The beginning of a new year is a time of resolutions and new beginnings, thus, what better way to start out then to begin blogging again. Fall is past, 2011 is over, and it is now 2012 -- election year; and I am back in full force (hopefully not to slack off again).
I hope all my readers enjoyed a wonderful, relaxing, joyous holiday season.
I planned over the fall to do a special posting on each of the Presidential candidates, but that has yet to happened and two of the candidates have already dropped out -- Herman Cain, and Michelle Bachmann. I never felt that Herman Cain was the right person to be the presidential nominee, but I am most sorry for the reasons which forced him out. With regards to Michelle Bachmann, as many have said already, she ran a dignified campaign. I respect her and wish her the best as she continues representing her Minnesota district in the US House of Representatives.
The results of the Iowa Caucus were surprising for the most part. The expected was Jon Huntsman finishing last and Bachmann not doing well. The biggest surprise of the evening was Rick Santorum, who almost won it. While I am not sure he can win the general election, I am very pleased with his showing, and it sends out a clear message as to what conservatives voters are seeking.
As the polls have shown, and last night's results proved, the conservatives are looking for someone other then Romney to represent the Republican party. He never seems to get about the 25% mark. Republican voters have slowly rotated through being in favor of Bachmann, Rick Perry, Cain, Newt Gingrich, and now Santorum. I do not feel however that Santorum will be able to sustain his Iowa success, thus leaving the door wide open for Perry or Gingrich to take back over as the lead candidate.
I was actually surprised that Romney had as strong a showing last night as he did. I expect him to finished third or fourth. The other very surprising placement was Ron Paul actually finishing a close third. My opinion of him will be saved for a post all of its own. Equally, I was not expecting Gingrich and Perry to finish as poorly as they did. But again, nothing is every concrete in politics until the votes have been cast.
Many news commentators state that as Iowa goes so goes the national election. Well, I would like to remind everyone that it is a long way off until the Republican National Convention and only one state out of FIFTY have cast their vote. Of the last three Republican presidents (Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush), each won two out of the first three contests, but only Bush, 43, won Iowa. All three did, however, win South Carolina. It will be interesting in the upcoming weeks as to see who begins to emerge stronger.
As your state caucus or primary comes up, please vote, and do not vote based on who currently is leading, but who you feel is best suited to lead our nation. This is a critical time in our nation to return us to the values and roots on which this great country was founded.
Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Reagan Library GOP Debate
Each debate I watch is interesting, because sometimes it involves different people (exit Pawlenty and enter Perry), and as the polls change, the dynamics change.
In Wednesday night's debate, there did not seem to be as clear of winners and losers as in previous ones. For the most part each candidate had strong moments and weak moments. They did also seem to unite around going after the policies of the current president versus attacking each other as much. There was a little "pinata" smacking with Rick Perry as he himself called it. Though, most people I believe, expected his polices to be attacked some since he is the "new kid on the block."
There were several great lines during last nights debate, such as when Newt Gingrich again called out the media, this time in reference to the moderator attempting to engage the candidates in attacking each other or Mitt Romney's comment that there were certain things Perry could not take credit for unless he wanted to sound like Al Gore taking credit for inventing the internet. My favorite line though came from Hermain Cain when he said that "If 10% is good enough for God, 9% is good enough for government."
The newcomer, Rick Perry, seemed relaxed and at ease, though occasionally came across as choosing his words a little too careful and not just going with the flow. His plan for securing our borders was one of the best of heard. By using actual boots on the ground and surveillance drones, it allows for human intelligence in the process. He was also very strong on military and defense which I expected. He shined when it came to his view of capital punishment and stating that execution is the ultimate justice.
Perry and Ron Paul did have some sparring, and the best was Perry's reference to a letter Paul wrote to Ronald Reagan, apparently not supporting him. Perry also dueled it out with Mitt Romney in a relaxed, but decisive way.
Newt Gingrich is brilliant, and has excellent ideas. He is always strong on the issues, he just does not have what it takes to be president.
Rick Santorum was strong on the positivity of immigration, but only when it is done legally. I agree, it was how our country was built and what makes us so great. Mitt Romeny also made a good point that illegal immigrants are attracted like a magnetic to our country because of those who are willing to hire them.
