Well folks, we're down to the homestretch. In six days, the selection will officially begin, in Iowa, for who will run on the Republican side to face and defeat Richard Milhous Obama, who is, in my mind, the worst President in American history.
In doing our selection, I think it is imperative that we are able to select a candidate who will, as Ronald Reagan told CPAC in 1975, raise "a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people."
There is no perfect candidate, nor will there ever be. This is just one blogger's take on all the candidates, and the person whom I have decided I would choose based on who closely represents the principles I believe in. I will say that though I have made a selection of who I would like to support (but may not get to vote for, thank you Virginia GOP), I will do my best to be fair to covering other candidates here during the Primary.
Starting with the front-runners:
MITT ROMNEY: As I have said here previously, I cannot in good conscience support Mitt Romney either in the primary or if (God forbid) he becomes the GOP nominee. He would be the candidate Obama would easily defeat. On almost every issue important to conservatives, Romney has taken both sides. His socialized medicine program in Massachusetts was the basis of Obamacare, the biggest hindrance to job creation in America today. Romney is unrepentant of this government takeover of health care under his watch as governor. This will take the public opposition of Obamacare off the table, and the Obama Attack Machine will use Romney's ties with Bain Captial as a way attack him as part of eeeevillll Wall Street, pandering to the Occupy squatters. Romney is similar to Obama in many ways. He is secretive--he said he will not release his tax returns, nor make public his donors, and also destroyed e-mails, etc, that record his time as Massachusetts governor. He's incredibly ambitious too. Where many of the other candidates have been legislating, governing, or running businesses, Romney has been running for President since 2007. He has a mean streak. His surrogates were attacking Sarah Palin even before the 2008 election, and witness his mean attacks against Newt Gingrich. However, he is unwilling to call Obama a socialist. Romney is not an agent for right change, nor is he a conservative. If he were President, his term would be simply marking time until the next liberal Democrat is elected in four years.
NEWT GINGRICH: I could support Newt if he were the nominee, but he is not my choice in the primary. Don't get me wrong. Newt is the most experienced politician in the race, and someone who has had a number of good ideas. His Contract with America was what brought about the 1994 Republican Revolution, and the first GOP majority Congress in a generation. From that, welfare was reformed, taxes cut, and the budget was balanced. But that was also Newt's downfall. After the government shutdown of 1995 was blamed on him, Newt began to, in my eyes, try to appear more "moderate" and "reasonable" after being looked at as a meanie by the lib media. There's the rubbing elbows with Al Sharpton, Hillary, and Nancy Pelosi, as well as endorsement of Dede Scazafava, and standing by Colin Powell in 2009 after Powell attacked former VP Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh for their cricisms of Obama. This is part of the problem some have with Newt, they're not sure what they're going to get with him.
RON PAUL: No way, no how, not ever. The fact that this loon was even let into the debating process was a disgrace. Twenty years ago, Pat Buchanan ran that bigot David Duke out of the party when he tried to run for President as a Republican, why couldn't anyone run this anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, 9/11 troofer, blame-America-firster out of the party? Paul is a cult leader and the antihesis of anything a Republican stands for. The only difference between him and the Rev. Jim Jones is the vats of Kool Aid.
So that leaves Rick Santorum, who I like and he is great on social issues, but that's about all he's known for. Jon Huntsman, who is too much of a 1940s isolationist mixed in with Romney liberalism, and Michele Bachmann. Now, I originally was drawn to Bachmann. I love her, and she's been a great voice for conservatism in Congress, taking the banner of the Tea Party and fighting the increase in the debt limit and leading the repeal on Obamacare. But she's hurt herself tremendously in the process of her candidacy for President. Having Ed Rollins run her campaign and attacking Sarah Palin, and yet she stood by him when people were speaking out about him didn't help. Then there were the attacks with untrue information on Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. It seems as if Bachmann has tried to kneecap every frontrunner, but for some mysterious reason, she has not gone after Mitt Romney. Why is that Michelle? Is a possible VP run in the making?
So that brings me to the candidate I've decided to endorse (click below for next page).
I first heard of and voted for current Texas Governor Rick Perry when he was running against popular incumbent Jim Hightower for Texas Agriculture Commissioner in 1990. Since then, he replaced Bob Bullock as Lt. Governor and took over as Governor when George W. Bush resigned to become President in 2000. Of all the candidates, Perry has the most executive experience, 11 years running one of the largest states in the nation. The results of Perry's leadership speak for themselves. Texas has led the nation in the creation of new jobs since the recession began. There's also the tort-reform act that took on the trial lawyer lobby and aided the health-care field in the state. Not only is he a fiscal conservative, Perry is also a reliable social conservative.
Sure, he didn't do well in the first few debates. He has said that was the result of just having back surgery. I wonder if perhaps his quick rise may have been based too much on expectations, while he was warming up as others were fully active in the run. I've been vocal about in opposing the in-state tuition, but that was passed by the State Legislature in almost unanimous, veto-proof majority. Perry however has the right idea on immigration, secure the border first, and he would not sue states like Arizona or South Carolina who are doing the jobs the Obama InJustce Department refuses to do. Plus, Perry doesn't have the baggage of supporting or enacting a Romneycare style program that would cancel the topic in a debate against Obama. Instead, Perry would bring to the table his record of job creation against Obama's record of misery creation.
For more about why Rick Perry should be the nominee, I'd also suggest reading this from Melissa Clouthier, who is also a Texan.