Republican dogs once again spit out the Romney pill

I have always found Democrat strategist and former Clinton crony James Carville to be a repugnant human being. I do have to give him kudos for the best description yet uttered about how conservative Republicans feel about perennial presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Carville had to this to say after Romney barely won (and has since lost) the Iowa Caucuses while receiving fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008:

I think there’s one screaming huge story here tonight, and that is these Republicans just don’t want to vote for Mitt Romney. I mean, it’s like you’re trying to give a dog a pill that keeps spitting it out.

After Romney won the primaries in New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada (and for awhile looked like he won in Iowa), so many Rockefeller Republican cheerleaders were ready to hand Romney the nomination already (or fellate him; it's hard to tell).

The primary and caucus elections last night in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado, where Rick Santorum swept those elections, have certainly shown that Romney is not the lock that his sycophants in the GOP and in the media want you to think.

To that, I say Thank God!

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum ended up winning in Iowa over Romney, and has now added Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado to his swagger stick. Do I support Santorum for the nomination? No. Would I choose him over Romney? In a heartbeat. Would I vote for Santorum over Obama in the general election? Yes. Would I vote for Romney over Obama in the general election? No. Would I vote for Obama instead? Hell no.

Confused yet?

I know I am but one lowly blogger, but I am also a voter. Here is my official endorsement:

Of the Republican candidates still in the hunt, my preferences from first to worst are as follows:

Ron Paul

Rick Santorum

Newt Gingrich

Mitt Romney

The line I hear from many of my Republican friends is that they agree with Ron Paul on economic issues but they disagree with him on foreign policy. At issue is the question of what exactly our foreign policy is supposed to be. Our country's current foreign policy has strayed from our traditional foreign policy so far and for so long, that many have forgotten, or don't know, that the policy has been anything but what we have now and have had since the 1890s (with a slight timeout from 1920 to 1940). Ron Paul's belief is that we can no longer afford the expense and ill-will that we often cause from sending our troops all over the world to fight. As such, he is often accused of blaming the United States when we are attacked, such as on September 11, 2001.

What I have never heard addressed is that if our foreign interventions elsewhere had nothing to do with 9/11 and we would have been attacked that day regardless, then why not dispense with our foreign interventions and still deal with attacks like 9/11 when they happen, rather than wasting blood and treasure on foreign interventions that do not concern the security of the United States? That is Ron Paul's position. The more dishonest types out there have tried to paint Representative Paul as some pacifist peacenik who would never fight any war at all. That simply is not true. Paul simply adheres to the constitutional requirements of our foreign policy such as a declaration of war from Congress before our military is sent out to fight. When was our last officially declared war? World War II. How many U.S. troops have we lost in undeclared wars since the end of World War II? About 120,000. Paul believes in the constitutional role of our military, which is to defend our country from invasion, and protect American interests abroad, such as when Thomas Jefferson asked Congress for permission to send the U.S. Navy to the Mediterranean to protect American shipping from the Barbary Pirates. Notice though that when our Navy was sent to the Med, it was to protect the interests of the United States. When Clinton sent U.S. troops to the former Yugoslavia (I served 6 months with the United Nations in Macedonia) what exactly was our interest there? And why exactly are we still in Afghanistan, and have been since 2001? We removed the Taliban from power and defeated al-Qaeda in the caves of Tora Bora in early 2002. Why have we been there ever since? What exactly did we accomplish in Iraq? We got rid of Saddam? There are murderous strongmen all over the world. Why are they still in power?

Just like government programs never go away, even after they have outlived their usefulness, our wars seem to follow the same pattern. After all, we still have troops stationed in Germany and South Korea, and probably would still have them on the border of South Vietnam had we not folded up our tent and let the North Vietnamese take it over.

Do I agree with every one of Ron Paul's views? No. I think he underestimates the resolve of hardcore Islamists in the middle east with their desire to spread Sharia law throughout the world, but he does not underestimate the responsibility of the President to protect our shores from that kind of encroachment. And to tell you the truth, I am more worried about the loss of my liberties from my own government in its response to possible Islamic terrorism, than from Islamic terrorism itself. As talk of expanding TSA authority to our roads and railroads marches on, and my inability to carry a concealed or unconcealed weapon continues in my beloved state, I have a lot more immediate concerns here at home.

If you disagree with me on my views on Ron Paul, that is fine. However a debate we cannot have if Mitt Romney is preordained as the Republican nominee even before the state primaries have gotten into full swing.

Ultimately, if Mitt Romney ends up as the Republican nominee, I will vote for neither him nor Obama. I will vote for Ron Paul. If Santorum continues to surge and ends up with the nomination, I will think it over. Not that it matters anyway; the chances of Obama losing California's popular vote and 55 electoral votes are slim to none, no matter which Republican's name I mark. If you actually read up on Romney's positions, you will ultimately not see much of a difference between his and Obama's anyway. Whether we are talking health care, minimum wage, or taxes, do you honestly think we would see much of a change? Ask yourself: Do you think a President Romney would roll back the mess that Obama has created? He might stop (or more likely merely slow) the forward progress, but roll it back? Sheee-yeah, right. The same goes for Gingrich and Santorum. They will merely slow down the inevitable. Only Ron Paul talks about truly cutting the size of government, and abiding by the original intent of the Constitution. Based on his 40-year voting record, you know that he means it.

I endorse that.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson