GOP Presidential Candidates - My 2 Cents

For some reason, the last formatting of the last post was a little funky - the more I tried to fix it, the worse it got, so it is how it is. Regardless, Bishop Ketteler's words don't ring any the less true.

Anyway, for those who still read this once in a while, I thought, as every good conservative blogger has, I would weigh in on my take on the GOP President Candidates:

Mitt Romney - If his record was consistent with his words, I wouldn't have a problem with him, and I think his business experience is an asset. However, having been an elected executive, we have the benefit of reviewing his record, and it's not a good one. Pro-abortion. Anti-gun. And let's not forget "Romneycare" - you all probably know it as "Obamacare." Romney's supporters try to portray him as a frustrated conservative, who didn't have the votes to pursue a conservative agenda in a liberal State. However, a simple Youtube search will show that Romney was every bit an entusiastic Northeastern, "Rockefeller" Moderate when he was running for office in Massachussetts. He is either insincere now, or he was insincere then. Unfortunately, he is currently the frontrunner. The only ray of hope is that if Romney gets elected, in his first term, he will be beholden to the conservatives for his re-election chances. But if he gets elected to a second term, all bets are off.

Newt Gingrich - A very intelligent man, but his personal baggage and his own inconsistencies on Global Warming and the Individual Healthcare Mandate would make it difficult for him to win a general election, and , frankly, I only trust him slightly more than I trust Romney. Gingrich would do GREAT as a close advisor, perhaps Chief of Staff, but I don't think he's Presidential material.

Rick Santorum - His social views are excellent. However, in the Senate he was a "party man" all the way - he supported No Child Left Behind (and anything else GWB put forth, good or bad), backed Arlen Specter, voted for budgets that included funding for groups like Planned Parenthood, etc. Not to mention his interventionist foreign policy. This gives some cause for concern - will he be the barnstorming agent of change (good change, not "Obama Change") we need right now, or just another George W. Bush?

Ron Paul - Really the only candidate who will attempt true, bold, "change," and who has proposed a reform agenda. And I actually like his foreign policy, to an extent. However, I disagree that sanctions constitute an act of war, and think he goes a little far opposing sanctions on Iran, which I see as a legitimate tactic SHORT of war, which could PREVENT war. Also, some of his positions, like drug legalization, are a little to "libertarian" for my tastes.

Bottom line: None of them are perfect, but, for me, it's a toss-up between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Ron Paul is the only one, really, who will try something different than Nixon/Ford/BushI/BushII (neo-cons) or Carter/Clinton (establishment liberal)/Obama (radical liberal), and is worth serious consideration; while Santorum has solid social values, and fairly sound economic proposals.

We will see who's still in by the time the Idaho caucuses come around.