TOP

Santorum takes in over 100,000 donations in February alone!

The Rick Santorum campaign just sent an e-mail out to all of its supporters announcing that they’ve reached over 100,000 donations in the month of February. That monthly total is higher than any other Republican for any month of the campaign cycle. Coincidentally, it’s getting close to Barack Obama, who has a monthly average of about 119,000.

Now granted, these likely aren’t the multi-billionaire donations of $4,600 per household; but that’s besides the point. The electability of a Republican candidate is going to depend highly on wide reaching enthusiasm. I’m not talking about the enthusiasm for Ron Paul and his 18-24-year-old, pot-smoking, conspiracy theorist following.

I’m talking about appeal and enthusiasm throughout a broad spectrum of the Republican Party. Rick Santorum’s 100,000+ donations indicates that conservatives are getting excited about Rick Santorum.

That’s really important…

That is, unless you want four more years of Barack Obama telling your churches they have to pay for their employees to have abortions, four more years of economic stagnation, and four more years of broken promises.

Hopefully this news reaches Michigan’s voters in time for the primary there tomorrow. Rick Santorum has been dodging attacks from the unholy Mitt Romney and Ron Paul alliance; which I’m tempted to start calling “The Axis of Evil and Stupid.

Read More
TOP

Why is Ron Paul working with Mitt Romney?

Okay, I’m not even going to bother making the case that Ron Paul is working with the Romney campaign to discredit the two conservative candidates in this race (Gingrich and Santorum) in order to help guarantee a Mitt Romney candidacy.  That argument is laid out very well by Warner Todd Hudson over at Right Pundits and other places.  To summarize this though, Mitt Romney is the most progressive candidate, the perceived front runner, and the biggest target since day one.  Mitt Romney is also the only candidate not to be attacked by Ron Paul or his Super PAC.

So what’s going on?  Well, I actually like Warner Todd Hudson’s guess that Ron Paul is making some sort of deal with the devil for his idiot son’s future in the United States Senate.

Now before some Ron Paul supporters start throwing their own poop around like mad apes with their worn-out rhetoric “Ron Paul doesn’t lie!” “He’s authentic!” and “He’s the kind of person who stands by his values!” … it’s bologna.  Ron Paul is as corrupt of a politician as any other that’s been in Washington as long as he has (and much more so in some instances).  Just look at all the ear-marks the “candidate of no” has brought home for his district.   It’s really ridiculous that this hypocrite has such a brainwashed, extremist following.

So what’s in it for Ron Paul, or Rand Paul?  Who cares?  Mitt Romney isn’t a man of his word.  He’ll end up back stabbing Ron Paul like he would back stab anybody else… but not until after Paul’s delegates are asked to support Romney at the Republican National Convention.

I personally think Ron Paul was promised something would be added to the Republican Party platform (which is really meaningless when you consider how little anybody adheres to it).  Maybe Rand Paul will get some additional committee position or support in the 2016 General Election… maybe he was promised there wouldn’t be an establishment primary contender.  Some are even thinking the deal was to make Rand Paul the GOP Vice Presidential Candidate in 2012; though I think that’s unlikely.  The last thing you want to give Democrats (with the first incumbent black President) is a Republican ticket headed by a man who belonged to a racist church (until God spoke to a Mormon prophet in the 1970s to tell him racism was bad when it might have risk their tax exempt religion status) and a Vice Presidential candidate who said he would have voted against civil rights.

The other possibility is that it was just a campaign calculation.  A Mitt Romney supporter isn’t ever going to be tempted to join the Ron Paul bandwagon, and since Ron Paul is running to make brainwashed stooges out of converts instead of running to win (he needed to win Iowa to have any chance); there’s not much of a point attacking Mitt Romney.  Conservatives, who are shuffling to Santorum and Gingrich, are still not 100% satisfied with their candidates and are more prone to falling in with a radical, extremist crowd.  The absolutist persona Ron Paul’s posse has created for him is really appealing to a lot of conservatives, who are not bothering to look closely at all the loony things he (and especially his supporters) are advocating.

Still, Ron Paul has a big mouth.  If there wasn’t some sort of secret pact made with the Romney camp, Ron Paul would have slammed Romney a lot harder several dozen times more in passing by now.

