Do you really know who you are voting for? Super-PACS have thrown so much money into election ads that it has become almost impossible to figure out what a candidate stands for or who they are. We’ve become so enamored with their entertainment value and under-educated about their policies that the person who gets elected probably won’t even know what they promised in the campaign.

So here is my take on the pool of candidates from right to left:

Rick Santorum

Santorum is a man of principles, very conservative social principles. He wants to impose his moral and religious beliefs on the nation as part of his evangelical conviction. The good thing about Santorum is that we know where he stands – at the far right end of the political spectrum.

Sex Police: Santorum’s key interest is policing everyone’s bedroom. No sex unless it is for procreation. He supports the “Personhood” legislation that would effectively outlaw contraception by defining life as beginning at conception. He is completely against gay rights and would push every one of “them” back into the closet and throw away the key.

Border Police: Santorum is equally intolerant of “illegal immigrants” and would deport every last one of “them”. He supports “legal immigration” which means letting in those who have lots of money and can buy their way in or the “temporary worker” who can come here to work but has to go home after the job is done with no path to residency.

Pro-military: As with most evangelicals, forcing his belief on others is their mission in life so maintaining the worlds largest and most powerful military is a great start to imposing “our way of life” on the infidels.

Economy: He stands firm with the rest of the Republican party; ready to eliminate regulation of business, reduce taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and pay for it by dismantling Social Security and Medicare. He is opposed to any type of “safety net” from the federal government.

Newt Gingrich

I place Gingrich second from the right, not because he is truly conservative but because he masquerades as a conservative and plays to the worst of the conservative movement. Gingrich is a man of ego and opportunity. Despite his claims of “moral reform” he is still the slimy politician who breeds contempt and rules through division. Gingrich fancies himself as the “big thinker” who creates controversy only to place himself at the center of it so he can raise his cross and choose a winner.

Gingrich is interested in two things; sitting in a position of power and cold hard cash. We can usually guess where he stands on an issue. It’s not based on political or moral conviction; its based on money and power at the immediate moment. Who ever is willing to open the checkbook or drop their panties gets their way. He is more than willing to compromise his “conservative values” and broker his power to gain support and endorsements that further his stature and power, only to stab that person in the back once they are no longer useful.

We can rest assured that a Gingrich presidency would be marked internationally with increased tension and military conflict. Domestically, a Gingrich presidency would result in partisan gridlock where he would exceed his executive powers to run the country as a dictator claiming the conflicts he instigated had to be resolved through executive action. Since we already know Callista Gingrich is happy with an “open marriage” we can rest assured the indiscretions of former President Clinton would look like, well, an amateur.

Mitt Romney

We’re not really sure where Mitt Romney stands politically because his history and rhetoric are so contradictory. What we can be sure of is he will do anything to become President. For a man of his wealth and success in private enterprise, this can only be attributed to a huge ego and that is what scares voters. What happens if he is elected? Will he be conservative, liberal, indecisive or something totally unforeseen?

My guess is Romney will attempt to dismantle the federal government with the same wrecking ball approach he used on LBO companies while at the helm of Bain Capital. I expect a Romney presidency would look quite conservative as he trades off favors to get the votes he needs to continue his program of dismantling federal programs and transferring responsibility to the private sector or states. I think he wants to leave a legacy, in the shadow of Ronald Reagan, as one of the biggest slashers of the federal government spending and deregulators of private enterprise.

What we should worry about is whether this man has the conviction to steer this country through a crisis. Leadership must be based on principles that serve as a road map when there are no “right answers”. Pandering to the powers that pull on the President and getting drawn into immensely complex domestic and international political games is much different from the financial decision to fire 5000 people and dismantle a factory. What we don’t need is a man so isolated from reality that he sits atop a hill far in the distance listening to an egregious general saying “take the hill at any cost” and never having to meet the family of soldiers he sent to their death for a measly pot of porridge.

Ron Paul

I place Ron Paul on the left side of the conservative spectrum because there is no other place for him. He is off in another dimension – Libertarian which, for the most part, falls in the conservative spectrum except that his fiscal conservative position is also anti-military. Ron Paul is a true Federalist and sees the role of the Federal government in a minimal role with limited powers. He would transfer responsibility for almost every aspect of government to the states and assume a weak role only in the powers explicitly given to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

Ron Paul can be considered fiscally conservative because of his libertarian views of a limited government; but, this is where he runs into trouble with the Republican Party establishment. Ron Paul does not believe that government, especially federal government, should impose morality on people. He does not agree with the evangelicals on pushing their agenda about contraception and abortion. He believes in “freedom from government”. His policies are neither racist nor socially divisive but they are out of touch with reality. It is unrealistic to think we can withdraw and downsize our military to the size of a border patrol. Dismantling agencies that regulate interstate commerce, federal lands, the environment, immigration, transportation, Social Security, Medicare, and others would return this country to the days of the wild west. Gangsters and robber barons would rule where the law of the land would be guns and money.

