Do you think it’s getting a little boring always hearing how the race will be changed…and then it doesn’t. Rick Santorum (and Romney) ‘winning’ Iowa was definitely a little tardy, Ron Paul and Jon Hunstman way back in 2nd and 3rd place (behind Romney), Newt Gingrich winning S.C. (over Romney), N.G. losing Florida (to Romney), Paul really losing Nevada (to Romney), Missouri is being staked out by Santorum (against Romney), R.P. working the Maine cacuses to win (in Romney’s backyard), N.G. working in M. Bachmann’s state (while denouncing Romney), and Colorado (something-or-other with Romney). Yea, definitely said a lot of Romney because there is a lot of Romney in the polls, money, time, media, and everything important to winning an election. I thought that the Democratic primary in 2008 was really great because the two sharpened each other for the better without being too nasty. In this Republican primary, N.G. should get out with his bombastic statements and give it to someone like R.P. or R.S. who both have my respect if he really just wants to beat Romney. The only thing that is definitely down is turnout in all states (and don’t include Iowa because there was no Democratic race). I have not heard anything substantive from the candidates, except maybe from Paul and Santorum. Romney is a been-there-done-that candidate who is so boring that he’ll beat Obama by pure boredom. Like I’ve told many people, if the leader of America was a chief executive, then Romney should be the president; however, the president is also the head of state and needs to also inspire the people they govern and have something better than a (I’ll give it to him) great resume.
It is the night before the South Carolina primaries for the GOP nomination. I will just go through the 4 candidates (Paul, Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum) really briefly and why I am ruling them out. Continue reading
Like I tweeted, I am more excited about these caucuses than I was for my birthday or Christmas combined. The Iowa Caucuses are the midpoint between the first half and the second half of the campaigning season for the White House.
I think that the race is now a 3.5 person race: Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and the 0.5 person is occupied by the rest (Jon Hunstman, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich). Rick Santorum is a tried-and-true conservative who seems to mostly stick to his principles. Mitt Romney is the perfect politician…or is it the imperfect politician? He does everything that he’s supposed to do, is expected to do, and is very, well…the word would be boring, plain, flat, etc. Ron Paul, on the other hand, seems to excite a new breed of Republicans, albeit not the conservative of the present. The GOP seems to be kicking his legs from out under him which makes more people want to look at him. His explanations have largely been proven, and I wouldn’t mind voting for him if he gets to the general election. Of course, I’d like to see Jon Hunstman because he speaks simply, and without drama, but this is a popular(ity) contest and being good is just not nearly enough.
I just can’t wait for the campaigning to begin. Here’s a 2008 video to remind you of what’s to come: JibJab’s Time for Some Campaignin’.
In one word, entirely. Why do I think this? Look at the field of GOP candidates that are in the presidential field. All except Ron Paul seem to have changed their positions to suit the political environment that they are currently in. Mitt Romney – enough said. Newt Gingrich‘s demeanor does not befit someone that will be the leader of the free world, same goes to Michelle Bachmann with her incendiary comments. Maybe Perry in 4 years when he’s brushed up on how to act in the national limelight. Rick Santorum‘s foundation on just social issues is not exactly the separation of church-and-state that I see. Ron Paul seems to stick with what he thinks, what he knows, and basically everything is right. It’s very easy just to look at his basic pro/con positions and make up your mind; however, examining his thought process reveals a lot more than what the establishment pundits are spewing. A respected online news site, POLITICO, charges that if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses, then that means their first-in-the-nation contests will be irrelevant (Driving-the-Day). Please…because they’re the first, we will always look at them and constantly see who they’re going to choose. And why are people afraid that Paul is going to win? Doesn’t that mean that he’s the choice of the people? Hmm???
Fine, Paul wins Iowa and it’s a big disaster. And if he wins New Hampshire, is it still a big disaster? Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor posits that if he did win those first two contests, then the criticism would be unfounded:
But what would happen if Paul wins Iowa – and wins the New Hampshire primary, too? Wouldn’t that flip this criticism on its head, and show that Paul is at least as representative of the GOP as, say, Michelle Bachmann and/or Gingrich? (What if Ron Paul wins Iowa – and New Hampshire too?)
If the GOP wants to be a party of the people, shouldn’t they elect the person with whom the people want?