Is Ron Paul the 'tamest' of them all? A look at the remaining presidential hopefuls
A Seriously Satirical Slant
The question is not whether President Obama deserves to be re-elected but rather, given the slim pickings of the opposing party, is there a viable alternative?
I don't think of myself as a Democrat or Republican but as anti-corruption, anti-religious zealot, anti-fascism, anti-inequality and anti-control of women's reproductive lives and Rights. There are only two choices in political parties and I find them both sadly lacking, one more than the other in areas that really matter. The 2012 Presidential elections are nine months away and the GOP line-up this time around is downright puzzling.
I though that after the constant criticism of the present administration and the intensely loud rhetoric from the Good Ole Boys of the Good Old Party, the pickings would have been of a higher quality grade.
Sen. Mitch McConnell once passionately declared that his singular goal was "to make Barack Obama a one-term president." His number one priority. Not the abysmal economy, high unemployment, Social Security concerns, ballooning debt or our poor public education system.
So the best of the GOP lot stands before us. Are you impressed? I think McConnell might be banging his head against a wall in frustration somewhere at this very moment, for his goal could just be a pipe dream at this point.
The representative for the 14th Congressional District in Texas, libertarian-leaning Ron Paul, has pursued this dream three times and at his age, this just might be his last chance to grasp the proverbial brass ring. His critics say he doesn't stand a chance for he is too radical, too far removed from mainstream, good old wholesome conservative views.
But have you taken a keen look at the other candidates? I used to think that Ron Paul was indeed "out there" -- what with his talk of dismantling the Board of Education, the Federal Reserve and the Civil Rights Act being unconstitutional -- but front-runner Rick Santorum is making him look like a fuzzy puppy in comparison.
Santorum and his Tea Party backers say government is too big, too intrusive in our lives, has too much power and is abusing said power. Sounds reasonable enough. We need to cut out the corruption and streamline Washington so that it works for the people, as it was intended to, not a select few.
But then Santorum steps off the sane ledge into deep "Insanityville" and starts spewing fascist views. There is no other way to look at the glaring paradoxes he seems to advocate. He wants government to butt out of our lives yet he wants them to climb back into our bedrooms and get in the bed with us. He wants women to stay away from the front lines in the military and use sex only for the biblical procreation not for pleasure. He thinks getting pregnant from rape or incest is a gift from God. What century does he think we live in?
Santorum is pro-life and to Conservatives, pro-life means abortion is wrong, even from incest and rape. It doesn't mean if you have a baby and need insurance and some assistance, you will get that help. It doesn't mean if you lose your job and cannot feed your children, a safety measure is in place to help tide you over. It doesn't mean we will help provide a quality education for each child in this country.
It gets even better. Santorum also says birth control "is immoral" and is bad for our country. I have tried my utmost best to wrap my head around this and try as I might, couldn't see an ounce of logic in there.
One of his biggest backers, Foster Friess, who throws money at his campaign now totalling $380,000.00, was seen on television making a stunning statement on women and birth control. During an interview Friess said, "This contraception thing--my gosh it's so--inexpensive. Back in my days they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly." Click here to hear for yourselves.
Separation of Church and State seems to have lost its meaning with the presidential hopeful. He mixes religion and State every chance he gets and makes disingenuous statements like "Obama is waging wars on Christians" and "Christians are being led to the guillotine."
The Roman Catholic and Evangelical religions are the two most powerful religions in the U.S. so where does he get off raising the "war against" false claims? The Catholic Church has been able to avoid the law coming down hard on pedophile priests hiding within their ranks--sidestepping prosecution for their many crimes against children for years.
Then there is Newt Gingrich. Where do I begin? Suffice it to say with his offensive, borderline bias and prejudicial statements on "Blacks work ethics," putting African-American poor children to work as janitors in their schools and Hispanics language being one of the "ghetto"-- Ron Paul comes off smelling like a rose.
To add insult to injury, he too seems to have stepped off sanity land into "Never, Never land"-- what with his moon colonies and declared "Moon States of America" by his second term in the White House--we are all left scratching our heads in bafflement.
His serial affairs, divorces, marriages and his subsequent "rebirth'"of religion and Faith and his Freddie Mac million dollar deal for "advice" is another story for another day.
Then there is Mitt Romney. Oh Mitt, Mitt, Mitt, where do I begin? He is the candidate the conservatives love to hate or hate to love, depending on who is doing the judging. From the beginning, his "horse" had a hard time getting out of the stable even if it looked like the strongest, healthiest, fastest breed of the lot. His shiny, healthy slick flanks weren't impressing the onlookers in the stands or those placing the big bets at the race track.
But low and behold he managed to break free and lead the race for quite a while but now he is lagging again. Maybe his sleekness is a tad too shiny? His incredible wealth and how he gained that wealth has many crying foul. His professional association with Bain Capital and his statement of "I like to fire people" did not play well either.
"I am not concerned with the poor--they have a safety net" comment added fuel to the fire, exacerbated the aloof, out of touch gentry, persona he gives off. His decided awkwardness in his skin does not help his image and his handlers dressing him down in blue-collar Sears catalogue jeans and work shirts did not change the Cayman Islands, Swiss off-shore accounts "slimy rich man" perception. Being a Mormon just might be the proverbial worm in an already rotten apple to some. One popular evangelical pastor even called his religion a cult and no one in the race strongly denounced the statement.
To reiterate: Should the question be 'Does Obama deserve to be re-elected' or should it be 'do we have a choice based on the alternatives?
While we ponder the above, let's add a few more to muse over: Is Ron Paul the least myopic, least divisive, least polarizing, of them all and if so, what does that say about the Grand Old Party?