RealDealPolitics.com

Europe doesn’t do many things better than the US, but in certain categories like cheese, eating and debating, they are vastly superior.  Cheese was doing just fine, and tasting great, until the good old US mass-manufacturing food companies made some processed cheese-like food and called it American Cheese, a disgrace to both the words American and Cheese.

 

But this isn’t just about cheese. What about the rest of the meal?  When was the last time you sat down for a nice large dinner with family and friends? Traditional Europeans start with a fresh healthy salad and relaxing glass of wine, followed by soup and bread, cheese, and several other courses.  They eat each course one at a time, giving it time to digest before starting the next.  Then, perhaps a cigar and cognac after dinner to top it off.  (Smoked outdoors, so nobody will instantly die on contact with the smoke.)

 

Of course, Europeans have much more time for this since they work, on average, 4 hours a day and get socialist reimbursements for the other 4 hours they were supposed to work.  But they are healthier on average and have less heart and stress related problems. Admittedly, Americans are better at many other things, like working, watching TV, playing sports, and building weapons.

 

Let’s face it, the US is a fast-food, all-you-can-eat, buffet, dine-and-dash society, and the debates are the same way.  Gorge yourself with a smorgasbord of top level subjects, complete with quips, ambushes, and crossfire, but few details or explanations.  This format fills the senses for a couple of hours, but leaves the intellect completely unsatisfied.

 

It’s the American Idol generation.  People can easily tune into a show for 2 hours on end, as long as each song doesn’t run longer than three minutes, and each panelist doesn’t talk for more than 30 seconds.  Most people in this country can’t focus on any one subject for more than a few minutes, as ADD is rampant, apparently contagious, and spreads to every aspect of life, including eating and debate.

 

The US presidential and primary debates are something of a joke.  They give each contender a full two minutes to weigh in on their entire opinion on a certain subject.  Seriously, if Mitt Romney could explain his entire economic plan in two minutes, he wouldn’t have much of a plan other than some brief talking points.  In fact, he does have a real plan, outlined in an 87 page PDF download from his web site.

For crying out loud (which many staffers did when they heard this) the Obamacare bill was over 2000 pages long, or about 12 times the size of the US Constitution.  Do you think anyone can explain those contents in two minutes or less?

 

The point is that many of these candidates have detailed and extensive positions on almost every major issue, but you don’t hear them because they’re limited to two minutes on the stage. For example, these are all the phrases you will likely hear about taxes:  tax cuts for middle class, Fair Tax, 999 Plan, close tax loopholes, no corporate subsidy, and so forth.  But none of these are explained in detail.

 

More importantly, no explanations are available under the time constraint as to exactly HOW any of these strategies will help “jump-start the economy.”  When some people hear “tax cuts” it may be that all they can picture is “tax cuts for the rich,” since they may not even pay the income tax.  Further, they probably don’t understand how tax cuts of any kind would affect them.

 

What could be explained, if there were more time, is that tax cuts produce more government revenue after a year or two of implementation, due to a free-market increase in business investment activity.  It could be explained that top-rate tax cuts have the most drastic effect, not only producing more revenue, but creating jobs, reducing consumer costs, and in general “jump-starting” the economy.  The unemployed might then understand how tax policy affects their ability to obtain a job.

 

This article isn’t about tax policy.  We have plenty of other articles and videos on this site about taxes.  In fact, we made a video that took little over five minutes to explain how tax policy effects the economy, but the candidates have less than TWO minutes to hit their main talking points on the issue while providing whatever detail they can afford in the remaining seconds.  It’s just not practical.

 

The debates we have now consist of shotgun topics, scatterbrain subjects, sound bytes, and random shots in a disorganized delusion and mockery of an actual debate.  The result is that the public may know which candidates like or dislike each other, which ones think more quickly on their feet, have a better sense of humor, or respond to personal attacks better. That’s about all.

It would be a MAJOR improvement if each debate covered only one main topic.  Let’s say each candidate in an 8-10 person debate, were given just five minutes to state their economic policy, followed by rebuttals and discussion for the next hour.  The result would be a two-hour, informative discussion on tax and economic policy, that would be informative to the public, who could also use it to discern definitive similarities and differences on the various candidates.

 

When the slate narrows down to two or three candidates, such as the final stages of the primary, or the actual presidential debates, allow the candidates more time.  Now, give each candidate a full 10-20 minutes to state and discuss their position on an issue without being interrupted or attacked.  Then open it up for rebuttals and personal attacks.  People could actually learn something in this format.

 

Look at what happened during the last presidential election.  They had maybe 2-3 scatterbrain debates.  I scored the debates and McCain won easily on about 75% of the issues, but maybe that’s because I actually understood the topics.  However, what the public saw was a frustrated and anxious McCain, and a cool, calm Obama.  Thus, without learning anything about the issues, the public decided Obama must have won.

 

So we ended up with an unknown, inexperienced communist running, or should we say, ruining, the country. It’s not all the fault of the debates of course.  The media could have pointed out a few items from Obama’s past, such as those admitted in his book of spending several college years in a drug induced haze, and his communist ideals.  They could have asked about his questionable past, such as being raised in Kenya, Indonesia, and his trips to Pakistan.  in other words, the media could have done their job.

 

In fact, McCain could have raised these issues himself if he hadn’t been afraid to attack Obama for fear of being called a racist.  But there wouldn’t have been much time to do so in their debates anyway, as he had one and two minute stints to sum up his entire policy on a single issue, and he was already flustered by dealing with the arrogance of his opponent and suddenly disrespectful media.

 

Even if his problems numbered many less than Obama, McCain had his share of them.  How did McCain come to be the candidate anyway?  Before the democrats crossed the line and voted for him in the primaries, there were several of this same type of useless debate that we’ve been discussing.

 

Perhaps if they had real debates, where you can get more than just talking points and sound bytes out of each candidate, a more viable challenger would have emerged as the clear victor.  Instead, we had talk about pink houses and how a candidate may have employed an illegal alien as a housekeeper at some point in the past.  Is that really what people wanted to know?  Was it helpful to anyone?

 

What people really wanted to know primarily from each candidate is how their economic policy could work, what steps were required for implementation, and how soon effects could be realized.  They also wanted to know more about the wartime strategy of each candidate.

 

In short, the current debate format, while somewhat entertaining, watching candidates deliver one liners, personal attacks, and glib witticisms, doesn’t do much to inform the public on the candidates or the issues.

 

We’re not here to complain about the problem though; we’re here to solve it through rational intellect. Going forward, let’s change the debate format.

 

For early primary debates with many candidates, as in more than three candidates, we’ll use a “short form” debate, and when the field narrows to the final contenders, we’ll use the “long form”.  We should have a series of at least five debates to cover all the major policy areas.

 

Proposed format for single topic debates:

1.       Select one major topic for each debate.  Topics should be chosen according to importance.

• Economic / fiscal policy (taxes, spending, jobs, business, balanced budget, debt/deficit)
• This could be subdivided into two debates since it is by far the most important for voters
• National Security (terrorism, immigration, borders, war, peace, allies, enemies)
• Energy policy (oil, gas, prices, coal, nuclear, renewable, environment, independence)
• Social policy (education, morality, corruption, fraud, religion, law, abortion, social spending)
• Health care (health insurance, prevention, tort reform, government intervention)

2.       Candidates state their platform or strategy in uninterrupted monologues:

• Short form debate:  5-10 minutes for each candidate as first hour of time allows
• Long form:  15-20 minutes for each candidate to lay out their policy or strategy
• Candidates can and should use props such as charts or graphics just as in a brief or lecture

3.       Rebuttal and discussion period where candidates can respond, defend, or counterattack

• Short form:  2 minutes each rebuttal or response
• Long form:  5 minutes for each response
• Candidates can take turns with multiple responses as time allows
• Moderator can direct candidates to respond to a specific subtopic.

