Another Republican Debate....

Ron Paul had claimed that Rick Santorum was "fake", and when asked about that claim last night, he simply repeated it. I will have to admit that it was both funny and refreshing that a prominent politician made a claim like this, and did not back down once questioned about it. When asked, he could have said anything, but simply reiterating his assertion that Santorum was awesome! Even better was seeing Santorum's reaction. He was clearly not amused. But is there anyone more deserving of being told such a thing on such a stage, before a national audience that he hopes votes him into the highest office? If so, I cannot think of such a person, unless they shared the stage with Santorum last night.

            The thing is, although I myself am not a rabid fan of Ron Paul, like many of his followers, who lose all objectivity and seem to think the man can do no wrong, there are aspects of him that I do admire. He is, at the very least, honest, seemingly. More honest than other politicians, and he basically raises a banner, and makes no bones about it. The message being, seemingly, "This is what I stand for, take it or leave it."

            That said, I am leaving it, because what he stands for is not just what his admirers talk about – that he is anti-war, anti-establishment (allegedly, anyway), and favors legalizing pot. All of that sounds really great, but he is not a liberal, by any stretch of the imagination. He sees no conflict with church and state, and feels churches are more important and useful to the people than the government. He seems to oppose homosexuality in general, although not as loudly as Santorum, who has been making headlines with that (which I will get into a little later on in this piece). Paul's tax proposals would also disproportionately favor the rich and corporations, as would his desire for further and even more absolute deregulation. His record with allegations of racism may or may not be baseless, but the fact that he claimed he would vote against the Civil Rights Act if he could today certainly cannot help dissuade such rumors. He also wants to get rid of social security, Planned Parenthood, and FEMA (the organization that helps people out following disasters, such as hurricanes). If he had his way, he would also favor eliminating the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, and would eliminate student loans that grant less moneyed kids to actually attend colleges they otherwise would not be able to afford.

            Now, as for Rick Santorum, his idiocy and bigotry has spoken for itself, and loudly lately. He sounds like a homophobe when he speaks, and criticizing President Obama about his religious stance is low, even for a politician. Maybe I am just weird, but it turns me off when someone claims to be religious and wears it on his sleeve to promote his political ambitions, and shows no sense of reserve, but rather loudly proclaims his self-righteousness. Fake, indeed. That does not even begin to cover it, as far as Santorum is concerned. Yet, if he were to win the Republican nomination, which hardly seems entirely implausible, that would probably work strongly to the benefit of the Democrats and Obama's hopes for reelection. It is a dangerous gamble, though, because if he somehow gets into the White House, he is a man who could do a lot of damage. We already recently had one supposedly religious man in there, who even claimed that God was on his side and wanted him to be President, and look at the damage that he did in his eight years in office (I am talking about George W. Bush, of course).

            Of course, Santorum is surging like he is because people just do not trust Romney, and why not? Because he is slick, plays it overly safe, like a typical politician. He comes across not as a real person, but as someone who maintains an image to such an extent that the real person that is surely inside is never seen. Romney wonders why cannot fire people up, but there is no fire in him to warm people to him, which cannot be said of his other competitors, really. What he does have is money, plenty of money, and with all of that money, he buys advertisement time, and throws negative publicity, mudslinging, against his opponents. Very political, as well. It is effective, but no wonder people cannot like this guy. He cannot stand on his own merits, but instead, throws money at the problem  - obviously another thing that people simply cannot trust. It works, for now. But this is the Republican field. Can such strategies work on the national level, for the whole prize? Also, if he is struggling so much as the alleged frontrunner to lock up the Republican nomination, what does that say about his chances in the general election, when he has to face Obama. He was apparently too scared to face Gingrich in a debates not long ago, so how does he think he will fare against Obama, who famously has a way with words, and a certain style that Romney likely cannot match up to?

            Finally, Gingrich is still in the race. Gingrich. The man who wanted to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob, and then had to resign form his government post himself after it was proven that he had extramarital affairs. He has a loud mouth as well (they all do), of course. He calls himself a true conservative, and claims that he is too intellectual to be an effective politician. Still, that does not apparently stop him from trying, again and again and again, and he caters to people who, allegedly, distrust intellectualism. Hmmmm…

            So, Obama will likely win the upcoming election. The question I would ask is, does he deserve it? We have lost sight of the existence of any positions, or really any way of thinking, period, outside of the two major parties that are supposed to represent the nation. My question is how can two parties possibly encompass the full range of diversity that a population of over 300 million will produce?

            Yes, Obama will likely win the election, and yes, I would prefer him over any of the Republicans that I already mentioned. But does that mean he will get the country going in a better direction? I generally do not vote for either major party, personally, but would lean more towards the Democrats than the Republicans. That said, how could I vote for Obama, when he will go down in history as the President who in effect eliminated the guarantee of habeas corpus? He talks a big game about environmental policies, but what steps has he taken? Kudos to him that he has a good singing voice, and that he still has some star power, but that does not a President make.

            So, I will be so bold as to make a claim here. What would be best for the country is not another four years of Obama, much less four years of Republicans in the White House again. What would be best for the country is to get other alternatives than these tow parties, that tend to agree with each other entirely too much for my taste. We need people who will put the interests of their country before their own narrow political ambitions, but we are too mired in the way things have seemingly always worked to think outside of the box, and we are too stubborn as a nation to seemingly ever try anything really different. At least, that is, until we perhaps lose even more, until maybe we will reach that point when we no longer have a choice in the matter. It is just a shame that it has to come to that, as it seemingly, assuredly will.