Presidential Politics - Jan 2012

After the Iowa Caucasus on Tuesday, there has been some shuffling in the field of Republican candidates.

Michele Bachmann is out of the race, much to my dismay.
Rick Perry had to reassess, but decided to stay in it. Problem is, I've never seen a reassessment turn into a successful campaign. Once a candidate *thinks* about losing, they seem to lose steam (if they had any to start with).
Jon Huntsman never really had anything substantial going. That's not changing. 

Based on the showing in Iowa, and polls in states soon to hold their primaries, let's look at the candidates:

Rick Santorum - decent. About as decent as anybody left.
No anti-gun votes. No pro-abortion votes. Now that Iowa is over, and along with it, any chance Ron Paul had of winning a state, Paul's vocal supporters will be less vocal (and heard even less) so their attacks on the next fairly conservative candidate will likely prove ineffective at best. 


Newt Gingrich - I feel "meh" about Newt.
Not excited about him as he is soft on abortion. He also had an opportunity to single-handedly kill the Lautenberg Gun Ban in committee, but didn't for political reasons.On the positive side, he does know how to play the media, and I feel his appointments to the SCOTUS would be conservative.

Ron Paul - unelectable, and I'm not sure I'd want him in office.
Maybe as Secretary of State. Don't know whether to have an axe to grind with him over the shenanigans of his followers.

Mitt Romney - NOOOOOO!!!
I would call him "Obama-Lite" but that might give you the false impression he might be a bit better than Obama. Romney has a long track record of saying one thing and voting another way. Or changing his stance on a subject. His record is bad on guns, bad on Obamacare (Romneycare, anyone?), bad on taxes, bad on everything worthwhile.


Still undecided? Take this quiz - it's fairly accurate, and might help a bit. compare your opinions to those of the four remaining candidates.