes it. It’ll be blank.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      “I’m seriously considering a protest vote for Ron Paul. Reasoning—none of the 4 remaining candidates can or will beat Obama in November because not one of them will be able to excite a majority within the GOP much less the country”

      I don’t think your protest vote for Ron Paul would be as much of a protest as you might think.

      Latest Rasmussen poll results:

      For the first time since late December 2011, Mitt Romney leads the president in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Romney earns 45% of the vote, while the president attracts support from 43%. Romney holds a nine-point advantage among unaffiliated voters.

      For the first time ever, Texas Congressman Ron Paul also leads the president. In that matchup, 43% prefer Paul and 41% Obama. Ten percent (10%) would vote for some other option, a figure that includes 17% of Republicans.

      If former Senator Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads by two, 45% to 43%. With former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as his opponent, the president enjoys a 10-point lead, 49% to 39% [my emphasis: poor ol’ Newt].

      http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

      IMO, Santorum and Gingrich might as well go home and live out a long life retired from politics. I’m not saying that they’ve really earned their retirement, but I’m more than happy to have my tax dollars go towards supporting them if only to keep them out of office from here on. Not saying that I support Congressional pensions, either, but in some ways, it’s the only polite way to tell the critters to get the hell out of our lives.

      • John Konop says:

        The tough talk on Iran is not helping the GOP ie kids dying for what?, gas prices, cost of war…….. This is why Ron Paul is playing better in a general.

      • NoTeabagging says:

        I do think Paul v. Obama, would be more interesting. I just can’t see having a Prez Newt or Prez Mitt. Silly names aside, they are just too boring and predictable.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          If you know of any other pollers that are far-sighted enough to do match-ups with Obama, please share.

          Otherwise, the GOP can keep doing its cute little internal polls to determine . . . who is going to be the sacrificial lamb to be served to Obama in the general election. ‘Cause if you can’t win the general election, it doesn’t mean **** as to which GOP contender makes it out of the nominating process.

            • seenbetrdayz says:

              Maybe I should have been more specific; the majority of those polling agencies listed are polling RV (republican voters). Like I said, these are cute little GOP-focused polls that aren’t even taking into account the diversity of voters (Dems, Repubs, and Indies) who tend to participate in general elections.

              What do people outside the GOP base think of the candidates? ‘Rallying the base’ isn’t going to work this time. You can’t get more support out of a party than it has in numbers, and, whether it’s due to the GOP’s gung-ho attitude towards conquering the universe or its reluctance to accept new people into the party, the republicans really have their public-relations work cut out for them considering the face of their party has been narrowed down to some fairly generic candidates and a guy who’s considered “radical” (for not being generic, I guess). Eventually you have to convince the people who aren’t affiliated with parties, who vote.

              Still, it’s looking like the best bets for the indy vote are either Romney or Paul, according to those averages you provided. Rasmussen’s got the most-recent one, so we’ll wait and see what others have to say.

              • kyleinatl says:

                I appreciate the elaboration. Just looking at GWU’s polls in the Santorum side of things, I have a very hard time swallowing that he is doing that much better against the President in about 4-5 days since the GWU poll, despite that fact that the President’s job approval ratings have been up the past two weeks with most firms EXCEPT Rasmussen, and Paul magically leads out of nowhere in Obama vs. Paul despite little evidence anywhere else that this is occurring even amongst GOP voters? I take Rasmussen about as seriously as I take an NBC poll.

                But we’ll see I guess.

                • seenbetrdayz says:

                  Well, I do appreciate the link. RCP has a nice collection of polls there, all conveniently located in one spot.

                  But, again, if you have a hard time swallowing Santorum’s polling data, just look at how many of those polls were inclusive of ‘likely voters’ versus how many were exclusively conducted on ‘republican voters.’ I’m sure that among republicans, Santorum does pretty good versus Obama. I’m pretty sure that they all do. That’s sort of like asking a die-hard Bulldogs fan which team he wants to win the SEC championship, even if he doesn’t like some of the players on the team. But, if I were a Santorum supporter, I wouldn’t be so quick to take these results and run with them unless I, for some strange reason, thought that only republicans will be voting in November, lol.