It’s ironic, isn’t it.  The conspiracy theory candidate is the candidate involved in a conspiracy.

Read More
TOP

What Mitt Romney Doesn’t Want You To Know About Rick Santorum

Ever since the 2012 campaign got started in 2011, Mitt Romney’s ONLY talking point is that he’s the only candidate that can beat Obama. Why is this? Not because he has a rock solid platform. Not because he was a freaking awesome governor of Massachusetts (he wasn’t). Not that he has nicer hair. Mitt Romney’s supporters believe he is the only one who can beat Obama because he’s the only one who can raise the money necessary to beat Obama.

I have news for you. That’s bull shit.

First of all, Mitt Romney and his super PAC have proven to us that all the money in the world is absolutely useless if you don’t have a message worth spending it on. Despite out-spending his GOP rivals in every state for a second primary season in a row, Mitt Romney has so far lost more states than he’s won.

Second of all, regardless of who the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee is (excluding Ron Paul), our candidate will have the total and complete support of the entire Republican Party, including every mover, shaker, and fundraiser who has ever called him or herself a Republican. Additionally, thanks to super PACs, there are thousands of filthy rich Republicans ready to dump a mind blowing amount of money into any and every organization wanting to contribute to the defeat of President Barack Obama.

The fundraising ability of our candidate and his primary staff will be completely irrelevant after the nomination is secured.

So what does that leave Mitt Romney with?

The answer is nothing.

The people who actually get really involved in Republican politics are rejecting Mitt Romney because they understand what I’ve just written above is 100% true. The myth of the over simplified equation money = power is false. Granted, money helps; but you need a lot more than money. Just ask Ross Perot.

As I eluded to earlier, you need a message and a candidate worth spending that money on. Some nice hair and few dozen thousand dollar suits don’t make a message or a good candidate. All it creates is an empty, soulless shell that will drain millions of dollars from Republican donors and ensure the re-election victory of a President with one of the most horrible records on domestic issues in modern history.

Mitt Romney and his cohorts don’t want you to know this, however. Because when somebody realizes this, they are forced to come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is the only candidate who CAN’T beat Barack Obama.

excluding Ron Paul, but that’s because he’s not a conservative.

If there’s one candidate that can defeat Barack Obama, that would be Rick Santorum. The man has a great message, a great personality, and an unwavering and impossible-to-miss dedication to his family, faith, and country.

Read More
TOP

Distractions!

In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve not been writing that often. I thought I might as well tell you my excuses.

First, and most importantly, I’m close to finishing the line work on Volume I of the MSPaint Comic. Finishing what’s left of the coloring and backgrounding won’t take too much longer. After that, an Air Force Intelligence And Security Officer will need to sign off on it so they’re positive I didn’t release any state secrets… They’re going to get a good laugh.

Okay, so that’s what usually distracts me from writing.

I’m also in the process of story boarding a MUCH darker and undoubtedly controversial comic about a Chechen suicide bomber. This comic is going to get me in so much trouble, even I’m a little worried about it. (And as most of you know, I usually enjoy causing trouble for myself)

In addition to all of this, my fiancée decided last year to undergo the process of joining the Catholic Church. Even though I tried to talk her out of it (it was my way of making sure she was doing it for the right reasons), she decided to do it anyway and, of course, I’m her sponsor now. That means after work, I’m spending most of my free time on certain nights at the Church.

And speaking of good things people should do, click here to donate to the St. Baldrick’s Foundation. . I’m shaving my head to raise money and awareness for the fight against kids’ cancer. I’m quickly approaching my goal and every dollar can go a long way to end a lot of suffering.

Then, to top it all off, I’m buying my first house; which is an absolutely insane process. I’m going to the bank tomorrow to let them know who my nearest living relatives are and I think I need to drop off a stool sample while I’m there. I should be closing next week, but I’ve been saying that for the last 3 weeks.

So if you want to know why I’m not on top of the latest Presidential debates or defending Senator Lugar from chronic liars, cheats, and reactionary extremists pretending to be conservatives; it’s because I’m busy working on various art projects, buying a house, and apparently complaining about how I don’t have time to write.

Read More
TOP

Unions: The Original Neocons – What Will Their Role Be In The 21st Century?

