Topic: Election 2010
2012 Election: Which Candidate Is Best? A candid discussion on which Republican candidate would be best for the Constitution in the event that Ron Paul does not secure the nomination of the Republican Party in 2012.by Alexander Massa
(libertarian)
Monday, November 2, 2009
President Barack Hussein Obama will invariably lose the 2012 Presidential election, presumably to someone like Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, despite the wishes of Libertarians everywhere, the chances of Ron Paul being the Republican candidate for the 2012 election are slim to none. The fact is that the Republican Party is too beholden to neoconservative interests and corporate lobbyists to nominate someone like Dr. Paul, who would deal corruption in Washington a knockout blow.
If we feel fairly sure that Obama will be denied reelection, the only question that remains is who will take over the country in the event of a Republican victory in 2012. All things point to a coming Romney Administration, although there is a creeping suspicion among many that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich will swoop in and steal the nomination from Romney or perhaps even Huckabee, provided he can garner more support this time around.
Which of these candidates will do the least amount of damage to the country and the Constitution? That is a hard question to answer, because we do not know what the dominant issues will be in 2012; they will certianly be different than the ones we face now. If President Obama does what he says he will (which he won't), the War on Terror and the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan should be non-issues by the time November 2012 rolls around.
For the sake of the argument, let us pretend that the dominant issues of the day will be the same in 2012 as they are today. In that case, it would appear as though a Romney Administration would be less harmful to the nation than a Gingrich Administration or a Huckabee Administration would be. Gingrich simply is not conservative enough to be a President suitable for our nation; he has flirted with liberalism over the years, despite the fact that he achieved fame as Speaker of the House fighting against the fiscal irresponsibility of President Clinton and his cronies in Congress.
Although Libertarians admittedly cannot be happy about Mitt Romney or his policies, if we can't get Dr. Paul the Republican nomination, Romney is the best second choice. Romney is the only candidate who has the ability to mend our economy and drag America out of the depths of the recession we are currently mired in. Also, I take comfort in the fact that he has socially conservative stances, mostly because of his religious views, and that he will not try to impose homosexual marriage on the country. The federal government has no right to mandate that homosexuals can be married; there is no right to marriage, yet the left-wingers in our midst claim that homosexuals are being deprived of this right, despite the fact that no such right exists.
The reason Mike Huckabee cannot be trusted is because he subscribes to the "Compassionate Conservative" ideology, which is essentially economic liberalism with a conservative facade. We already had a so-called "compassionate" fake conservative in the White House - George W. Bush, who sold our future generations into massive debt; probably an unpayable amount. The fact is that it is not the government's job to set up an endless amount of safety nets and social programs. That is none of the government's business, and welfare would be a better program if it were carried out by private charities and churches.
In any event, we have three years before the next Presidential election. Hopefully the Republicans will put up a respectable candidate who Libertarians can trust and perhaps even vote for. Republicans simply cannot continue promoting moderates and thinking they'll win. As the old saying goes, if you give the people a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, they'll choose the Democrat every time.
May God allow Dr. Ron Paul to capture the Republican nomination, for the sake of the people and the safety of the Republic.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1 thumb so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Alexander Massa only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Alexander Massa is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I agree that it is unlikely that the GOP will nominate Dr. Paul in 2012. Even though many in the GOP are indeed "coming around" on some of the issues, I think too many will be uncomfortable with his age.
However, I think as much as it is a mistake to assume the issues of 2012 will be the same as the issues of 2009, it is also a mistake to assume that the people we see as likely candidates in 2012 will be the same as 2009. Right now it appears that Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, and even Palin or Gingrich are going to be top candidates for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, but who knows who may emerge. You may recall that Hillary was the presumed front runner for the Democrats in '08 a few years before the election. We could get another candidate more in line with our views (Jim DeMint, Gary Johnson) to emerge rather than settling from the least shitty from the list above.
