The primary process will decide who faces President Obama in 2012 Election: pictured Newt Gingrich and the President - image form bet.com
U.S. News and World Reportsare citing multiple polls that suggest 2 in one American’s fear Obama’s reelection more than any other event in 2012. Second in events is a rise in taxes, something that seems inevitable with a second Obama term. However, the poll that they cite is internet based, and one must be extremely cautious when approaching internet polling. It is the Gallup daily tracking poll that suggests reelection is unlikely at this time – other polling institutions, such as those that are campus based, or those that are politically ideological (see Rasmussen as leaning right and Public Policy Polling as leaning left), are sometimes suspected of leaning in favor of the GOP and/or the Democrat Party. In the end, it is the reality of the economy, foreign policy decisions and extremely unpopular legislation that is the crux of the matter - and those factors, regardless of the political party, will signal a change in administrations.
Therefore, the voting public has a decision to make, if not Obama - then which of the Republican field is best suited to lead the nation forward? The pollsters, pundits and Washington Establishment (which includes members of Congress, and the aforementioned) appear to be pushing Mitt Romney as the inevitable nominee, however, the truth of the matter is, at this point in time, any one of those candidates, from the lowest polling to Romney, are capable of winning the White House – it comes down to the voters choice, and the order of states in which voting takes place. Today there will be a vote in New Hampshire, and although Romney is the favorite there, and has been touted in the media as going into New Hampshire with a “win” in Iowa (it was a small amount of votes, but a win non-the-less, not a mandate), the main problem with Mitt Romney, or perhaps Mitt Romney’s main problem is that he does not resonate with the primary voters. The reasons vary, from the very superficial to those who feel his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts left a record behind of increased taxes and a loss of small business, and many broken promises to those who aided him in his campaign for Governor and then President in 2008. He also has a history of extreme changes in policy regarding not only social issues, which drive a percentage of the GOP, but in all policy – he is a moderate to the core – a point that one must carefully examine and challenge prior to casting a vote.
The moderates of the GOP are not unlike the DNC candidates, in both temperament and ideology – some may feel that is necessary for compromise, others find this to be untenable and most believe that the moderate wing of the GOP (the Snows, the McCain’s, the Romney’s) cannot differentiate themselves enough from the status quo and will therefore be ineffective in governing – it is that moderation that crosses the line between being principled and voting against one’s own political party at times in order to work for the American people, rather than doing what one feels will win an election or popularity with the media and or their peers. There are others who will stand steadfast in their beliefs regardless of their party affiliation, and will act independently – a good example is one Senator Scott Brown, who, prior to the election, and although a Republican, noted that he would not always vote with his party, but for what he felt was best for his constituents. He has done just that in his tenure in the Senate, and although facing reelection is favored to win – he is extremely popular in Massachusetts, even though he angers those on the left and the right for voting in the Commonwealth’s interest. That is the type of candidate that the nation is most likely to elect – and that mold does not fit either the President or Mitt Romney – those who will do or say anything to get elected, and then, when in office, to serve the public, appear to serve themselves, and their party.
Understandably, the choice is not always clear, and the notion that an extended and nasty primary with multiple candidates is not in the nation’s best interest, is hogwash. The primary seasons ends in June with the nominating Convention held in August, therefore to push a particular candidate as the eventual nominee, before the first vote was cast, is an insult to the public. This will be true regardless of which political party and philosophy one subscribes – the primary process, in its entirety, gives more time for the public to decide which candidate, from both sides will better serve the nation. It is a job that not many would want to take, and the motivation could not be financial reward , nor the fact that the President is viewed as the most powerful figure in the nation (or should be), a leader that is shapes Foreign policy and the economy, someone with the backbone and the knowledge going into the job, that they are most likely to be challenged and berated at every step – turned on by members of their own party, and the public – it accounts for the overnight aging one sees in each President, as they either enjoy peace time or war, a good economy or bad, it is an inevitable part of the “job” for which the American public hires a President. That is what is lacking – it is the humility, regardless of primary primping and hubris that some candidates may display, that the candidates shows when speaking of the office as one in which they are working for the American people, hired on a temporary basis in order to steer the ship.
As a nation, it is doubtful that choice has been made, and it becomes more evident that many candidates on the GOP side are doing their best to ensure that the most powerful (media, pundits and those in the Washington Establishment) allow a person to make up their own minds – which is most important in this election year. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, are all, to a man, pointing out Mitt Romney’s “faults” as a candidate – and that is not always seen as a positive – but it should be. The two or three or four candidates that go forward, beyond South Carolina and Florida, and stay in the race on Super Tuesday, will do a larger service than the American Public may know, and one of those will be the nominee. It may be Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or Jon Huntsman, or Ron Paul or Rick Perry, it will be their showing in this (to borrow a thought from Speaker Gingrich) tortoise race to the finish, that will produce the nominee, and that nominee will be battle hardened and tested, not only by the negatives coming from their own peers, but by the race itself and the peoples in those primary and caucus states that will be voting for one over another.
The focus on money and the billions here and millions there that are necessary to run ads, and keep a campaign in the black to continue, is appropriate to an extent, and one should know that a individual may be polling last, and yet, when one wins or places in this large a field, money does come in from all sources, and that includes the PACS.
Therefore, one must choose their vote based not on the media, nor the polling, but on what that particular candidate offers in the way of similar beliefs, and how well that candidate is prepared to take on the roll of the President. There will be a healthy back and forth, and in the end, there will be those that drop out of the race, perhaps after today’s New Hampshire decision (which is unlikely), perhaps after the South Carolina primary (which is more likely), and those three or four that are still standing on Super Tuesday, will ensure that the public has a fair advantage in choosing the nominee. The notion that one candidate alone can win the White House is a fallacy, especially in this election cycle – it is the one that will be vetted after a protracted primary process that will be the best choice. Again, it may be Mitt Romney, it may not, it may be the Speaker Gingrich, and it may be Ron Paul (regardless of the fact that many pundits and the media as well as well as rank and file Republicans may naysay his chances due to his Libertarian leanings). It may be any one of those that are in New Hampshire today or heading this morning to South Carolina, or already there, campaigning.
It is the candidate that the people choose, not the media, nor the Beltway that will win the day – regardless of the polls, and regardless of the constant rush to nominate – the last candidate in the position of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul, at this stage in 1979 was one Ronald Reagan – and he led the nation to years of prosperity and peace – therefore it behooves every one that is casting a vote – to choose with both head and heart. There will never be another Regan, but there may be a Gingrich or Santorum or Perry or Paul, or yes, Romney that will shape the course of history and drive the nation back to prosperity and peace, and in our lifetime. The choice is the public’s to make.
One last note on endorsements: Although the endorsements from the media, movies stars, peers and pundits appear to play a factor in the race, they most often boost a candidate’s moral, and on the flip side, loose votes, depending on how the public views the endorser, as well as the endorsee. It is the endorsement of the voter that counts – and that is best to be kept in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment