Replies

Black Elk posted this on another thread and I suggested that he post it here, but since he hasn’t yet (maybe he’s offline) I’m going to post it myself. Fits in well with your position IMHO.

I have to give you a longer answer than you might prefer. The question you are asking necessarily requires a subjective answer. It depends on my preferences as to politics, personality and personal qualities of the candidates.

First, if I could construct a candidate from the ground up, what would his/her qualities be?

SOCIAL ISSUE CONSERVATIVE: My ideal candidate would first of all be a noted social conservative since those issues are most important to me. It would be ideal if the candidate were a committed member of a socially conservative church. I am a Roman Catholic but I can easily support candidates who are Evangelical, Missouri Synod Lutheran, Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox Christian, Orthodox Jewish. Being a pro-life hard-liner is an absolute necessity. So is being committed to marriage as traditionally understood (one man, one woman. ideally but not necessarily for life at least). I prefer candidates who are so married and who have responsibly raised a generous number of children. As Commander in Chief, the candidate must be committed to restrain military abortions to the extent possible and to discourage the homosexualization of the military (or diplomatic corps for that matter). The candidate’s other views should be consistent with the aforementioned. It is also vitally important that the candidate be credibly committed and have (preferably) a track record of resisting judicial tyranny and of supporting the nomination and confirmation of judges absolutely committed to the values of Judaeo-Christian civilization.

On these issues, Mitt Romney has largely walked the walk in his personal life, remaining married to one woman for forty-two years by whom he has had numerous children of whom he may well be proud (at least insofar as I have seen them). Unfortunately he has NEVER walked the walk in his public life. His failure on these issues as Massachusetts governor was epic and that was because he did not want to succeed on these issues. Ron Paul, whatever his personal life, disqualifies himself by his commitment to doing NOTHING to advance social conservatism and hiding behind the Tenth Amendment as an excuse for inaction while social conservatism is being attacked with D-Day fury by SCOTUS and other courts. Huntsman is “gay friendly.” Newt Gingrich is infinitely more trustworthy on social issues because he understands and agrees with social conservatism and has the track record to prove it. Ditto Perry and Santorum. Newt has obviously not walked the walk in his personal life but I can overlook that since God forgives sins and I am convinced that Newt has sought and received forgiveness. Rick Perry has walked the walk both in his personal life and as Texas governor. Long married to Anita and no one else and has children. BTW, I don’t make distinctions between those who are birth parents and those who, perhaps unable to bear children of their own, have generously brought adopted children into their homes. Rick Perry made one mistake with Gardasil but it seems to be his only social issue mistake. Perry has made significant progress in defunding the Planned Barrenhood organization (the flagship organization of so many evils) in Texas. Santorum, in his time in the US Senate, was nothing less than the leading champion of social conservatism in that body. He even took on the Catholic Church leadership for raising large amounts of money for the Campaign for Human Development which funds pro-abortion and anti-family lobbying groups. He has about eight children, home schools, and has never wavered on social issues. Advantage: Santorum. Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are both verrrry good.

MILITARY/FOREIGN POLICY: All three (Newt, Perry, Santorum) are quite trustworthy on matters military and unlikely to either ignore threats to our interests or to fail to rebuild our military. Goal: A substantial military, equipped well-beyond current levels, ready, willing and able to repel any attack and to attack anyone needing to be attacked: short, swift massive victory and get the hell out. Great Britain and Israel and other allies WILL continue to exist and any attacks upon any of them will be avenged. A military not only second to none but so far ahead of whoever is next that no enemy will even consider harming the US. Interventionism and not isolationism. All three are quite good and I perceive no advantage among them. Newt might be marginally lest interventionist but not enough to matter.

SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS: All three are fine on these issues and Romney is not at all trustworthy whatever he may self-servingly say. In vetting federal judge nominees and particularly SCOTUS nominees, special attention must be paid to the potential nominee’s commitment to read and apply the Second Amendment as written. Perry may have a slight edge on this issue as people have credibly observed that, if Perry becomes POTUS, he will pack seerious heat and protect the Secret Service agents attached to him rather than vice versa. Although Newt and Santorum may shoot and hunt occasionally, Perry is the real deal as a gun guy.

ENVIROWHACKOISM: Newt is a bit vulnerable on this sort of issue because he just cannot resist thinking out loud and because he always wants to appear to be cutting edge. We can do without that. Perry and Santorum are a LOT more interested in creating decent-paying jobs for ordinary Americans than they are in the destiny of the furbisher lousewort or other obscure flora and fauna whose interests are forever invoked to reduce non-elite Americans to freezing to death in the dark in our environmentally sound but unheated thatch roofed huts. Advantage Perry and Santorum.

