The Minnesota Precinct Caucuses will be held February 7.  All across the state, people will gather together to discuss and vote for the 2012 Presidential candidates they support in the upcoming elections.  Unlike a primary where citizens take a few minutes to sign in and vote, a caucus can take hours to complete as people stump for their candidates, discussions of party platform positions ensue and those who only show up during major election-years sigh in boredom, wondering when they’ll be able to cast their ballot.

In 2008, a friend and I attended our local caucus and were dismayed by the amount of time it took to participate.  We were amazed by the fact that in the face of an ailing economy and two socialist-leaning Democrat opponents to whomever the GOP ultimately nominated, that time was devoted toward pushing an anti-abortion stance on a platform where the anti-abortion stance was already stated.  After about two hours of listening to people debate the pros/cons of each candidate and all the platform ideas, we finally were able to cast a ballot for the candidate of our choice.  We then were divided into smaller groups to further discuss the goals of our party.  While it was interesting to learn more about our particular State’s election process, we were not surprised by the fact that generally, our caucuses are not very well attended.  It would seem that a simpler version like a primary process would draw more people from the general public than the caucus process does.

The GOP's 2012 Presidential Candidates

This year, while looking at the field of Presidential candidates, I am feeling indecisive about attending tomorrow’s caucus.  I have no burning conviction about any of them, in fact, the more I learn about each 2012 Presidential candidate, the less convicted I am that any of them will be able to defeat Obama in November, and the more I am convinced that this is all fake – a drama being played out by actors who have been tapped to make a big show over defeating Obama, but who in the end, will not, and the only people who aren’t in on the joke are the American People.

Two of our choices are perpetual presidential candidates: Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  I supported Mitt over McCain in ’08, but as time has passed my support for him has waned.  The very fact that Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare is enough to prove that a vote for Romney is like voting Obama-lite, much in the way voting for George W. Bush was – the “compassionate conservative” who increased government, removed liberties (Patriot Act), and increased our debt  (albeit not as quickly as Obama has, but still walked the Progressive line in many ways).  Romney may act “Presidential” and look the part (to some), but he does not inspire anything but lukewarm feelings. The fact that the media and the GOP elite (including Ann Coulter – talk about a 180 in her opinion!) are intent on naming him the nominee way before the race is through makes me wonder if we are being set up to fail and have four more years of Obama or if the elites (on either side) believe that Romney will be just as much of a puppet to their whims as Obama?

As a fiscal conservative and borderline libertarian, Ron Paul appeals to me in the fact that he will cut spending and find ways to keep the government out of the Nation’s business.  I agree with his stance that we don’t need to be in the wars we are currently fighting, but I disagree with his isolationist view.  His stance on Iran seems to be somewhat naive – these are not the kind of people with whom we can sit down and have “talks.”  The fact that many of his supporters are also part of the Occupy Wall Street crowd and that he is a supporter of that crowd also makes him less favorable in my eyes.  On issues like our economy and the Fed, I agree with Congressman Paul; however, I don’t believe, as he has said, that he is the right messenger for his message.  A debate between Paul and Obama could easily become a circus, with Obama looking like the cool-minded intellectual and Paul becoming that crazy uncle whom you invite to Thanksgiving just to see what will next come from his mouth.  The people who support Paul can be like me – fiscal conservatives who appreciate his hard stance on keeping the dollar strong to anarchists who lean toward no government at all.  It is the fringe group of “Paulites” who worry me the most – can a person be taken seriously as a Presidential Candidate when his supporters are borderline criminal in their behavior? (Unless, of course, you’re talking about Obama, but the fact that he has the media’s support makes his somewhat shady alliances moot since the media refuses to report on those facts.)

That leaves Santorum and Gingrich.  My mom (a religious conservative) describes Santorum as “the kid on the playground who is always tattling on everyone else.”  I think she nails him with that description.  Santorum may be a really nice guy and may try to act tough, but in the end, he’s that sniveling character who is always pointing out everyone else’s faults, and rarely presenting his own solutions.  Santorum is a bit scary because of how he seems to pander to the hardcore pro-life crowd and the social conservatives – it seems that if we have a liberal nanny-state government under Obama, that under Santorum, we will have the same nanny-state, only under the guise of legislating morality.  I’m sorry, Mr. Santorum, I don’t care what adults do in their own bedrooms, and I certainly don’t believe that the government has any business there, either.  The fact that he believes, based upon an answer he gave during one of the last debates, that the Federal government does have jurisdiction over the States when it comes to abortion also leads me to believe that he doesn’t truly believe in States’ Rights (10th Amendment).  He may preach a good game about how he’ll fix the economy (although I don’t know about his specifics on how he’ll do it) and about his wonderful moral values, etc. but in the end, I believe he will be as meddlesome in our lives as Obama is currently – that is, if he even had a snowball’s chance of beating Obama, which he doesn’t.

Out of all the candidates, I believe that Newt Gingrich is by far the best debater and the most intelligent.  However, the political machine has been attacking him from all sides – the conservatives bashing him for his two affairs and three marriages, his admiration for Woodrow Wilson and FDR, and for sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi discussing the implications of global warming; and the liberals soaking that criticism up and dredging up more mud to sling at him.  Glenn Beck has painted Gingrich as a Progressive from the get-go and uses much of his air-time to show why he believes this is true about Gingrich.  Most pundits agree, Gingrich doesn’t have a chance of beating Obama because the issues surrounding his departure from Congress in the late ’90′s will be rehashed over and over again by the billion dollar machine that Obama will employ and the leftist media parroting that machine during the general election season.  (That all being said, I’d absolutely love to see Gingrich eviscerate Obama in a debate.  That would be entertainment.) I’m a firm believer that one must study history to understand how to shape the future, so in that respect, I like Newt’s immense knowledge of history.  I like the fact that he worked with Reagan and that he was a major player during the welfare reform in the mid-90′s.  And I truly do not care that he has had affairs or that he’s been married 3 times.   He’s been with his current wife for over ten years – maybe the third time is his charm.  But, does all of that eliminate the baggage he carries from the ’90′s ethics scandals or that he might be a “closet progressive”?  Not enough for me to stand firmly behind him with my support.

It feels like the GOP elite, the “Good ol’ Boys”, figured out how to minimize the Tea Party’s influence over the election of 2012: present us with 4 candidates that are mediocre at best.  Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann each embodied the Tea Party’s values most out of all the candidates, but the liberal media, in tandem with conservative bloggers and the other candidates made sure that they would not be part of the choices presented to us in this election.

So, what’s a girl to do?  Go sit through hours of a caucus, listening to people more passionate about their particular candidate than myself spew the same rhetoric we’ve been hearing throughout the debates only to still come out undecided about whom to support? Or stay home and attend my son’s hockey game instead?  At least at the hockey game I know for which team I’m cheering and that the team will hear my voice, which is something I can’t say for our current political process.