Know the Candidates' Weaknesses before You Choose

Voters should be fully informed about their candidates before voting. This includes knowing their weaknesses. While most of the candidates have considerable strengths, let me remind you of some weaknesses.

MITT ROMNEY: I think Romney would make a reasonably good president, and I would support him if he were the nominee. He has a great reputation for knowing how the economy works. However, he is a conservative of convenience. He only affiliated with the Republican party in 1994 when he decided to run against Ted Kennedy; his strategy was to out-liberal him on issues. As a governor, Romney had a history of appointing liberal judges. His change from pro-choice to pro-life happened about the same time as he was considering entry into national politics--just in 2005. His primary legislative accomplishment was Romney-care, but it indicates that his approach to solving problems is to look to government as a first solution, rather than to look first toward the free market. He does not seem to be a conservative of conviction. He changed his position on gay marriage several times as governor. In 2008, he was running as a moderate Republican when the finger-in-the-wind wisdom was that Reagan conservatism was dead. At a time when our country desperately needs to return to core conservative values, we fear that Romney will be quick to compromise too quickly and unnecessarily, as was his practice as governor.

NEWT GINGRICH: I think Gingrich has the potential to be a reasonably good president, but his past performance in leadership roles suggests an equal potential for a mess. We should note that Gingrich's own financial miscues led to his check-kiting (22 in all) in the house banking scandal that Santorum and the other freshmen congressmen of the Gang of Seven exposed. One of the frustrating things about Gingrich was that he would stake out hard-lined stances, but in the stare-down, Gingrich was the first to blink. This happened with the 1995-1996 government shutdown when ultimately the Republicans accepted $300 billion more in spending through 2002, and it happened again when Newt blinked during the House Managers' prosecution of the Clinton impeachment trial (while Newt was himself having an extramarital affair--did the Clinton machine use this information to force him to back down?). Ethics charges and a $300,000 fine against Newt combined with the loss of the House of Representatives to force Newt's resignation--he lost the confidence of his own caucus mostly because of leadership issues. These failures makes us wonder how Newt could ever possibly recover and win a presidential election. More recently, Gingrich has proposed a plan to reward illegals with some sort of amnesty. Although he is brilliant, Gingrich has earned our skepticism, and his excess baggage fees alone could pay off the national debt. He is unlikely to survive a full frontal assault from the Obama attack machine simply because he has so many vulnerable points.

RICK PERRY: Perry appears to have a good record as governor of Texas and would probably be a reasonably good president--if he managed to get through the debates with Obama without embarrassing us all. Much of Perry's strong points are offset by the fact that he spent so much time in office as a Democrat. He was elected as a Democrat to theTexas legislature in 1984. He also ran Al Gore's campaign in 1988. With Texas becoming more and more solidly a conservative state, it is easy to see Perry's switch to the Republican party as an act of convenience rather than of conviction. Perry has vigorously defended his immigration policy, even though it clearly provides a magnate for illegals. Perry's requirement of young teenage girls to get the Gardisil vaccine shows how Perry is willing to impose the government into family matters.

MICHELE BACHMANN: Bachmann has withdrawn with class and dignity. Running a presidential campaign is difficult, and I have nothing but admiration for her, and pray earnestly that God would encourage her and continue to guide her. I have no doubt that she will continue to contribute positively to our American life.

JOHN HUNTSMAN: He should withdraw from the Republican primary and run as a Democrat. One exit poll showed that 51% of those voting for Huntsman in New Hampshire were moderately satisfied with Obama as president. Huntsman will not win the election simply because there are too many states that have a closed primary which disallows independents and Democrats.

RON PAUL: 75% of Republicans repudiate Ron Paul as utterly unacceptable as a Republican. Rush Limbaugh, who knows politics as well as anyone else in America, says that he should drop out of the race as run as a Democrat. Many Republicans figure that Paul would be no better than Obama. On foreign policy, he holds the same position as Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He'd do nothing to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He'd do nothing to assist our allies or protect our international interests. He's a poor leader, serving as the editor of a newsletter containing numerous racist articles written in his name. He attracts the most fringe elements of American politics, including neo-Confederates and and the Klan; his supporters invasively protest other Republican campaign events. As a doctor who has delivered many babies, it is inexcusable for him to promote the use of the morning after pill as a CONTRACEPTIVE! Paul will not be the nominee (there are too many closed primary states), and when the Republican party repudiates him, many of us presume that Paul's messiah complex will kick in so that he will run as an independent. The Republican tent is not big enough for this RINO.

