Limp-wristed Voters and Candidates

In Utah, it seems to me that we have a problem.  We're considered a "conservative" state.  But conservatism often relies heavily on social issues for its definition.  Fine.  We're against gay marriage and abortion and we're pro-gun.  Now what?  Well, it's the fiscal side where it breaks down.  Most wouldn't argue against the idea that it's wrong to mug someone, even if you give all of the "proceeds" from said mugging to the poor.  But at the same time, many are ok with the idea of a social safety net, that is to say, with government welfare.

There may have been a time when we could afford to make these fiscal errors in judgement, but now is not that time.  Our problems have progressed past the point where the same old, lame old politics and politicians will do.  The "change," to borrow a word from a previous election cycle, needs to be more radical than has been offered in previous elections.

With that in mind, our two Mormon candidates for president have something in common with the lackadaisical Utah politics I described above.  They're ok guys; better than Obama, but not good enough.  They strike me as the same old republicans of  yesteryear.  There may be something to be said for their electability over some others in the race. But I disagree.  I think the republicans can win with any of the candidates currently running.  I also happen to think Sarah Palin could win.

The point I'm trying to make is that we need to do more than just slow our descent into socialism.  We need to do an about face and return to the constitution.  When a candidate is pro cap and trade or has socialistic healthcare in his past, which he refuses to even denounce as a mistake, that's a problem.  Again, it's the constitution that has made this country great.  Not all ideas are equal.  Some paths aren't just different, they're wrong.  And when you have a candidate who, at this early stage in the game is already trying to curry favor with those who have us ignoring the constitution, that should be a red flag.  The oath of office is to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution;" not to preserve, protect and defend each individual's or special interest group's feelings.  When a politician leaves the realm of adherence to the constitution- the law of the land, he immediately enters a place where his subjective, highly limited perspective takes over and he begins to force people to do what he feels is best.  That would be fine, "if men were angels,"  but they're not.  

On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't endorse the idea of a third party candidate because I think that hand delivers victory for Obama.  I'm not certain where the line is between standing for principle and compromising for victory, but our compromises, our concessions to the left, our attempts to reach across the aisle haven't borne the best of fruit.  Again, we've ended up with outcomes which are not quite as bad as pure socialism, but not that great, either.  I actually think I'd almost rather lose with someone I can fully support than win with either of these go-along-to-get-along types.