Politics has been called the most brutal of bloodsports. Much like those of us who follow the NFL, MLB, NCAA or any other sport, we all have our favorite teams and root really hard for them to win. When they win, we're elated and when they lose, we're a bit dejected. Also, with our favorite teams, we often adopt the posture that we're allowed to criticize, but you on the other team, you better not say one negative word.
We see this playing out during the Republican presidential primary. Some are on Team Romney. They cite his business background, his turnaround of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and his perceived ability to beat Obama as reasons to back him. Some are on Team Perry, citing his record of job creation, his conservative stance on issues ranging from life, to 2nd Amendment issues, etc., as reasons to support him. Each candidate, or team, has reasons they cite to justify their support for their guy (or girl) and to justify their disdain for the other teams. It is totally understandable and laudable. We need a good, healthy debate about who our nominee will be. Only by putting each of these candidate through the cruciable of a long primary will the best candidate rise.
With that said, however, some of the sniping between the respective camps has gotten out of hand. Sure, I have problems with Romneycare (for example) and the individual mandate. I also have problems with the flip-flopping. That said, do you really believe that he wouldn't be dramatically better than Obama? Think back to the health care debate. A lot of us felt that this individual mandate was Obama's way to grease the skids for a single payer system. Do you really think Romney will go single payer system?
Likewise, I have problems with Perry. I have problems with the Texas Dream Act, giving in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants. I also have problems with the guardasil mandate and the appearance of crony capitalism. That said, does anyone seriously think that Perry wouldn't be dramatically better on the issue of immigration, jobs, national defense and crony capitalism than Obama?
I could go on about each of the candidates for the Republican nomination, but I think you get my point. For those that don't, my point is that, for all of their faults and warts, each of these candidates are remarkably better than the current occupant of the White House. Each of these candidates have professed allegiance to the Constitution, have pledged to reduce taxes and regulations, have pledged to strengthen our national defense and have pledged to repeal Obamacare. Thus, we have to be careful in how we support our respective favorites.
We can argue passionately, both for our candidate and against others. But, we have to keep the invective and personal cheap shots out of the discussion. Believe it or not, the other side has people that monitor this site. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that some pimple faced flunkie is sitting at a cube at the Daily Kos, MSNBC or the DNC right now as I type, journaling every negative thing that is said about these candidates for use in their talking points. (Everybody, say hi to the little Marxist.) We cannot get so passionate about our guy (or girl) that we lose sight of the ultimate goal: to get rid of Obama. If we don't, he'll win another term and, I believe, he will achieve his goal of fundamentally transforming this country. At that point, the ball game is over.