 

In this format, the public can not only learn something about the pertinent topics and issues, but also the major differences between the candidates on these subjects.  Individuals can then make somewhat informed decisions on what candidate would best represent their needs and concerns.

 

Of course, even if debates were held in this format, fulfilling the purpose would still be contingent on Americans being able to tune in to one candidate for more than 2 minutes at a time.  They might just be able to do that if the candidates offer colorful graphics or video during their presentation.  Candidates should make use of the vast media technology we have and present images and statistics relevant to the discussion.

 

The media can help out the informational cause as well as their own by hyping up the debates and advertising them on their own channels and internet outlets.  They can stream it on their web site and create podcasts.  More traffic to a TV network means more revenue for that network.  More traffic to a debate means a more informed voting public.  Everyone’s a winner!

Date:  Thursday, September 22, 2011

Location:  Orlando, Florida

Moderators:  Bret Baer, Megyn Kelly, and Chris Wallace.

Debaters:  Gov. Gary Johnson, Gov. Rick Perry, Gov. Mitt Romney, Gov. Jon Hunstman, Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Speaker Newt Gingrich, Mr. Herman Cain

 

There were few surprises in the latest edition of the GOP presidential debate.  One was the sudden appearance of Gary Johnson, who apprently was a former governor of New Mexico.  Gov. Johnson looked awkward early on, and with a nervous twitch in his thumb and childish face, seemed as a high school boy competing against collegiate debaters.

 

However, after answering a few questions, Gov. Johnson settled into his groove and towards the end of the debate, delivered the most memorable line: “My next door neighbor’s two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than this president has.”  To thunderous applause and hysterical laughter from the fellow debaters, it was undoubtedly the line of the night.  The same joke had originated with radio talk show hosts earlier in the week.

 

Governor Johnson was asked, “What makes you a better libertarian than Paul?” He replied that he vetoed more bills as governor than all of the other governors combined.  He supports the Fair Tax and believes it would jump start the economy better than any other action.

 

The debate provided little more that was new, other than fresh attacks by Romney on Perry and vice versa.  Romney continued to attack Perry on words written in his book about Social Security being an unconstitutional program that should be given to the states.  Perry tried to clarify that some states had opted for their own plans already.

 

Perry also was constantly on the defense about his state’s policy of allowing illegal alien students that had been living in Texas to have in-state tuition at state universities, savings worth about $100,000 per student.  Perry defended that, if not given that boost, they would not contribute to the economy, but instead become drags on it as state wards, and that only 4 out of some 180 state legislators voted against it.

 

Much of the debate was a bickering match between Perry and Romney, with others chiming in to attack the two leaders when applicable. Perry seemed to hold his own but clearly was off his game.  He was slow to respond, slow to attack, and looked like he could use a good night’s sleep.  It was his worst of the three debates he’s participated in, but he came out unscathed and still ahead in the national polls.

 

While the top dogs continued to dispute, some of the fringe contenders continued to shine, even if most people consider them unelectable.  The Florida straw poll, which followed two days later, put Herman Cain in the lead.  (Results: Cain 37%, Perry 15%, Romney 14%, Rick Santorum 11%, Paul 10%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Jon Huntsman 2%, Bachmann less than 2%.) Note that early straw polls have little impact on final results.

 

Herman Cain, the former Godfather Pizza CEO, won the night with his likability and common sense, intelligent approaches to the nation’s problems.  He told the brief story of how he overcame two types of cancer.  He stated that under Obamacare, he would not have survived, because he wouldn’t have been able to choose a doctor, and by the time the government assigned him one, it would have been too late.

 

Mr. Cain’s 999 Plan (9% income, corporate, and sales tax) remains the most popular option outside of the Fair Tax among the party’s tax base voters.  He also achieved much approval with his plan to eliminate the EPA and form a new version of it, which would be run by people who were abused by the former EPA.