More important though is to elect some liberty minded candidates to congress/senate next year, such as Rand Paul and Peter Schiff. This way, if the eventual next GOP president wants to go to war, there will be more opposition within the party. When the party itself is closer to 50/50 on something, party rank-and-file members are more likely to sit and think about an issue. Imagine a future Romney administration (as you theorize) that wants to go to war, with enough GOP opposition in the house/senate that local GOP leaders do not necesarily feel it is "contrarian" to be Republican and anti-war, and to speak out against the war. The same can be said for another No Child Left Behind type initiative.
That being said, I still have way too many reservations about Romney. He appears to change positions on issues for political expediency, and he did create a state-wide health care plan (with a mandate) in Massachusets. I'm pretty sure that if Dr. Paul doesn't run or win, there will be another candidate in the primary that is better than Romney.
So where is Romney, Huckabee, Palin and Newt's opposition to the Patriot Act? In addition last time I checked Social Conservativism (along side socialism) is pretty much the polar opposite to the Libertarian principal of personal liberty. Like Stephen said people like Gary Johnson, Jim DeMint and I will add a third to the list; Jeff Flake.
Romney?????? While he was governor of Massachusetts Romney invented the health care plan the Dems are now trying to shove down our throats. As far as I can tell the Republican voters don't like it much. The candidates you named are just more neo-cons. None of them can hold a candle to Ron Paul. Yeah I'm a bit concerned about his age but even dead he'd be a better president than any of those characters.
The only other choices I can think of would be Gary Johnson the former governor of New Mexico. Michelle Bachman might be a possibility but she may be a neo-con at heart. I'm not sure about her.
To many intangibles with Ron Paul. He is not well spoken, and I feel he shows a need to be accepted possibly to the point of effecting his decisions. Newt is very well spoken, but he pushes his party above conservativism; this needs to stop with any candidate. Romney is best suited for a business mans president, our economy in general, but he seems to lack strong conservative core beliefs; his Mormon theology won't do him any favors with the evangelicals either. Huckabee seems to be a fine man, but not presidential with regards to his being a strong leader. McCain God love him, never again, He is a fine man and if there was a middle of the road party he might be a good fit. I so wish Palin could be a little sterner, for her way of life is America. If between now and a year from now she could somehow turn a corner as to a more serious candidate, than for my money there is no one closer to being a true conservative, and that would so represent the main constituents of the Republican Party. In summary Palin, Newt, Romney, Huckabee, in that order would make a great administration, with McCain remaining as a thorn in the flesh Senator.
sir, i feel i must disagree in your assertion that you feel yourself to be a liberatarian. My underunderstanding of libertarianism is NON-intrusive government into the private affairs of citizens.
To restate your line: "The federal government has no right to mandate that homosexuals can be married." My response to you is that the federal gov't also has no right to deny that homosexuals can be married by a religious leader willing to marry them. To take it a step farther: imho two people of ANY sexual preference who wish to get a civil union (ie. political laws granting them special tax/inheritance/healthcare benefits that two non-married people ordinarily cannot get) should be able to get these same political/tax benefits as their married counterparts. This would include two elderly sisters in their 80's whose husbands have passed, for example. The founders wanted a separation of church and state: giving special perks to those who choose marriage (which we now have) was not in the cards.
It is precisely these religious wedge issues that push independents as myself away from the republican party. What really scares me is that there are people who actually consider themselves to be libertarians that think Ron Paul and Sarah Palin should be on the same ticket. My question to those people is: do you read? Sarah Palin is the antithesis of everything Ron Paul stands for. She's pro-war, pro-corporatism, pro-wallstreet (yes, she did support the TARP funds), pro-torture, pro-Patriot Act, pro-religious nut: Ron Paul would never be on the same ticket as an extremist like Palin. I supported Ron Paul in the last election to the point of attending the July 2008 revolution in D.C., but I swear if Sarah Palin gets anywhere near Capitol Hill, I'm moving to Canada.
One guy who looks kind of interesting, however, is Lou Dobbs... --will be curious to see where he goes from here...
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