REGULATION: Perry did not create all those jobs by regulating otherwise free enterprise. Newt and Santorum spent a lot more years as legislators and have undoubtedly favored regulations more than Perry has. Advantage: Perry.

TAXATION: I am a conservative and not some sort of fiscal radical. I have an inherent distrust of shiny new tax schemes. The ultimate objective should be to reduce unnecessary (underline: unnecessary) spending to allow tax reductions. I would require Congress to make good on the IOU’s that are the only contents of the “Social Security Trust Fund.” I would end the fraud that Social Security is an insurance scheme and the myth that we who collect have “earned” our checks. Social Security is and always has been a welfare program under the appearances of insurance. Let’s formalize its true nature by paying SS out of the general fund as the “fund” dwindles. Ditto Medicare. None of the three candidates under consideration would go that far. Abolish the payroll tax. Ditto. Santorum’s gut instinct is to follow Catholic social policy and he is probably closest to my view on this but not very close. Newt and Perry not so much. I don’t want any other schemes for significantly shifting the tax burden to those of modest means. No VAT, no Flat Tax, no Fair Tax, no National Sales or Property taxes. No reducing or eliminating home mortgage deductions, exemptions for each child, earned income credits or whatever other tax advantages may accrue to conventionally married husbands and wives and their children. We should concentrate as much in the next ten years (and the foreseeable future?) on treating people of modest means as generously as we have been treating the trust fund babies. My gut tells me that Santorum has the advantage on this one. Feel free to disagree for whatever reasons of your own.

FUTURE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE GOP: Since, according to Thomas Edsall’s famous recent op-ed in the New York Times, the Demonrats have determined to abandon the white working class, I prefer that the GOP relentlessly campaign for their loyalty. In doing so, we will inevitably also recruit non-white Americans of modest means. We are not going to attract the sociologists, the leaders of gummint unions, the Scientologists, the sexually perverted/American community, the feminazis, the welfare folks who are satisfied with everything but the size of their checks and the breadth of their entitlements, the pacifists, envirowhackos, and various other subgroups of the weirdo American community. We need to aim for a future of a GOP dominated by normal folks: blue collar workers, small business owners, people without college degrees, independent contractors, respectable retirees, conservative blacks finally fed up with decades of social and economic disintegration dealt them by Demonrats, Hispanics (especially the socially conservative ones who also insist that their kids be fluent in English and not servants of poverty pimps), Asians, Indians (from roots in India like Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley), people of commitment to conservative religious faiths, right to lifers, gun folks, conscientious parents, homeschoolers, the sort of disenfranchised people who are the backbone of the Tea Party: not trendies, not fashionables, not Code Pinkers, etc. I trust all three candidates on this matter of future demographics. Most of all, I trust Santorum: advantage Santorum.

OTHER ECONOMIC ISSUES: I do not believe as strongly in fiscal conservatism as do many here. I tend to agree with Lincoln (did I really say that?) and with Pope Leo XIII on the question of subsidiarity. Generally keep government functions as local as possible but the central government CAN and (perhaps) MUST do some things that we cannot do for ourselves. Many here would call that a liberal view but I would suggest that it is a view shared by many of the Founding Fathers. It has been suggested that Santorum holds some “communitarian” views (see Amitai Etzioni) and that may be mildly true but community has advantages over fang and claw individualism and need not be taken as far as Etzioni takes it. There will never be another Ronald Reagan or Mother Theresa or Padre Pio or Bill Buckley or Ludwig von Mises or Friedrich von Hayek. There IS now a Rick Santorum and attention ought be paid. WHO CAN WIN: If Romney is nominated, he will lose exactly as McCain did. Conservatives will avoid voting for Romney out of disgust. Therefore beating Romney is job #1. Even with Cain and Bachmann out of the race, we still have given Romney the advantage of running against Perry, Santorum and Gingrich, all conservative and all with dedicated constituencies who divide the conservative vote. Paul will take some “fiscal conservatives” from Romney but not many given his fruitcake foreign policy ideas. He brings Demonrats and college radicals into GOP caucuses and primaries as a sort of Woodstock reunion. WE need to coalesce around one candidate now and stick with that candidate. Once Romney is defeated, Obozo is next along with his Congressional and Senatorial allies.

CONCLUSION: For all of the foregoing reasons and because he currently is drawing more support than the other two, if the primary were today, I would vote for Rick Santorum and pray that God will protect us one more time. Ask me in a few weeks and unseen events may have changed my mind, but, if I change now to Gingrich or Perry, it will be only for pragmatic reasons that one of them has resumed a credible and apparently lasting lead over the other two. My personal judgment is that Santorum is the best of the three and the best alternative available to us.

Thanks for asking.

Black Elk

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2828719/posts?page=145