Now that the New Hampshire voting is over I thought I would give a rundown on my views of the presidential contenders for the Republican party.
(1) Romney. With two wins it looks like his chances are improving to get the nomination. All may not be smooth sailing however because the other candidates are ganging up on him. Gingrich and Santorum have received substantial contributions lately, Rick Perry still has cash and if Jon Huntsman gets some help from his rich father he could wind up doing some damage. The there’s Ron Paul with lots of cash who goes after anyone he doesn’t like or agree with.
I’ll cover the rest of the candidates and then go back to Romney.
(2) Ron Paul. I agree with many of his libertarian stands as far as they support liberty and financial common sense but many of his views I consider to be anti libertarian, especially his isolationism. I think that if he were president instead of FDR that he wouldn’t have assisted Churchill and Hitler would have conquered England and all Europe. It is doubtful he would have developed the atomic bomb whereas Hitler would have and would have eventually invaded us with him having atomic weapons and us being ill prepared, but standing on some obscure principles of supposed non interference and supposed freedom.
Today we face new Hitlers and Ron Paul wants to just leave them be to establish a new incarnation of Nazism that we fought so hard to defeat in the last century.
Whoever is president should demonstrate the power to use good judgment but the trouble with Paul is he has everything formulated in black and white and doesn’t seem to leave any wiggle room for making judgments out of the box when necessary.
I see his core group of supporters remaining strong and enthused but the 23% in New Hampshire will most likely be near his high point in votes.
(3) Huntsman came in third in New Hampshire. Earlier he said that if he didn’t win in this state that he would drop out of the race. Well, he came in third and he’s more determined than ever to stay in and bring Romney down. Even though Ron Paul beat him for second place by five points Huntsman has the gall to proclaim that he really came in second. Why? Because Ron Paul doesn’t count.
This idiotic statement by itself is enough to turn me off of Huntsman. I’m no fan of Ron Paul but he does indeed count and most take him much more seriously than Huntsman.
I’d vote for Huntsman over Obama but there is something about his demeanor that rubs me the wrong way. He exudes an atmosphere of superiority that I think a lot of people sense and are turned off by. For instance, he seems smug about the fact that he accepts the orthodox view of global warming and sees skeptics as “anti-science.” This is not true at all for the true scientific method has to include a hearty dose of skepticism.
(4) New Gingrich. When I learned he was entering the race I told myself that if he wanted my support he had to do something to redeem himself for appearing with Nancy Pelosi in support of orthodox global warming propaganda.
Instead of changing my mind he has only reinforced the idea that he is capable of making big mistakes that is unbecoming a president.
He started out with an air of superiority himself by claiming to be the only candidate who was going to remain positive to the end. Well, he took an about face on that idea after Romney ads took him out of the picture in Iowa. He has now turned into the most negative candidate I have seen in my life. He seems more determined to destroy Romney than he is to become president. He’s like the general who turns on his own troops in anger while forgetting that he has a real enemy to fight.
On top of this Newt has attacked Romney as a supporter of “predatory capitalism.” Obama and the Wall Street protesters couldn’t have come up with a better attack phrase. When I have heard him attack Romney’s efforts in capitalism the past few days I hear words that could have come from socialist Bernie Sanders.
(5) Santorum. As expected Santorum took a hit in New Hampshire and is unlikely to win much in the future. To his credit he hasn’t joined the chorus in attacking free enterprise. His big drawback is he comes across as too religious and places lopsided attention on social issues. Reagan was a conservative, but he placed over 80% of his attention on the economy and national security. I believe that this is where the majority of Americans want the president to put his attention.
The biggest problem I have with Santorum is his bad judgment and lack of self control. When he was running again Hillary and debating her he left his podium, walked over to hers and challenged her. That really seemed to infringe on her space and was a big item in his defeat.
Several times in the current debates he ran into overtime and then interrupted other candidates, stealing their time talking over them. That really rubbed me the wrong way.
Our president must be more than a pure ideologist but must be composed and have to self-control to use correct speech and timing in dealing with world leaders.
(6) Perry He seems to be a lightweight lacking gravitas similar to Santorum and also spoke out of order during the debates. He clinched my rejection of him when he called Romney’s legitimate business ventures “vulture capitalism.” He appeared to be attempting to out due Newt in the attack capitalism department.
This brings me back to Romney. He may not be the perfect candidate but he is head and shoulders above the rest of the bunch. I think a lot of the criticism of him is misplaced and he seems to have good self control and presence that will be needed in dealing with world leaders.
Agreeing with me is only part of what I look for in a president. If he agrees with me but doesn’t have presence of mind to avoid insulting world leaders and possibly leading to an unnecessary conflict then he is not for me.
Overall I think Romney has the best judgment of the bunch and if elected president I believe he will eventually be compared to Reagan.
Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey
(You do not have to log in to add comments)