Tags
conservatism, government, hypocrisy, Mitt Romney, negativity, Newt Gingrich, politics, President Obama, primary, propaganda
Being a Conservative in the current primary season is not an easy thing to do. Most of my Tea Party friends are sounding a little too radical for me these days even though I clearly understand their point of view. Many of the ones I am hearing tend to be holding on tightly to the candidacy of Rick Perry–I realize that as a conservative evangelical I should be drawn to him, but I simply am not. I am shocked that Ron Paul has the support he does–I find him so far out of the mainstream as to be a bit frightening. I like Rick Santorum, but I do not see him as being viable. Which brings me to Newt and Mitt. I like Newt. I am well aware of some of the personal issues and they are problematic indeed. I certainly realize he is not the perfect candidate. However, I see him to be so politically astute and knowledgeable that he is the only one that can really give the president a run for his money. I like most of his positions and the fact that he is giving fairly consistent answers. I, on the other hand, do not like the prospects of having to vote for candidate Romney. As I have made clear earlier this is not a religious issue for me. It is the fact that he is little more than a scaled-down version of President Obama.
And I am especially not liking something I am seeing very regularly right now–and I think it is indicative of the man. Most of the candidates are airing commercials that are critical of one another and positions they hold or things they have said–this is to be expected. As far as I know they are ads that for the most part the candidates are willing to put their names and faces with. That is, with the exception of Mr. Romney. His mode of operation seems to be that his surrogates can put out as much negativity as they like and the presumptive nominee is helpless to do anything about it. He can then go on television and pretend to be “squeaky clean.” I guess what I am saying that if you want to denigrate someone then do it to their face–quit the hypocrisy! We’ve got enough of that coming out of the White House now.
So here is what I am wondering. We have all seen him attempt to stay above the fray in the debates by speaking in generalities, denying the obvious, and by all means staying away from the facts. In the political propaganda world he is doing the same thing–obfuscating. Is it then fair to infer from this behavior that this is the kind of president he would be? Would he run the same kind of “transparent” administration as the current one has? I am not convinced that this is the kind of president we need at this moment to “right the ship of state.”
I am sure many of you will disagree–feel free to let me know.
Personally I’m not thrilled with any of the candidates, and I think that’s how most conservatives feel. At this point I realize that I’m just going to be voting AGAINST Obama instead of voting FOR a Republican, so I want whoever has the best chance of beating the current president. I do agree with you that he seemed to be very unwilling to back down on the negative ads during the debate last night, claiming they were out of his hands. That did not sit well with me, either.
I think there is a general consensus that we are not in a very enviable position politically. My biggest fear is that because of the general lack of passion, many conservatives may just “stay home.”
I think Newt has showed his hand, so to speak, with his recent attacks on Romney for his time at Bain. At best it’s a misunderstanding of basic capitalism, at worst it’s an all out attack. Now obviously we don’t know whether Newt believes his own ads or not; it could be that he’s a staunch capitalist who is merely attacking Romney for possible votes. But then that puts him in the same category in which you place Romney– a candidate who’s willing to say anything to get ahead. Or, it could be that Newt does believe his ads and he is opposed to capitalism. This would place him closer on the political spectrum to Obama rather than anything conservative.
Unfortunately this leaves conservatives with two (unless something drastic happens in near primaries!) somewhat oddball candidates: Newt, a candidate who is stuck in a pickle between being the conservative polemic and the anti-capitalist showboat; and Romney, the crafty politician who has decided to steal a page from Obama’s ’08 campaign and not reveal his opinions too early.
I think among the mess that is the 2012 election at this point, Romney will turn out to be the solid candidate. He has the business experience, he has the ability to turn a phrase, and he has the demeanor not to get flustered when barbed attacks come his way.
I think you are right in that Romney is the better politician and that will get him in good stead with a moderate/right leaning electorate or the politically clueless. However, as you well know there is a vast difference between being the better politician and the better leader. As far as the negative ads are concerned–my gripe is not with the negative ads (when we know our history we know that current political campaigns are like a walk in the park compared to the early elections in our country), but with the refusal to take responsibility for the attacks that are being made.
Why does it matter whether he takes credit for the ads or not? Both sides are throwing mud like there’s no tomorrow and even if they were to cease and desist with the polemical song & dance routine the attack ads would be carrid on by their supporters. Negative campaign ads are as American as apple pie these days and even the ones that supposedly don’t have any affiliation with the candidates per se are often indirectly funded by the campaigns.
Obviously a candidate isn’t going to admit to negative advertising. If you look at Newt’s responses to the dirt he’s dished, he completely sidesteps the question and dwells on the supposed substance of the ads. Romney just ignores and/or denies the issue altogether. Both are doing the same thing, they just go about it in different ways. I think you’ll find that Newt is just as shrewd (if not moreso) than Romney.
What worries me, however, is not the way in which they attack each other but rather the substance of their ads.
I agree with you Jeff, I’ve been frustrated with both Gingrich and Romney at times. Neither one is perfect and it seems that we are picking between the proverbial “two evils.” That being said, Gingrich has lost all favor in my eyes. By pandering to the middle class at the expense of the wealthy–he has betrayed his roots as a “Reaganite.”
I can honestly say that I despised Romney in the 2008 elections because of his aggressive campaign and attack ads on other candidates. I think his background as a savvy professional on Wall Street has given him an upper hand over the other candidates.
I am glad that Romney will probably take the nomination. I would much rather vote for him over McCain and he has a good shot at beating the Obama Machine in November (as long as he doesn’t pick another Palin).
It’s really too bad we can’t take elements of each of the candidates and combine into one. But then that one individual may end up resembling Frankenstein’s monster.
I think everyone wishes they could do that. I’d vote for Frankenstein’s candidate. As it is, we all have to settle for the person who MOST matches up to our positions, which is frustrating.
We may end up with Frankenstein’s candidate
“We may end up with Frankenstein’s candidate
”
I think we can all get behind my platform of “FIRE BAD!”.
Well said! I agree with your perspective. I long for someone who is willing to lead openly and honestly. (Even when it comes to discussing the hard truths) In some ways Ron Paul does speak openly about what he thinks. The problem is – what he thinks?! From the others – stop letting the office run you and speak plainly. In the end, I am leaning towards Newt because his name is fun to say.
I will concur regarding Mr. Paul. The fact that he is still garnering the support he does is frightening to me. As far as Newt is concerned–granted, he does have a fun sounding name–but there is so much to like and dislike.