« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Not happy with Mitt, Newt, Rick, Herman, et al? Who’s to blame … look in the mirror

Early this morning, I read Erick’s leading post, Mitt Romney as the Nominee: Conservatism Dies and Barack Obama Wins, and thought to myself, well, someone else has finally gotten that sick in the stomach feeling that I’ve had since I posted back in July, Reality Check – Obama Can Win Re-Election.

I confess I’m not the typical RedState conservative who reads and opines on this site.  While  I am conservative on fiscal issues and SCOTUS, I lean moderate on social issues and foreign policy.  With that said, I look at the field of Republican candidates that we’ve had since early this year, and I ask myself, who’s to blame.  Where’s Mitch Daniels?  Why not Christie?  Ryan?  Others not mentioned?  Did Christie choose not to run because he really was so in love with his job and the people of New Jersey?  Or was it because he, and others, didn’t want to put themselves through the conservative gauntlet.  There.  I’ve said it.

I’ve written in several posts, both here in and in my other politicalwoman blog, “2012, 2012, 2012.  Eyes on the prize.”  I first voted in the 1972 election, and in 39 years, this is most concerned I’ve been for my country and the direction it’s being taken by Barack Obama.  This country’s social fabric is being torn apart by class warfare, our work ethic eroded by entitlements.  Internationally, Russia’s on the rise again, China’s latently becoming invincible on many fronts, Iran is zzzisss close to the bomb, and the Euros may yet bring the financial house down on all fronts.

So when I look at the Republican field, (and we’re stuck with what we have folks), I want the strongest, smartest, savviest leader that we can put up against Obama.  One who can boldly articulate and contrast the differences between himself and where he sees our country’s future, and the alternative, Obama.  Instead, what I’ve been reading in opinions and commentary is whether a candidate can pass the conservative “litmus test.”  This one worked for Obama.   Yup, that totally disqualifies him.  This one is married for the 3rd time.  Yup, that scoundrel will never get the female vote.   And then we have the disingenous flip-flopper.  Yup, he’ll take the party down with him, despite the fact that his 2008 concession speech was one of the finest, most prescient I’ve read.

So here’s my question.  When’s the last time we looked in the mirror?  We all have a set of principles that govern the way we live and what we believe.  But I, for one, am d***med if I’m going to fall on the sword of principle and re-elect Obama, so that someday I can have some bureaucrat on an Obamacare death panel decide if I get the medicine or the surgery I need.  We take a long, honest look at the candidates, choose the one who has the best shot, and fight.  Now, my take… 

It’s not over yet for Newt Gingrich.   Yes, I know he’s on his third wife, but I don’t care.  I’m not electing a saint to the White House.  The day Newt was on Meet the Press, and he said to David Gregory that the both Bush and Obama, have seriously underestimated the depth of the Islamic problem in the Middle East, I knew ‘this guy gets it’.  He’s had his “baggage” exposed, and could throw the Obama campaign for a loop, since they don’t expect to run against him.  The debates would be awesome.

Herman Cain is NOT the answer, and the fact he is/was up in the polls for so long shows the depth of longing and desperation that people have to find a candidate who can relate to people and their problems.  But Cain’s lack of experience in govt, (which some see as a plus, I don’t), foreign policy, and his inability to articulate answers to questions about 9-9-9, let alone his inept handling of the harassment charges, makes him a non-player in my book.

 Michelle Bachmann?  Can do more good in the Congress.  Rick Santorum?  In danger of becoming the new Harold Stassen.  I understand that dangers of secularism and the decline in moral values, but he lost me, as a woman, on his abortion stand, as in under no circumstances, including rape and incest. 

Rick Perry?  First time I saw and heard him on Greta van Susteren, I sat up in my chair with a “wow!”  So what happened between then and now?  Well, he seriously under-estimated what it takes to run for President.  He’s smarter than he looks, but if he’s to pull this out, he needs to start stringing together more than two sentences coherently while in front of a large crowd.  The Presidency is not about one-on-one conversations.  My jury is still out on him.

Jon Huntsman?  Experienced, former governor, businessman, Ambassador to China, but possibly entered the race too late.  And, horrors, he served in the Obama Administration!  Again, my response, I don’t care.  Obama knew what he was doing when he appointed him, as in neutralize him, which he’s successfully done. 

Finally, that leaves Mitt.  The “flip-flopper.”  Two hundred pages of opposition research.  H’mm.  Well, I’ve had a problem with the establishment Repubs since they nominated Bob Dole back in ’96.  We’ll all go down together, simply because he’s next in line.  Mitt’s problem may be Mitt, but his problems are not insurmountable unless his own Party makes them so. 

