Super Tuesday

                It seems that Super Tuesday has left a strange feeling in the stomachs of many. As the author of this editorial so blatantly suggests, they are not happy with “relentlessly nasty, divisive, and vapid extreme right-wing” the recent Republican campaigns have become. While equally discussing Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the author is not at all afraid to show his distaste for many of the recent comments made. I find myself agreeing with his statements that while this country is going through serious economic crisis and security risks; the Republican candidates seem to be stuck on cultural and religious topics, instead of the real issues at hand. It is obvious that the other is very biased towards the candidates as he sums up Mitt Romney as a man “who stands for nothing except country-club capitalism” and Rick Santorum “so blinkered by his ideology that it’s hard to imagine him considering any alternative ideas or listening to any dissenting voice.” Which I do find quite funny and a fair assessment of the two candidates, however I realize that may not be very objective of me. Going on to discuss the topics that are important to the candidates, it sounds quite like the same old spiel we’ve heard before. Santorum is very much against the gay and lesbian communities, and also believes he should be able to run the country and openly let his religion influence his decisions. Romney follows close with attacks on abortion and oral contraceptives. Both, according to the author, have offered little in terms of financial plans. The author then discusses the candidates, in his opinion, blatant attacks on President Obama for problems that he feels are out of the hands and much bigger than just a president. Here the author is biased, because I believe he does appear to support Obama, or at least tolerate him more in a likeable manner, than the Republicans. He discusses the successful order to raid and kill of Osama Bin Laden and ‘pummeled’ Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. The author then makes one of the most blatant bias comments, that Obama accomplished all of those things “without the Republicans’ noxious dead-or-alive swagger.” He does however end the editorial with the notion that while Obama has gained popularity again in the past few months, and discusses the popularity of these candidates, he does suggest that if our current President is working on some changes, he still has a long way to go.

                All in all, I completely agreed with this editorial. While it was biased, I feel the author was passionately against these candidates for the same reasons I am. (Seriously Santorum, aspirin?) I don’t understand how the American people can honestly consider some of these guys worthy for the presidency. That said, I am not necessarily a fan of Obama’s, however I was sincerely hoping for a candidate in the Republican seat that at least brought something new to the table, or would be interesting to stir in debates. I don’t want to hear about presidents making promises to pass social bills that will never make it through Congress, I want real plans and truths.