                  And, there’s evidence to support Ron Paul’s appeal towards independents/democrats. There was a rally at Michigan State University, just yesterday, where Ron Paul gave a speech to 4,000 people. By far he has the most enthusiastic support among young people, and, if the GOP actually wanted to win the WH in November, they’d be trying to help these young people GOTV, instead of crying about how the Democrats keep hogging all the young people every election.

                • Calypso says:

                  “…I, for some strange reason, thought that only republicans will be voting in November… ”

                  They do. The democrats vote in December. Please spread the word.

  8. drjay says:

    it is surreal to me that the gop nod has come down to this–i remember in 2010 all the talk of the great gop bench and all the exciting conservative guv’s coming up like jindal and haley and walker–then the field was set and erickson had a post in red state declaring it a typical field compared to gop races in the past and that we should not lament the choices (or a nagging perceived lack thereof–that everyone seemed to be harboring) offered–and now this…i guess now i know what it was like to be a dem watch dukakis get nominated…

  9. ted in bed says:

    I’m a gun guy and happily voting for Mittens!!!!

    Mitt has said alot of stupid things about guns over time BUT when gun owners in Mass needed his help, he was there. Mitt saved nearly 700 guns from being suddenly declared unlawful in the state, added in several reforms to licensing that were a problem, and put the stops on an anti-gun bill in a creative way that the media never saw coming. Remember, he’s in Massachusetts so this is pretty impressive. (for background read this :http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/01/15/the-truth-about-mitt-romneys-record-on-guns/ )

    Santorum on the other hand defended and protected the most vile and sneakiest gun-banner ever, Arlen Specter. The federal Assault Weapons ban got out of committee when Arlen failed to attend the meeting. It was no accident that he missed that meeting and his vote could have stopped that bill in committee. He wanted to say he was pro-gun and get the NRA endorsement but wanted the AWB to be enacted.

    Mitt is a friend of gun owners. Lil’ Ricky, he aids and abets the banners.

  10. AMB says:

    Ted, there was yet another school shooting today. Can’t you let the body cool before you start with the ‘pry my gun from my dead fingers’ ranting?

    • ted in bed says:

      Since YOU BROUGHT IT UP, do you think those kids were well served by that school being off-limits to background checked adults carrying firearms? What would have happened if the killer decided to stick around instead of fleeing? Most stick around until they encounter resistance or decide its time to kill themselves.

      Gun control kills. This school shooting is another in a long bloody line of failures of gun control.

  11. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Well, I had hoped Perry would make a splash and was really excited when he said that he was committed to making “Government as inconsequential in your life as possible.” I thought he was the best blend of fiscal and cultural conservatism in the field when he announced. His big knock would be lack of foreign policy experience and that he talks a lot like a former Governor of Texas who isn’t particularly popular nationally.

    Now we are left with four choices:

    1. Paul – love his infatuation with Liberty… wish more GOPers shared it. I don’t agree with him on foreign policy (we brought 9/11 on ourselves) and his appeal seems to have diminished since Iowa/NH

    2. Santorum – The guy had a long career in Washington, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing (about the same time as Paul)… and led on a lot of issues Conservatives care about: Welfare Reform, Balanced Budget amendment, the unborn, the family, and has the most foreign policy credentials of any of the other 3 with the possible exception of Gingrich. The “team player” line in the last debate was disconcerting. Not perfect by any stretch, but checks the box for me as an option.

    3. Gingrich – man, would I like to watch him chase Obama all over the country and rebut everything the President says. That being said, part of a candidate’s challenge can be getting well-known. That is not Newt’s problem. He is very well known and his favorable/unfavorable is prohibitive.

    4. Romney – look, if this guy is our nominee in November, then so be it. I will vote for him. He could be the second coming of Reagan or of Gerald Ford. The problem is, no one really knows.

    When I look at all the choices, Santorum comes the closest to representing the “3-legged stool” of conservatism as a fiscal, cultural, and foreign policy conservative. Does he have his holes? Yep. However, he has never supported government-mandated health insurance, the TARP bailout, or cap and trade… three big issues that helped create the Tea Party. Gingrich and Romney do not pass that test. Republicans need someone who can contrast the differing visions of America offered by the Right and the Left. That is why Santorum will get my vote on Tuesday.

