So I just saw this headline from Rasmussen: GOP Voters Like Three Candidates Best for 2012, and I couldn’t click over fast enough. Alas, it’s the same three: Romney, Huckabee, and Palin.
I can’t stress enough how very very little I like Mitt Romney for president. He is the former governor of the lunatic state (we’re actually a commonwealth) in which I live, and he did a lot of fun things like cut masses of fire fighters and police across the state (er, commonwealth), leaving many communities without first responders that they sorely need, instead of taking on the unions who have negotiated crazy contracts that (among other egregious offenses to fiscal responsibility and common sense) enable “wounded” (i.e. oops, I dropped my beer bong and slipped a disc) troopers to (as they call it) “double-dip.” You know, collect money from everywhere while still working “on the side” (they’re disabled, right, so no more state troopering, just a big pay off and early pension). The result of Romney’s “tough” cuts? Towns and townships across the commonwealth with too few police, too few firefighters . . . but lots and lots of “body guards” and “bouncers” who are not physically able to work for the police force or as a firefighter but can take these second jobs and still get pension and disability benefits.
He’s also, of course and far more importantly, responsible for the amazing disappearing tax dollar disaster: RomneyCare. It’s ObamaCare writ tiny, and it’s costing huge. And it’s not improved anything in health care here. Nothing. I did see Romney on some show give a satisfactory (to everyone who’s not me) response when asked about this (I rather think it was on Hannity because I was busy trying to decide who had better hair. I ended up going with Hannity because he’s an actual conservative). Romney said, and I’m paraphrasing: RomneyCare is wonderful at the state level, and I’d do it again, but with changes. I would never ever ever impose something that was intended for a single state on the entire nation; it’s unconstitutional to do that; I respect states’ rights. Blah blah blah.
Here’s the problem with RomneyCare: ideologically it is not reconcilable with conservativism. Period. Not on the state level, not on the national level. Nowhere, no way, no how. It’s spreading the wealth, it’s commonwealthizing (yeah, yeah, just made that up, sort of like nationalizing) health care. In the MA law, we have to pay a penalty if we are not compliant (sound familiar)? And we are all taxed to pay for it, and everyone’s premiums have gone up, including poor people’s who then take deductions for it (i.e. tax payers are hit for that, too). And our taxes just keep going up. Heck, our current useless governor recently tried, and I’m not doing a Fuzzy’s Faux News bit here, to charge people for going into the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV here, DMV or Department of Motor Vehicles elsewhere). That’s right, a $5.00 cover charge just to walk in the door. It was ultimately not enacted, but that’s how desperate this state (er, commonwealth) is for cash. I expect a giant Cali-style garage sale any day. And it’s in no small part due to the enormous entitlement that Romney the not-conservative forced on us all.
If you can make RomneyCare fit a conservative ideology or worldview, I want to hear it. Really, I do.
Needless to say, I’m hoping against hope that 2012’s Republican candidate is not Romney.
As for Mike Huckabee . . . I like him, but I’m not comfortable running someone who is also, or was, a preacher. The idea of Huckabee being the 2012 presidential candidate makes me nervous not only because I’m not personally comfortable with a preacher as president (that’s my own deal, and I get that others don’t feel that way) but because I don’t think he can beat BO. He’s not got the get in the dirt and fight for the win attitude that it would take. He’s a gentleman, and he won’t “go there” when he should (like McCain didn’t, and remember how that turned out). Now, Huckabee is a real conservative, and I admire him greatly, but please don’t let’s put him up against BO. He’s too nice a person, too much the gentleman, too gracious. While he’s busy turning the other cheek and rising above the fray, BO and his thugs will have their boot on his throat. Remember, the BO campaign took out Hillary Clinton, arguably one of the top two nastiest and dirtiest-fighting pols alive today (BO being the reigning champ).