Ron Paul did make a great point that school lunches and the kids' nutrition is not the responsibility of the government. He came out against any mandate whatsoever, that they should all be abolished. However, the ones that need to be abolished are the mandates that no one has any out of such as health care, some like a driver's license are needed. But if a person doesn't want to get a license, then they have the option of just not driving. The choice is in the driving, not the license to operate a vehicle. He showed a bit more of his isolationist view point on the topic of immigration. But his biggest error was when he sticking his foot in his mouth by stating that the air conditioning for our troops overseas should be turned off for two reason: 1) help fix our debt, and 2) so the troops will come home. REALLY??? Turn the A/C off to get the troops home. It is one of the dumbest anti-American, anti-military comments I've heard.
Oh and in case you are wondering about Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman, well they neither shined nor flopped. There was nothing memorable about their response, particularly with Bachmann.
So, in summary, everyone had strong moments and some had very weak moments. Personally, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney are a bit too smooth for me. I will take a rugged Alaskan or Texan over the slick Mormans.
In Wednesday night's debate, there did not seem to be as clear of winners and losers as in previous ones. For the most part each candidate had strong moments and weak moments. They did also seem to unite around going after the policies of the current president versus attacking each other as much. There was a little "pinata" smacking with Rick Perry as he himself called it. Though, most people I believe, expected his polices to be attacked some since he is the "new kid on the block."
There were several great lines during last nights debate, such as when Newt Gingrich again called out the media, this time in reference to the moderator attempting to engage the candidates in attacking each other or Mitt Romney's comment that there were certain things Perry could not take credit for unless he wanted to sound like Al Gore taking credit for inventing the internet. My favorite line though came from Hermain Cain when he said that "If 10% is good enough for God, 9% is good enough for government."
The newcomer, Rick Perry, seemed relaxed and at ease, though occasionally came across as choosing his words a little too careful and not just going with the flow. His plan for securing our borders was one of the best of heard. By using actual boots on the ground and surveillance drones, it allows for human intelligence in the process. He was also very strong on military and defense which I expected. He shined when it came to his view of capital punishment and stating that execution is the ultimate justice.
Perry and Ron Paul did have some sparring, and the best was Perry's reference to a letter Paul wrote to Ronald Reagan, apparently not supporting him. Perry also dueled it out with Mitt Romney in a relaxed, but decisive way.
Newt Gingrich is brilliant, and has excellent ideas. He is always strong on the issues, he just does not have what it takes to be president.
Rick Santorum was strong on the positivity of immigration, but only when it is done legally. I agree, it was how our country was built and what makes us so great. Mitt Romeny also made a good point that illegal immigrants are attracted like a magnetic to our country because of those who are willing to hire them.
Ron Paul did make a great point that school lunches and the kids' nutrition is not the responsibility of the government. He came out against any mandate whatsoever, that they should all be abolished. However, the ones that need to be abolished are the mandates that no one has any out of such as health care, some like a driver's license are needed. But if a person doesn't want to get a license, then they have the option of just not driving. The choice is in the driving, not the license to operate a vehicle. He showed a bit more of his isolationist view point on the topic of immigration. But his biggest error was when he sticking his foot in his mouth by stating that the air conditioning for our troops overseas should be turned off for two reason: 1) help fix our debt, and 2) so the troops will come home. REALLY??? Turn the A/C off to get the troops home. It is one of the dumbest anti-American, anti-military comments I've heard.
Oh and in case you are wondering about Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman, well they neither shined nor flopped. There was nothing memorable about their response, particularly with Bachmann.
So, in summary, everyone had strong moments and some had very weak moments. Personally, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney are a bit too smooth for me. I will take a rugged Alaskan or Texan over the slick Mormans.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Iowa GOP Presidential Debate
I have been slacking the last couple of week in writing. Partially because I haven't felt like there was as much to write about, but mostly because I was busy preparing and doubling up on homework for the wedding of my best friend and "adopted" sister last weekend in Oregon in which I was a bridesmaid.
I spent my evening tonight like many other Americans, watching the GOP presidential debate. It was the first one of this presidential race that I had the chance to view. Overall, I felt it was good and very revealing as to where the candidates stand and their personality in the heat of a race. I felt the moderators could have done better at giving all candidates an equal amount of questions and time to talk. Chris Wallace's questions came across to me as seeking to stir up animosity between candidates. The debates are not to be about the candidates themselves, but about their views and stances in order enable the people to make an educated decision on who they feel is best able to represent our country in the White House.