RICK SANTORUM: The more I study Santorum, the fewer flaws I find. The biggest concern has been whether or not he is electable. His victory in Iowa has given him a boost, tripling his support in New Hampshire where he was the conservative with the most votes, beating Gingrich by 138 votes . He expects to win in South Carolina, or, at least get more votes than the other conservative candidates (Gingrich and Perry). In the general election, Santorum's Made-in-America plan will appeal to Midwest manufacturing states so that Santorum will have an excellent chance of carrying not only Ohio, but also takikng Pennsylvania, and perhaps one of two of the other rust-belt states (Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota). If a Republican takes Ohio and Pennsylvania, he will win the election so long as he keeps Florida and the other red states (http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/beating-obama-which-republican-can.html). The second concern about Santorum is his support of RINO Arlen Specter, but this turned out good for the sake of Conservatism as I have argued here (http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/skeletons-in-candidates-closets-is.html), especially in light of the fact that Pat Toomey voted for Obama Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. The third concern was that Santorum supported Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative, but no conservative Republican in the Senate opposed it, and it advanced the Republican urgencies of accountability of teachers and schools, and closed dead end schools (Santorum has since argued that No Child Left Behind was a mistake). The fourth concern is that he lost his last election; however, he did so on principle, and this was much less problematic than Newt's resignation. On the other hand, Santorum is the experienced leader who gets legislation passed which reflects the three legs of Reagan's three legged stool of conservatism. See here (http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/santorum-and-reagans-3-legged-stool.html).

Santorum and States' Rights

One of the inexplicable objections that some people have about Santorum is that he is insufficiently committed to states' rights. States' rights is the flip side of the coin of a small federal government, and so this objection implies that Santorum looks to increase the size and impact of the federal government. The objection could not be more fallacious.

The basis for this objection is Santorum's proposal of two constitutional amendments, one to define marriage, and the other one to define personhood (a pro-life amendment). Presently, different states have different laws pertaining to these issues. For example, as Rick Perry indicated earlier in the campaign, he has no problem with New York allowing gay marriage, so long as Texas can make up its own mind.

Perry's stance would end in pandemonium. If a gay couple duly married in Massachusetts were to move to Texas, would Texas recognize the marriage? Or if a gay "married" couple were merely to visit Texas, would their marriage not be recognized by Texas during their visit? Would a Vermont gay couple filing jointly for federal income tax have to pro-rate their tax by deducting days in Texas that they weren't recognized as being married?

In some ways, our present situation is reminiscent of the competing slave laws from state to state in 19th century America. Slave owners from the south taking their personal body servants with them on visits to the north risked having their slaves granted freedom by the states they might visit. Similarly, runaway slaves were considered free once they crossed into northern states. To solve these issues, southern states were altogether eager to use the heavy hand of the federal government to infringe upon the rights of northern states through fugitive slave laws and through the intrusive arm of the Supreme Court (e.g., the Dred Scot decision) which trumped state laws.

All this changed with the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery throughout the United States. Santorum's two amendments would likewise establish a common policy on marriage and on the definition of life. However, there is a considerable difference between the way pro-slavery federal legislation was imposed in the pre-Civil War era and the way that Santorum's proposed amendments would be enacted. The pro-slavery federal legislation reflected the heavy hand of an intrusive federal government that was expanding its role. Santorum's proposed constitutional amendments, however, give due consideration to states' rights. Here's how.

The most important factor in amending the constitution is that it involves a vote of the states' legislative bodies. The issue is not sent to the states until the proposed amendment passes by a 2/3rds majority of both the U.S. House and the Senate. Only then is the amendment sent to the states which utterly control the fate of the proposed amendment. Each state legislative body votes on the issue. Only when 2/3rds of the states pass the amendment does it become a part of the constitution.

Thus, this process is heavily weighted in favor of the states, giving due consideration to states' rights. The only role the federal government has would be in initiating the amendment process. This contrasts remarkably with the fugitive slave laws of the 19th century which infringed upon the rights of the northern states by a simple majority of the U.S. House and Senate, and the president's signature.

Santorum's amendments are necessary in order to avoid a free-for-all situation where some of the states infringe upon the civil rights of some humans simply because they have not yet been born, and where states define marriage differently. Failure to have a common position on these key issues will have grave consequences on our country. But Santorum respects states' rights by addressing these issues through a constitutional amendment process which puts the states in control of the process, a process determined by our Founding Fathers.

This overthrows the criticism that Santorum is against states' rights. Quite the contrary, his goal is to fix a problem within the United States by sending the issue to the states.