The Republican Candidates

I haven't written anything since we arrived home last July. My wife was desperately ill and her care took up a lot of time as well as concern. I got out of the routine of writing and I just never got back into it. Yesterday somebody asked me my opinion on the Republican candidates, so I put some thoughts down and then decided to post them on American Flyer to see if it would reignite my writing efforts. My wife has improved considerably in recent months, which is a great relief to my family.

Since I wrote this early yesterday Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary, and I had a long discussion with an ardent Ron Paul supporter last evening. One thing I've noticed is that Paul's supporters tend to be almost cultic in their devotion to him, and seem to think he's flawless. I don't. So let me give you my thoughts, and then let me know what you think.
Ron Paul is a weak candidate for several reasons. His approach to Israel is the same as Obama's; return to the 67 borders. He also wants to cut all aid to Israel. There is a video on Youtube showing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu saying that they don't need America telling them what to do, building their nation, or sending troops. Paul takes it from that statement that Israel doesn't need us or any foreign aid from us. The argument is that the US has always tried to control Israel and we should get out.

Actually, I believe in context Netanyahu was complaining about Obama telling Israel to give up the West Bank and the Golan Heights, both of which would be a disaster for Israel. We have never tried to control Israel or build their nation, and while Netanyahu told us not to send troops, which we have never offered to do, the Israeli Air Force that controls the Palestinian skies is made up primarily of US F-15s and F-16s. I am quite sure they don't want to give those up.

The primary reason, however, that we need to continue to support Israel, besides the fact that they are our only real ally in the region, is that God promised Abraham four thousand years ago that He would bless those nations that bless Israel, and curse those that curse Israel. As a Christian nation it is in our best interest to continue to support Israel. Paul's idea of basically abandoning them is not only unrealistic, but would remove what little of God's blessing is still on our country. His blindness to Iran's nuclear program and the general agenda of Islam to destroy America (he thinks 9/11 is America's fault) would make him as much of a disaster in foreign policy as Obama. Paul's position on abortion is certainly not pro-life in the strictest sense, and his idea of legalizing illegal drugs are hardly sound domestic policies.

As for securing the border with Mexico he has a good idea, I think, about using the military. He also wants to bring all troops home and stop "conquering" other nations. I don't think the war in Afghanistan and Iraq had anything to do with conquest. They were ill-fought by the civilian leadership in the long run, but the fact that we are bringing our troops home disproves any idea of empire building. I do like Paul's economic ideas of a 0% income tax and cutting a trillion dollars out of the budget. I think he would probably be a good choice for Secretary of the Treasury.

Mitt Romney is dangerous because his conservative credentials tend to grow as necessary to win the nomination, but nobody really knows what he'll do as president. People can change positions when they see the light, but Romney hasn't really explained his changes of position well. There's also the question of his Mormon religion. One of the candidates brought it up last summer and was excoriated for it, and since then it has been ignored, but my guess is Obama would use it, especially the idea that they will all become gods, to try to belittle him, and I think that puts a lot of doubt in conservative minds, especially among evangelicals. Romney has mostly been a good debater until last Monday night. At the Fox News debate Thursday night he had some good moments, but not as good an overall performance as he had been having in the past. Plus, the Democrats gave it away at the debate the week before when the woman moderator made the comment that the Democrats want Romney because they think he'll be the easiest to defeat. Stephanopoulos could hardly contain himself trying to get her to shut up. And then the MSM has already decided he's going to win and are doing their best to make it happen. That's enough reason for me not to vote for him.

Rick Santorum probably has the best and most consistent positions on all conservative issues with the exception maybe of the Second Amendment, but he's not been a very good debater overall, and rather than concentrate on the issues, he more than any of the other candidates went out of his way Thursday night to attack Romney and Gingrich, which made him look petty and small, and I don't think helped his chances at all. Gingrich and Romney got fired up Thursday and spoke with passion. Santorum didn't exude that same level of fire. He looked like he was trying to get fired up but his answers didn't carry the same weight of persuasion or spontaneity that the others' did, and I'm afraid that if he gets the nomination, his debates with Obama would lack the strength or eloquence to compete. Plus, since he lost his last race for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania that would probably be used against him. I don't think he's a winning proposition.