Each of the candidates had some stellar and not so stellar moments.
Michele Bachmann - Frankly, I was not overly impressed with her tonight. Up until this point, she has been one of my favorites of the declared candidates. I felt that she was warding off a lot of attacks, that were more personal than policy. Thus, she was not able to express her stance as much as she needed to. Her performance was neutral for me.
Herman Cain - I like him a lot and he has many great points, especially regarding the economy and the private business sector. However, he has absolutely NO political experience at any level, thus, in today's age of politics, I feel that he is unqualified and would not make an excellent president. Again, I feel his performance tonight was neutral.
Newt Gingrich - If only he would just a tad bit more handsome. =) As the commentators afterwards mentioned, Newt had one of those memorable debate moments when he took Chris Wallace to task about the media coverage and "got 'em" questions. He was by far the strongest candidate tonight. His answers weren't about him, but about the country and how to turn it around. He gave honest, practical, real solutions to our problems. He was the winner of the debate, but I am afraid he can not win the national election.
Jon Hunstman - I feel like he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He attempts to spout conservative rhetoric but I am afraid he is a moderate liberal. He is completely full of himself and his record and accomplishments. The fact that he worked under Obama in any capacity is an immediate red flag for me (and he wasn't a hold over from Bush either). He gave no real solutions. All he could say is "I am proud........." He was a loser tonight.
Ron Paul - Another candidate who is filled with his own ambitions and rhetoric. He is a has been. It seems that every election cycle he enters just to voice his isolationist opinions. He is wrong on most of what he says.He claims to be the voice of liberty and constitutionalism but does not seem to have any understanding as to the real desires and motivating factors of our Founding Fathers and what the Constitution means. Every now and then he has a good point, like the broken clock which is right only twice a day. He needs to drop out for the sake of everyone else. He was even quite rude to Santorum at one point, not shutting up himself, yet not allowing Santorum to voice his thoughts. He also was a loser tonight.
Tim Pawlenty - And the final loser, not because of his policy like the other two, but his attitude. He attacked Michele Bachmann in an extremely unprofessional manner going almost after her as a person and tearing down her record and stances left and right. Any time he could slip in an attack at another candidate, he did. He appeared to be desperately holding on by any means possible. Plus, he was wrong on numerous policies stances, such as the 10th Amendment, implying that states could pass whatever laws they deemed fit.
Mitt Romney - A little too moderate for me, but was the most presidential of all candidates tonight. He was cool, calm, and collective, not allowing attacks by others to get to him. He did have some great points. At one point he defended his controversial mandated health care law, which, he is right on that the Massachusetts Constitution did give him the authority to pass it. I feel that his religious beliefs are a hindrances to him winning the election. He was definitely a winner as well though.
Rick Santorum -I felt sorry for him because he was not getting as many questions or the opportunity to speak as much as the other candidates. However, when he was given the opportunity, I really appreciated what he had to say. For me, his stellar moment came when he was discussing the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which states that any powers not directly given to the federal government are reserved for the states. Many people take that to mean that the states can pass whatever law they desire. Santorum made an excellent point however, that our nation and Constitution were founded on Biblical principles and thus, if a state seeks to pass a law that violates the Bible, then it is wrong and should not be allowed. His performance was a plus for me.
Overall, I was very much impressed with the candidates. I wish Rick Perry and Sarah Palin had been part of this debate. I would have enjoyed hearing their thoughts on the different issues, particularly Perry. Romney and Gingrich were a close tie for winner, but I think in the end I'd have to give it to Gingrich.
At this point in the race I do know who I will not support (Pawlenty, Hunstman, Cain, and Paul). Still analyzing the other candidates as to who I feel is best qualified and electable. As you consider who you will support and vote for, don't just take what the news stations, websites, blogs, radio talk show hosts, etc., say about a particular candidate, but research them for yourself. Listen to when they are interviewed live. That is the best way to know each one of them so that you can make an educated choice.
