TJ's Thoughts on Who to Support in the GOP Primary

[TJ in Oregon]

I was thinking as I ran today that it may be interesting to post a little analysis critiquing each of the three main Republican presidential candidates from my point of view. I will vote for any of the three over President Obama in November even though this post will probably sound very critical of all three of them. In advance, I’ll forewarn you all that this may contain a trace of hyperbole and less objective thought than I usually write on this forum.

I am undecided who I am going to vote for in the Ohio primary and even whether or not I am going to register as a Republican or Democrat (since as a Democrat I can help keep Marcy Kaptur in Congress since I sort of like her and the other candidates are Dennis Kucinich and Joe the Plumber as the Republican). But anyways, here are my thoughts:


I’ll begin with Mitt Romney, the frontrunner in most respects. He’s widely considered the most electable candidate and seems to have the largest appeal with moderates. He gives intelligent answers to debate questions and I think his enemies will have a more difficult time ensnaring him in an unpopular answer to the questions than any other candidate.

Unfortunately, he also has trouble answering the question straight away and comes off as somewhat phony. I’m not sure I should trust Mitt Romney and I’m also not sure his aura of electability will go quite as far as the pundits believe. He can be somewhat uninspiring and while I’m looking for a competent leader as POTUS rather than someone to inspire me, that sort of thing can determine who gets elected. I don’t quite trust his pro-life, anti-gay marriage credentials, though I do think a President Romney would be very careful not to upset the Republican base too much if elected president. I have some concern over how his historic family wealth would come across to people in working class communities. I am concern he could be viewed as in an ivory tower and out-of-touch with America.


In stark contrast is our new challenger, Rick Santorum, with whom I have a very different set of thoughts and concerns. First of all, Santorum is by far the closest to me ideologically so my critique will probably be pickier. I trust Santorum to handle our economic concerns in a more even-handed way than the other two and I completely trust him when it comes to abortion. I also applaud his rare views on contraceptives, though I fear this could turn very nasty in the general election and possibly cause a degree of hatred and unrest between Catholics and everyone else and between Catholics faithful to the Church’s teachings and those in revolt. It could turn into quite the hornet’s nest if not handled with extreme skill. I can live in a sort of uneasy peace with those who virulently disagree with me and I hope that peace will not be disturbed by a Santorum campaign.

I have some issues with Santorum’s foreign policy views. I don’t want a war with Iran or anyone else for that matter unless we are da*n sure they are going to do something awful. I don’t like Santorum’s sharp-tounged rhetoric about the Middle East. I also don’t understand how Rick Santorum would practically support gay marriage—in Iran. I don’t like his penchant for the need to spread “American values” overseas, as though making the whole globe wave flags around and eat steak and potatoes while supporting “liberty” and “freedom” would solve all our problems. I also don’t like Santorum’s support for the death penalty and how he often makes himself sound like something of a victim. I don’t want a president who cries victimization, but rather one who takes criticism as a challenge to be a better leader.


Lastly, I’ll critique Ron Paul since he seems to be in the running according to some. Oddly, I find Ron Paul’s foreign policy views one of his most redeeming areas—to a certain extent. I would still appreciate some degree of moderation over a total detachment like Paul describes. Actually that’s the main problem with Paul, he seems to have no measure of moderation and practicality about him, just a withdrawal from everything on every issue. I think he’s completely unelectable if he ends up somehow winning the Republican nomination for this reason.

Ideologically, I am miles from Paul on domestic issues, not so much in spirit but more from a practical standpoint. Many of the issues he’ll defer to the states on would result in a liberal victory by default and spirit only goes so far in the realm of politics. My biggest specific complaint is that he would effectively aid a widespread drug legalization by trying to repeal federal laws against drug use and sales. I also think the gold standard is a stupid idea because gold is just as fiduciary as paper money. I don’t want to know of the Federal Reserve is monetizing debt because if they are we don’t know, we may end up avoiding much of the inflation to go along with it.

[TheGlobalizer]

Re: Paul, serious question: Why do you care about "big liberal victories" except if they are in your own state?  Which issues?

Agree on the gold standard, there is little net win for using gold vs. fiat currency.  I get his critique but there are better ways to address.

[TJ in Oregon]

Re: Paul, serious question: Why do you care about "big liberal victories" except if they are in your own state?  Which issues?

Agree on the gold standard, there is little net win for using gold vs. fiat currency.  I get his critique but there are better ways to address.

I want marijuana and hard drugs outlawed in the entire country. I may not be living in my state forever and do not think what happens in another state doesn't affect me or doesn't effect the way our national politics is driven. People drive over state lines often. If other states begin legalizing substances it tends to spread to other areas and would spread even faster if unabated by the Feds. Also, the more states that legalize gay marriage, the greater pressure Ohio will feel to do the same since the argument on both sides is fixed on an aura of social norms. Paul's hands-off approach could prove problematic in issues that haven't even been discussed yet in the mainstream. Who knows what people will try to legalize next? And Paul will be by far the least useful in stopping whatever it is.

I have much less interest in a candidate for federal office who will ultimately keep his hands off all social issues than one whose goal is winning social arguments. Still, I'd prefer Paul over Obama who likes to force liberal values on everyone and openly cheers for them, but I'd only support a candidate with a 'neutral' mentality like Paul as a last resort.

[TheGlobalizer]

I see, and respect the forthrightness of your view.  FWIW, though, I'd just submit that a Paul-esque state's right view of social legislation would make it much harder for Obama and his lot to impose their views - it's a lot harder to overturn or undermine a neutral law than an opposing law.  You could also couple it with a federal law that would prohibit transit of drugs / not require recognition of marriage across state lines (the former as a rare appropriate application of the Commerce Clause, the latter a clarification of the Full Faith and Credit Clause).

I personally hold entirely opposing views on both topics (I'm pro-decriminalization and pro-gay marriage) but don't see the need to impose that view on others, and hope that others would generally restrain from doing the same.