The Poverty in the Republican Field for a Plausible Candidate
The GOP Field
Well, the first votes for the Republican primary are coming closer every day, and people want to know who would be best to lead the country, improve the state of the economy, or, perhaps more importantly, beat Obama. Let me start by saying, I'm not a Obama supporter, or even strictly a Democrat, but from what I've seen from the Republican Party, it's a matter a choosing the lesser of two evils. The second evil will be one of these candidates, each more absurd than the last. The notion that half of these people should hold any position of power, even to the extent of Head of the Homeowner's Association, is ridiculous.
For this lady, there is no need to scour the internet for some quote that may be taken different ways and then take the quote out of context. No need for dirt-digging to see what secrets she has from her past, no need to spread nasty rumors in order to bring her campaign down. No need for any of that; one must simply show her speaking, or look at what she believes. Note: You could take a lot of what she says in the video below and try to defend each claim in order to distort her stupidity, but I think it'd be rather difficult when such a plethora of lies has been amassed.
Rick Perry, or George Bush 3, is a gun loving, God-fearing, good ole' American who has made numerous gaffes on this campaign trail. One of the most recent, and outrageous, missteps in his debate performance shows how little he knows, not just on what need to be done, but what he plans to do! See video below. Now, some people would seek to defend this embarrassing lapse in memory or belittle the ridiculousness of the situation, but it is inexcusable. Not only should a candidate know which three of those "big, bad federal programs" that he would cut, but he should know the ins and outs of those programs, the pros and cons of them. He should know if they need to be revised, altered, or cut altogether. Such a slip clearly and painfully illustrates the blatant ignorance of this man and his followers.
Newt is a somewhat special case. He's the smartest in this Hub so far (not saying much) and he's also the slipperiest. Although Mitt Romney is the one best known as the "flip-flopper," Newt has had his fair share switcheroos. Additionally, he has perhaps the most politcal baggage of all the candidates. First, he was of the opinion that Paul Ryan's health care plan was far too extreme, then after experiencing backlash from the GOP, he switched his position real quick. Speaking of health care, he has close business ties to many shady groups and even lead a couple of them. Check link here:http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/newt-gingrich-hit-on-health-care-flip-flops-think-tank.html or simply Google anything about Gingrich and his associates. I would think that some Republicans would realize that what we need is not another corporate corrupt businessman for president.
Speaking of businessmen, Herman Cain is another conservative running for the Republican nomination. One might be thrown off the option of electing this man to beat Obama for the presidential race due to the increasing number of allegations by women claiming there was sexual misconduct in his past, but that would be overshadowing a perhaps more important fact; Cain would make a horrible president. A characteristically lacking base of knowledge seems to be required in order to run in this party. What does he think of the economy? Look at his so called "999 plan" which he has already called for revision and special cases. I'm not an economist, but I do keep up with current events. It is easy, as previously stated, to believe that it is nitpicking when you look at what these guys say with a critical eye, but to elect someone with literally no knowledge of international affairs gives democracy a bad name
Perhaps one of the most ignored candidates in this race, Ron Paul has shown to be popular in many places by winning straw polls (say what you will about their worth) and having strong support on the internet. However, the ignoring of Ron Paul is not entirely baseless. If you watch a quick soundbite from an interview or debate, he can seem to make a lot of sense. Look at him closely, though, and that appeal deteriorates quickly. Why he is not more popular with anti-big government conservatives can be explained by actually listening to the things he says. He has been. perhaps appropriately, deemed "unelectable."
The notorious flip-flopper conservative businessman has been the most consistent in the poll and most appealing to moderate voters. It is shameful that this man, who should be number 3 or 4 on the top list for Republican candidates, is number one. (depending on the week) He will most likely be the nominee, but is open for extreme scrutiny for switching his opinions like the changing of the seasons. Good news for Democrats? Kind of, sort of. One, that means he can be easily attacked, and two, if he does secure the nomination, after all, he can't be depended on to be the true blue conservative he claims to be.
"But does that even matter?!?" is the question. If it came down to it, though, who would a evangelical christian, conservative Republican, pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, foreign country hating voter choose: Obama or Romney? Maybe they would wait until next election and skip this one, but the ones who do vote will choose Romney. The reason Mitt has not bent over backward to please the Republicans is because he doesn't need to; he will have their reluctant support in a presidential nomination.
Is Obama the one most fit to lead our country? No. Are there plenty of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats who might do a better job? Yes. It's just disheartening that none of those people are running for president.