    • John Konop says:

      I guess Santirum supporting No Child Left Behind failed heavy handed one size fit all unfounded mandate that exploded educational cost on the state, Medicare Part D the drug giveaway program that will bk the country, Highway Bill with bridges to nowhere, Farm Bill…………….makes a real conservative in your eyes? CC we cannot afford anymore of this so called brand of conservatism!

      • ConservativeCaucus says:

        John,

        I thought I was pretty clear… he’s not perfect. No, I’m not excited about those things, but who else IN THIS FIELD would be better about less government? If you’re guy is Ron Paul, then you’ve got me. Congressman Paul is clearly the most limited-government guy in the bunch. But Gingrich and Romney aren’t any better here. Elections require us to make a choice on the candidates offered. Given the choices we have, I think Santorum is the best bet.

        • John Konop says:

          I agree they all have issues. But if I was betting on who would do the best job that would be Romney. He is the only one with a real resume outside of Washington.

          • Cassandra says:

            (we brought 9/11 on ourselves)

            Would that be due to the fact that hundreds of years before our nation began, Muslims still hated non-believers? When I hear this statement, it make me ‘throw-up.’

            At best, America offers the World a view of hope. At worst, we are an empire that lacks ambition toward world domination. To say, “we brought 9/11 on ourselves” without somebody calling you on it is unacceptable. The US no more deserved or caused 9/11 than Kennedy or MLK deserved their fate.

            How dare you!

            • John Konop says:

              …(we brought 9/11 on ourselves)..

              I have never made the above comment, not sure what you are talking about.

              Disagreeing with the NEOCON foreign policy does mean, I am blaming us for 9/11. But any rational person can see the Iraq war policy created massive hardship and burned allot of tax payers money. And it is obvious Afghanistan is a nation with corrupt leadership filled with a massive amount of illiterate people( 80%). Why do you think nation building will work in Afghanistan?

            • Calypso says:

              Cassandra, I don’t want to speak for CC, but the way I read that was CC is saying he/she didn’t agree with Paul on foreign policy and used “(we brought 9/11 on ourselves)” as an example of Paul’s thinking on the issue, not CC’s.

              Correct me if I’m understanding it wrongly, CC.

  12. oldman45 says:

    I’m so disillusioned with politics and with this never ending negative campaign that I will go so far as to say…none of these guys is fit to lead our country…and I’m including President Obama in that assessment. I mean here we are the greatest country in the whole wide world and this is the best crop of leaders we can find? Where are the good, young, bright, charismatic, principled, moral, down-to-earth, can’t be bought, husband of one wife, gonna do the right thing, men of faith, constitutional conservative guys? The guys on the Republican side are only a better choice because Obama is so bad! We’re looking at the bottom of the line-up here, the far end of the bench, the B-team…you can’t make me believe for one minute this is the best Republicans have to offer our country. They all want to be President of the United States, I will give them that…but is that enough reason to turn the reins of this country over to them. I say, no. I’m looking for someone I can go vote for in November and feel good about it. The last thing we need is another politician as President. We need a real constitutional statesman who will put God and country first and who will unashamedly espouse the real faith and values that made our country great. Maybe that person doesn’t exist anymore? I fear that it’s more likely that a person of that kind of character could never get elected in the USA. The liberal media won’t stand for it, the political establishment is not going to back anyone they can’t control, and the insider politics of Washington that knows no party affiliation (we will make a deal with the devil to get reelected) won’t let it happen.

    • NoTeabagging says:

      I agree with you and c_murrayiii below. Obama had the best chance of changing political process and the media reporting. His Dem convention speech in ’04 spoke to all Americans regardless of party, he campaigned as the great bi-partisan hope. He had everyone’s attention for a brief time, and could have made great progress by working with the best and brightest from both parties. Imagine bringing out the best and most credible legislators, from both sides of the aisle to work on common causes. He Might have changed the way politics are reported with a new system of political process. Unfortunately, he became the great Republican basher, taking that job from Nancy Pelosi BTW, so much for bi-partisanship.

      That is his greatest failure for me. He had the chance to really change the political system and failed. We certainly aren’t seeing anyone portraying such brosd, noble ideas this time around.