President Barack Obama

Barack Obama is painted as a liberal by all his conservative opponents but his policies are clearly conservative and would be considered right of President Reagan’s during the time of his presidency. Obama’s problem is that he entered office with a naive view that he could find middle ground and get cooperation by respecting his political adversaries. The good thing is this guy learns quickly and his success with foreign policy and the war against Al Qaeda have given him the confidence to stand up to people who would rather wreck the country than share the winner’s circle.

Healthcare Debacle – Obama’s biggest mistake was placing healthcare reform at the front of his political campaign during a time of economic collapse. Mitch McConnell and his coalition of racist Republicans could not bare to look up to a black man and call him “Mr. President” so they undertook a campaign to undermine everything he proposed and stood for; even if it was a Republican policy. The healthcare program was complex enough and went up against the biggest lobbyists in the country. The issues were distorted to the point the public could only see racist hate, of which Obama was the poster child. The money and hate needed to defeat healthcare reform sent the Republican party into a tailspin by birthing the Tea Party movement and shifting the entire political spectrum to the far right. By 2010, there was no place in the Republican Party for a moderate voice and any Republican with hopes for the presidency had to adopt “unelectable” positions on social policy. Only the radical, unelectable candidates could emerge for the challenge. The battle over healthcare polarized the country and radicalized the Republican party damaging Obama’s popularity.

Economic Policy – Obama is charged with being a “tax and spend” president responsible for an exploding deficit. This claim is so distorted it wouldn’t even merit discussion except for the fact that too many people believe it. Our deficit and economic demise are the result of eight years of irresponsible fiscal policy during the Bush years; policies that pushed our financial system to the verge of total collapse. Republicans realized rebuilding the financial resources of this nation would take years if not decades and decided to take advantage of the impatience of the American people by thwarting all efforts to jump-start the economy with fiscal stimulus. As a result, our economy will continue to struggle and recover at a slow pace for many years.

Republicans forced Obama to use the least effective fiscal tool, tax relief for the wealthy, as the only tool they would legislate. Measly infrastructure projects were included as token “compromises” so Republicans could later claim Obama’s spending was ineffectual. What this nation needed was bold infrastructure programs similar to the new deal. That would have resurrected the imploding construction industry, stimulated manufacturing and materials industries, and boosted spending on services. Instead, the Republicans only allowed Obama to spend on “safety net” programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps so they could keep the working class under employed, scared, and dependent on government handouts. These strategies are close to backfiring for the 2012 election.

General Election

I believe a second term for President Obama would look a lot different. There is push back from the Occupy Wall Street movement, there is growing disgust for Super-PAC money, and voters are refocusing their anger away from this “black President” toward the obstructionists who have sabotaged the recovery for their political game. A second term Obama would be more politically savvy, extracting a price from Republicans who won’t compromise. I think Obama would be successful at raising revenue from the top income earners and cutting military spending in Afghanistan to reduce the deficit.  He would win a few major infrastructure projects which would accelerate the recovery currently underway. People would also see that the so-called “ObamaCare” is not all that scary and that it is good social policy for America. I also think a second term Obama presidency would see immigration reform that makes it easier to hire temporary workers and gradually legitimize the masses of illegal immigrants with roots here. Military resources would be redirected toward homeland security and securing our borders while promoting tourism. I think Liberals would be sorely disappointed when Obama agrees to fiscally responsible cuts to government entitlement programs to shrinks the deficit.

I expect Romney will eventually win the Republican nomination after a bumpy battle with the radical right contenders. Eventually, the mainstream Republicans will look for someone who strongly represents business and has more moderate social views. They will want a candidate who can actually challenge Obama for the moderate voter. I would not be surprised to see Romney join forces with Ron Paul as his VP candidate. Their policies are complimentary, their supporters are committed, and there isn’t (yet) any bad blood between them. Ron Paul would be the cheerleader as Romney plays deconstructionist with the federal government. We would see further tax cuts on corporations, capital, and wealth paid for with negotiated cuts in social spending offered up to liberals in exchange for less regulation of people’s sexual orientation and reproductive rights. We would see liberalized immigration laws and reduced military influence on the planet.

A Romney/Paul team would face an uphill battle to fight the Gordon Gekko image and win the hearts of Americans who believe in a social safety net and they will have a hard time with their lack of experience when it comes to international policy and the fight against Al Qaeda. On the other hand, people are mad about the bad economy and Obama will have a challenge over his handling of the recession and lingering distrust over a national healthcare program which has yet to be implemented.

So who and what are you really voting for?