If anyone has been watching the Republican debates lately (I wouldn't advise it), it seems as if the media has already decided who their two candidates will be. Last week, Chris Wallace, Brett Baier, and Megan Kelly zeroed in on the emerging rivalry between uber-rich Northeastern businessman and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and the king of cowboy bravado that is Texas Governor Rick Perry. Meanwhile, the social conservatives (Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum), the pizza man (Herman Cain), and the libertarians (Ron Paul and Gary Johnson) were mostly left to stand on the sidelines.
The question that this development begs is, is anyone really that excited about Perry and Romney? Romney, for example, passed a state law mirroring President Obama's healthcare reform while he was governor and presided over one of the slowest growing economies in the nation in Massachusetts. For all of the railing that's been done on "Obamacare," how could Republicans elect a guy who basically installed the same thing at the state level?
I also found it funny that Romney criticized Perry for being a long term governor, saying that he was a private sector man, only a governor for four years and that he "didn't inhale." Then why the hell are you running for president?! In case you don't know, Mr. Romney, you're going to have to "inhale" if you're going to take on possibly the hardest job in the world. However, this type of rhetoric is typical in the current tea party world of government bashing that has swept over the Republican party.
Perry has tried to distance himself from Romney as being a more brash conservative who appeals to the everyman. With his good looks and C average at Texas A & M, he strikes me as George W. only less intelligent. Perry has taken a lot of guff for being "soft" on immigration, as he is opposed to building a fence along the United States-Mexico border and supported some forms of amnesty for children of illegal immigrants as the governor of Texas. The border fence hoopla is a bit ironic considering the billions that it would cost to put up, despite the fact that many of the "fiscally conservative" candidates are rallying around the idea as a way to keep immigrants out of the country. The other, lesser-known candidates are pouncing on these two for their positions on these issues.
But in reality, most of the candidates have some vice or weakness that can be exploited by the other candidates. Michele Bachmann is a gaffe machine and a religious fanatic, and her husband has become famous for running a gay conversion clinic. Rick Santorum walks along the same line (although with less recognition), and he is currently taking heat for not responding to crowd members who booed a gay soldier at the last debate. Santorum went on to say he would reinstate "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Herman Cain has never held an elected office, and his main claim to fame is running a highly successful mob-themed pizza joint. He admitted to knowing very little about foreign policy in an interview with Fox News earlier this year, and he famously claimed at one rally that none of the bills in his administration would be longer than three pages.
Ron Paul's views on drugs and foreign policy are so far outside of the Republican mainstream that it's almost impossible that he'll win the nomination. He does deserve credit, though, for having unwavering positions on the issues and refusing to move towards the mainstream to get elected. I won't spend much time on Gary Johnson, as he's more or less a mirror image of Paul except with less name recognition and support.
Clearly, all the candidates have their problems. I don't think you'll ever see a perfect candidate in any race. As you may recall, the last guy to win a presidential election had the middle name Hussein, some shady associations (Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers), and very little experience in national politics. But when you compare those things to a stagnant economy and a 9% unemployment rate, they don't seem so bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment