Chris Christi,in or out? This is not a question for Governor Christie, rather to the conservative bloc in this great land. Do we need another late comer to this, the most important election of the history of this country? Let us look at this rationally together for this is not a time for emotional knee jerk, groupie-like reactions to the candidates. That is what got us in this mess.
“I don’t get it. Some of the most notable conservative personalities in America are clamoring for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to jump into the GOP presidential contest as a kind of political savior. For the life of me, I don’t understand it.”
Like Mr. Farah I don’t get it either—not just about Christie, but about the attitudes of Republicans, and conservatives toward those candidates currently in the line-up. We have almost ten people running for the nomination for President of the United States.
I keep hearing from people that “there is nobody that excites me,” or words to that effect. Let me ask a question or two.
Are you paying attention; have you watched the debates? Or maybe you are looking for an “instant charismatic savior.” Excuse me—but isn’t that what got us in this mess?
We need to not be looking for an emotive personality we need to be using reason. We need a strong constitutional conservative. How do we find them? By judging not just what they say, but seeing what they have done. That doesn’t mean they have to have held office before either.
I have watched every debate. The debates are an important part of the vetting process. I was at the Charleston Redstate Gathering (RG) when Perry announced his candidacy. I did not know anything about Perry nor did I know everything about every candidate; some I knew nothing. I still have not made a decision, but I will share where I am at if you are interested—if not, stop reading here.
Let me start with the “front runners,” so-called.
Perry was a complete unknown to me when I heard him toss his hat in ring at the RG. Even at the RG, which hosted people from virtually every state in the union, there were people from Texas warning against Perry, especially his stance on immigration. For the most part I discounted those stories at the time, nonetheless the flag was thrown. Since watching him in four debates, in my opinion, he is not the candidate we need. It is not just his immigration policy, but I see other “blue flags” going up.
Romney ran in the 2008 primaries. I didn’t like him much then and my reasons have been vindicated in his succeeding years in the Massachusetts Governor’s mansion. He has been characterized by some as “Obama-lite.” I would say he is at a minimum way too Bush-like. G. W. Bush; really all the Bushes are globalist, not conservatives. I think a reasonable person will see that Romney is NOT the man for the Presidency.
From here we will bounce to the others alphabetically:
Bachmann has been a consistent leader in the House for truly conservative philosophies and a vocal opponent to the Obama regime’s leftist agenda, as well as the mushy leftish compromises from the old guard GOP. Bachmann is well spoken and evenhanded. I have never seen her flip-flop on anything. She believes in the founding documents America was founded upon and fights for the liberties established in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and pushes back against the destroying socialist agenda being foisted on the American Experiment and its people.
Many don’t think she can win because she is a woman—I was one of them. Nonetheless, that will only be the case if the American people allow it to be. If she is the best she deserves our support. We need to vote for the absolute best person that will stand on the Constitution regardless of sex, or color, but not necessarily religion.
This nation was founded as a Christian nation. Revisionist historians want to say otherwise, but that is not the truth. We have, even now, a Muslim in Congress (MN. Representative Hakim Muhammad) and Muslims in key sensitive intelligence positions.For our survival as a sovereign nation these people must be purged–damn political correctness!
Bachmann does seem to be in trouble in polls, but are we as a free people, willing to let the pollsters, or for that matter, the media talking heads, or the old guard GOP leaders pick our President?
Herman Cain-has vaulted to the top tier (whatever that means) in the past two weeks. Cain claims to be a man who is a “problem solver.” I like almost everything he has said; his attitude about the Constitution and sharia law . . . until today. In doing my research for this article facts have surfaced showing he has flip-flopped on this very critical national security issue and apologized to Muslims for his statement of truth about Muslims (go here, here, and here). This disqualifies him for me and I hope for you—more’s the pity, in other ways he would have been a great fit. This is the game G.W. Bush played, in this dangerous world and time—it cannot be allowed.
Huntsman, to me, is a RINO deluxe and though he talks a good game at times, I don’t find him compelling on any level. ‘Nough said.
It is the case that Ron Paul is very problematic for a number of reasons. His libertarian base act more like the groupies that mindlessly elected the current holder of the office of President. It is not that he is wrong across the board. His thoughts on reigning in the Federal Reserve, possibly abolishing it are worthy. Indeed, ridding America of fiat currencies and returning to a “currency” that has intrinsic value (e.g. gold, silver, etc.) would be a good thing from what I have seen.
The scariest thing about Paul is his belief that it is okay for anybody and everybody to have nuclear weapons. This includes Iran, Pakistan, North Korea—whomever! He sees our milieu as no different than the cold war era dangers of nukes [see video]. He is absolutely wrong! He blames America for Iran hating us.
As one who has studied Islam I can say this shows a complete lack of understanding of the danger of Islam, what it takes to keep America safe, and the world situation. I declare to you—we do not want Iran to have “the bomb.”
Rick Santorum, like Bachmann has been consistent. Santorum is both a fiscal and a social conservative. To his credit he lost his reelection bid for the Senate in 2007 because he would not compromise his conservative principles; that is exceedingly rare in politics in the last 75 years.
He is certainly not a populist candidate. However Santorum might be the guy we need leading this nation. He has done well in the debates, especially the last Fox News/Google debate, although he doesn’t get the attention due him.
As I close let me return to Christie. Why do we need someone else mudding the water? If he indeed jumps into the fray at this point he has missed four debates; four chances for We the People to vet him. All the while he has been making speeches and videos and doing TV appearances where he is largely unchallenged.
More importantly as Joseph Farah astutely highlights:
Exactly what has Chris Christie accomplished in New Jersey as governor that makes him such an ideal candidate for the presidency? . . . By now, however, Chris Christie should have some kind of a track record of executive leadership that his supporters can point to in extolling his virtues as a presidential candidate. I haven’t heard a single one. . . . Give me one – just one. I don’t see any. Has New Jersey been transformed under his leadership? Is it now a great place to live and work and start a business? Is it on its way to becoming one? How? Why? What has Chris Christie actually done to make it so? If you can’t point to such accomplishments, and I don’t think any conservative can, then what his supporters really like is Chris Christie’s rhetoric (emphasis mine).
Again I reiterate, America needs more than rhetoric, we need prosecution of a true conservative agenda and we need it now! This may be America’s last chance–our last chance to pull ourselves back up by the strength of our freedom and liberty granted in our majestic founding documents or sink into the garbage dump of historical failed governments.
Alexander Hamilton eloquently stated this when he posited:
We are a Republican Government, . . . it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.
John Quincy Adams put it a little more succinctly:
The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.
Do not forget — America is NOT a democracy–America is a republic!