Gingrich is smart, but with a terribly weak record on personal morality--and I can't quite forget the commercial with Pelosi and Gingrich promoting the global warming nonsense.
Romney's personal morals seem to be pretty good, but if there is any serious and consistent ideology there, it hides well. The one thing I am sure of about Romney is that he wants to be president, very badly. At least if he defeats Obama, that's a good thing.
Santorum I can respect for his courage to confront America's loudest and most powerful whining faction, but that is also the reason that he could probably not win the general election. Unless you are at least neutral on homosexuality, you are unelectable.
Perry seemed like he had a lot going for him. I would love to see him suddenly overcome his verbal clumsiness and become an effective debater.
Paul's foreign policy ideas are delusional. I respect his courage in defending libertarian ideas in an antilibertarian nation, but that is part of why he could never win the general election against Obama.
You are dead wrong on the homoelectability question. Obama is a crazy bigot christianist homophobe, it was obvious way before he was a candidate. Everyone knew what was going on in black churches and he was a fave pupil of Jeremy Wright. And yet, he was in fact elected. Gays voted for him in numbers! When he went on to defend DADT tooth and nail, they pretended not to notice. So, being a homophobe does not make anyone unelectable. Not having a lapdog press is what the problem really is.
ReplyDelete?????:
ReplyDeleteBlack politicians vote the homosexual agenda all the time. It never really hurts them. Obama is "hip urban", which implies that anything he says against the homosexual agenda is just window dressing.
He repealed DADT, and his Justice Department is refusing to defend DOMA.
Clayton: Santorum may have problems from being perceived as "anti-gay", but he may have worse problems from being perceived as "anti-choice". Not just anti-abortion, but anti contraception. That's a problem for anyone who isn't Catholic, or otherwise really social-conservative.
He isn't going to ban contraception (he can't) but he is talking about defunding contraception in foreign aid and domestic programs.
This does get into the area of "imposing the morality of a few on the whole".
It's one thing to oppose abortion, because it is arguably a crime against a person (the unborn child).
But who is the victim of contraceptive use? The child who might have been conceived?
I can understand the philosophical case against contraception - it divorces sex from its natural complement of parenthood. But that's way too subtle to be a matter of law or government policy.
I wish Santorum understood that.
I've written a piece for PJMedia about Santorum and his position about Griswold v. Connecticut. He is right that the decision was wrongly made; he is wrong when he argues such laws are constitutional. (The decision reaches the right result by the wrong method.)
ReplyDeleteBut I was surprised to see that even Santorum agreed that while he disapproves of contraception, he did not support laws against it.
Rich Rostrum said:
ReplyDeletehe is talking about defunding contraception in foreign aid and domestic programs.
This does get into the area of "imposing the morality of a few on the whole".
Federal funding of contraception isn't a neutral policy. Zero federal funding of contraception would be a neutral policy.
Agreed, Hal. I don't have a moral problem with funding contraception programs, but I am hard pressed to see this as a necessary federal government function. For anyone who considers contraception in the Third World an important activity, they can fund it directly through various private charities.
ReplyDeleteImproving economic conditions tends to create demand for contraception. Poor farmers need all the labor that they can get at harvest time, and children provide the only realistic Third World retirement system.