Samuel's Blog

2 Comments

• 1. padders  |  February 10th, 2012 at 6:00 pm

  Santorum is so socially conservative – he makes John Howard look like a former CEO of the Eros Association.

  Sadly, all of the remaining GOP candidates do nothing for me except to make me glad I don’t have to vote in the US election.

• 2. Samuel  |  February 13th, 2012 at 5:12 am

  Santorum wasn’t my pick of the bunch to start with, but of the remaining candidates in the GOP race, he is the one I like. He was of some interest to me a while back too, but I had other candidates who I liked more than him, and he was failing to make any impact in the race so I dismissed him at the time.

  His ongoing optimism despite his poor showing in virtually every poll before the Primaries started appealed to me though as I do like people who know what they stand for, and are happy to stand for it regardless of whether it is popular to stand for it. (I should point out that I don’t always agree with such people, but I at least respect the fact that they actually stand for something…this is why I have a good deal of respect for your preferred candidate Gary Johnson even though I have some fundamental disagreements with him on a few issues…he never gained any traction in the GOP race for a multitude of reasons, and is now doing well for himself in the race for the Libertarian Party’s nomination instead. He knows what he stands for, and is doing what he can to push his beliefs).

  I have a few issues with Santorum. There are a few things in his voting record which make me question his fiscal conservatism, but for the most part, I believe that he believes in fiscal and social conservatism and that he knows how to pitch that to the voting public in a way which makes it attractive. He is not perfect by any means, but I’d much rather have him than any of the other GOP candidates.

  Mitt Romney troubles me greatly. He has a good pro-business and anti-Obama message, but I struggle to find anything in his record to make me believe that he believes anything that he says. He has changes his mind a few too many times for me to think that he is anything other than a politician who adapts his message and actions to the direction of the political winds…perhaps with a touch of capitalism thrown in. He seems, though, to be a big-government guy, and although he wouldn’t grow government at the rate of knots that Obama is growing it, he just isn’t the person that the country needs in order to reign in spending. He would probably do good things to reduce the reach of government, but I fear that he would not fix the problem of government spending being too high.

  Newt Gingrich has similar problems in my mind. His track record in government is great in terms of promoting free markets and capitalism and producing good economic and social results because of it…but he is also a big government guy and has a long history of statements to prove it. Additionally, while he has a great mind and can think very quickly on his feet (as is evidenced in the debates), there are times when I think is mind works too quickly for his own good and he distracts himself and others from the task at hand. I wouldn’t go as far as to call him erratic, as he does seem to have a purpose and genuinely want to follow through on it…it’s just that he also has a bunch of other, usually grandiose ideas, running at the same time, most of which call for an increase in the size of government. It’s as if his main purpose gets achieved, only to be thwarted by his other ideas.

  Then there’s Ron Paul. I’ve said before that I think he is incoherent, especially when he starts a sentence on one subject and ends it three subjects later. Despite his claims to be the only person in the race to understand the constitution, I don’t think he actually understands much of it at all, or perhaps he chooses to interpret it to fit his agenda. I can’t support his foreign policy of leaving allies in the lurch, especially given the current state of world affairs. About the only thing I do agree with him on is the fact that massive cuts are needed in the federal government, with the abolition of a bunch of departments a necessity.

  In a way, what I really want to see is for Newt Gingrich to drop out in a little while from now, but hang in there for long enough to ensure that nobody can get enough delegates before the convention to secure the nomination. A brokered convention, with Newt out of the way, would allow some of the people who have endorsed or otherwise supported him (Sarah Palin and Herman Cain in particular) to influence the outcome…and who knows, Sarah or Herman might be dissatisfied enough by then to jump in the race themselves. Why do I want Newt out of the way and not Mitt? Because Mitt a) won’t drop out while he is in the lead and b) doesn’t have as many endorsements from people I really like. The Mitt people will not support Newt at the convention and vice-versa, so if Newt gets out, then I think the convention could produce a good outcome with somebody more palatable to everyone taking the nomination.

  Failing that, unless someone better comes along, I’m supporting Rick, with Mitt and Newt tied for second, and Ron Paul third.

  That said, like you, as long as the eventual candidate is better than Obama (and with the exception of Ron Paul, I think they probably all are), they will have my backing when the Presidential race is on.