The term neocon is thrown around loosely nowadays thanks to some idiot anarchists pretending to be Republicans and conservatives. Have you ever wondered about the origins of that term, though? You might be interested to learn that “neo-conservative” is actually a word that has its origins in communism.

It actually referred to unions and American Democrats, of all people. Why? Because they were preserving the capitalist-driven social order and preventing “the revolution” by buying off the working class. It’s not often that I agree with communists, but I think they may be right. If the working conditions of the 1910s continued through the post-WWII, socialism and communism would have been a lot more popular in the United States. Had our politicians been pandering to these far left sentiments, even a little, the Cold War may have turned out somewhat differently.

When I think of Unions, I think of the role they played in winning the Cold War, even if it wasn’t always entirely intentional. But historical context is historical context. What’s the role of the union in the American economy today?

From a conservative standpoint, they are making our industry less competitive in an increasingly globalized economy. From the progressive point of view, they are doing the same things they have always done: ensure good paying jobs with excellent benefits in safe and fair work conditions.

Neither side is entirely wrong, though. I think unions are necessary in many (though not all) cases. That’s why I cringed a bit when Indiana Republicans pushed through Right-To-Work with Governor Mitch Daniels’ support. Right-to-work is an indirect union buster, even if not all the politicians who backed it have the courage to admit it.

With that said, the unions sort of asked for it, too. Their continued blind support for Democrats and brutal attacks on even the most pro-union Republicans (they exist!) begs for political reprisal and attempts at marginalization. In addition to that, the goal of the unions isn’t on protecting workers, it’s on making money. A lot of union guys will tell you horror stories of the kinds of lazy idiots they work with, including drug addicts and people who drink on the job. These are people who should have been fired years ago, but because the union wants their cut of their elevated tenured paychecks, they are blindly defended. Not only is this bad for the employer’s bottom line, but it puts the other union employees at risk, too.

Unions really need to evolve to meet the needs of the 21st century. When I buy a union product, I should know the object was made by experienced workers who know their stuff. Right now, I honestly don’t care. Union-made might as well be “Made in Malaysia” because it tells you nothing about the quality of your purchase.

Businesses should WANT (or at least be indifferent towards) professional union workers because they are worth the premium, not because they are backed into a corner and now have to pay some lazy bums with such lousy work ethics that they really deserve to be homeless while other employees have to pick up the slack while doing their own work.

What really bothers me is that nobody is looking out for the union workers with good work ethics. I honestly think that Right-To-Work is going to hurt them in the pocketbook. Yet, the unions won’t normally defend them any more than they would the lazy drug addict who contributes nothing to his shop. In fact, they’ll often defend the drug addict more if that addict has tenure over the actual worker.

If unions end their blind support of Democrats and start guaranteeing a high-quality labor force, they would solve most of their troubles overnight.

Read More
TOP

Why I’m Backing Rick Santorum

20120208-084646.jpgI had no intention of endorsing a candidate until we had one conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, but I felt compelled to back Rick Santorum after the events of the last couple of weeks unfolded.

In particular, the Obama administration demanding the Catholic Church’s many charities and hospitals provide access to abortions and contraceptives for its employees and patients was a screaming red flag that Obama needs to be a one term President.

I knew he was a liberal when I voted for him in 2008, but I never would have imagined he would have the success he’s had getting his agenda put into action. In fact, he’s managed to do almost everything I thought he couldn’t do on the domestic front and simultaneously FAILED to do what I most sincerely hoped he would do (defend Network Neutrality).

It is very important to me that we defeat Barack Obama in November. As I wrote earlier, Mitt Romney will not defeat Barack Obama for the same reason we lost in 2006 and 2008. Mitt Romney doesn’t want you to vote for him, he wants you to vote against Obama. Unfortunately, for him at least, people would sooner stay home and watch television than go to the polls to vote when they have nothing to vote for.

Of the Republicans in the race (a category Ron Paul does not belong in as a radical reactionary), only Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have messages that conservatives and some independents can actively support.

Both of these candidates have their pros; which is why I chose to stay away from officially supporting anybody up to now. However, I think Newt Gingrich’s cons will ultimately stop him from defeating Obama in November. Generally speaking, not a lot of independent women will vote for Gingrich. Winning the “soccer moms” was a huge part of the success of Bush in 2000 and 2004 and a strength of Obama in 2008. If we’re going to win in 2012, we need those votes back on our side. I don’t think Gingrich can do that.

Newt Gingrich, as much as I admire and respect the man, has as much baggage as ideas. Without the baggage (and without saying Muslims should have to take a special loyalty oath), I probably would have endorsed Newt a lot earlier. But we have to live with our mistakes and deal with the consequences. I can forgive Newt Gingrich, but there’s a huge difference between forgiving him and believing he can win the general election.

Rick Santorum, on the other hand, may not have an idea a minute; but as I said earlier, this makes him a truer conservative in some ways. I believe Santorum is also going to play better with moderate voters (including women) because of his aggressive and seemingly sound plan to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

Rick Santorum is somebody conservatives can be excited about, moderates/independents won’t reject, and center-left Democrats will find likable and trustworthy.

Readers, if you want a conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, if you want to defeat Barack Obama; Rick Santorum is your candidate.

Think about this, too. Right now, Rick Santorum has won four states to Mitt Romney’s three. If his strategists had listened to me and skipped New Hampshire, Santorum may have won South Carolina, too. That’s five states. If Gingrich didn’t have the South Carolina boost, he may have dropped out of the race that night. If his supporters went to Santorum, Romney would have lost Florida. That’s six states for Santorum. If he won Florida, Santorum probably would have won Nevada, too.

This tells us two things. First, somebody should be paying me a lot of money to be a strategist for them.

Second, Rick Santorum might have been our nominee by now if not for falling into the New Hampshire trap. He still can win this nomination and stop Mitt Romney, but Newt Gingrich really needs to step aside and let us rally around one conservative candidate.

Read More
TOP

Mitt Romney is a guarantee Barack Obama will be re-elected

20120206-101646.jpg… and for the same reason John McCain lost the 2008 presidential election the moment he secured the nomination.

Look at the exit polls and see what the number one reason is that a Republican primary voter or caucus goer votes for Mitt Romney.

The answer: Can Defeat Barack Obama.

Why do they say he can defeat Barack Obama? Well, the media never asks that question in their exit polls; but I think we can safely conclude it has something to do with his massive amounts of money.

There is one enormous problem with this conclusion, though. It takes a lot more than money to win an election. The thing Republicans have generally failed to realize over the last six years is that you when give people something to vote for, you win elections. On the other hand, when you only offer reasons for voters to vote against something, they are far more likely to stay home. Whether we want to admit it or not, Americans are very apathetic and giving them a reason not to do something (ie. not to vote for your opponent) is guaranteeing your voter turnout will be low.

Now, progressive readers and some objective critical readers of this blog might counter that the Tea Party movement was dangerous in how extreme its hatred of Barack Obama was and that resulted in votes in the 2010 election.

I would argue, however, that the initial success of the Tea Party was the intense (and suppressed) desire of Republicans To have something to support. The Tea Party offered a platform of limited government, limited spending, and personal responsibility. In fact, as I’ve been saying for a while, the extreme hatred of Barack Obama (mixed with their frequent support of extremist and anti-conservative candidates and policies) was what caused the total implosion of the Tea Party movement across most of the country.

Mitt Romney is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars telling Americans not to vote for Barack Obama again. What little he spends selling himself will be spent on generic messages with lots of American flags, lots of children, and lots of symbolism; but very few specifics (because he doesn’t have a lot of specifics that voters will like).

Republicans seem a little blind as to the reason of Barack Obama’s success. He wins not because he can raise mind blowing amounts of money, but because he promises action.

I’m not saying these actions are necessarily positive. In fact, this has nothing to do with policy. This has to do with offering something, anything, other than attacks.

I will not vote for Mitt Romney because he has given nobody any reason to vote FOR Mitt Romney.

Read More
TOP

Is Privatization Really All It’s Cracked Up To Be? Health Insurance

This is the first of a series of posts I’m going to write about the topic of privatization. Nobody is going to like what I have to write. I’ll be accused of betraying the Republican Party, conservative principles, and everything else under the sun. Perhaps somebody along the way will skip the name calling and convince me I’m wrong about the conclusions I’m reaching. It’s happened quite a few times before, as it should happen to any open minded individual interested more in truth than politics or ideologies. In my defense, I will say this. I am still a Republican, but more closely in line with the ideas of Theodore Roosevelt than the modern Republican Party. Libertarians and today’s Republicans argue that the government is the biggest threat to our liberty to the exclusion of all others. I would disagree with that because, at least in our society, it seems like our liberties, freedoms, and economic security are also endangered by large corporations. The only difference is that these corporations play a bigger part in our everyday lives and there’s no democratic system in place for the people to change their abusive, unfair policies.

A couple years ago, I reflected a bit on my life-to-date and asked a very interesting question.

“Who has screwed me over more? Private corporations or the government?” As a pretty staunch Republican at the time, much more so than today, I was a little surprised by the answer. I’ve gotten screwed a lot worse and a lot more often by the private sector. I have a feeling that most of us who have stayed on the right side of the law probably feel the same way, even if some of you will never admit it. I haven’t talked about this a whole heck of a lot, but when I do, the most frequent response I get is that I get screwed every paycheck when I pay taxes. I usually reply that it’s not getting screwed. I pay taxes; which in turn pay for government services our democratically elected representatives democratically decided that we needed. In fact, I’m getting a pretty good bargain because Americans aren’t even paying close to enough for all that we’re getting (some people call it debt, I prefer to think of it as stealing from China).

What’s really inspired this series is the horrible service I’ve received from my former health insurance company, Humana. On Christmas Eve of 2010, I became really ill. You know that scene in the Exorcist when the puke was flying everywhere? Well, that was me, my bathroom (where it started), the laundry room, and my bedroom for twelve consecutive hours. I couldn’t even chew on ice chips without vomiting. After being up all night vomiting continuously (and otherwise becoming dehydrated in ways you don’t want to hear about), I realized that I needed to go to the emergency room to get an IV (or four) and some sort of pill to ease the nausea.

I waited in the emergency room for three more hours, puking just as frequently and scaring everybody else in the room out.

Once I got into one of the emergency rooms and had a nurse take my temperature and blood pressure (both were understandably high), I waited another hour for a doctor to approve an IV and some other sort of medicine for the nausea.

After another half hour, I was wheeled out of the emergency room and into the emergency hallway (I still got billed for an entire room for the entire time I was there).

Thankfully, about 17 or 18 hours after this started, my body was getting hydrated again courtesy of the IVs; and the nearly constant projectile vomit was finally over.

According to my Humana plan, I had to pay something like $75 at the hospital for an ER visit and then a $1,000 deductible followed by 25% of what was left. At first, Humana did what they were supposed to do. They covered everything my deductible didn’t. Then, about three months later, I got a letter from Humana saying they changed their mind and they weren’t going to pay everything they said they were going to. Somehow, that resulted in me paying roughly $3,000 of about roughly $4,000 in medical bills. Mind you, I’m an unemployed college student at this time, but thankfully my GI Bill provided a necessary source of income so that I didn’t have to max out my credit card (I hate using credit cards). I finally, and proudly, paid off the medical bills in December 2011 (a few months early). I can also proudly say that I paid off my car during this same time (that’s a whole other story). Granted, I had to cancel my health insurance after this because it was the only way I could afford to pay off the medical bills they left me with (IRONY!), but it wasn’t worth paying $250 a month for unreliable insurance like Humana. It actually would have been more affordable to save just $150 a month for all that time and then just pay my bills with cash.

Well, last week (27 January 2012), I received another letter from Humana. They changed their mind… again. They decided they don’t want to pay a dime of my medical bills, leaving me with over $1000 more to pay the hospital. Of course, the lovely people who work for Porter Memorial Hospital just gave Humana back the money no-questions-asked and now I’m waiting for a bill. Humana provided absolutely no feedback explaining their decision to do this 13 MONTHS after the service was provided.

Which begs the question: How can any American household have any sense of financial security when an insurance company can randomly take back any medical payment for any service they partially covered for any number of years in the past? I was a pretty big opponent of socialized medicine three years ago. My position has changed. Even if everything said about rationed care and death panels was true (it’s not), I would rather take my chances with a slightly lower level of quality than live the rest of my life in fear that I might be charged for a service a former health insurance provider decides not to cover (after telling me otherwise).