      We are lost in a government that sees itself playing a field game, with the only goal of winning for the team, at the expense of doing good for the country.

      We have campaigns drunk on money, bottom feeding consultants that con candidates into negative ads, relentless robocalls assaults from hidden phone banks, tabloid mailers, and yes those littering signs. All billable expenses for the consultants, most uneccesary.

      I swear I think I have heard poll/survey results every day for two years claiming to say who is leading the race. Of course, we never actually see the questions and answers that actually led to this great oracle du jour, which is why I completely tune out alleged poll results. For all I know they asked (disclaimer: likely voters) “Who would you vote for if Hell froze over tomorrow?” and offer it up as gospel. Even scarier is the thought that too many people follow these alleged polls. They give up researching the candidates, letting the polls make up their minds, rather than risk voting for someone ‘behind in the polls’ even if they might prefer them.

  13. c_murrayiii says:

    I share the general frustration with our candidates mentioned here by others. As a young Republican, I am so disillusioned. As oldman45 said, we are the greatest nation on Earth by every standard, and these are our choices for President? I know no one is perfect and I don’t expect a perfect candidate. I do have some expectations though, and no candidate meets those limited expectations. I think we all speak for the great majority of voters, whether conservative, liberal, or moderate. Santorum’s social crusade turns me off, I can respect his views, but this is not the election to talk about contraceptives, gays in the military, etc. Romney is an enigma and seems so out of touch, and honestly, I’m always a little suspicious of a man who wants power badly enough to spend lavish amounts of his own personal wealth and to pursue power in spite of marginal interest in him as a candidate from his own party. Paul is wacky on foreign policy in my opinion, and his most ardent supporters scare me with their Federal Reserve conspiracy theories and their latent racism and antisemitism. Gingrich says many of the right things, but his ego scares me for many of the same reasons I distrust Romney and we already have a President with a warped ego and narcissistic tendency and its nearly torn the country apart. Obama is just too full of himself, ineffective in anything requiring leadership, and seems to care less for the Constitution and anything resembling American political values. Sigh…I have tremendous fears that our country is in fact on the decline, and the clearest sign of this is the total breakdown of our political system, resulting in good men and women shying away from running for President. I see things getting much worse, economically, socially, and politically, no matter who wins this November. And the world is a very dangerous, chaotic place, so the sense of urgency is even greater. Where are the Reagans, Kennedys, and Roosevelts? Strong leaders, with clear vision and a compelling message that inspires the American people and rally’s them around those values and principles that have made America the greatest nation on Earth? They are all sitting at home, too disgusted or too intimidated to rise to the call.

    • TolleyJenkins says:

      “Paul[‘s] . . . most ardent supporters scare me with . . . their latent racism and antisemitism.”

      Huh?

      • Cassandra says:

        “Strong leaders, with clear vision and a compelling message that inspires the American people and rally’s them around those values and principles that have made America the greatest nation on Earth? They are all sitting at home, too disgusted or too intimidated to rise to the call.”

        I think that anyone running for virtually any office has to weigh acceptance of hugely negative campaigns against them with the opportunity to serve. I applaud each and every lawmaker for putting up with it.

      • c_murrayiii says:

        I should have prefaced that by saying the most ardent Ron Paul supporters I have interacted with tinge their political diatribe with racism and antisemitism, however it is well known that Paul has cavorted with well-known racists/anti-Semites in the past and currently. He has also published newsletters with racist ideas. He is very much supported and praised on the racist website Stormfront, and he has spoken highly and been spoken highly of, by David Duke (former KKK grand wizard). He has ties also to Willis Carto (who runs a White Supremacy news outlet that publishes Ron Paul columns and who Ron Paul used to solicit donors) and Don Black (a former KKK grand wizard who organizes money bombs for Paul). There are also individuals such as Chuck Baldwin and Lew Rockwell who are big Paul supporters that have made comments in the past that are viewed as controversial and tending towards conspiracy theory, but I don’t count them in my analysis, though others might.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          And these people/groups support the one GOP candidate who has the guts to mention the racial inequality within the U.S. Dept. of Justice?

          Gonna be a hard sell, but I’m sure you’ll find some buyers. Doesn’t make much sense to people on the outside, though.