That leaves Newt Gingrich, the man with all the baggage. He has by far been the best debater through most of the debates, although he seemed to drift when the Romney attacks hit him in Iowa and he started retaliating in kind, but this last week he has proven himself again to be the best choice to take on anybody in a head-to-head debate. He does have problems, however, including the amnesty for illegals that have been in the country for 25 years, and his apparent belief in global warming.

Economically, however, and on foreign policy I think he would be very strong. He has a proven track record as Speaker of the House in the 90's. The criticism of his being thrown out as Speaker by his colleagues shows he had made some enemies along the way, and proves that nobody is perfect, but his leadership led to four balanced budgets in a row.

His marriage trouble is another example of his fallibility, but I think he nixed that one Thursday night. He has previously answered that he had hurt people, but that he had converted to Catholicism, made it right with God, and he's now a changed person. That will probably continue to haunt him, but when you consider Clinton's dalliances as governor of Arkansas and while he was in the White House (which led to his impeachment for perjury before a grand jury and before Congress) were swept under the carpet by self-righteous Democrats who wouldn't care less about Gingrich's morality if he were a Democrat, it shouldn't be made an issue anymore. In a nation that has a 50% divorce rate, and as many people living together unmarried as are married, I think we can take the high road of forgiveness and overlook those faults based on what we see of his life and attitudes today. People do make comebacks from bad mistakes, and I think Gingrich has done admirably well in recent years.

Gingrich has also taken on the MSM from the beginning, and his outburst at the first question Thursday night has proven him to be someone who won't be cowed by political correctness or the media's conceit. He's the first one, and the most forceful one to speak what is on the mind of people all over the country. Finally there is someone, more than the others, who is speaking rationally about the way things are and ought to be, and is not bending over cow-towing to moderates, liberals and the press to try to win them over.

By profession, Gingrich is an historian with a Christian view of American history, and not necessarily because he was raised a Christian. He wasn't. He came to his view objectively by a true study of history and has rejected the revisionist view of Deist founders influenced by Rousseau, and accepted the Christian view of a Constitution founded on the New Testament and the Ten Commandments (as stated by James Madison), and American exceptionalism due to the blessings of God on our Christian nation. He is the one man who articulates this position better than the rest, although I'm sure all of the candidates believe the same.

I believe this will be the most crucial election since Ronald Reagan won in 1980, and probably the most critical election in America's history. Obama is setting himself up to be dictator. He already ignores Congress ruling by decree and establishing unconstitutional czars. The only thing keeping him from going too far is the need to be re-elected, but if he wins again there will be nothing stopping him from overthrowing the country almost single handedly. I predicted a long time ago that if he wins a second election, I believe in another four years he'll manufacture some kind of crisis to enable him to declare martial law and hang onto power. But I'm not even sure his purpose is to necessarily hold on to power. Under his skin I think he's an avowed muslim who is only interested in destroying America for the benefit of Islam.

That makes his defeat more urgent than any in our history, and it's why I think Gingrich, even with his baggage, is the best choice. In an open, non-scripted debate, he'll expose Obama for the communist/islamic tool that he is, and make him look like a fool in front of the whole world. That absolutely needs to be done and a policy of American exceptionalism expounded so that the world knows we are still the top dog, and that we will continue to be a Christian nation. If we don't do this, America will land on the "ash-heap of nations," that Ronald Reagan warned us about. More than ever conservatives, Christian and non-Christian, Tea Party or dry, need to vote in this coming election, and I think the man we need is going to be Newt Gingrich.

That's my opinion.