Thursday, December 15, 2011

Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum and Occupy

Mitt Romney has always seemed to be a relatively calm and reasonable candidate. Considering his recent barrage of what almost appears to be desperate attacks on Newt Gingrich, Romney must be feeling like his chances of the nomination could be slipping away.

Although I think both Romney and Gingrich would be light-years better than the President we have now, they are both enormously wealthy career politicians who tend to lead by sticking their wetted finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing. Not only that, but Romney's flippant offer of a ten thousand dollar bet leads to suspicion that Romney really has no idea what average American's go through.

If America really wants a President who is grounded on core convictions rather than on the changing tide of political winds (mixed metaphor), and who is more in touch with average people, I think the choice is between Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum. Unfortunately, most Americans seem to have bought into the media nonsense and lies portraying Bachmann and Santorum as unstable, far Right loonies.

The fact that this nonsense has gained any traction at all demonstrates how far Left this country has gone in the last 50 years.  If you want to know where the Left will ultimately take us, just take a good hard look at the Occupy movement.  

3 comments:

Kevin said...

America, as a whole, does not want a President who is "grounded on core convictions" because Americans (individuals) cannot agree on what those core convictions ought to be. Many married couples, people who love each other and have committed to live their lives together, cannot agree on priorities, why would millions of people with diverse backgrounds, motivations, and influences be able to agree on "core convictions"?

professor ed said...

I was, and still am, a firm supporter of Herman Cain. For those old enough to remember, the nimination of Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court was nearly derailed by Anita Hill; who claimed Judge Thomas was not nice to her. That Liberal/Democrat effort failed. Fast forward to 2011. Obama, and his Liberal handlers become petrified, if not putrified, at the thought of a serioius Cain challange. All of a sudden not just one, but several "Anita Hills" appear out of the wordwork, claiming Cain treated each of them in a bad wasy. Apparently Obama's handlers felt one "Anita Hill" was not sufficent to eliminate this serious threat to their man. Sadly, in this case they succeeded. I do not believe any of the currently remaining GOP contenders will have the ability to unseat Obama next November!

Dennis said...

Kevin, I think (I hope) most Americans would still understand "core convictions" to be code for things that have historically been respected by most Americans, such things as honesty, personal responsibility, hard work, reaching out to help neighbors, and Judeo-Christian concepts of marriage and morality, etc.

You have a valid point, of course. Context is everything. If Barack Obama, for example, speaks of core convictions he is probably speaking of something significantly different than the concept envisioned by Michele Bachmann.

Professor ed. I don't know whether Herman Cain is guilty or not (some of his denials sounded suspiciously like "non-denial, denials" to me.

If the accusations are false, there should be a VERY strong legal penalty--involving a lot of years in prison--for making such false accusations which result in destroying someone's political career and life.

I certainly hope you are wrong, however, about your belief regarding the remaining GOP contenders.