"Americans are tired of spending money we don't have on programs we don't want!" ~ Governor Rick Perry
Blog buddy Wintery Knight posted the recent Tea Party Republican debate in a series of videos on his blog. I didn't watch the debate live. In my experience, watching Presidential candidate debates is just a tad less exciting than watching paint dry.
But, as I am still undecided on who I would most like to see nominated, I decided to endure the pain and force myself to watch the videos.
I must admit I was pleasantly surprised. And fascinated.
Other than being somewhat disappointed that now and then the candidates failed to directly answer the questions posed to them, I found the whole debate enlightening, and helped me begin to form a more informed opinion of the candidates.
Wintery Knight thinks Michele Bachmann won the debate but he admits she is his favorite, so of course, he's biased.
Here is my opinion (as if anybody really cares what I think) of the candidates based on what I saw:
Jon Huntsman: I've heard little about him previously, but what I've heard about him thus far is negative. Conservatives seems to think he is a RINO. I saw no evidence of that charge in Monday's debate. Admittedly, he didn't say much that was controversial either way. I am still undecided on him, although, I tend to trust my Conservative friend's judgment, with qualifications.
Herman Cain: I like Herman Cain. What I've seen of him so far, I like, and I have learned more about him than I have several of the others. I like the fact that he responded to the questions asked of him directly. He didn't avoid the tough questions, but instead, met them head on. Obviously, he is not a politician, and that could work in his favor, but in the end will probably cost him the nomination.
Michele Bachmann: I also like Michele Bachmann a great deal. She espouses the Conservative idealism that I wholly support. However, it disturbed me that she (and some of the others hammered Rick Perry on the "forced Vaccination" issue which, by the way, he admitted was a mistake). Apparently she and the others didn't get the memo that the vaccinations had an "opt out" clause. Why Perry didn't explain that in plainer terms is beyond me. That little dust up will be blown completely out of proportion by the Democrat attack machine, otherwise known as the media.
Count on it.
That said, she is correct in making the bigger point; that government mandating any kind of personal choice is unconstitutional, and oversteps Government bounds.
Mitt Romney: As much as I want to dislike him, I have to admit he acquitted himself well. He gave good Conservative answers to the questions, and even defended his "Romneycare" program in the State of Massachusetts well. I was a bit chagrined that he often seems to dodge the direct questions with indirect responses, but he is a politician, after all. Probably more of a politician than the others. It also concerns me that, as a so-called Conservative Republican, he was elected Governor of a very Liberal state. If he somehow managed to convince Liberals to vote for him there, he must have used some very Democrat type tactics to do so.
I still don't trust him. Is he a flim-flam man, or is he legit?
I must remember to separate my personal feelings about Romney from the facts, and make up my mind based on the facts. It is difficult to leave my emotions out of the decision. Because if I can't, I'll have to vote Democrat. (snark)
Rick Perry: He was very impressive, considering I still don't know as much as I should about him. It bothers me that, although he says Texas created jobs and lowered taxes, the other candidates say the jobs created were mostly public sector jobs and he raised taxes in his state.
Also, he was once a Democrat, and even worked for Global Warming Con man Al Gore. I don't know. Can a Democrat switch parties without bringing Liberal baggage with him?
Can a stupid man suddenly become intelligent?
Ron Paul: A one issue candidate. Every answer he gave was tied to his belief that the current wars we are engaged in overseas are unnecessary. Even if true, can we really expect our enemies to stop attacking us? I think not. America's presence in the Middle East is at least helpful in keeping our enemies at bay. One of the candidates (I forgot which one) also brought up the highly publicized incident in the 2008 Presidential debates in which Paul blamed American foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.
I can't forgive him for that. That was just a stupid statement. I don't want that kind of man to be my President. That said, America could do much worse than to elect a Libertarian candidate.
God forbid, America could re-elect Obama.
Newt Gingrich: Again, as much as I'd like him to have done badly, he didn't. He was exceptional. If my opinion mattered outside of this particular forum, I would say the case could be made that he won the debate. I don't like to base my opinion of a candidate on the "electability" quotient, but the fact is, I don't believe he is electable, partially because the media did such a successful hit job on the man when he was Speaker of the House, and partially because there was truth behind their accusations. I have a problem with morally bankrupt candidates. Other than that, he would be an excellent Conservative candidate. Perhaps I was wrong about Romney being the most political of the candidates. Newt could certainly vie for that dubious honor.
Rick Santorum: Another of my favorites, I don't believe I've ever heard him say anything with which I disagree. He has strong Conservative values, and a common sense approach to our country's problems. He did not disappoint in this debate, although, he also didn't get equal time with the others. That's arguably excusable. He has an outside chance for the nomination at best. Even the Conservative media has already counted him out and thus, you won't hear much support for him from the likes of Hannity and Rush, although I'll bet Ann Coulter likes him.
I thought Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain had the most memorable lines.
When asked if he agreed with Perry that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme (a statement that CNN's Wolf Blitzer hammered with the typical leftist's predictable persistence) Herman Cain said, "I don't care what you call it, it's broken!"
Incidentally, in 2007, MSNBC's resident rabid Liberal Chris Matthews not only called Social Security a Ponzi Scheme, but "a bad Ponzi Sceme", but I guess it's OK if a Liberal says it.
Newt said, "I'm not particularly worried about Governor Perry and Governor Romney frightening the American people, when President Obama scares them every single day!"
I headed this post with Perry's great line: "Americans are tired of spending money we don't have on programs we don't want!"
While I don't believe anyone can say with any certainty any of the candidates won the debate, I'm sure everyone has their own opinion. Who really wins these things?
It depends on who you're asking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Mark,
sorry to "off subject" you. have to search twitter for #attackwatch, its hilarious. THIS is not spam BTW and you can just delete this comments
My priority right now is the following: Which GOP candidate can actually defeat Obama in November 2012? I'd love to believe that Obama's goose is cooked, but I'm ever mindful of the fact that he will likely garner 40% of the popular vote even if the global economy melts down all the way to the center of the earth.
In this last debate, Michele Bachmann shouldn't have harped on the vaccine without also pointing out herself that there was an opt-out clause.
I'm going to say flat out that I don't trust Romney. He's too slick.
Huntsman believes in evolution and anthropomorphic global warming. He's toast.
"Paul blamed American foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon."
And of course he is absolutely correct.
"America's presence in the Middle East is at least helpful in keeping our enemies at bay."
Wasn't the 9/11 plot put together in Munich? These attacks can come from ANYWHERE.
What Matthews actually said was, "fact it is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that the money that’s paid out every day is coming from people who have paid in that day."
In the sense. Nothing else about it fits the definition.
Edwin, I don't do Twitter.
AOW, I don't think it matters which candidate can beat Obama. He will try his typical leftists tactics of smear and lie to win votes whoever is his opposition. The best candidate is the one who can best deflect them.
I agree with you about Bachmann, in fact, I made the same point in my post.
And, yes, I have the same feeling about Romney myself. There's something slimy about him.
Jim, Huntsman seems to be well liked by the Democrats, hence, I agree, he's toast. Actually if you go to the link I provided, you'll find Matthews said, flat out, "[Social Security] is a bad Ponzi scheme, at this point".
Hi Mark,
Remember a lot of great Conservatives were once Democrats. It's like those who persecute Christians and the become Christians. They are better Christians than those who grew up in Christian households because they "own" their faith so to speak.
Those Democrats who shift parties have an advantage over those who did not because they know both sides of the arguments. Don't count Perry out because he started out a Dem. A lot of Republicans have done that.
Blessings
BTW, I'm down on Bauchmann for even bothering to focus on those issues with Perry. She is making an non-issue and issue. She should focus on who she is and on defeating Obama.
for me the only viable choices are:Herman Cain,
Romney, Perry and Huntsman. I won't even consider anyone who doesn't have executive experience.
Conservative values: I'll kill anything but a fetus.
Executive experience:
1. The Pizza Man - Burger King hires away an executive from McDonald's who lays down a set of corporate policies which must be strictly implemented. The pizza man does as he's told.
Later he takes over Godfather's and turns it into a nonplayer.
Plus he's just there to prove Republicans aren't racist.
Wicked pisser exec.
2. Romney - Venture capitalist. Buys companies. Strips them and leaves a debt burdened shell with the jobs stripped.
Only a rethug would see the value in using that model to get things moving.
3. Perry -- The man isn't quite right. Of course Texas has a weak governor state government model. All dipsticks like Perry do is execute people, whether they're guilty or not.
He starts opening his mouth and Romney will ever so politely kick in his teeth. The guy's a stupid as Bachmann.
All that and L'il Ricky Retardo. The current idiot must be thanking his stars for this bunch of morons although Romney could beat him.
AOW, I don't think it matters which candidate can beat Obama. He will try his typical leftists tactics of smear and lie to win votes whoever is his opposition. The best candidate is the one who can best deflect them.
Certainly a consideration.
I typically don't get all that interested in an election until I know who the candidates actually are. So many times during primary season, I've backed someone that didn't run for office.
It's too bad Sarah Palin isn't running (yet). She's already been smeared, attacked, lied about, and smeared again. The Democrat attack machine, otherwise known as the Media, has done their damnedest to besmirch her reputation, and find something, anything wrong with her, and they have failed at every turn.
There are no skeletons in Sarah Palin's closet, so the only thing that would prevent her from winning is the people who buy the lies and falsehoods the media has perpetrated about her.
"...so the only thing that would prevent her from winning is the people who buy the lies and falsehoods the media has perpetrated about her."
Well that's been the ballgame for several decades now at least, hasn't it? What that really means is that if the lies can be countered, or even better, if the facts about conservatism and why it is superior to the alternative is trumpeted in the same manner, a win is assured no matter which Republican wins the primary. Newt has it right to deflect the inane questions that seek to avoid the real issues. All the candidates must refuse to answer in the same way Newt has done, with a more focused presentation of what the right offers and why it is so obviously better for all.
the only one who really scares me is Huntsman; there's something about him I don't trust, BIG time.
Other than that, we have to try to fight the personality-changing the media's doing to candidates; stressing the negatives, slamming anything positive. It works on uninformed voters and it can wear the good conservatives down, too...I believe that's partly responsible for my disdain for ANYTHING PALIN right now, I have to admit.
Obama doesn't have that, remember; he's got carte blanche to lie about who he knew, have no experience, have NOTHING and NO ONE in his upbringing which even hints at honoring the country and its constitution....
While the media's having to expose SOME of what the Administration's done because even some Democrats are crying foul (solyndra, Gibson guitars, no sustainable jobs, etc.) it's still gaga for THE ONE and that's a hard thing to conquer mixed together with their disdain for every single Republican who has a chance.
THey've been babying Paul in the hopes Republicans will get sucked into that, but that's not happening. They'll be subtly calling him to be a third party candidate in 3 months; wait for it.
It may be that we've reached the 1980 tipping point, that is, almost any GOP candidate who opposes Obama will win.
Frankly, young voters are not all hyped up this time around about Obama. He's lost a lot of his "magic."
I recall that, in 1979, a lot of people thought that Reagan couldn't possibly get the nomination. Well, he did.
Perhaps the rose-colored glasses of the dimocrats are so badly scratched now that they are beginning to peek over them and to their horror what they see is not the bright sunny green valley with their white coated messiah, but a rotting corpse on a dark barren bombed out landscape.
Post a Comment