I spent my evening tonight like many other Americans, watching the GOP presidential debate. It was the first one of this presidential race that I had the chance to view. Overall, I felt it was good and very revealing as to where the candidates stand and their personality in the heat of a race. I felt the moderators could have done better at giving all candidates an equal amount of questions and time to talk. Chris Wallace's questions came across to me as seeking to stir up animosity between candidates. The debates are not to be about the candidates themselves, but about their views and stances in order enable the people to make an educated decision on who they feel is best able to represent our country in the White House.
Each of the candidates had some stellar and not so stellar moments.
Michele Bachmann - Frankly, I was not overly impressed with her tonight. Up until this point, she has been one of my favorites of the declared candidates. I felt that she was warding off a lot of attacks, that were more personal than policy. Thus, she was not able to express her stance as much as she needed to. Her performance was neutral for me.
Herman Cain - I like him a lot and he has many great points, especially regarding the economy and the private business sector. However, he has absolutely NO political experience at any level, thus, in today's age of politics, I feel that he is unqualified and would not make an excellent president. Again, I feel his performance tonight was neutral.
Newt Gingrich - If only he would just a tad bit more handsome. =) As the commentators afterwards mentioned, Newt had one of those memorable debate moments when he took Chris Wallace to task about the media coverage and "got 'em" questions. He was by far the strongest candidate tonight. His answers weren't about him, but about the country and how to turn it around. He gave honest, practical, real solutions to our problems. He was the winner of the debate, but I am afraid he can not win the national election.
Jon Hunstman - I feel like he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He attempts to spout conservative rhetoric but I am afraid he is a moderate liberal. He is completely full of himself and his record and accomplishments. The fact that he worked under Obama in any capacity is an immediate red flag for me (and he wasn't a hold over from Bush either). He gave no real solutions. All he could say is "I am proud........." He was a loser tonight.
Ron Paul - Another candidate who is filled with his own ambitions and rhetoric. He is a has been. It seems that every election cycle he enters just to voice his isolationist opinions. He is wrong on most of what he says.He claims to be the voice of liberty and constitutionalism but does not seem to have any understanding as to the real desires and motivating factors of our Founding Fathers and what the Constitution means. Every now and then he has a good point, like the broken clock which is right only twice a day. He needs to drop out for the sake of everyone else. He was even quite rude to Santorum at one point, not shutting up himself, yet not allowing Santorum to voice his thoughts. He also was a loser tonight.
Tim Pawlenty - And the final loser, not because of his policy like the other two, but his attitude. He attacked Michele Bachmann in an extremely unprofessional manner going almost after her as a person and tearing down her record and stances left and right. Any time he could slip in an attack at another candidate, he did. He appeared to be desperately holding on by any means possible. Plus, he was wrong on numerous policies stances, such as the 10th Amendment, implying that states could pass whatever laws they deemed fit.
Mitt Romney - A little too moderate for me, but was the most presidential of all candidates tonight. He was cool, calm, and collective, not allowing attacks by others to get to him. He did have some great points. At one point he defended his controversial mandated health care law, which, he is right on that the Massachusetts Constitution did give him the authority to pass it. I feel that his religious beliefs are a hindrances to him winning the election. He was definitely a winner as well though.
Rick Santorum -I felt sorry for him because he was not getting as many questions or the opportunity to speak as much as the other candidates. However, when he was given the opportunity, I really appreciated what he had to say. For me, his stellar moment came when he was discussing the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which states that any powers not directly given to the federal government are reserved for the states. Many people take that to mean that the states can pass whatever law they desire. Santorum made an excellent point however, that our nation and Constitution were founded on Biblical principles and thus, if a state seeks to pass a law that violates the Bible, then it is wrong and should not be allowed. His performance was a plus for me.
Overall, I was very much impressed with the candidates. I wish Rick Perry and Sarah Palin had been part of this debate. I would have enjoyed hearing their thoughts on the different issues, particularly Perry. Romney and Gingrich were a close tie for winner, but I think in the end I'd have to give it to Gingrich.
At this point in the race I do know who I will not support (Pawlenty, Hunstman, Cain, and Paul). Still analyzing the other candidates as to who I feel is best qualified and electable. As you consider who you will support and vote for, don't just take what the news stations, websites, blogs, radio talk show hosts, etc., say about a particular candidate, but research them for yourself. Listen to when they are interviewed live. That is the best way to know each one of them so that you can make an educated choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)