McCain to Cain vs Obama... Really?

Who knows? Maybe this is just another temporary bounce and saner minds will prevail... but about the only sane guy who still gets any (though little) mention is Huntsman. I don't agree with him on everything by any means, but by resume he seems to be the only guy worth considering for important reasons as opposed to American Idol or factional political suckuppery. How the hell Romney is still even in the running after his blatant dishonesty and flip-floppery that would offend John Kerry, I don't know... it was bad enough in 2008, it's just as blatant now as it ever was except now some conservatives agree because they equate RomneyCare with ObamaCare or some other absurd reason that ignores the vast problems of Romney's "leadership" cred... he has yet to take a stand for what he believes is right, just what might get him elected at any given time.

Obama is back in full campaign mode, though his speech at the MLK monument dedication made some good points, both political and important to the day and the man and the movement to see liberty truly for all. If the McLess Cain ends up being his opponent, his bluntness, even his truly baffling statements may go over better than most talking heads can figure out. Reagan was well known for a similar kind of arrogance and a sense of humor that made democratic opponents furious, sometimes justified in my opinion.

In the end though we have the GOP's top competitors with the foreign policy experience added together that would make even a 2008 Obama look good. A 2012 Obama who has been running wars and has been working within one of the most covert heavy military adventures of our time just makes them look like naive children. Romney, for example, got a lot of shit for being oblivious to the fact that ICBMs don't get launched from airplanes. Cain is all about the economy, but on foreign policy he's still a mystery... a situation, that if you ask any disillusioned Obama supporter... leads to a big ass wake up call that leads to decisions that have made Obama look more like Bush's 3rd term on the subject according to them. Republicans have generally seen his actions as either more irresponsible than Bush given the known information (or unknown, such as in Libya) or confirming that Bush did the Best with the "known knowns" a la Rumsfeld.

As a liberal constitutionalist whose central political philosophy revolves around liberty for all as an ideal, I've been frustrated and impatient with Obama on issues important to me on that front. The main slate of Republicans, including Cain, are often blatantly for taking us backwards on what little gains Obama made on social issues. It was one of the silver linings of Obama winning, even though I was a McCain supporter, that on social issues he might be able to make progress on some issues that I simply don't mesh well with the GOP on. I'd hate to see those gains lost... and hopefully even if Obama loses the system, especially through the courts, will block going backwards. I've recently had friends and family finally officially marry under recent laws and fight for their country without that nagging fear over who they go home to. I don't want to see any retreat on these fronts. But I'm not going to rubber stamp Obama over those victories given the domestic and global economic disarray. He's won me over as a foreign policy pragmatist, but he's lost me as someone who can let go of ideology when it comes to dealing with a stimulus, even if you buy into Keynesian tenets, that can work on the long term as opposed to a temporary band-aide.

I'm still very much a proponent of capitalism leaning mixed economies where regulations ensure liberty and enforcement of contracts while fighting fraud and disinformation that undermines it. Obama's capitulation on a consumer protection bureau with teeth when such an agency could positively ensure well informed decisions in a capitalist society as opposed to actions based on misleading information where the invisible hand picks your pocket more than anything else... well... let's just say I was disappointed.

Huntsman still comes across as the 2012 republican version of the 2008 Richardson. Qualified with the perfect resume for the job... who is left behind because most voters and those polled are too consumed with matters that are either irrelevant or are hyped up over those that have more importance for our nation's current situation.

And to the Ron Paul fans out there who still think his wins at straw polls or strong showings in caucus states in 2008 equate to real ballot box popularity when they actually depend on more organizational support and cult of personality BS... he's getting more press than ever, and he's still fucked. His views aren't just consistent, they're outmoded. He argues for foreign policy that predates the Marshall Court, pushes domestic policy that rings more true for the Articles of Confederation, and tacks on conspiracy theory bones to nutters who take his comments about the Fed or a highway bill to mean something way beyond the evidence... but gets their donations.

2012 may be an interesting race, but Obama has held strong on foreign policy realities that need to be addressed (possibly more than a GOP candidate, even McCain, because he has to prove he's not some isolationist pansy). He has dealt with issues of liberty slowly but surely and with the slow but sure changing of minds of the American public on those same issues making policy changes more feasible. On the economy... he's hurting. Blaming Republican obstructionism like Republicans used to blame Democratic obstructionism is par for the course. The GOP could get bipartisan bills that Dems later disowned even though they had real bipartisan support, not just picking off one or a few of the other side. Dems had super majorities and the White House and couldn't agree on the color of shit for their health care overhaul... leadership problems abound, ask any Democrat. They'll let you know better than I can.

So the big question is are any of the members of the GOP slate reasonably able with any certainty to both deal with the foreign policy issues we face (in this century, Ron Paul fans), the liberty issues we have to deal with domestically, *and* the economic issues that are brutalizing our nation and the world. Obama has 2 out of 3 fairly well... does any GOP candidate have 3 out of 3? Or even a different 2 out of 3 where the missing issue may be more or less irrelevant. Huntsman may be that guy. Huntsman vs Obama is something I'd like to see, even though it is almost certain not to happen.

Cain vs Obama? At this point, with the information available today, I'd vote for Obama. In my opinion Cain has yet to prove he has 1 out of 3... domestic economy being something he has intimate familiarity with. That's simply not good enough. But we shall see what the future will bring. On foreign policy and social issues he ranges from ignorant to damn ignorant from his statements thus far. Not very inspiring.

But he has given me pause enough to consider praying for something better even though I'm atheist. I guess that's something...

...@#*&!!!