An Undecided

“I cannot spare this man! He fights!”

                                    — Abraham Lincoln

I’ve been silent on the Republican primaries.  Mainly because I have had little to say.  Even now I am one of the undecided.  However, as I watched the debates and listened to the political pundits, I have come to a few conclusions.  Opinions are like…  well you know, and I am just sharing mine.  I’d love to get feedback on this before the election.  Like I said I’m undecided but leaning.

First a preface, in 2008 I declared, “I am a man without a party.”  The Republicans lost their spines sometime during Bush’s first term and the party nominated a spineless old man to oppose a vigorous and energetic Socialist.  Conservatism was on the defense even from its traditional allies.  As far back as 2006, I could see the storm coming and why?  Conservatives had lost their ideals and their will.  The rest is history.  Or is it?

The lady doth protest too much

Any President presiding over an economy in shambles, unstimulated and guided by an unseen but decidedly anti-capitalistic hand, should not (and under normal circumstances would not) be re-elected.  Such a presidency would not deserve re-election.  The principles which guide it clearly do not work.  Failure is indisputable to the reasonable mind.  This should be further evident by the excuses and finger-pointing.  To quote Shakespeare, “the [administration] doth protest too much, methinks.”

2012 should be 1980 all over again.  We have a Jimmy Carter analog in the White House, wringing his hands, declaring it’s all the fault of lazy Americans, greedy rich people, his predecessor, the other party, he didn’t know how bad it was, ect.  But this isn’t 1980, its 2012.

Thirty years of re-education camps for young people, (aka public schools), hypocritical socialist media, and the wimpification of Republicans, have created an environment where a failed Presidency just might seem successful in the eyes of the young and dumb class and preferable to the masses of sheeple stumbling around in the dark listening to the constant drone of the propagandizing media.

Am I angry?  Hell yeah.  Angry that my government can’t stop spending double its income, angry my kids will live in a third-world country after the unavoidable financial collapse that spending will bring, angry Republicans have no backbone, angry Republicans are just as addicted to spending as Democrats, angry the party wants to nominate someone nice rather than someone smart.

The nominee

Who gets my vote?  Again, I’m not sure, but I have impressions of each of these guys.

Romney:  A wimp.  He stumbles.  He won’t fight Newt, how can we expect he’ll suddenly grow a pair of testicles and fight Obama?  Yes I saw the news today, so we get some testy words against Newt but come on.  This was too little, too late and not at all convincing.  I was of voting age during the 90s and Romney’s accusations are not how I remember it.

Romney reminds me of John Kerry in 2004.  He is too smooth and his finger seems moist and steadily held in the wind.  Someone described him as plastic and I agree.  You know the Obama campaign is going to hit him hard as a flip-flopper.

Oh, I heard he’s Mormon, I say with a sarcastic glance.  Who cares?!  This nation’s problems are too big to be fighting over his fringe religion.  I’d care if he were a devotee of some personality cult or religion of hate.  What I know of Mormons is they may have some odd beliefs but they are certainly not dangerous.  Haven’t seen any of them blowing up civilians or crashing planes in the name of God.

Newt:  Certainly no wimp, but he is a man of questionable moral character.  Isn’t it funny how Democrats argued “its just sex” when President Clinton enjoyed a little extra-marital oral bliss in the oval office at tax-payer expense — no matter that the President lied about it under oath.  However, today, it is unthinkable that Newt cheated on two of his wives and may have asked one for an open relationship.  If you supported Clinton but are now offended by Newt please destroy your voter ID card, you are not qualified to vote.

However, I opposed Clinton for obstructing a sexual harassment case, demonizing a victim of sexual harassment, and lying under oath.  The sex was offensive and demeaning of the office but hardly impeachable.  Now, what of Newt?  Newt is a political opportunist.  His marital behavior demonstrates a level of selfishness that frankly, gives me great pause.  Can I forgive him?  Yes but do I trust him?

Newt is a difficult choice because while I do not trust him, I believe he is a true genius.  He might be the only person running with ideas that can work.  But then I am drawn to another point, will he have the political clout to accomplish what he needs to accomplish?

At the end of the day, I have to think ex-wives will say anything to hurt the one who scorned them, furthermore, I think our problems are serious enough to overlook this.  I have to think there is merit in the Lincoln quote above as applied to Gingrich.

Paul:  Crazy.  On economics I find nothing too troubling but when it comes to foreign policy, he scares me.  I’ve been following Ron Paul since he was running as a Libertarian 20 years ago.  It was then I first became aware that he is very anti-Semitic.

We already have an anti-Semitic pro-Arab President and that sort of weakness is not what I think we need.

Santorum:  I like him.  I think he is clean and a very likable guy but is he tough enough to stand up against Obama?  They say nice guys finish last and Senator Santorum is a nice guy.  He’s my moral pick but I just can’t get excited about him.  But if the vote were today I believe I’d have to go with Rick.

The debt bomb

President Obama campaigned on a strong condemnation of high national debt.  In 2006 he declared:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

At the time that speech was given the national debt was under $8 trillion and Senator Obama was feigning outrage at it being raised to $9 trillion.  Today it has exceeded $15 trillion. (I keep spelling out TRILLION on purpose.  You need to see it to understand it.  $15,250,967,476,800.00 that is the estimated amount as of this writing.)

Senator Barack Obama was right to be outraged but his outrage was insincere and political.  President G.W. Bush increased the national debt by about $4.4 trillion over an 8 year period of time – nearly doubling it.  That’s terrible, however, President B.H. Obama increased the debt by about $5.2 trillion over a 3.5 year period.  At the current rate of increase the debt will top $21 trillion by 2016 — that is more than double!


It's the economy stupid!

For me this is what this election should be about.  $21 trillion of debt and officially 8% unemployment and barely any growth.  And why has the unemployment number fallen at all?  Because people have given up, accepted part-time jobs, or taken low paying unemployment positions.

The over-spending needs to stop.  Hiring needs to be encouraged not punished.  The market should pick the winners and losers not the government.  I’m tired of protecting bad managers/investments and union workers at the expense of national solvency.

If a mildly weak economy was enough to make G.H.W. Bush a one-termer a deep recession/depression should make Obama a one-termer.  To quote James Carville, “It’s the economy stupid!”

    • leedeb
    • January 26th, 2012

    I think that you may have summarized exactly what most republicans and right leaning independents are thinking and the quandary we are all feeling. And that is unfortunate because many will not hold their nose this time and vote anybody but Obama even though it is more clear now than it was in 2008 that Obama should not be President.

    Got to run – I need to go get my nose plugs.

    • Remember that is NOT a Conservative, but rather a Libertarian. This may exiplan why the Reagan Revolution does NOT have Paul’s name applied to it, but rather Newt’s.All big thinkers and shakers are grandiose in their ideas, and many don’t mind telling you about their grandiose ideas. Ronald Reagan had a grandiose idea of calling the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire.” Now the Establishment Republicans and the Democrats didn’t like this idea, but Reagan didn’t want to live with this threat, instead, he wanted to ELIMINATE IT! And so he set out to convince as many people as possible of this grandiose idea, and was able to get elected and build up our military — even through the Democrats’ nasty campaign against this idea with their name calling and frightening people into thinking Reagan was a “war monger.” But Reagan prevailed because he could communicate to the Public his ideas well enough that they accepted them.Newt Gingrich had grandiose ideas back before the 1994 elections. He wanted to win the House of Representatives back from the Democrats, who had held it since 1952, forty years. He convinced a great deal of Republicans and voters that his ideas were better than the Democrat’s ideas. And what happened? A spectacular, historic victory! His strategy with the content of his 1994 Contract with America propelled the Republicans to a 54-seat gain in 1994 to win control of the House of Representatives, the Republicans only capturing it two out of the previous 62 years. Even the Reagan Revolution failed to achieve that!Then Newt led the House Republicans in 1996 to their first re-election as a majority since 1928 — an astounding almost 70 years!And once in power, Newt Gingrich actually delivered on his promises, and maintained a solid conservative record, working closely with Conservative Activist Groups on every one of these issues. He carried out the Contract with America in full, holding a vote on every item as promised, with most of the items passing. Newt maintained a RECORD of unswerving loyalty to pro-life, pro-gun and Second Amendment, and anti-tax issues.Under Newt’s leadership, the total federal spending relative to GDP declined from 1995 to 2000 by a whopping 12.5%. This equals about one-eighth of the size of the economy in just five short years!As a result, those nasty $200 billion annual federal deficits that had prevailed for over 15 years were instead transformed into record-breaking surpluses by 1998. They peaked at $236 billion in 2000.Mr. Gingrich also led enactment of a capital gains tax rate cut of almost 30% in 1997. It went from 28% down to 20%, the largest capital gains cut in U.S. history! And BECAUSE of that cut, capital gains revenues went up a whopping $84 billion higher for 1997 to 2000 than projected before Newt’s rate cut.RINO Romney ran to the Left of Ted Kennedy, governed like Ted Kennedy, voted like Ted Kennedy and then ran for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination as a Conservative WITHOUT a record of conservatism! Go Newt! — 777dennyHotly debated. What do you think? 3 24

    • What on earth are you talking about ? If you knew anitnyhg about Mr.Paul you would know that he has ALWAYS been against the war on terror. How on earth has he damaged Pakistan when he has never been part of the US administration ? He has always been a staunch critic of the US foreign policy. Pakistan has damaged itself. Your own leaders have shot the country in the foot.

      • I Actually don’t know what your talking about. Who was writing about Pakistan? Perhaps I missed it. I suspect the comment might have been a vehicle for the odd link you embedded. I took the liberty of removing it.

    • Ben
    • January 28th, 2012

    If the once feared consequences of Obama’s now failed ideology has become a reality how can one surmise that the voters who once voted against Obama not vote for anybody but Obama? The logic fails.

    • Kudzai
    • May 18th, 2013

    With all due respects, you’ve been lnineistg to too much propaganda. The Contract With America was part of the effort to regain the House, but people weren’t won over by Newt’s grandiose ideas , but by anger at Bill Clinton for forcing NAFTA on us. Much of the spending cuts were cuts in military spending by Bill Clinton. As for the cuts in taxes on capital gains, you should consider that most of the income politicians get are from investments, and subject to capital gains taxes. He was basically reducing his own taxes. Partly due to these tax cuts, since the stock markets around the world were having serious problems at the time, a large number of foreign investors invested their money in the US stock market, causing a huge increase in stock prices, but it was not due to the actions of either party. (Too bad it couldn’t last.) As for the budget surpluses , Ron Paul addressed this in the FL debate. He had looked into Newt’s claims, and found that the surpluses were due to the fact that Congress had started raiding Social Security funds (replacing the investment capital with IOU’s of fiat currency). The truth is that Newt has a lot of distrust to overcome among the voters. He was unfaithful to his wives (his current is his third, a former secretary with whom he had an affair while his second wife was dying of cancer). He has changed positions on issues, seemingly to the highest bidder. He did in fact work reporting to a lobbyist, and was paid 1.6 million dollars. He supports the status quo, which will not bring jobs back to America. RON PAUL 2012 The only rational choice.

    • Ronaldo
    • May 18th, 2013

    you will know them by their fruit .Santorum is a Catholic and a Knight of Malta. Look up on the internet the Oath Knights of Malta take and you will see who they rlelay report to and how little they rlelay care about our constitution and how much they hate everyone else. Unlike what we are told, the first leader of the Catholic church was not Peter. The church was completely different until Constantine took it over. Constantine was a pagan and continued to worship the sun god but mixed religions for political reasons. Those who did not go along with him were killed and the real followers of Jesus went underground . Since then the followers of Jesus have had difficulty in sorting out what were the true teachings of Christ and the traditions handed down to us by the pagan religious and political institution called the Catholic church. When the Bible was finally translated it helped us sort thing out but there are still many who interpret the Bible from their tradition. This is in the history books before they were watered down .There are many good Catholics who love God. I am not against them. I am against man-made institutions that set themselves up to be another god or king. The Vatican recently called for a one world government published in numerous news outlet in many languages. That should tell you something. The official stance of the Catholic church to explain our existance is evolution, not creation. That should tell you something.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply or add your opinion

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: