The GOP is Non-Plussed with Its 2012 Presidential Candidates

May 17 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

Mike Huckabee, the jovial and fun-loving acoustic guitar playing ex-governor who had the power to say horrifically ignorant things about homosexuality and science yet still make you chuckle, declared he has no intention of running for the 2012 Republican nomination. Meanwhile, perennial losing presidential candidate Ron Paul (the republican Ralph Nader) and Newt “I love the 90s” Gingrich officially announced their respective candidacies. In a painfully obvious (and fruitless) attempt to sway young voters, Newt Gingrich announced his candidacy via social media, which is probably the most exciting thing he has ever done or will do.

Perhaps Mike Huckabee reached the same conclusion as America did: the GOP presidential field is lamer than Osama Bin Laden’s erections. It seems a week’s old meatloaf would infer more credibility as a candidate to defeat the man that just help kill the world’s most wanted terrorist. Lord knows it would be less moldier than Newt Gingrich. In fact, the GOP itself has taken a look at the the sideshow of horror running for president and felt less and less happy about the choices.

According to a recentAssociated Press-GfK poll, approximately 45 percent now say they’re dissatisfied with the GOP candidates who have declared or are thought to be serious about running, up from 33 percent two months ago. More troublesome, only 41 percent are satisfied with the likely Republican field, down from 52 percent. Really, GOP?

It would seem all the enthusiasm from the 2010 midterm election Republican victories has all but evaporated, as the race to topple the radical Kenyan socialist has proven to be a little more tricky. We’ve all come to know who’s pretending to run, but let’s take a look at who’s actually running.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich have declared their intentions and are in it to win….sorta. Many consider Ron Paul to be unelectable, which has always bothered me. Many may disagree with some of Mr. Paul’s economic solutions and monetary policies, including a desire to return to the gold standard, but the Texas Congressmen does something that most campaigning Democrats and Republicans absolutely refuse to do: he prefers principle and the historical philosophical underpinnings of his party over party talking points, scripted partisanship, focus groups, and all the nauseatingly simplistic ans superficial elements that make up US elections.

 Ron Paul had a stellar moment of clarity in the first Republican debate when he said those who spread the lie that it was all Muslims throughout the world who attacked America on that September morning are also those who seem to favor the most wars in the most places, usually so long as other Americans fight them. Kudos! Like  thinking republicans before him (way before George Bush and weather girl Sarah Palin), Ron Paul vehemently believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy. Moreover, one that is humble and does not exploit one of our greatest assets, the military, to pursue its own petty vendettas or adventurism. Mr. Paul is famed for schooling Rudy “I appeared on television the most on 9/11″ Giuliani on foreign policy during a 2008 Republican presidential debate. Paul has now said, those who spread the lie that it was all Muslims throughout the world who attacked America on that September morning are also those who seem to favor the most wars in the most places, usually so long as other Americans fight them.Ron Paul used the 1953 US backed CIA coup of then democratically-elected president Mohammad Mossadegh to explain the damage that an interventionist policy can have when it comes to violent blowback

“The tired assertion that America ‘supports democracy’ in the Middle East is incrasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today”
 
Oh no, Ron Paul! Just call the black guy a socialist, demand to see his birth certificate, and utter totally empty slogans like “Drill baby Drill” and “Washington is out of touch with the people”. Oh, and make sure you say nothing remotely factual. Above all, be sure to wear the biggest American Flag pin you can find while uttering such easily digestible ignorance.

But while Ron Paul displays a refreshing and audacious ability to speak from the gut, he also displays a dangerous mindset that reflects some of the more severe libertarian propensities. Case in point, Ron Paul recently compared social security and medicare to slavery. During an interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, Ron Paul compared abolishing  medicare and social security similar to the abolition of slavery:

“You talk a lot about the Constitution,” Fox News’ Chris Wallace noted Sunday. “You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.”

“Technically they are,” Paul insisted. “There is no authority. Article 1, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution — liberals are the ones that use this general welfare clause.”

Firstly, discussing matters pertaining to the Constitution on Fox News is like discussing matters pertaining to cannibalism on the Food Network. But even Chris Wallace seemed to be stunned by Mr. Paul’s assertion that Social Security is somehow a liberal invention.

“Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It’s the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,” Wallace explained.

“The Constitution and the court said slavery was legal, too. We had to reverse that. So, I tell you. Just because a court in ’37 went very liberal on us and expanded the role of government, no, I think the original intent is not a bad idea,” Paul opined.

Ron Paul does have the remarkable gift of politely invoking thought while simultaneously causing immediate aversion and bewilderment–unlike Trump and Bachmann–who just invoke setups for my stand-up comedy routine and fodder for the American Psychological Association.

What’s left is a pizza guy, a serial adulterist who claims to have cheated out of ”patriotism,” a total cipher and Ex-governor of Minnesota, a flip-flopping Mormon/Macy’s mannequin and, of course, Ron Paul. I would love nothing more than to go right ahead and declare Barack Obama’s reelection a success, but I truly look forward to seeing Mitt Romney criticize his own healthcare mandate policy as Governor of Massachusetts. You know, the one that was used as a template in the creation of the Affordable Health Act.  It will be the apex of Irony. Better yet, it will be like an orgy of irony.

25 responses so far