Barack Obama is going to lose in 2012, and not by a small margin. I’m thinking that with sustained unemployment of 9.2% or worse, not only will he lose, but by Reagan-like landslides. The question remains: Who is going to be the victor?
There are eight candidates still in the fight, and one, Sarah Palin, who has yet to make a decision. Those eight include Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.
Of those eight I think that only three have a shot at winning the Republican nomination. Huntsman is not only too liberal, he’s a virtual unknown. Gingrich on the other hand is very well known; you either love him or hate him, but his checkered past will prevent his nomination. Likewise, Ron Paul is considerably well known, and while most of the conservatives agree with his economics, he has unveiled his naïve, if not downright crazy, foreign policy ideas. Rick Santorum and Herman Cain are not quite so well known, and it shows. Of those still in the running, the three that stand out are Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachman.
One thing I can say - and I believe I can speak for every conservative – is that we are tired of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. The Republican Party has not nominated the kind of leader most of us want, and that the country needs, since Ronald Reagan. George H. Bush inherited the nomination simply because he had been Reagan’s Vice President. Other Republican nominees did not have enough appeal to overcome Ross Perot’s third party candidacy, and as a result we got stuck with eight years of Bill Clinton who set the stage for the housing debacle of 2007. Finally, although George W. Bush was not the first choice of conservatives; it was either him or Al Gore, or John Kerry afterwards.
Given that the three most likely candidates to win the Republican nomination are Romney, Perry and Bachman, we need to consider who, if any, are candidates that we can fully support, and who are candidates that would be nothing more than a lesser of two evils.
Romney is the media-crowned favorite. We are told that he “looks presidential.” But what of his substance? To me, Romney is more of a career politician more likely to do what he needs to keep his job rather than to make a stand. He would compromise with liberals, seeking that middle ground that always results in more liberalism and more socialism. Proof of that can be found in his pushing for and signing into law, Massachusetts’ healthcare law which socialized medical care in that state. Since then costs have, predictably, skyrocketed, just as quality of care has been diminished as healthcare workers have either been laid off, or have moved to other states to practice medicine, and entire hospitals have been forced to close. Romney continues to claim that while socialized medicine is not right for the entire country, it was right for Massachusetts. Foolish pride doesn’t sound very presidential to me.
Perry has done a terrific job in Texas by keeping taxes low and not creating or signing endless (not to mention mindless) job-killing government mandates. But part of his apparent success is due to the effect other states’ mandates and tax policies have had on their own businesses. People and businesses have moved to Texas because of fiscally detrimental liberal leadership in other states, and not necessarily because of anything Perry has specifically done. Contrary to Conservative principle, Perry did sign an executive order in February of 2007 mandating that all girls receive a vaccination for HPV, a virus that causes cervical cancer, when they reach the sixth grade. There was an opt-out available for families who filled out a conscientious objector form, but that hardly ameliorated the outraged state legislature, which quickly and emphatically overrode the order. At the time, Perry's former chief of staff Mike Toomey was a lobbyist for Merck, the sole manufacturer of the vaccine. Is this another example of “politics as usual?” Forget for a moment that although the FDA had approved the vaccine, which is manufactured from cell linings from an aborted fetus; it was not thoroughly tested, and has resulted in deaths in the US and around the world. Contrary to the Washington political pundits, I don’t think Perry is going to siphon off support from Bachman. I think Romney supporters will gravitate to Perry, and that may very well be a good thing.
If Sarah Palin doesn’t get into the race, that leaves Michelle Bachman. I am hoping that Palin will simply endorse Bachman, especially since their views are virtually identical. Palin would certainly siphon supporters from Bachman, and given her unfair treatment by the liberal media, I believe Palin would have the most difficult time defeating the incumbent out of all the a-list candidates in the field. But should she surprise the Washington elites and simply throw her support to Bachman, Michelle could easily hang in there. She has shown remarkable ruggedness in staving off the typical sexist, misogynistic and dirty attacks of the Left, and even those from some Republicans. I think that under this scenario, and given enough time, Romney and Perry might wither under the spotlight instead of her. Both have been set up to fail, since both are considered seasoned candidates and “presidential looking.” One gaff and either could become as toxic as Howard Dean in 2004.
Of all those still in this race, Bachman is the most principled; a far cry from the career politicians everyone has grown so weary of. Watching her debate people from Anthony Wiener to Tim Pawlenty over the past 12 months while being unfairly criticized and slandered, yet coming out on top is a testament of her character. Should she win the nomination I think she’ll go on to mop the floor with Obama and replace Reagan as the standard bearer for the Republican Party.
