By Joel Joseph
The first two Presidential primaries of 2012 show this race is over. Iowa and New Hampshire handed Mitt Romney two records. Not only did Romney pull off the closest primary win in the history of Iowa, but also he won both Iowa and New Hampshire—a first in primary history.
Along with Mitt Romney’s win, Rick Santorum’s second place finish, in Iowa, gave him $1 million in donations the next day. The sudden Santorum-rise, however, plateaued with a fourth place finish in NH. Looks like Santorum’s well-timed entrance into this race falls short of keeping him in it.
Ron Paul’s third place finish in Iowa and a second place finish in New Hampshire show that while his support may be huge in the country, he can’t take states.
After Mitt Romney’s landslide win in New Hampshire it seems that he has only two more steps, known as South Carolina and Florida, away from the grand prize: the Republican nomination.
In a center-right country it seems that Mitt Romney is the perfect option, of those available, to take on President Obama and, most importantly, win.
30 comments:
Not so fast! I’m not sure I want a moderate as the republican nominee. The vast majority have not yet spoken. Why should 3 or 4 states choose the nominee?
He's not a moderate but he's not as conservative as Rick Santorum either. If the candidates drop out after the next few primaries then there's nothing you can do about it, Romney just may be the candidate after the first four primaries.
True, Joel. He could easily be the nominee. But that will be because of a primary system that doesn't allow all states to have a say and because the Conservative vote was split. It won't be because the majority of Republicans want him. Romney will win because of the system's structure, not because people love him.
Romney has supported:
1. Abortion rights
2. Gay marraige
3. Universal Health Care
4. Tougher Gun control laws
5. Path to citizenship for illegals
6. Raising taxes
Romney is no conservative.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/files/2011/10/FLIPFLOPS.pdf
Could you please tell me who the majority of Republicans would vote for? Mitt Romney is the most supported Republican candidate in the country.
Brutus, the key is that he "has" supported those positions. He does not now. You can choose not to believe the man but I'm willing to take what's he's been saying for that 7 years as truth. He has changed positions and I'm happy he has. He maybe late but I'm happy it happened.
I agree with Joel about Mitt Romney getting the vote for 2012 Primary. I think most people will vote for republicans as as they are fiscally conservative and liberal as get out on social issues. Mitt Romney fits that generally.
You could easily work for Fox news, Joel.
Thanks! I really don't care that you may have meant that as a snide remark, Fox News is Fox News.
With the economy and the country the way it is why are Republicans satisfied with a moderate? It's kind of a joke to call him "conservative."
Well the economy is exactly why Republicans want Mitt Romney. He is the man for the job. He doesn't just have dreams (Ron Paul), he has plausible solutions to fixing this economy.
Mitt Romney may not be as conservative as you may like but he is a conservative nonetheless. He's not a Rick Santorum conservative but he's a conservative. If we're going to talk about "phony" conservatives then Ron Paul belongs in this discussion.
How is Paul a "phony" conservative? He is fiscally responsible, small government and pro-constitution. He is pro-life, pro-states rights. What is your definition of conservative? I know you don't like him but at least be intellectually honest.
The following article cites a U of Georgia Political Science professor that ranked Paul the most conservative politician since 1937. The article presents some excellent viewpoints and encourages people to think for themselves...not group think.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11375957/1/ron-paul-the-strongest-man-in-the-world.html
I'm not being intellectually honest. The man calls himself a libertarian that doesn't go hand in hand with conservatism. Is the man pro-life? Yes. Every candidate in the race is pro-life and pro-state rights (within limits).
He is to the left of President Obama on Foreign Affairs and he is for the legalization of drugs and prostitution. Both are completely against the republican main stream. Do you realize how generic the stance "pro-constitution" is? Everyone of the candidates say their pro-constitution... Even President Obama does.... its how you interpret it. I think his interpretation of it in regards to foreign relations and the the legalization of drugs and prostitution are wrong.
Another reason I don't like the man is that when he lost in 2008 he supported Ralph Nader and Cynthia Mckinney for president. Tell me, what conservative credentials do they boast?
That's correct, you're not being intellectually honest. I'm glad we agree. :)
Problems with your previous statement: "Every candidate in this race is pro-life." False. Let's focus on Romney since the other guys aren't going anywhere. Romney is only pro-life now because he has to be. As recent as 2002, he was "pro-life by conviction" but pro-choice as governor. He was in liberal Mass, so he had to be pro-choice. Now that he is running on the National scale, he has to be pro-life. Maybe he had a change of heart, hard to tell. Paul, however has always been pro-life. He believes the states should be able to ban it without the federal government taking that right away.
You say he is left of Obama on foreign affairs. Does that make him a phony conservative? I think you're definition of conservative is off. It seems to me that conservative along this line of thinking equals the Republican Party. The Republican Party does not equal conservatism. They can be conservative, but in many aspects the two parties are the same. On the issue of foreign policy they may say different things, but their actions are essentially the same. Continue to promote the American empire in other countries and bankrupt our country. Paul is not anti-defense, he is anti-policing the world. We can't afford to do it, and it is not helping us.
