Mitt Romney's New Hampshire Win A Slam Dunk: South Carolina The Real Test!

Mitt Romney's New Hampshire Win A Slam Dunk: South Carolina The Real Test!
Can Ron Paul Stay On Mitt Romney's Heels?

The cheesecake Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary are finally over and, for the Republican Party, the time has finally come to determine where it stands among a more divided constituency. South Carolina will go a long way in answering that question as the first of the "Real Primaries." And no - I am not snubbing Iowa or New Hampshire - just pointing out that they are not the heart and soul of what is perceived to be Republican strength. Besides, Iowa's demographics hardly qualify them as being representative of the American population while New Hampshire's Liberal reputation has often taken itself outside the so-called Bible Belt Conservatism that the GOP has been associated with.

And guess what? South Carolina. at least in my mind, offers us all that Bible Belt perspective. So? Will the Palmetto State go along with the mainstream medias premature anointment that Mitt Romney's campaign is already a shoo-in for the Republican nomination? Hmm - I am not so sure about that. South Carolina has far more serious issues than Iowa and New Hampshire have, particularly when it comes to unemployment. Iowa has weathered the sour economy better than most while New Hampshire is below the National Average with their 5.8% unemployment rate. South Carolina, though, has been hard hit and is still hovering around 10%.

No wonder Newt Gingrich has taken off the gloves and started bombarding the South Carolina airwaves characterizing (and distorting) Mitt Romney as the evil vulture who swoops in and profits from saving distressed businesses by "liking to fire people." South Carolina will also answer, once and for all, if the Bible Belt Evangelists can finally accept a Mormon Candidate.

Yes folks, that is a a big deal whether people want to admit it or not, because Evangelists have long had issues with Mormons! Naturally, not only could that be a factor in Mitt Romney's so-called fast track to nomination, but also Jon Huntsman's campaign. Huntsman, though, probably has the hardest road given his true Moderate leanings. Let's face it, Southerners aren't usually open to compromise where their Conservative politics is concerned.

The candidate who might fare well could be the Libertarian, Ron Paul. Paul has been able to hang tough and has the money and organization to extend the campaign all the way to the end while racking up precious delegates along the way. Besides, Ron Paul's Campaign has been consistent in its' message.

Ron Paul is about preserving the U.S. Constitution while advocating the dismantling of a Federal Reserve System that, in his words, are diminishing the might of America and even going so far as equating our demise to that of the former Soviet Union. And contrary to popular belief, Ron Paul is NOT about diminishing Defense - rather he is about dismantling the Military Complex which profits exponentially while forcing the Federal Reserve to "print more money."

Of course, Ron Paul's message will not completely resonate with the Extreme Conservative Right because it's leaders are far too entrenched in the Military Complex while supporters can't put two and two together on the differences between a strong Defense and a money-sucking Military Complex designed to enrich ardent supporters (beneficiaries) within the GOP.

I for one am looking forward to how the South Carolina Primary shakes out the laundry. I have the sneaky suspicion that Mitt Romney's Campaign will be challenged, especially on how he has made his billions and his propensity to flip-flop on the issues. It may be all a perception, if you will, but a strong one just the same. The news video I saw shortly after Romney's New Hampshire win showed people who were interviewed in South Carolina saying things like "Romney isn't like us" or "Romney doesn't know I even exist."  Now, I don't know how widespread that view is in the Palmetto State, but it does show what is on the minds of people there.

Sadly, Mitt Romney is part of the same old, same old when it comes to protecting the wealthy and can't be expected to look out for the regular everyday folks who associate themselves with the GOP. Then again, that has been the biggest issue within the GOP, hasn't it? On the one hand you have those who want to protect the status quo, and yes that includes the good ole boys like Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry and then you have Rick Santorum, who I don't think, is too far behind them when it comes to protecting the wealthy either. But one thing is clear, all of the candidates except for Ron Paul and maybe Jon Huntsman won't offer regular people much in terms of something new.

Speaking of Jon Huntsman; I have always thought he could be a good leader. His diplomatic background, as well as his Moderate leanings should be a plus for Republicans. Unfortunately, they just don't seem to like the man. I, for one, am disappointed that Huntsman won't be on the Illinois Primary Ballot as he surely would have gotten my vote. But hey, that 's me. But I won't apologize for my Moderate leanings because I believe that is exactly what this country needs right now. The divisiveness in Washington must end and politicians must realize that their empty gestures and stonewalling have put the country in a real bad way.

What America needs right now, more than anything, is a change in its political discourse. We also need the Republican Party to get back to it's roots and offer its constituents a clear alternative from where they are today. The GOP is thisclose to being irrelevant and if the people were smart, they would send a serious message by advocating for a a viable and populist third party. That would force both political parties to reevaluate a few things, you know?

In the meantime, Republicans and Democrats, whether you want to believe it or not, are far closer in principle these days than not.

They just want to protect a different set of wealthy beneficiaries!

Isn't that right Grover Norquist?

Hmmm....Maybe Ron Paul doesn't look all that bad right now.

Then again - not really!

Follow maciric on Twitter

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Ron Paul's something new is about 1887 Republicanism. Who is he going to have to issue money--Fifth Third Lehman Chase Bank of America? That was tried during the Civil War.

    The party of the downtrodden has been the Democrats since FDR Times. Just ask Blago and Quinn (still giving out freebies the state can't afford), or the part-time bankers and former Chiefs of Staff Bill Daley and Rahm Emanuel. Reagan got the blue collar vote, but Hollywood isn't especially East Chicago, Ind.

    As far as the mainstream media, I turned on 11.1 at 11, hoping to get the Nightly Business Report, when Glwn Ifill said from N.H. "Welcome to the Newshour PBS--oh crap." So, I turned on Charlie Rose for a bit, where the panelists (apparently in a bar) talked about Bain Capital for the second night without saying what its significance was. It seemed like the most trenchant political commentary was by Jimmy Kimmel. Then you know that there is a problem.

  • In reply to jack:

    I am not sure if I agree 100%, but I do see your point.
    Sure - Ron Paul's New isn't new but it does revert the party back towards the people as opposed to Corporate America. And while I agree that the Democratic Party has always been viewed as the party of the people - it simply is not true anymore. Reality tells me both parties are more alike than different - like I said just different wealthy benefactors and beneficiaries.

    As for the Federal Reserve, yes we can't scrap it entirely however they must be reined in and kept in check. This Perpetual Deficit thing is unsustainable and Ron Paul properly makes the connection on how that can lead to total collapse; i.e. Soviet Union trying to keep with the Joneses (U.S.).

    As it is - I still like Huntsman but he will not be on the ballot here (and that is even assuming he won't fold after S.C.). However, when everything is said and done - I CANNOT & WILL NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY, whether it be primary or general election. So my streak of voting in every single election since I earned the privilege is in serious peril if it comes down to an Obama / Romney Election.

    p.s. Bain Capital is where Romney made his fortune gutting distressed businesses of its assets (the so-called Romney "turnaround" plan).

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    I did a Google or Yahoo for Bain Capital after hearing it the first night. Apparently the real significance is that they financed some leveraged buyouts that went bust or the corporate assets were scavenged, leaving to job losses, although they also financed some successful firms.

    Also, the Federal Reserve did not create the deficit, Congress did. The Fed provided a way to finance it, by buying bonds in return for Federal Reserve Notes, but in the post-2008 economy, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing with all the funny paper generated by Wells Fargo Lehman Merill Solomon WaMu Countrywide Bank of America going poof, and somehow the dollar rising against all world currencies except the $C, and the Chinese still pouring their money back into US Treasury Bonds. The real problem will be when the Chinese ask for their money back, but that has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve.

    I will mention that when a banker tried to get me to let him look over my mutual fund portfolio with another institution, besides telling him in nicer terms that he should mind his own fn business (actually I said that with regard to that, I only deal with the mutual fund company), I said that maybe he can suggest some deposit product that actually pays interest. That, of course, is a problem somewhat caused by the Federal Reserve. Of course, then he recommended some junk bond portfolio for private clients, only traceable through a WSJ article. Again, if I want that, I'll go to a mutual fund, which is at least registered with the SEC.

  • In reply to jack:

    Absolutely right Jack. The Fed did not create the deficit, however as you also rightly say it finances it instead of curtailing the bad behavior. The fact we aren't getting much interest on savings is the net effect. Just so you know, I am not 100% against the banking system, the Fed or the free markets - it is just that the system is broken and riddled with loopholes that benefit those profiting of those junk bonds. When it comes to the Military Complex, well, Paul is right too when questions how we finance it. As for the Chinese - I am not too concerned they will ask for their money because that would affect their markets as well. And the Yen has been a little shaky as it is because of their internal pressures.

    What Ron Paul says, though, are things we should be thinking about and at least debating as to what the right course of action is needed to correct years of Congressional Abuse. At least he is saying something, although I don't agree with everything.

    Romney's Investment Portfolio is impressive; there are wins and losses that venture capitalists routinely experience. I don't begrudge him for making money - but he can't ever tell me he "knows how it feels to hurt." He was born into privilege and then continued living it.

    What I want is someone who is more like me.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Well, you won't be getting what you asked for in the last paragraph. Again, Blago thought he was like the rest of us, but wasn't.

    I don't know what the Fed could do to curtail the "bad behavior" except not buy government bonds, except then it appears that someone else will, to the extent that the Fed has to buy commercial paper for QE. In the meantime, accepting Paul or any of the Tea Party would be a concession that neither federal fiscal or monetary policy has any positive effect on the economy, in which case, I don't know what's left.

  • In reply to jack:

    Well I can't disagree there (last Paragraph), then again I don't think we will ever see a candidate like us. We simply can't afford to run and if we do, well we become beholden to whomever gets us there; i.e. Obama.

    Ron Paul, for me, wouldn't be the ideal candidate that's for sure because of my views on the current state of the Tea Party. However, that being said - I can agree with a few of the subtle things he says.

    I will say this - for all the hoopla that he is a staunch Tea Party idealist - now that I am not 100% convinced. Yes he says all the right things but when you listen closely to what he says it appears he would also go contrary. I like the idea of being anti status quo though. Hey, perhaps I am reading too much between the lines Jack, but I make it a point to listen for what they don't say as much as to what they do.

    In the end, though, the only guy I can feel relatively comfortable with is Jon Huntsman - but he hasn't a chance in hell. But he is the kind of moderate that is to my liking generally speaking.

    Thus it creates a dilemma for me. I really don't think I can rally around or coalesce with Romney as the nominee because his presidency would look much like Obama's in that other factions of the GOP will stymie him from fulfilling his plan.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    I said about 6 months ago it didn't look like the Republicans have a candidate. I haven't been convinced that that has changed.

  • In reply to jack:

    You did indeed. And you were right.

  • I should have opened chicagotribune.com first. Then I could have mentioned today's story about that fine banker and man of the people Giannoulias, depicted standing next to Quinn, getting some sort of government liaison job with BNY Mellon. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-former-ill-treasurer-giannoulias-to-join-bny-mellon-in-chicago-20120111,0,6656582.story

  • In reply to jack:

    Hmmm Interesting. Thanks, will check it out.

Leave a comment