Which brings me to Sarah Palin. She’s got the grit, the fight, and the backbone to take BO on; I have zero doubt about that. And I honestly believe that she would best him in any debate. What worries me still about her is that I just don’t think she can win indies. And she’d need indies to win. It’s a numbers game, after all, and without indies, she’d not pull it off, especially now when the House is in Republican hands and many people believe that BO has been neutered (I don’t, but we’ll see how it plays out). There’s no urgency to drag BO out of office now that he’s being checked by the House, and that urgency is what might have swung indies to vote for Palin if Tuesday’s election had been 2012, with both houses and the WH in radical socialist democrat control. I think the Republicans, barring any stupid attempts to work with the socialist agenda, will take the Senate in 2012, too, so again, less urgency in putting a Republican in the WH. Big picture, though, we absolutely must have one to repeal that healthcare monstrosity before it “goes live” in 2014 (BO has always taken his second term as a given). Sarah Palin is young, she can wait a few cycles for her time; I’d love to see her win the WH, but 2012 is key to repealing ObamaCare, something we need done.
And that’s the bottom line. We absolutely must have a Republican president in 2012, or we will never be rid of ObamaCare. Never. It’s literally do or die in 2012. We can’t take wild (or even mild) risks with our presidential candidate, we can’t put too much hope in a candidate that we all know outside our own ranks is not a viable presidential candidate (if O’Donnell and Angle had won Tuesday, I’d be singing a different tune on this one). There is too much at stake. One sixth of our economy, our nation’s health care system (the best in the world), and far far too many of our freedoms and choices . . . that’s a lot, and I’m not willing to gamble when the stakes are that high.
So the question becomes who can win, who has the backbone to fight BO tooth and nail, who is fiscally responsible, who loves America and supports our military, who respects our Constitution, who has experience (preferably executive as a governor, but business or legislative experience would do–BO lowered the bar to a ridiculous low on experience), and importantly, who can lead? I think, given this president’s embarrassing behavior, that we don’t really need anyone who is “polished” (geez, that asshat gave the British Prime Minister plastic helicopters from the WH gift shop, groped the Queen of England, made the Dali Lama slink out the back door by the trash bags, gave “shout outs” to his buddies before addressing the Fort Hood terrorist attack, verbally attacks and disparages his own people, and bowed down and hugged and otherwise belittled himself before communists, tyrants, and dictators. The man thinks “corps” is pronounced “corpse,” for God’s sake. Anyone would be an improvement.).
Here are the remaining four that Rasmussen polled on: “former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (13%), Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (6%), Texas Congressman Ron Paul (5%) and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (3%). Seven percent (7%) prefer some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.”
I guess I’m in the 7% who prefer “some other candidate.” And here are the top three in my oh so humble opinion: Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan. These men–and yes, I know they are all men, but our best women (Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Jan Brewer) might not win, and winning is the only hope for this country’s salvation–these men are all solid conservatives, are all more than a match for BO in every conceivable way (ideologically, of course, but more importantly, they are all articulate, intelligent, and knowledgeable), all share our core values, all are American patriots, and all have as much, or more, experience than BO did in 2008.
The downside: Christie is a bit, as we say in polite company, “rough around the edges.” He’s absolutely freaking wonderful in my book, I like plain speaking, but many people are turned off by it. This could be a liability with left-leaning indies. Rubio, I have reservations about because of his using campaign money for personal reasons (I know he paid it back, but it still bugs me). Ryan . . . well, it’s hard to think of a downside, but I guess one could argue that he doesn’t have enough experience (laughable given how thin BO’s resume was) or that he’s not knowledgeable about foreign affairs. I don’t know, it’s hard to come up with a downside on Ryan. But none of these downsides–for any of them–is a deal breaker or would cost them the election. I can’t think of any that are that substantive.
The upside: Christie has proven himself to be a man who has the courage of his convictions and will do exactly what he says he will do. The man is a budget-balancing dynamo who is completely unafraid to tackle unions (huge in NJ), special interests, and anyone else who stands in the way of the welfare of his state, including people in his own party. I like that. A lot. Rubio has shown that he is an adept politician who understands what the people want and what America is, and he seems dedicated to fulfill his promises of fiscal responsibility and smaller government (I also secretly think it’s a good idea to run a Hispanic against our first-ever most historical watershed unprecedented wonder of all wonders ocean-controlling planet-healing black president. I would never advocate running just any Hispanic. No “quotas” here, no “affirmative action,” no PC crap. The real deal, and Rubio is the real deal). Ryan is absolutely brilliant; he’s also gorgeous (well, all three are gorgeous, aren’t they?), articulate, and . . . well, presidential (something we sorely lack currently). He’s also got an amazing mind for finance and economics, something we will definitely need in 2012.
What say you?