Obviously, we seem to have a new top three. Romney, the favorite. Santorum, the feel-good come from behind guy. And Paul, the guy you either roll your eyes at or love. I've made my views on Paul apparent. But here's my big question about Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney:
How are they different?
Seriously, I've been searching for a policy difference, and I can't find one. Both are good-looking, tall, dark haired family men. Both have strong faith, and both are socially conservative. Both have flip-flops in their history (Santorum's include whether or not we should attack Iran, evolution and the teaching of intelligent design in schools). Both are trying to win the trust of the Tea Party by convincing voters that they are truly anti-spending and anti-big government, when there is little in either's record to suggest either. On foreign policy, neither will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, and both support continuing foreign aid to Israel. In their quests to cut spending, neither wants to cut defense spending, and neither wants to phase out medicare, medicaid or social security (although Santorum once voted to privatize it).
In style, of course, they have many differences. Romney has a national base with a well funded and very organized campaign, which runs many ads through various PAC's. Santorum is a more down-to-earth, face-to-face campaigner with a much lower budget who hasn't been able to afford ads yet. One is a senator with experience duking it out in the federal legislature on a national scale (but no executive experience), the other is a businessman-turned governor with executive experience in both (but who's never held a federal office). But as far as what positions they take, what stances they support and what policies they propose, what they actually plan to DO once in office, I see little difference.
How are they different?
Seriously, I've been searching for a policy difference, and I can't find one. Both are good-looking, tall, dark haired family men. Both have strong faith, and both are socially conservative. Both have flip-flops in their history (Santorum's include whether or not we should attack Iran, evolution and the teaching of intelligent design in schools). Both are trying to win the trust of the Tea Party by convincing voters that they are truly anti-spending and anti-big government, when there is little in either's record to suggest either. On foreign policy, neither will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, and both support continuing foreign aid to Israel. In their quests to cut spending, neither wants to cut defense spending, and neither wants to phase out medicare, medicaid or social security (although Santorum once voted to privatize it).
In style, of course, they have many differences. Romney has a national base with a well funded and very organized campaign, which runs many ads through various PAC's. Santorum is a more down-to-earth, face-to-face campaigner with a much lower budget who hasn't been able to afford ads yet. One is a senator with experience duking it out in the federal legislature on a national scale (but no executive experience), the other is a businessman-turned governor with executive experience in both (but who's never held a federal office). But as far as what positions they take, what stances they support and what policies they propose, what they actually plan to DO once in office, I see little difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment