Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Thoughts on last night's debate

Last night's GOP / Tea Party debate was an interesting debate.  I thought all the candidates did well (for the most part) and for the first time in ages, I'm actually looking forward to the primaries and the general election.  Simply put, we have many more viable choices running than ever before.

That said, I'm going to give my impression of the candidates one by one based on last night's debate and what I believe to be their electability.  I have listed them in order of worst performance to best.

Ron Paul - I've always adored Ron Paul for his Libertarian points of view; however, I don't think that he did as well in this debate as times past.  He had a hard time expressing himself and when Santorum mentioned his blaming America's past actions for 9/11, it really threw Paul for a loop.  There is no denying that past foreign policy contributed to 9/11 starting with Jimmy Carter and the handling of Iran up to Bill Clinton for treating terrorism as a law inforcement issue rather than a national security issue; however, Ron Paul could have defended his view a little better than he did.  His electability has been tossed out the window, which is unfortunate because I agree with him on so many issues.

Mitt Romney - I'm coining him as the 'chuck and duck' candidate.  He kept dodging the Romneycare issue and refused to defend his views.  He was asked specifically about Romneycare and said, "Before I answer your question, I want to go back to (whatever he went back to)" he never answered the question posed to him.  He did that on several occasions.  Another thing that I really don't like about Romney is his whining about Rick Perry's successful Governorship being because he was dealt 4 aces.  Unfortunately, this bozo is electable.  For one thing, Obama cannot criticize Romneycare because then he would be forced to admit that Obamacare, in part modeled after Romneycare, is not a good thing.  The second thing, Romeny appeals to many who are in the middle of the road.

Jon Huntsman - He made some good points last night, but to me, he's so insignificant that I can barely remember what his answers were.  What I get from Huntsman is that he takes someone else's answers, repackages them, and then makes his point.  I don't believe him to be a strong candidate and I don't believe that he would be able to lead this nation and fight for what he believes in.  Again, I don't believe that he could beat Obama.

Rick Santorum - Another insignificant candidate, though he did come across better in last night's debate, Santorum needs more vetting.  I think that next time there is a Presidental run (hopefully in 12 years) Santorum will be a strong candidate.  As far as the debate last night, Santorum did a good job researching the other candidates and their records and what they stand for, and he did a good job pointing those out.  He also made a comment that I absolutely loved (referring to the HPV vaccine paraphrased), "They think that they know what's good for you, more so than you do."   Next run, Rick..  next run.

Newt Gingrich - It was fantastic that Newt was the only candidate that brought up wasteful spending.  Newt is a visionary and a true conservative; however, he is unelectable.  What I liked about Newt last night was that he would tone down the pig piling on Perry and the playground tactics between both Perry and Romney, simply by pointing out that the common goal is to get Obama out of office.  What I refer to is Newt saying, "I'm not worried about Gov. Romney and Gov. Perry scaring the American people when Obama scares them every single day!"  That was classic Newt.

Rick Perry - Gov. Perry did a good job defending his view on Social Security, however, when he had to try and defend his in state tuition at universities for illegals and his issuing an executive order for teenage girls to be vaccinated for HPV, he stumbled and it was hard for him to recover.  I will say that I admire the fact that he admited that the executive order was a mistake on his part, but well intended.  Perry would be able to beat Obama if Perry receives more coaching and prepares himself for some of the issues that are questionable.

Michelle Bachman - For me, it's a toss up between her and Cain for the winner of last night's debate.  Bachman came out strong and hit the nail on the head point after point.  She did a good job pointing out the fact that Perry had made that executive order regarding HPV after one of his buddies went to work for the drug company that would benefit from such an order.  The only thing that bothers me about Bachman is that I don't think that she would beat Obama.  The press is too hard on her and I think that she could possibly melt down.

Herman Cain - When it comes to substance and a man with a plan, Cain wins hands down.  I've liked him since day one and I believe that could beat Obama when it comes to the issues.  An advantage that Cain has over all the other candidates is that it would remove the race card from the stack and we could have an election based on the issues rather than race.  Of course the liberal media and various black groups such as the NAACP will most likely paint Cain as an "Uncle Tom", the fact of the matter is that Cain is self-made man and a natural leader.

The one thing that I noticed the most is that none of the other candidates could really go after Cain because he doesn't have prior experience in government.  What he does have though, is a plan and he was very specific about what his vision is to get America back on track.  I happen to like that.....   alot.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are not moderated. Disagreement is fine as long as you address the message, not the messenger. In other words, don't be an ass.