IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY RACE FOR PRESIDENT, WHO IS THE PHONY?

At this point four candidates remain.

Mitt Romney: Is Romney a Conservative? No, Romney is a flip-flop artist. I have a series of posts that document his ability to say whatever he thinks the electorate wants to hear. See  2012 PRESIDENTIAL PROS AND CONS: GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON MITT ROMNEY. Here is a specific  example from Slate.com: The Conversion: How, when, and why Mitt Romney changed his mind on abortion.

Ron Paul: Is Paul a Conservative? No, Paul is a Libertarian running as a Republican. What is strange is that Paul appears to have aligned himself with Romney

Why does Paul attack every other Republican candidate besides Romney, the phony Conservative? Who knows, but it seems Paul has finally felt the need to go after Romney too, Ron Paul Campaign Finally Goes After Mitt Romney.

Newt Gingrich:  Is Gingrich a Conservative? His record as Speaker of the House says he was. However, he has assumed some positions, such as supporting the healthcare mandate that raise concerns. See 2012 PRESIDENTIAL PROS AND CONS: GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON NEWT GINGRICH.

Rick Santorum: Is Santorum a Conservative? Yes. Santorum may not be Conservative as some would like. For example, he supported the reelection of Arlen Specter (see here). However, he hardly gave Specter a ringing endorsement.

Check out the following posts. While Santorum may not be perfect, he at least is not as phony as his rivals.

About these ads

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in 2012 Election, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY RACE FOR PRESIDENT, WHO IS THE PHONY?

  1. Sherry says:

    So far, Santorum’s my guy. My primary is at the end of the month and if he is still around, I’ll vote for him. I can’t vote straight Repub here in Illinois as some of them are questionable-Jones doesn’t believe the Holocaust happened…?! :shock: I’ve got my work cut out for me.

  2. Teresa Rice says:

    Great analysis Citizen Tom! Santorum is my pick for President.

  3. What a mess we voters must contend with.

  4. Ron Paul is what a republican used to be. It’s not his fault “they” call it libertarianism now. I guess that’s newspeak for you. Recall that Santorum voted for Medicare Part D, Planned Parenthood, No Child Left behind, etc. Following the money back, he was funded by Big Pharma – you can look up that memo where a Glaxo lobbyist commented that Santorum’s Senate loss would “leave a hole” for them. Ron Paul’s overall strategy has been to knock off the competition one at a time, as he at Mitt were the only ones with a 50 state strategy.

  5. Citizen Tom says:

    republican mother – Since the accusation will raise the hackles of the pro-life crowd, let’s consider Santorum’s alleged support for Planned Parenthood.

    Paul’s ad says Santorum funded Planned Parenthood.

    His campaign points to Santorum’s yea votes in the Senate on massive appropriations bills for funding the federal government. Title X funding, which funnels family planning dollars to health care providers including Planned Parenthood, was in those spending measures. Santorum has been unclear about where he stands on Title X, saying in one instance that he supports Title X and in another that he opposes it.

    In any event, he did not vote separately for Title X but for omnibus multi-billion dollar appropriations measures that funded many other activities. Saying, as the ad does, that he “funded Planned Parenthood,” makes it sound like he played a larger role than being one of many votes in favor of a broad-based appropriations bill. In 2006, for instance, he was joined by all but two of his Senate Republican colleagues in voting for the bill. Paul’s statement is partially accurate but it leaves out that important context. We rate the claim Half True. (from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/01/ron-paul/ron-paul-ad-claims-rick-santorum-voted-fund-planne/)

    Half the truth is what we use to mislead people, and Paul is in a good position to do that. When we do not care whether we accomplish anything, it is easy to be consistent. The reason is that we do not have to compromise.

    No legislation is perfect. When bad stuff is included in the same bill with good stuff, there is no simple choice. When Santorum voted he weighed the pros and cons. Have you weighed the pros and the cons?

    Consider again No Child Left behind. When Bush proposed that bill, I reluctantly supported it. The Dept. of Ed. is blatantly unconstitutional, but we could not get rid of it. So Bush proposed trying to hold schools accountable for the money they were spending. Because our education system is a monopoly, however, the strategy did not work, and Santorum has admitted as much.

    Would Paul be a better choice? Look at his record.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Tenure

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Tenure_2

    As a congressman, Paul has not accomplished anything noteworthy. He has not even stopped much in the way of bad legislation. Consider Paul’s opposition to national identification numbers. We don’t have social security numbers?

    As a presidential candidate, Paul is just undermining people who have effectively fought the good fight. Paul is an effective propagandist, but is not an effective leader.

  6. Shaggy says:

    What’s conservative about voting FOR omnibus multi-billion dollar appropriations measures? Dr. Paul is the only candidate that understands that to be conservative, one must be FISCALLY conservative and stop the endless deficit spending. Being conservative means that you don’t expect the federal government to solve every problem by throwing more money at it.

  7. Citizen Tom says:

    Shaggy – Here is a better question. What is Conservative about being so stubborn you never contribute to making anything work? Our government is what it is, and it is too big. Our government wastes far to much money. Nonetheless, until they wise up, that is what the majority wants. So whoever we elect has an obligation to at least try to make the stupid mess work.

    • Sherry says:

      So whoever we elect has an obligation to at least try to make the stupid mess work.

      What you say is true, I know, but I just busted out laughing when I read this part…thing is, seeing Tom’s sweet smile, I could picture him saying it. Thankfully. he does not have the ability to come back to earth to see the mess that his beloved country is in.

    • Shaggy says:

      I’d rather have a politician stubbornly oppose the status quo than contribute to it. What good does it do to talk about limited government and fiscal disciplilne but vote for increased spending at every opportunity? The problem is that we don’t have enough stubborn conservatives in Washington. The truth is that Ron Paul is TOO conservative for your tastes. You are arguing for a moderate.

  8. Citizen Tom says:

    Shaggy – Because his vote is sometimes the only no vote, Ron Paul is nicknamed Dr. No. Sounds very principled, but there is a problem. The Federal Government spends almost 4 trillion dollars a year. In addition, the Federal Government burdens us with costly regulations.

    Do I agree that most of the spending and most of the regulations are unconstitutional? Yes, but if you are an automatic no vote, you have nothing to negotiate. If a bill is going to pass in some form anyway, then you cannot influence the legislation. You cannot make a spending bill any better. In fact, you cannot accomplish much of anything.

    Look at Ron Paul’s record. Ron Paul has gotten almost no legislation passed. He has not done any damage, and he has not done any good. Instead of trying to minimize the damage, he has just washed his hands of the problem.

Comments are closed.