Several people now have told me to seek legal action against Humana and I’m damn near ready to. But let’s be honest. I’m a lower-middle class American who is in the process of buying his first house. I can’t afford a legal team big enough to take on a multi-Billion dollar corporation like Humana. All I would be doing is wasting time I don’t have (because I have to work) and money I don’t have (which is why I’m working). There are arrogant SOBs that are so out of touch with the real world, like Mitt Romney, who say that corporations are people. REALLY? By that logic, I should have the same ability to walk into Porter Memorial Hospital, ask for my $3000 back, and tell them to send the entire $4000 bill back to Humana because I don’t want to pay it more than they don’t want to pay it.

Free-Marketeers will argue that Humana will go out of business if they treat their customers like this, so it will all work out in the end.

Really?! I’ve been seriously ripped off by Humana. I’m sharing my story with the world. Yet tomorrow, people will continue to sign new policies with Humana. No corporation that currently uses Humana will drop Humana because they’re ripping off a former customer. Even if somehow this blog post is miraculously read by every American; and Humana goes bankrupt for ripping off thousands of customers; it does nothing for me, who Humana stole thousands of dollars from and has no realistic course of legal action.

Read More
TOP

Does human equality stop at the water’s edge?

20120125-171921.jpgHere in the United States, we are all familiar with the phrase that “all men are created equal.” Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in our Declaration of Independence and it’s been repeated countless times and across the world. Unfortunately, it seems like few people actually think about the implications this would have for global policy making. Not surprisingly, the blind fools following Ron Paul; who evoke the Founders at every turn as though they just had lunch with them; are the most oblivious.

A while ago, a handful of good people from here in Northwest Indiana asked me, “Can a Christian be a libertarian?”

The short version of my answer was, “There are too many denominations to say anything about all Christians, but from my perspective – no.” My primary argument was rooted in the equal creation of men.

One of the most important stories in the Bible is when Kane kills his brother Abel.

Genesis 4:9
And the Lord said to Cain: Where is thy brother Abel? And he answered, I know not: am I my brother’s keeper?

What better introduction to the Bible can there be than Genesis? It establishes that man is fallen so that everything that follows can tell us how to find salvation. And then Kane asking the question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” – and God doesn’t answer him directly, almost like it would be spoiling what is to come next. The answer to Kane’s question, of course, is YES! YOU ABSOLUTELY ARE YOUR BROTHER’S KEEPER!

Matthew 25:40
And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

Generally speaking, I think most American Christians at least try to live up to this incredibly challenging standard set for them when it comes to other Americans. The question at the core of this post is whether or not this standard applies to our international brethren as well.

It’s important because the issue keeps manifesting itself in many different ways in our increasingly globalized world.

Should Christians leave water, food, and maps around our southern border for illegal immigrants to ensure their SAFE crossing or let them suffer and very possibly die a grueling death?

Should the United States aggressively promote human rights and popular uprisings against dictatorships where our help is desired, such as Libya and Syria? Are Americans the only people who have a right to choose their government or do all people deserve that freedom? (The American Revolution would have failed if it wasn’t for French assistance, so don’t give me that nonsense about doing it by themselves – especially in an era of flying gunships, smart bombs, automatic firearms, and digital warfare)

Should we aggressively fight any government attempting genocide to save millions of innocent lives?

Should we urge Israel to give millions of Christians and Muslims in the West Bank the right to vote for representation in Israel’s government or grant statehood to the Palestinians?

Should we make our petitions for the respect and independence of Tibet and her people and culture more forceful?

After all, if Americans were experiencing religious, ethnic, or cultural, or civic oppression, the government would step in and defend the rights we believed were given to us by our universal Creator.

If you believe Christianity tells you that strangers, even those from foreign lands, are your brothers; if you believe all men are created equal and not just all Americans; we have some evaluating to do of our foreign policy.

Read More
TOP

Contrasting Gingrich and Santorum

Last night’s Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina was kind of low key, as we discussed. However, I think it may have been one of the most important of the entire primary season. Up until now, conservative Republicans have wanted to know who their alternative to Mitt Romney was. It was very hard for a while because there were so many choices. Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann, and Perry have all dropped out of the race; and people (I hope) are finally convinced that Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, or any other brainless celebrity isn’t going to jump in and save the day.

That leaves us with two conservative alternatives to Romney, former-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former-United States Senator Rick Santorum. And finally, with only two conservatives fighting against Mitt Romney, we were able to see the shockingly stark contrast between our choices.

Let me start off by saying that both alternatives to Romney are equally acceptable; neither is 100% perfect; and I personally don’t have a preference between them.

Rick Santorum obviously felt it necessary to draw the major contrast between Newt and himself during the debate. Specifically, that while Newt Gingrich is a great thinker with some enormous ideas, he is also undisciplined and unable to focus. Newt Gingrich pretty much conceded this, arguing that he accomplished a lot but not actually denying that he is unable to focus and lacks discipline.

And that’s the trade off. As one of the commentators on CNN after the debate said, “Newt Gingrich swings for the fences every time and you see some really spectacular hits, but you also see some really spectacular whiffs.”

This can be applied far more broadly. Newt Gingrich has the potential to really clobber Obama good or really get his ass handed to him if he wins the nomination. And as President, he can either really do an incredible job rebuilding America and preparing us for a 21st Century of greatness… or he’ll whiff and completely undo all the conservative gains of the last three years.

Rick Santorum, in my opinion, is a conservative conservative. What do I mean by that? Well, Rick Santorum isn’t going to have any transformational ideas or even have the desire to implement them if someone else provided the ideas to him. Rick Santorum probably isn’t going to clobber President Barack Obama, either. The flip side of this is that Rick Santorum is predictable and we know his ideas are tried and true because they have already been approved by decades of Republican governing at the state and federal level. Rick Santorum may not prepare us for a 21st Century of Greatness, but he WILL stop the bleeding. He may not clobber Obama, but he is a lot more likely to win (just without the landslide). Newt Gingrich is full of risk, Rick Santorum isn’t… but with higher risks comes with the chance of greater things.

The question each conservative who votes in the upcoming primaries needs to ask is, “How much am I willing to gamble?” “Do I do the safe thing and vote for the conservative that will win or do I take a risk and vote for a brilliant conservative with enormous potential who might lose and is unlikely to deliver on most of his great ideas?”

At face value, it seems like a no brainer. Go with the safe bet and get rid of Obama. The problem is that the United States has already lost a lot of its position in the world because of China and other emerging economies, political alliances like the European Union (despite their troubles), and continuing dependence on oil from many of the world’s authoritarian dictatorships. Having been THE leader of the world for so long, we as conservatives really want to reclaim that title, and we’re willing to take some risks in our domestic politics to attain it. Newt Gingrich, at least in my approximation, is worth the risk his conservative voters take on him.

On the other hand, rebuilding our greatness isn’t going to happen overnight and the traditional line of conservative thought tells us that the first thing we have to do is stop the bleeding. Rick Santorum’s platform and his plan for bringing jobs back from overseas in particular is going to stop the bleeding and get us started on the right path. Unfortunately, he’s not going to be President long enough to completely restore our position in the world. It will take decades… how many depends on how many setbacks the Democrats and our international competitors create for us.

There is one thing that really concerns me about each candidate, too.

Newt Gingrich’s marriage history and the poor relationship (at best) with his ex-wife is going to make it very difficult for him to win over moderate women voters. Adding Sarah Palin to the ticket isn’t going to solve the problem, either. Moderate women hate her as much as everyone else with an ounce of common sense. Entering this general election with such a large and broad demographic already decidedly against you is very bad for your chances at winning the election.

Rick Santorum bothers me in another way, though. I mentioned it durring the live debate commentary last night. When Rick Santorum attacks someone, he doesn’t look at them. When they respond, he doesn’t look at them. More often than not, that’s the behavior of a coward. Now, granted, when you know you’re the most powerful man in the world, it makes being a coward a lot easier. Still, it’s troublesome because we naturally want strong, courageous leaders; and, from what I’ve seen, I don’t know how well Rick Santorum fits that role.

Both of these candidates have their pluses and minuses, but they do equal out. The most important thing to keep in mind is that both are better than Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. During last night’s debate, things started getting dirty between Newt and Santorum; which is very unhealthy considering what needs to be done.

Read More