Romney and the the Not-Romneys

In my last post I concluded that of the current men still in the race, nobody wants to vote FOR any of them, but would only be voting AGAINST Obama. I also said that's not good enough.

It was, essentially, what happened in the last race. My father said once "There were no votes for John McCain. There were only votes against Obama." And as we all saw in Nov. 2008, that wasn't enough.

So here we are in the last year of Obama's first term. We've seen quite a few fighting Tea Party politicians rise up on the right in that time. Now we have Allen West, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Rand Paul, Jeff Landry and Tim Scott, among others; politicians who can all directly thank the Tea Party for putting them where they are. When was the last time a grass roots movement affected that kind of change?

As I also said in my last post, that enthusiasm appears to have dampened and the fighters we saw in 2010 have given way to the same old establishment Fat Cats the GOP always trots out to run for president. The names change (sometimes) but the players remain the same.

Currently left in the race are Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman and Rick Santorum.

Of the six of them, only John Huntsman has yet to be a serious challenger to the Anointed Candidate, Willard Mitt Romney, a man whom the GOP establishment likes, whom the Left wants to see nominated, and who the conservative base could not possibly dislike more. The only problem is, out of six lumps of shit, how do you decide which lump is the least shit-like?

It seems the latest Not-Romney is Rick Santorum, a man I've personally never really been behind. I will say this to start off with; in a contest of Santorum vs. Obama the better choice is clear. However, we haven't gotten there yet, and Santorum's ability to convince the center-right that he's worth voting for has yet to be proven.

See, here's the thing; while the GOP establishment is focused on who's going to bring in independent or undecided voters while pretty much ignoring anyone who appeals to the base, the arch-conservatives now seem to be getting behind one of their own, despite the fact that many of the conservative base doesn't really care for him.

It's pretty clear that Santorum's rise is really nothing more than the latest attempt to have a Not-Romney for our candidate, but there's a reason it's taken this long to get to him. Santorum may be an arch-conservative, but he also seems to be the kind of arch-conservative the Left would like people to think all of us are. In a couple of the books he's written he DOES seem to be advocating Big Government...run by arch-conservatives. He's staunchly anti-gay marriage, to the point where he seems to actually be against the right of people to live their private lives as they want. Agree or disagree with homosexuality; it is a basic human right in America to be gay. Start trying to take that away and you're no better than an arch-liberal, just from the other side.

Now, whether or not Santorum would actually attempt to enact legislation that would "ban gayness" (I don't think he would), having an openly anti-gay president probably just won't happen in today's world, and for what it's worth, it shouldn't happen. If Santorum's religious beliefs state that homosexuality is a sin, that's up to him. But that should remain a personal religious stance, not a political stance from which he would dictate policy. Bottom line is; the government should stay out of everybody's bedrooms, not just the ones where the activity within is one they approve of. It's part of limited government and personal liberty. Sometimes people are going to do things with that liberty, and the limits of government to impede upon it, that said government doesn't like. Whether that's christians worshipping freely or dudes having sex with dudes, a conservative government would not attempt to legislate it one way or the other, nor should it.

The other problem with Santorum is that he doesn't come off as likable, in large part from what I said above and in equal part the way he's come off as a whiner and a wimp in debate performances. Complaining about the placement of your podium? That's supposed to be presidential?

Now, between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, yeah, okay, let's go with Santorum. At least he stands for something. But is he really the best we can do? Is he even the best one running?

Rick Perry recently ticked off a lot of people with his gay soldiers ad, but that may have been a poorly-calculated move to engraciate himself with the Republican base, not realizing that the Republican base is mostly okay with gay soldiers serving openly. We do have a problem when they abuse the system and claim it's because of being treated unfairly as a gay man (or woman) but by all means, if you're a gay man or woman who wants to serve their country, why would any sane person seek to prohibit that?

Personally I don't think Rick Perry would attempt to legislate against homosexuality. I don't even think he'd attempt to outlaw gay marriage on a national scale. I DO think Santorum might try that, or at least, he would speak openly of wanting to. Believe it or not, that's not a conservative stance; it's a religious fundamentalist stance. And while there are a ton of conservatives in America, religious fundamentalists are getting fewer.

Rick Perry, however, does seem like George W. Bush II in all the wrong ways. I don't know if I can still support him. He's also sinking in the polls. I know I'm not a Santorum fan. I think Gingrich is a fighter and knows this is a war, while the others think it's just a presidential election, but he's starting to under-perform. Ron Paul and John Huntsman are beneath consideration.

So are we really at Romney vs. Santorum? And how long will it be before Santorum falls? Are we really stuck with Romney as our given candidate?

If so, we're screwed.