Decisions, decisions, decisions! I can’t quite figure out who to support for the GOP Presidential Nomination, Save Jerseyans.
And with Florida’s primary being moved up to January, there’s precious little time remaining to pick a bandwagon.
Interestingly enough, I’m finding it a whole lot easier to decide who among the declared field I’m NOT supporting. Towards that end, I’ve poured my mental primary checklist out onto the post space below. Please note up front that I reserve the right to “un-strike” the stricken if they impress, wow and/or dazzle me at some point. The strike simply means that I’m not anticipating a political redemption between now and vote time:
__________________
(1) Rick Perry: I’ve got three words for you – “Fred Thompson Redux.” I frankly can’t discern which problem concerns me more: the Texas ‘Dream Act’ itself or, alternatively, the Texas-sized nap I take every time he tries to justify it in a debate. Has he put together an impressive gubernatorial tenure? Absolutely! But T-Paw was a good Guv, too. Keeping people awake and engaged is the real challenge. It’s a challenge that Perry hasn’t tackled successfully to date.
(2) Mitt Romney: Let’s be clear – this race would be over already if monied Mitt a) would learn how to sound ticked off, b) put “Romneycare” and mistake in the same sentence and c) convert from Mormonism to something else. The first two points he can control. The last issue is an unfortunately but real problem for plenty of base voters who would never admit to feeling that way in polite company. But they’re out there, Save Jerseyans, and I personally believe it’s an awfully ignorant attitude that could also cost our party dearly.
(3) Ron Paul: How can I vote for a man who thinks Dennis Kucinich would be an asset to his or her cabinet? Dr. Paul is as crazy as those goofy Iranian hikers who, incidentally, he would agree with on most points of foreign policy. I don’t like this guy, Save Jerseyans. In fact, Ron Paul winning the GOP presidential nomination is one of the few events that could actually make me consider starting a Garden State Whig Party. No joke.
(4) Herman Cain: Cain gets the award for “most improved” throughout the debates. He clearly learns fast and knows how to market himself and his ideas as well as Godfather’s pizza slices. “9-9-9” is probably stuck in your head too, right? Polls suggest it might be sticking in plenty of other heads. Too soon to tell.
(5) Newt Gingrich: Yes, he’s the smartest man in the room. He’s also the most resourceful having survived a major Paul Ryan gaffe and the mutiny of his entire core staff. Newt succeeded in completely re-tooling his image from cranky 1990s relic to the Yoda of Republican orthodoxy. He could be a kingmaker and that might’ve been his goal all along. Or maybe he’s a dark horse in waiting if the leaders fail to generate enough juice? VP is out of the question but not much else is. Stay tuned.
(6) Michele Bachmann: How can I add to what I’ve already said? She’s Steve Lonegan in a skirt. Blind ambition makes people say and do the craziest things. I saw it in Steve in ’09, so I know exactly how to recognize it in Michele in 2011. Not a “unificator” at all as President Bush would say. For all these reasons and a few more, I’m 0% shocked that her polling numbers are dropping like a rock.
(7) Rick Santorum: Provides a much needed counter-point to Dr. Paul’s isolationism. Could be a strong social conservative VP choice if Mitt Romney prevails.
(8) John Huntsman: If Bachmann reminds me of Lonegan, then Ambassador Huntsman reminds me of another NJ 2009 villain – Chris Daggett. Completely flavorless and a little too comfortable with the other side. On the issues? Pick a topic besides China where Huntsman stands out at all. And what makes him worthy of the party leadership mantle? He doesn’t even seem to like the GOP all that much! A little ideology is important to animate pragmatism and inform dialogue. Ironically, pragmatism itself dictates that being anti-party label is a real handicap in a partisan primary.
(9) Gary Johnson: Free association exercise – Arid deserts. Pot plants. Painful awkwardness. End of exercise.
__________________
So do you agree or disagree with my list, Save Jerseyans?
Feel free to let me have it in the comments section. I won’t bite. Not hard, anyway.
Who's left? Cain? for realz?
Christie is in on Monday.
I can't get behind Romney until he dumps that stupid "states' rights" excuse for Romneycare. Admit you're wrong, dude, and then move on. It makes him sound ridiculous. Also takes a big messaging weapon away from Republicans.
I'd vote for Benjamin Netanyahu if he pulled a Carl Lewis and relocated to the states.
I would've said that you're wrong 72 hours ago…
Now? Who the heck knows. I'm hearing conflicting things after the Reagan Library speech.
I agree with you that the states rights argument is lame, though I don't think it's necessarily a mortal sin.
The states rights argument might be "lame" but it's certainly not "stupid." in fact its 100% constitutionally and legally sound. That doesn't make it a great political argument, but he is absolutely correct.
Ron Paul is the strongest economic conservative amongst the current field of contenders. He predicted the current economic recession in 2003, long before anyone else.
Bringing the troops home is the smartest thing to do economically, diplomatically, and you take away terrorism's best recruiting tool: our presence in the Middle East.
Ron Paul is also the most honest man running. Granted you might not agree with everything he stands for, but at least we know where he stands. Dr. Paul isn't bought by any company or lobby. I'll take honesty over charisma any day of the week.
Where we disagree: the madrasahs won't close up shop if every single U.S. base around the world is disbanded and the troops all come home. You can take that to the bank. Ron Paul's inability to understand this reality is dangerous and, quite frankly, disqualifies him from serious contention.
You can't handle a stone age culture with a post-modern approach. Ask any service person who served in a place like Afghanistan: they only understand swords, bombs, and a religion that demands everyone who isn't a member of Islam needs to either 1) convert or 2) perish at their hands.
I've spoken with a few military servicemen who support Dr. Paul and they understand and agree with his foreign policy just fine. In fact, Ron Paul gets the majority of all campaign donations from active military service personnel, more than the rest of the GOP candidates combined.
Let's be clear, if the U.S. is attacked by a terrorist organization, a President Paul will go after them. He voted for the authorization to hunt down Bin Laden after 9/11. A group of 12 people scheming to attack America in a cave somewhere can't be stopped by military occupation. In fact, an occupation might cause more people to hate us. The hardline Islamists who preach a 'convert or die' ideology, gain a larger audience of moderate muslims when we bomb their cities and kill their family members.
The countries that are home to U.S. Military bases, most of the time, aren't even located in the middle east. Countries like Germany, South Korea, Vietnam, and Japan benefit from the United States bolstering their national defense at the expense of the American taxpayer. We're in 130 countries around the world, is this an expense that we can afford?
RP's national defense platform:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-de…