search
top

Primary Day

We’re watching the results from Michigan come in, and Mitt or Rick, I can’t say it matters either way. I dislike both of them for different reasons, but to be honest, if it comes down to a race between Santorum and Romney, I’m going with Romney. At this point there’s not anyone I really like in the race, and I’ll take someone with no convictions over someone with the wrong convictions (like sticking your nose into everyone’s bedrooms).

In other news, if Tim Pawlenty isn’t kicking himself for dropping out, he ought to be. If he’s not, I’ll be happy to kick him. He’s is not perfect either, but he’s a sight better than either of these two. Bitter got to speak with Governor Pawlenty at the kickoff for Sportsmen for McCain back in 2008, and was impressed with him. Start speaking to a lot of politicians about our issues, and you get platitudes like this, because they don’t really care about, or understand the issue, except that they don’t want to anger gun owners, and would like their votes. They just know the basic 2A talking points, and hope that’s all you know too. Pawlenty knew the issue well, and could speak favorably on a number of topics important to gun owners, including carry rights. But no use concerning ourselves about what could have been… back to reality.

20 Responses to “Primary Day”

  1. Brad says:

    I don’t prefer either of them myself. Though when it comes to the two of them I prefer Santorum over Romney for two reasons.

    1) Romney can’t be trusted on guns. Perhaps his anti-gun rant on so-called “assault weapons” was mere pandering at the time. But it might reflect something deeper too. Either way, he can’t be trusted.

    I very much see Romney as a re-run of George H.W. Bush; a moderate who promised during his campaign that he really really really really was a Reagan conservative and then reverted back to form after the election, after he was safe.

    2) Romney is less electable than Santorum. Romney has only won a single elective office, despite decades of running and fat personal resources. Secondly Romney is perfectly cast to fit the role the Obama campaign is preparing to fit him in. An out of touch plutocrat and tool of the upper class. And that’s not counting the charges of racism which the Obama campaign will evilly combine with appeals to anti-Mormon bigotry.

    True the Press has taken some shots at Romney. But I think the Press has used a double standard, treating the not-Romneys much more harshly than Romney. Playing the same game the Press played in 2008, trying to force the least conservative candidate onto the Republicans. After which the Press will savagely turn on that same Republican nominee in order to boost the Democrats.

    If you think Romney is the most electable, just wait until the general election when the full fury of the media is directed against him. Then we will really see whether Romney will melt down.

    • Diomed says:

      Romney less electable than Santorum? Santorum is DOA among the middle, where the election is decided. It’s just not going to happen. Most of the US is not where he is and they’re not going to vote for him – even most of the GOP won’t vote for him.

      Romney is the candidate. We all have to get used to it. I may have called that over six months ago (it was really that obvious), but it doesn’t mean I like it or agree with it. It just is.

      • Kind of funny, when suddenly, Ron Paul seems to be the most electable platform.

        Seriously, if Ron Paul looked and spoke like Mitt Romney, this primary would be over.

    • Alpheus says:

      One thing to remember, though, is that “unelectable” candidates will suddenly look very “electable” once intensely compared to Obama. Indeed, the same “unelectable” Reagan won a landslide against Carter.

      Having said that, we can’t count on the “unelectability” of Obama. If there’s one thing the Republicans have demonstrated again and again, is the ability to mess up an election that’s (almost) given them on a silver platter.

  2. James says:

    eff that crap. keeping voting in the same scum into office will get you exactly what we have now and will continue to have.

    I await the collapse with this kind of attitude. This attitude is prevalent in voters and will get us the same; guaranteed economic collapse.

    You better prepare. My kids are going to be really pissed they owe years of income due to this sh#$.

    • Sebastian says:

      That’s the choice. There’s nothing you or I can do about it, except watch it unfold, and vote for the best of the worst. As for the country, it’s been through a lot worse than either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and come through.

    • Alpheus says:

      I’m increasingly of the opinion that We the Electorate are responsible for this crap. Who’s going to run for President? The Senators, Representatives, and Governors of our country, and an occasional Eccentric Billionaire thrown in to keep things interesting. The fact is, our Senators, Representatives and Governors are all crap, too! Indeed, I have attempted to look beyond the current crop of Presidential Candidates, and I see almost nothing but candidates who are just as flawed as these are.

      If we have such a lousy pool to choose from, then we’re going to get lousy candidates. But we have that lousy pool because we vote for these people because they appeal to our “values”. Thus, the problem is with us, and not the candidates.

