Now that Herman Cain has dropped out of the race, who do we have left?
We still have Obama, the neo-Muslim, anti-Semite, Marxist in populist, entitlement-promoter’s clothing who favors enlarging government over the private sector, and who is a huge fan of income redistribution.
And who are the strongest challengers?
Mitt Romney, whose strengths include a presidential persona, a strong business background, his promotion of states rights, his sound moral character, and his articulate communication. His liabilities include his failure to relate Islam with Jihadists, his flip-flop stance on health care and abortion, and his inability or unwillingness to generate excitement which is the flip side of his presidential persona.
Newt Gingrich is the best debater, and may be the more conservative among the two (Romney and Gingrich) who have the best chance of winning the Republican nomination – but not conservative enough for many. His liabilities include his moral character and several flip flop events involving his characterization of Paul Ryan’s plan as “social engineering” and several other very unconservative remarks that he has since repented for. I am also learning that he has a dismally deficient understanding of the nature of orthodox Islam.
Ron Paul is the most libertarian of the bunch, promoting the audit, if not the abolition of the Federal Reserve and reversion to some form of hard currency. His liabilities include a foreign policy that resembles Obama’s with regard to his belief that US foreign policy incites the Islamic world against us and that we should immediately withdraw our military forces and our influence from predominantly Islamic nations. I agree with doing this, but for entirely different reasons. Paul’s attitude is an iteration of Obama’s “Blame America First” campaign which ignores the 1,400 year long orthodox Islamic ideology of supremacist conquest.
The remainder of the field has even less chance of winning the nomination than Ron Paul. Of the remainder, Rick Santorum has the best understanding of the Islamic threat along with sound and consistent conservative positions. Without consideration of electability, he best represents my views among those remaining in the field.
To recap, Romney and Gingrich both have been accused of being flip-floppy, although both have plausible reasons for denial. I formerly thought Gingrich had the best understanding of the Islamic ideology. However, after reviewing his website the other day, he, too, believes we are merely “engaged in a long war against radical Islamism, a belief system adhered to by a small minority of Muslims…” A small minority of Muslim? A small minority of Muslims? He has GOT to be kidding, or at least woefully ill-informed.
Ron Paul has been in Congress about as long as Gingrich, but has been in the margins while Gingrich has been much more influential. And Paul’s foreign policy beliefs are little different from Obama’s: Blame America First – we are the first cause of Islamic violence against us.
Going with the one who appears “most moral” is not necessarily the best approach – look at Jimmy Carter, the very Christian Southern Baptist.
I am torn at the moment between Romney and Gingrich. However, I give a slight edge to Romney because he is much more the outsider, has more private sector experience, and is the better role model for human behavior.
One last controversial thought: Anyone who votes against Romney primarily because he is a Mormon is strongly partial to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is [ignorantly] intolerant of those who differ. Guess what word that last phrase is a definition of?