As the final year looms before the election, I can only borrow a phrase, from Sean Connery’s character in The Untouchables, when he responds to Eliot Ness’s plea for help to get Capone, “what are you prepared to do!” 

Mirror time.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Scope

    have done to the conservatives. Nothing else matters except the fiscal issues. You say you don’t care about the social or national security issues. That is why this entire election season is so screwed it is not even funny. The Reagan conservatives who believed that all three legs are necessary for the country to stand tall have been reduced to one leg, and on that premise, the country will surely fail. Of course you would never have a clue that they are all intertwined. Thank you for destroying this country.

    • http://politicalwoman.wordpress.com politicalwoman

      I am not a member of the Tea Party. Second, I care deeply about foreign policy issues because I lived and worked all over the world for a number of years. I know how blessed we are in this country, and I want to keep it that way. Social issues? Absolutely, I care. I’m incensed on a number of fronts beginning with Obamacare. But I don’t march lock-step with any political party or movement; I think for myself.

      And quite frankly, my choice for the Republican nomination is Newt Gingrich. If his children love him , have a relationship with him, who am I to say what happened in his personal life years ago should ban him from the White House.

      Regarding Reagan, I voted for the man twice, and there’s never been another President like him. But the difference between Reagan and your voice, is that he tolerated differing opinions. Remember George Bush was his VP, not the exactly a “conservative” by Red State’s definition.

  • lastgopinillinois

    posting on this site?

    VOTE CONSERVATIVE IN 2012

    • http://politicalwoman.wordpress.com politicalwoman

      Not every GOP Republican thinks the same way. I already confessed I’m conservative on some issues, moderate on others. There should be room in the GOP for conservative and moderate alike, and if there isn’t, then you’re right, maybe I’m in the wrong party.

      • lizzie

        Like you, first vote in 1972.

        Not a red state regular.

        After 2004, decided abortion should stop dividing America, and started voting as much in protest as the Dems revealed their far left intolerance.

        The GOP social conservatives need to stop forcing their issues at the Federal level. The Democrats used that to win the slate in New York in 2010.
        Why? The dem machines KNEW that total voter turnout was going to be driven by congressional contests on Long Island. NY dems KNEW there was zero enthusiasm for Prince Andrew even with a flawed Paladino for governor (Cain supporters need to take note what happens when a businessman is the nominee – and Paladino had a big heart and was unfairly slimed by the NY media, but an amateur campaign)
        NY Dems KNEW they needed higher turnout in Manhattan, so they used “protecting women’s reproductive rights” as their main issue with telegenic Gillenbrand. Most NY voters did not even know that Shumer was also on the ballot – there was a near total media blackout on Shumer’s challenger.

        GOP want a case study in how to lose the Presidency in 2012?

        Study New York 2010. The real issue was how New York Medicaid is bankrupting the state, not abortion. The GOP got slammed statewide and could have won at least two more CDs (NY4 & 5) on Long Island if the national GOP had really been paying attention.

        The abortion issue was played so well that the GOP candidate for State Comptroller was endorsed by the NYT, and he STILL LOST!!!!!!!!!

        You know why Reagan won NY in 1980? 13% of voters are Jewish (more than half NOT liberal), and 49% are Catholic.

  • nathanalbright

    …you get what the plurality of states with the majority of the American population want and deserve, and everyone else has to live with it.

    That said, your stances seem vaguely moderate. Are you sure you’re cut out for a place where social conservatives like myself are at home? We appreciate all the moderate support we can get, but it doesn’t make you a core Republican voter.

  • http://politicalwoman.wordpress.com politicalwoman

    and I’ve never voted Democrat in any Presidential, Senatorial, Gubernatorial election. I’ve rolled up my sleeves and manned phone banks, attended rallies, and stuffed envelopes not to mention $$ contributions. So define for me, please, what is a “core Republican.” And as I replied above, it’s unfortunate if the Republican Party, according to Red State doesn’t have room for all POVs.

  • tarnishedroses
    unless his own Party makes them so.” Truer words were never spoken.

    The dems have oppo research on all of the leading Republicans. And you can bet that Gingrich’s second marriage will become a huge issue during the last 4 days of the general election campaign if he makes it that far. The dems will drop some bomb that no one ever heard before about what was said, where it was said, who cried, etc.

    And that will be it.

    The merit of the charges against G.W. Bush in 2000 weren’t what imperiled his campaign. It was the timing.

    I’m much more comfortable with a savvy candidate like Mitt Romney in the driver’s seat than I am with someone like Cain or Gingrich. Perry is not up to the task. No other Republican has even a remote chance.

    Gallup shows that Romney has just as much support among conservatives as Rick Perry does. I’m willing to give Romney a chance to send Obama back to Chicago.