          • c_murrayiii says:

            Well, I can only speak from my own experience and what I have read, including Paul’s own words from his newsletter. I welcome any evidence that proves me wrong. Still, I wouldn’t support Paul personally because of his foreign policy and his record of ineffectiveness in Congress.

  14. The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

    “Santorum’s social crusade turns me off, I can respect his views, but this is not the election to talk about contraceptives, gays in the military, etc.”

    Every election is the election to talk about contraceptives, gays in the miltary, etc for faux social conservatives like Rick Santorum, who supported the atrocious No Child Left Behind, admits to being pro-choice earlier in his political career and married a woman who had a live-in relationship with and wanted to have kids with an abortion doctor who was nearly 40 years her senior before she married Santorum and helped Bush run up trillions in debt before being thrown out of the U.S. Senate, head-first, by the voters of Pennsylvania in the 2006 midterm elections.

    With “conservative friends” like Rick Santorum, who needs liberal enemies?

  15. John Vestal says:

    So Santorum’s campaign has been robo-calling Michigan Dems encouraging them to cross over and vote for him in today’s primary.

    (1) If I was a Michigan GOP voter, I would be insulted that he’s trying to convince me that he’s the “most conservative™” while also courting the big-government, pro-union voter who probably voted for Obama in ’08.

    (2) If I was a Michigan Dem Obama voter getting the call, I would be insulted that he thinks I’m too stupid to know to do this already.

    :>)

    • John Konop says:

      In fairness to Santorum he did vote against Nafta/Cafta, WTO China……..And in the midwest, that does play well with working class voters in both parties.

  16. SallyForth says:

    Amen, Charlie! I was already thinking this, but when I heard him make the statement over the weekend about being AGAINST separation of church and state, I couldn’t believe me years. No serious candidate for any elected position in our government should have such a ridiculous (and dare I say, un-Constitutional!) stance. Freedom of and from religion, if one so chooses, is one of the main cornerstones of our nation’s founding. What planet is this nut-job from, anyway?

    My philosophy is that both parties need to put a reasonable person up as their candidate, because if a name is on the ballot, there’s always a chance that person can win. The Dems already have Obama as their nominee, and the Repubs need to go with the most distinguished and experienced guy in their stable, Mitt Romney. I don’t see why all the talking heads keep saying Repub voters don’t like him — he seems likeable and certainly smart, plus he’s financially well-off and won’t be as likely to use the office for pumping up his net worth.

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      “What planet is this nut-job from, anyway?”

      I think that he’s from the planet of “I’ll say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to get elected”

      Being a big-spending, pro-choice, gun control politician earlier in his career, Santorum is proving that he’ll say ANYTHING in his attempt to become the Republican nominee for President.

      With his support of Bush’s big-government (No Child Left Behind) and big-spending initiatives, Santorum can’t necessarily talk about his questionable credentials as a small-government fiscal conservative, so he has no real other choice but to play up the rhetoric on social issues and religion to appear to be the most conservative choice in the Republican primary (which isn’t necessarily all that difficult in this campaign season while competing against a Northeastern “Conservative” in the very-moderate Romney and the brilliant, but very erratic, unfocused and baggage-hampered Gingrich).

  17. seenbetrdayz says:

    Here. I don’t know if anyone has ever heard of Jack Hunter, or if they have heard of him, they don’t like him, or maybe you don’t like the Daily Caller, but if you consider yourself a ‘social conservative,’ you really ought to watch this. Hunter summarizes Santorum’s biggest hurdles, and proposes a strategy for So-Cons which actually has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning victories (albeit in pieces at a time):

    “How Rick Santorum Hurts Social Conservatism”

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/28/the-deal-with-jack-hunter-how-rick-santorum-hurts-social-conservatism/

  18. The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

    Has anyone heard anything or know anything in detail about the allegations that Santorum has supposedly been calling Democrats in Michigan and telling them to come and vote for them because he has no chance of beating Obama in November so that he can win in the primary?

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      I don’t think Santorum had much to do with it, but apparently, Michigan democrats do know which “Joe” they wanna put up against their “pro.” Strategically-speaking, it’s a . . . pretty damn good idea, but . . . damn, it’s also pretty low.

      CNN footage/interviews of democrats going to vote for Santorum

Comments are closed.