Pro-constitution. He consistently interprets the constitution and believes in state's rights. The other candidates follow the constitution when convenient.
Your last point does bring up the point that Paul is not loyal to the Party. Nader is not conservative.
Paul said that "he agreed with Nader on a host of issues, such as cutting the US military’s budget, ending undeclared US wars overseas, restoring civil liberties and civil rights by dumping from the Patriot Act, and withdrawing from the NAFTA and World Trade Organization agreements." Those are important issues.
Paul definitely does not fit into the box of Republican style conservatism. He is libertarian. But there is so much overlap between true conservatism that as a whole he is incredibly more conservative than the other candidates, especially say... Romney.
Romney is disturbing in several ways, though better than Obama. He said that he supported pro-abortion rights in order to win in a liberal state. Do we want someone who is willing to lie or compromise something so important to win votes? His Mormonism didn't used to bother me until I started doing some research on Mormonism's view of America and the political scene. A man named Ed Decker has written on this...interesting to look at. If I actually had a chance to make a difference in the primary (reference to Matt! Totally agree) I would vote for Santorum, a true conservative.
I apologize for my misstatement, I am being intellectually honest. =)
On the issue of the Patriot Act, the Supreme Court deemed it constitutional. I feel like I don't need to say anymore on that issue. If you disagree you can take a look at Justice Roberts, Scalia, or Thomas have said on the issue.
A pro-defense and anti-isolationism stance has been the stance of conservatism for a great while. If you disagree then I'm afraid good ole Ronald Reagan wouldn't fit your paradigm of conservatism.
Everyone of the candidates understand and are pro-state rights.
As of the last seven years Mitt Romney has been pro-life and you would benefit from Hugh Hewitt's book on Mitt Romney and his chapter on Mitt Romney's stance on pro-life. I have the book, you can borrow it from me.
On the issue of Paul's endorsement, are you saying that Nader is more conservative then McCain?
@anonymous
I am no longer going to reply to the posts of anonymous people. If you have something worth reading and responding to then I will dignify you with a response but as far as I am concerned I am looking to engage people with enough courage to let us know who they are.
It's not a lack of courage, Joel. I have my reasons for remaining anonymous. I would appreciate your view on how Romney's religious views could affect his position and those he surrounds himself with. I don't know if what I am reading and thinking is an accurate representation which is why I commented on it.
Obviously I would love a christian, if he was the best candidate, as president but since there is none in this race I am going to support a mormon.
I am aware that the mormon church has some crazy theology but the biggest thing to me is how does Mitt Romney live his life? From all that I have read and observed in the last 6 years the man is a very moral man. He has a great family and a great marriage with his wife.
There have been christians that have run in the past, for example, Jimmy Carter, and he did a terrible job in office. Christianity does not dictate the success of a certain administration.
What a politician stands for and how he lives his life are more important to me than what his theology is. I would vote for a jewish candidate if there was one.
Thanks for responding, Joel. I do agree. Religion doesn't always play a role, though it was sure nice to know that W. was on his knees each day. :)
My only concern is that the Mormon church deals DIRECTLY with the "takeover of America" kind of thing. I know Santorum is a Catholic, but I have not heard him vary on his beliefs no matter what AND he just came out on top in Iowa...the race isn't over! Santorum is a solid (imperfect) conservative who seems to walk the talk.
Two things:
1) There are Christians that believe "Dominion Theology" and they believe only Christians should be leaders in government and that we are to subdue our government. I would think that is just as bad as what the Mormons believe.
2) Santorum didn't win, 8 votes shy of first place is still second place. His flame is still burning, but barely.
Well Joel I must object, kindly, to your last 2 points:
1) Today's news - Santorium did win probably. Check your sources.
2) There is NO WAY Morman theology should be campared favorably to true christians with dominion theology bent. You protest too much!
Burden of proof is on you, my anonymous associate. You made the claim contrary to what happened and has been reported for the last two weeks so you need to supply me with the sources proving you point. I shall eagerly await your link.
I am just making a true statement. Both views are deplorable to the general public.
THE RESULTS: Santorum finished ahead by 34 votes
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/19/register-exclusive-2012-gop-caucus-count-unresolved/
Santorum finished 34 votes ahead of Romney in new Iowa tally
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-santorum-finished-34-votes-ahead-of-romney-in-new-iowa-tally-votes-from-8-precincts-missing/2012/01/19/gIQAJGuRAQ_story.html
Ooops. Looks like Romney got ousted by Santorum.
It's even less than a tie before!
Santorum most definitely won! I am a different anonymous friend than the previous, btw. :) If things go as they are polling, we could have a third winner in the SC primary. Nothing is over.
I haven't seen anything about Santorum that will take the focus off Obama's record in an election. The other two (three) could end up being a referendum on them rather than on Obama's horrendous presidency.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the link.
Regret this post yet?
@humility
we have deleted your comments twice. Please comment respectfully with Christian grace and decorum. Thanks.
Post a Comment