Allow me to weigh in here with some possibly upsetting opinions.
Newt Gingrich: The guy is intelligent; anyone who denies that is not paying attention. He has dedicated his time to the study of history, as have I,
and let me tell you one thing about this. The more you study, over time, the more likely you are to not only change positions, in break neck speed,
but you are also prone to holding contradictory opinions at the same time. Ideally in a candidate you would not have this, but I suspect many of you
who are intelligent, especially in history/politics, know what I am talking about.
You can be a hard-line capitalist then read some amazing works from John Ruskin and George Sorel then suddenly you begin questioning your outlook and
approach. Now you should not change fundamentally in character, that would prove true inconsistency, but being open to new ideas as they appear is not
the mark of a weak man; quite the opposite. That does not sit well with those who demand purity, but then again most sane things won’t. Does this
excuse most of the things Newt has been involved in, consistently, such as further deconstruction of our national sovereignty? Absolutely not, nor am
I justifying his cocky attitude, I am just provided the facts as I see them.
Mitt Romney: He is a business man, plain and simple. This means generally he is a technocrat. His outlook is determined by statistics ranging from
polling data to financial reports. All of his policies will be determined upon the arguments provided at that time; all other things are generally
disregarded. I doubt he lacks a central core which directs his fundamental viewpoints, but this will be less subtle leaving him wide open to others
seeking to manipulate his authority for their benefit.
In my opinion there are three types of Presidents; politicians, technocrats, and statesman. Barack Obama is a politician, he has a central view which
he exhorts but is too involved in the political process. Gerald Ford was a technocrat; his Presidency lacks any remembrance today because he tried to
play it well according to statistics (except pardoning Nixon). And Franklin Roosevelt was a statesman, like him or not, he was bold, courageous, and
was willing to stand on his convictions even if everyone else abandoned him. Mitt Romney’s Presidency would be dull and easily forgotten.
Michele Bachmann: She is aggressive, abrasive, and confrontational. It seems like she is attempting to strengthen these qualities on stage to overcome
the fact that she is a woman. Often times this leads to a far reaching policy and approach that would have otherwise been more calmly handled by a
male counterpart. Take Margaret Thatcher for example, she plaid a cold role because she was trying to play in the boys club; this made her successful
but also very polarizing.
Rick Santorum: He is attempting to continue forward with a 2004 policy program in 2011-2012; his time for running would have been better suited during
that time than now. The specifically evangelical and war hawk position has lost steam (although is still quite influential). People are looking for a
person who emphasizes economic issues rather than social issues. I do not believe they should be avoided entirely but Rick’s entire campaign is
based on the culture wars, this will earn him support from the most staunchly evangelical but will lose him enthusiasm among the base.
Rick Perry: I like his strategy teams comparison between Rick and Tim Tebow, it was a very good move designed to pull in more evangelical voters that
are quit influential in Iowa. His character comes off as quite folksy along with his unapologetic Southern draw which draws the laughter of
Northerners. But this will help improve his standing in the South. He grows on you like the lovable doofus who was probably clumsy as a teenager and
got himself into unnecessary trouble, although unintentionally. His personality leaves him open to easy manipulation by more intelligent insiders;
this is not what we need in a President.
Jon Huntsman: A very calm, level-headed, and rational person who speaks in a gentle and poetic fashion aimed at persuasion not confrontation. His
track record is proven to be more fiscally conservative than anyone else on the stage, save Ron Paul, but he does not believe this requires him act
fundamentalist in any way. Unlike others who tend to behave like rabid dogs, Huntsman prefers the reasonable approach which distances him from the
Right that wants someone to go head to head with Obama more in rhetoric than actual ideas. Newt fills this gap with his confrontational, yet still
intellectual, style. Huntsman will win the hearts of moderates but distance himself from the populists.
Ron Paul: Rigid in his ideology and generally composed in his approach, Paul brings to the table a combination of Constitutional literacy, historical
accuracy, and wraps them up in a Libertarian dogma. It will rally the troops into direct loyalty but also alienate the pragmatic types. His flaw is
that he comes of sounding like a broken record that no one will fix, this is not to say that he is wrong mind you, but to those who are not loyal fans
this can become irritating. Much as people hate to admit they want a little inconsistency in their candidate, consistency comes off to the average Joe
The major obstacle in his way to the nomination is his foreign policy. While this comes all part of the Libertarian package it often upsets the more
Hamiltonian leanings of the GOP base. Whether they admit it or not, they favor a larger state apparatus to enforce their fears of boogeymen that
surround them. Paul tries to explain this with calm persuasion but is met with a herd of people clamoring to feel secure because of hyped up
All in all, I would have to say none of these candidates really fit what I want. I admire Newt for his historical knowledge and Paul for his devotion
to a cause he, and millions of others, hold so dear. But unfortunately for the Paulites here when Americans say they love justice, freedom, and
liberty, they are lying through their teeth. You are liberty soldiers in an army of others who are not devoted but in denial.
As the primaries and caucuses come closer the only thing I can say is; may the best man win. And will leave you with a few quotes from H.L.
“Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes;
the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most
of them imaginary.”
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and
“When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the
fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in
terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand.”
edit on 12/15/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)