US Republican Primaries
I have been watching the US Republican Primaries with a certain level of horrified fascination. I'll never be a Republican supporter, and I would never want the Republicans to win if I lived in the US, but I still find myself having opinions about who I would like or wouldn't like to win the nomination.
Why I have an opinion seems to be down to several conflicting reasons.
The first reason is a wish to see U.S. politics in a healthy state. Given that Newt Gingrich pioneered the kind of hugely partisan politics that is destroying Congress and the Senate right now, I find it bizarre that the Republicans are thinking of seriously rewarding him for this by nominating him for the U.S. Presidency. I can't see how it could possibly make things any better than they are now, and I have the feeling it would just make things worse.
The second is that I'd like to see hypocrisy punished. I hate hypocrisy in all its forms and so I find myself very much against the various candidates who would clearly say anything to win the Presidency. This includes Newt Gingrich, who committed adultery while trying to impeach Bill Clinton for the same thing; Hermain Cain, who is socially conservative but not when it applies to him and any women he's after; Perry, who is also socially conservative except when it applies to him; and the various Tea Partiers like Bachman, who preach fiscal conservatism while doing everything they can to derail any meaningful cuts to spending and block tax rises. Then, in a special category all to himself is Mitt Romney, who is blatantly saying whatever he has to to get elected. Everyone knows this, everyone hates this and yet everyone still feels like they have to vote for him.
As a corollary to this, I like Ron Paul, since he actually stands for real limited government. George W. Bush also stood for limited government, shortly before he expanded the powers of the government and maxed out government spending. Many of the other fiscal conservative Republican seem to echo his views and it's hard to understand how many times the mantra of limited government can be heard and be voted for without actually being put into place. At least with Ron Paul there's a chance that the American people will get what they want at long last. Not that it will do them much good. I also like Rick Santorum since he's a social conservative who hasn't so far preached about not screwing someone else while... screwing someone else. Not that I have faith that he isn't screwing someone else, or is going to, but he's either (shock horror) clean, or really good at hiding it. So well done for him.
The third is that, if the Republicans do win, which, through some weird mechanism where the more their own supporters get disenchanted with them, the more success they have, seems sometimes alarmingly possible, then it would be nice to have a President who is not a complete whack job and has some grounding in reality. For this, only Mitt Romney really fits the bill. Neither the fiscal conservatives, social conservatives or libertarians seem to.
Why I have an opinion seems to be down to several conflicting reasons.
The first reason is a wish to see U.S. politics in a healthy state. Given that Newt Gingrich pioneered the kind of hugely partisan politics that is destroying Congress and the Senate right now, I find it bizarre that the Republicans are thinking of seriously rewarding him for this by nominating him for the U.S. Presidency. I can't see how it could possibly make things any better than they are now, and I have the feeling it would just make things worse.
The second is that I'd like to see hypocrisy punished. I hate hypocrisy in all its forms and so I find myself very much against the various candidates who would clearly say anything to win the Presidency. This includes Newt Gingrich, who committed adultery while trying to impeach Bill Clinton for the same thing; Hermain Cain, who is socially conservative but not when it applies to him and any women he's after; Perry, who is also socially conservative except when it applies to him; and the various Tea Partiers like Bachman, who preach fiscal conservatism while doing everything they can to derail any meaningful cuts to spending and block tax rises. Then, in a special category all to himself is Mitt Romney, who is blatantly saying whatever he has to to get elected. Everyone knows this, everyone hates this and yet everyone still feels like they have to vote for him.
As a corollary to this, I like Ron Paul, since he actually stands for real limited government. George W. Bush also stood for limited government, shortly before he expanded the powers of the government and maxed out government spending. Many of the other fiscal conservative Republican seem to echo his views and it's hard to understand how many times the mantra of limited government can be heard and be voted for without actually being put into place. At least with Ron Paul there's a chance that the American people will get what they want at long last. Not that it will do them much good. I also like Rick Santorum since he's a social conservative who hasn't so far preached about not screwing someone else while... screwing someone else. Not that I have faith that he isn't screwing someone else, or is going to, but he's either (shock horror) clean, or really good at hiding it. So well done for him.
The third is that, if the Republicans do win, which, through some weird mechanism where the more their own supporters get disenchanted with them, the more success they have, seems sometimes alarmingly possible, then it would be nice to have a President who is not a complete whack job and has some grounding in reality. For this, only Mitt Romney really fits the bill. Neither the fiscal conservatives, social conservatives or libertarians seem to.