When choosing what area to continue my career in, I started the process of elimination to whittle down my options. I knew I didn’t want to go pediatrics, or obstetrics, med-surg, rehab, or geriatrics for various reasons. Oncology and emergency care were low on my list as well initially, but they’ve since grown on me. Anesthesiology was initially most appealing to me, but has since taken a huge plunge now that I have experienced it to some degree (boring!).
So when it comes to candidates in the primary season I start my process in the same manner. Immediately Huntsman and Romney were no-go candidates, but Bachman and Paul were high on my list. I was highly interested in Chris Christie, but like anesthesiology, I lost interest once I looked into him further (not a true conservative). The rest were given time to consider.
Well, these last two debates have done a lot to fluctuate my lists. I’m going to give my stance on each candidate.
Rick Santorum –
Santorum is a good man that I see eye to eye on with a great many things. The problem with Rick is that he reeks too much of Washington. He is stuck in the mentality of fixing things the way that the GOP “fixed” things when they had the super majority (within the system with almost nothing getting done). I like him as a person and would love to have him as my neighbor…but not my president.
I am leaving a small crack open for Romney, not because I’m convinced that he is a conservative, but because I hope he can be in the unfortunate situation that he may be our president. People can change, and he has definitely changed… But why? It is always hard to judge politicians when they flip so hard. Thing is, few have flipped harder to the right than Ronald Reagan did in the 60’s. Weeks before the 2008 election I told John that Obama winning might be the best thing that has happened to America in a while, not because he is good for America, but because he will underscore the failures of liberalism and turn centrists into conservatives. It is certainly possible that Romney is one of these individuals… but why chose him over those who have always been conservative?
I gave Perry a chance, and he blew it in recent weeks. He has held staunch on some issues that he was wrong on… but then he has admitted where was wrong on some of those issues as well. Both of those can be good qualities; the ability to admit when you’re wrong and the ability to hold firm to unpopular decisions. From my perspective, he is on the wrong end of each standard. He looks flustered, weak, and too desirous to win the job.
Ron Paul –
He’s great philosophically. There are a handful of issues that I disagree with him on, but they are far and few and largely unimportant compared to the issues that matter most to America at this moment. The problem is that Paul is such a cranky anti-politician. It might be why I like him, but political reality is that he is not going to win a national election with that kind of “appeal”.
I like Gary Johnson, but he is just too…magoo to win the hearts of the people. Still, his “shovel ready jobs” comment was a line I will not soon forget.
I am eternally thankful for the mute button when this man speaks.
Gingrich is one of just two candidates that are promoting principle without ever reverting to attacking other candidates. That is refreshing. Gingrich’s focus on solutions is appealing, even if he is wrong on a few of those (I’m against the ID card for instance). Every time he speaks he separates himself from the rest of the pack in actual Washington experience. Is that a good thing? Perhaps, perhaps not, but this guy doesn’t seem to be running for president as much as he is running for a powerful position on someone’s cabinet.
I liked her…I really did, but poise matters and she simply doesn’t have it. I think that Bachman is awesome in the House and I think she is a wonderful woman, but she just doesn’t have the presidential poise that is required for the position (IMO). Also, she has just become an attack machine and a repeater of talking points. She has few ideas that are original, which is strange since the tea party (which she was heavily supported by early) has so many for her to adopt. She didn’t translate her potential into energy very well and I think she is too far gone.
He is the other guy who isn’t out attacking people at every chance (other than Newt), he has come up with original ideas (that I like), and he is defined by his past under circumstances that are oriented around issues that are currently important. His first political stance came in an open forum with President Bill Clinton in his opposition to Clinton’s national health care reform (seen here). Further, his battle with colon cancer gives him a personal experience that he can use effectively in the debate. Add to this that he is a successful businessman, an outsider that has had a little government experience and a man with ideas and I find little to dislike in his makeup.
A few weeks ago I thought that Cain was too careful in the debates, too calculated, and didn’t speak in an appealing way… I think that has changed a bit. He is still just as calculated, but sounds less like a CEO talking to his board. The more “Huckabee” he becomes in his demeanor, the better he will do.
It’s still early in the game, but as of right now I am in the corner of Herman Cain. We will see what the coming months bring.
Filed under: Uncategorized