Still Anybody But Obama...the prime directive...

Nothing about this Republican primary has swayed me from my first impressions, first my contention that anyone in the race would be a massive improvement over the incumbent, and second, a flat rejection of the media narrative that this is a particularly weak field.  The only adjustments to those points might be a caveat making Ron Paul an exception on both counts, more on that later.

This really is a pretty straight forward winnowing process; the primaries force a choice from a pool of evils to be the lesser of two evils in the general election.  That is to clarify, not to diminish the process.  Bottom line is there will only be two choices in the end (all third party or otherwise wasted votes being a rubber stamp on the incumbent) and we already know one of them.  

So then, the best we can possibly do is find the candidate with the least dangerous combination of imperfections, who can also survive that process with enough dignity to look better than the other lesser of two evils.  Regardless of who prevails some of us will have to get the clothes pins from 2008 apply firmly, and vote accordingly.  It will be as stark of choice this November as it was then, except now the stakes are higher.  Never before in history has an election offered a starker contrast or clearer choice between freedom and tyranny.  So let the winnowing commence. 

Romney:  In 2008 I supported Romney over McCain because he was the more conservative option.  This time he is the least conservative of many options.  His electability is trumped up by the mainstream media because they see him as the easiest to beat, or if he does win is the most like Obama.  

He may also be their favorite because he is less inclined to call out the press on their water-carrying for Obama.  If he unwilling or unable to challenge the liberal narrative during the campaign we have no reason to expect he would do so in office.   I am not the only one who believes that sort of passiveness is what doomed the Bush Presidency as much as anything.  If one truly intends to beat back socialists it cannot be done while abiding their propagandist handmaidens.  I suspect a big part of Sara Palins appeal, and to some extent also that of Newt Gingrich, is their willingness to aggressively call the media to account.  

My other problem with Romney is a fundamental departure of philosophy on the role of government.  Regardless how far he walks back his stance on health care he still considers it his single most important achievement as Governor.  I have to conclude that deep down inside he really does see health care as a right to be distributed via government rather than a consumer product more efficiently distributed through market forces, a particularly disappointing stance for someone who so readily touts his private sector experience.    

Gingrich; One of the more conservative options, despite the mewling of Dick Morris and Ann Coulter, is Newt Gingrich whose intellect and bravado I have appreciated for many years.  With that bravado, unfortunately, comes a pretty serious case of rhetorical promiscuity, many bits and pieces of which can and will be mined and contorted to irreparable harm.  Of those the most troubling of all to me is his insistence, both as an historian and as a politician, that the greatest President of modern times is FDR.

Seriously?  I would be open to the possibility that with enough time, in view of his considerable argument and debate skills, and depth of historical knowledge, he could probably make a convincing case on why he believes this, but he would never convince me.   FDR, more so than Wilson, Johnson, or even Obama, is the antithesis of conservatism personified.  To hold him out as the greatest American President is an insult to the office and the constitution.  To do so while claiming to be the most conservative candidate is a stretch beyond my grasp, and brings to mind the old Orwell quote that only an intellectual could believe such a damn fool thing.  Sorry Newt, as much as I’d relish the prospect of you wiping the debate floor with Teleprompter Breath, you’re out. On the other hand, the the highly respected Dr Sowell endorses him here ...

The recent negative ad onslaught in Iowa is a mere sampling of how the general election would look, and probably even benign compared the knives and hatchets Axelrod and company would wield. But its effectiveness is an accurate foreshadowing as well.  

Ron Paul; Speaking of rhetorical promiscuity Ron Paul has come up with some that not only disqualifies him but costs him my respect.   Aside from the blame America first stance he seems all too ready to assume on foreign policy issues the fact that he called Wikileaks traitor Manning a hero was way too over the top.  Libertarians, more so than most, based on their severe constitutionalism believe in the rule of law, not men.  Manning broke the law, one which, I might add, would get him in front of a firing squad in earlier times.  In making this traitor out to be a hero Paul is suggesting the intentions behind his actions, the rule of a man, trump the rule of law. Whether it be for sincere reasons of philosophical empathy or a cheap applause line is irrelevant.  I can’t trust anyone who preaches constitutional purity in one breath and throws it out the window in the next, all for political whimsy.  The line between promiscuity and prostitution is only as thick as that between the rule of men and anarchy.     

This is not a lone incident but a pattern.  There was also a case where tax scofflaws in New Hampshire refused to pay to the point where they took up arms against the IRS.  Again Paul hailed them as heros, putting his opinions on tax laws above the laws themself.  I get the anti-tax position as much as anyone but that requires a change from within the system, not gunfire.  

To his credit I am thankful that someone is finally bringing the whole topic of limited government back to the debate. That the first debate included not one but two libertarians is a remarkable advance for the cause.  Now all it needs is a torch bearer who can be taken seriously by more than recreational drug advocates and 9/11 truthers. Goldstein on Paul   

As for the rest the imperfections are probably not as pronounced but then again if they were contending stronger the scrutiny would have revealed more.  While I like Perry I don’t think the country is ready for someone who followed George W Bush’s path to the White House.  The damage to that brand hasn’t healed yet, and no, it isn’t fair, but that matters little if at all. 

Michelle Bachman is an admirable conservative firebrand but was too quickly branded and demonized as Sara Palin light.  The prospect of the novelty of the first woman president is not strong enough to compensate for her lack of executive experience.  That could be the result of party misogyny but I doubt it.  More likely it’s a lesson learned on the damage that can result from electing a President primarily for reasons of novelty.  The bloom of that rose has faded but the thorn prick damage persists. 

That leaves us with Rick Santorum, the defacto candidate with the least glaring imperfections.  He will do well in Iowa, whose record in picking eventual nominees isn’t exactly stellar, three times since 1979.  If he places or shows the scrutiny he has not been subject to will commence in force, followed quickly by media smears and Romney PAC attacks.  

This process is grueling enough for an observer.  I can’t imagine how tough it must be to endure in person.  They all command a large degree of respect if only for subjecting themselves to the meat grinder.