Like many other Palin supporters I was greatly disappointed by the e-mail I received from the Guv telling me that she was not running. Unlike other Palin supporters, I take her at her word. To paraphrase her, why would I trust her to be the POTUS and not trust her to make the decision not to run? For the record, I truly believe that she was seriously preparing for a run, but like any other confrontation or battle that requires preparation (including even D Day) you have to be able and willing to pull the plug if the conditions are not right. I believe that she determined late in September that the conditions were not right and withdrew her name. I trust her decision.
Some of her supporters have said there is no candidate who deserves her support. I will not comment on that. Politics is the art of the possible. There is a list of people who ARE running and I am not going to sit this one out. That's my decision. Having said that, I have revisited my aversion to Mitt Romney. It is not an emotional decision. It is a decision based on experience. While I campaigned for, voted for and contributed to both Bush II campaigns, one of the sad lessons I learned is that when a President who is an (R) embraces big government and tries to buy votes with programs like Medicare Part D, those programs become permanently entrenched and almost irreversible. Looking at Mitt Romney through that lense I am no longer sure that his presidency would be an improvement over a continued Obama presidency. My two biggest concerns when it comes to Romeny are Cap and Trade and Universal Health Care. Based on his record, a Romney presidency would enthrone those two programs in our national polity for many, many years until the whole financial structure comes tumbling down. Romeny endorsed and implemented both while he was governor of Massachusetts. He has said nothing to persuade me that he would not "grow in office" and endorse them again if he were to take the White House.
Both programs are an abomination. Both will be used to stifle free enterprise and enrich the friends of the permanent political class. Solyndra on steriods my friends.
Romney has already demonstrated his inability to resist the blandishments of the establishment press. Anyone who is willing to spend a couple of hours reading at sites like Climate Depot, or Junk Science and to follow the links from there to other articles should be aware that a) there is no real consensus on climate change and b) that real science is not made by consensus anyway. Any candidate who has not taken the time to inform himself or herself about these issues does not deserve my support or my vote.
I fear that Mitt Romney is like what Richard Feinman referred to as the Cargo Cult scientists . He falls for anybody wearing a white coat and glasses with a Ph. D. from Harvard. He even listed John Holdren as one of his advisors.
On the issue of Universal Health Care, any candidate who does not see how destructive this socialization of health care will be, again, does not deserve my support. In Romney's case, I fear that Obamacare will become permanently enshrined. Oh there will be a few tweaks and pretenses at change. But this is a man who thought it was a dandy idea when he implemented it in Massachusetts.
So the question is which Not Mitt Romney do I vote for and work for. While some on this website think that Rick Perry will be more conservative than Romney, I am not so sure. What was devastating about the Gardasil decision was the ease with which he was willing to impose a medical mandate on people. Yes he backed off. But it makes me really uneasy about his instincts.
True conservatives understand about personal liberty. While, unlike libertarians, they may be willing to infringe on that liberty more often than libertarians would to protect the social order, they at least are queasy about it. They understand that the question isn't , would that be good for people, but is should people be allowed to make that decision for themselves. And, if you are a conservative, you put the burden of proof on the person who argues that people should not be allowed to make that decision for themselves. Further, the only arguments you will entertain are those that pertain to how individual decisions affect other people or the common good. If you apply that reasoning to the Gardasil decision you realize that the disease that is being spread ( a virus) is not one that is easily spread from person to person like tuberculosis or measles or mumps. It's reasonable to ask parents to vaccinate when one kid just sitting in a class room and breathing can infect the whole classroom. It's not so reasonable when the disease can only be spread through sexual contact.
What bothers me is that an elected Perry may not be so responsive when he is sitting in a Washington as when he was sitting as Governor in Texas.
So that leaves me with a host of others. I didn't become a Cain supporter until a) Governor Palin withdrew her name for consideration and b) Herman Cain started running ahead of Rick Perry in the polls. Which two events happened almost simultaneously.
I like that Herman Cain is willing to talk about completely abolishing the old tax code and starting over. I don't think his 9:9:9 plan is perfect but it tells me that his instincts are right. He is the only candidate who seems to understand that FICA is actually a tax.
I am concerned about his lack of government experience, but there are no perfect candidates. I am not happy with the government experience of any of the candidates who have it. Michelle Bachmann talks a good game but cannot point to any significant bills that she has introduced. If you're in the minority you can't get the bills passed, but at least you can introduce them. On Newt Gingrich, he has a wealth of experience but his personal life makes me think he cannot win. And if demonization by the left disqualifies a candidate ( as many have argued demonization disqualified Palin) Gingrich has that problem in spades.
That leaves me back again with Herman Cain. He gives a good speech. He learned something in private business and sitting on the Federal Reserve. He is humble enough to admit he doesn't know everything and seems willing to learn. He was not my favorite a month ago, but he looks like he could win. I understand about his lack of organization. I understand about his lack of money. Both of which facts make his rise in the polls all the more remarkable.
So, absent the earthquake Sarah Palin said it would take to bring her back into the race, I am supporting Herman Cain. Not that my support means much. I am neither rich nor powerful nor very popular. But most of his supporters aren't. My 2¢ worth.