      If we want things to change, we need to change the hearts and minds of the people. A tall order, true, but if we don’t, we’re going to be doomed!

  3. Jeffrey H says:

    Well I am a Ron Paul supporter that being said if we are only looking at Romney and Santorum, I think it really comes down to Santorum won’t be Obama. A religious extremist is not going to get elected especially one who seems to want to impose his views over everyone else (and I say this as a Catholic, (but also a libertarian)). Maybe Santorum can get the Tea Party and Evangelical vote but he will lose the middle and he will lose the youth. Romney polling wise looks like he could win, I think it would depend on which way the economy goes though. If the government can spike it maybe Obama gets re-elected over Romney as he doesn’t excite anyone. He is boring, and just Obama lite. It doesn’t look like Ron can win but I will still be voting for him, he is the only one running who is going to change the direction the country is going in (well maybe Johnson as well), and he is clearly the future of the party the way he owns the youth vote, but I think the old people and religious nuts aren’t ready to go down that road.

    Of course then again maybe if Romney is the candidate the right stays home and he loses even if he does take the middle. Either way I think the Republican party is screwed, better hope to take the Senate and expand the house.

  4. Dannytheman says:

    Don’t discount that they are watching very closely the increase in gun sales. They want those votes, but they also want to keep those votes. I do not see National Reciprocity with Obama, I do with Romney or Santorum. I am more and more scared of the future though! My company is still actively laying people off. Very sad times we live in!

  5. PT says:

    Romeny is white Obama, Santorum is a catholic nun reincarnated, Gingrich is slimy, and Paul is nuts.

    I voted for nuts.

    I can see Romney bending on guns if presented a good gun bill that has passed both chambers. I really think he’ll pander on whatever will make him popular.

  6. “like sticking your nose into everyone’s bedrooms”

    When, exactly, has Santorum made an assertion that he thinks the government should do that? There’s a difference between, “Griswold was wrongly decided” and “I want the government to prohibit birth control.” (Santorum has rejected the latter.)

    • Diomed says:

      How about:

      This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

      That seems to be a declaration of authoritarianism and opposition to individual liberty, of which sticking noses in bedrooms is just a part.

  7. Alpheus says:

    Right now, I’m rooting for Santorum. I wanted him to take Michigan, and am disappointed that he didn’t.

    I figure, the more chaos we can have, the better–indeed, if we can get a brokered Convention, then we may even be able to introduce yet another (unfortunately, likely to be just as lousy) alternative. At the very least, such a thing will help the candidates hash out their differences.

    My only fear is that whoever wins isn’t going to turn on Obama immediately, and hit him hard. This should be an easy win, and if it isn’t, it will only be because the Republican has no spine.

    • Every dollar that gets spent in the primary process is a dollar that won’t get spent in the general election. I prefer Santorum as well, but I think Romney is our strongest candidate, because he doesn’t stand for very much except…Romney.

  8. Andy B. says:

    . . .prohibit birth control. (Santorum has rejected the latter.)

    Except that he said he believed the states have the right to do it. Usually that is code for “I’d like to see it done, but I’ll distance myself from responsibility for the idea by saying I’m a candidate for federal office.”

    • Alpheus says:

      As one for abolishing the (geographical) monopoly on governments altogether, aka a so-called “anarcho-capitalist”, I understand this point of view. Indeed, it’s one that Ron Paul espouses as well. Basically, if we’re going to allow tyranny in America, it should only be done on a State level.

      I’m rather inclined to agree, too. It’s one thing to convince a highly-Catholic State like Massachusetts to ban contraceptives…but you’ll then have to convince all other 49 States to ban contraceptives as well, if you want a complete ban. Good luck with that!

      And, if it’s clearly a State issue, you can’t rely on the anti-gun tactic of “We’ll ban it in a few States and cities, and once we have the momentum, we’ll go for a National ban”.

      • I rather doubt that a highly Catholic state like Massachusetts would prohibit contraceptives. You can’t even get them to overturn the Massachusetts high court concerning gay marriage.

    • I agree with him that Griswold was wrongly decided. I conclude that contraception for married couples is plausibly protected by the 9th Amendment. But just because something is within the state’s power does not make it a good idea. Prohibiting homosexual sex is clearly within the authority of the states under the Constitution. I don’t think it would be a particularly useful law to have on the books, however. What are you going to do? Send gay men to prison? That isn’t exactly a useful method of preventing homosexual sex.

top