 

Newt Gingrich continued to deliver glib witticisms that achieved regular applause and laughter from the audience.  The former House Speaker quoted Ronald Reagan, “When your neighbor loses his job, it’s a recession; when you lose yours, it’s a depression; when Jimmy Carter loses his, it’s a recovery.”  He didn’t even need to mention Obama to get thunderous crowd approval on the second-best line of the night.

 

Most candidates agreed that the Dept of Education needs to be drastically changed and reduced, and that federal funding for schools is not having the desired effect.  Most would like to see education run by the states, municipalities, and the private sector. Mrs. Bachmann and the libertarians would like to see the Dept dissolved, as did Reagan, it should be mentioned.

 

All of the candidates made clear that their first step toward health care reform would be to repeal Obamacare, and that there was a need for tort reform.  There were not many original ideas offered, other than Gov. Huntsman’s idea to let individual states experiment with it and eventually we’d have a breakthrough.

 

Speaking of Gov. Hunstman, he had another good debate, for the third consecutive time, and seems like the brightest of the bunch, other than Gingrich.  Despite his positive message, polished appearance, original ideas, and oratory command, he continues to poll at low percentages.  However, Huntsman continues to hang in the race, and even expressed optimism, recalling that in the previous primary, the early frontrunners were nowhere to be found at the end of the race.

 

The one category where there seemed to be the largest variety of opinions was tax reform, which was not delved into sufficiently by the moderators.  While some would abolish the entire IRS and replace it with a Fair Tax or alternative (Bachmann, Paul, Johnson, and Cain), others seemed like they were still wed to the current caste system of taxes.  Cain even pointed out that Romney was still married to the “old” (current) tax code.

 

Romney spoke of tax breaks for the middle-class, assigning class values to such, which according to his tax plan are taxpayers making up to $200k.  Romney did deliver the night’s third most memorable line, “To create jobs, it helps to have had a job.”  He would implement “reasonable” tax levels and cuts.

 

Huntsman has his 8/14/24 plan which again is divided up into class brackets as in the current tax code.  Perry and Santorum would like to lower taxes, but said nothing of overhauling the IRS.

 

There is growing unease among the TEA Party, libertarian, and conservative bases, that there has not been any serious dialogue in these debates by the top “electable” contenders about extreme tax reform.  This is a legitimate concern that goes to the heart of the current revolution that began in the last mid-term election.

 

The mainstream of the TEA Party movement doesn’t want Socialism vs Socialism Lite; they want radical tax reform such as that offered by Cain or the libertarians Johnson and Paul, because they know that it’s the key to jump starting the economy.  Most of the politicians in office know that drastic tax reform is the best answer to the recession, but few talk about it, at least openly.

 

Thus the major disappointment with this debate, as all of them, was the failure to delve deeply into this or other key issues.  In some other countries, these types of debates dedicate an hour to a single subject, so that the public can actually learn something about the issue, rather than just hear one-liners and talking points for two minutes on each issue.  But we saved those thoughts for an article on a new single topic format for presidential policy debate.
 

The last part of the debate was the “fun” question:  “Which one person on this stage would you choose as your running mate?”  It was time for the contenders to start playing dodge ball.

Gov. Johnson not surprisingly picked fellow libertarian Ron Paul.

Sen. Santorum tried to dodge the question but ended up picking Newt.

Rep. Gingrich said he “wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings” by choosing now (with a sly smile).

Rep. Paul said he would answer that when he becomes a top two contender (so don’t hold your breath).

Gov. Perry would take Cain and Gingrich and merge them together somehow.

Gov. Romney dodged the question but said any of them would make a better president than Obama.

Rep. Bachmann also dodged but said it would be a strong constitutional conservative.

Mr. Cain would pick Mitt if he would dump current system and go with Cain’s 999 plan, otherwise Gingrich.

Gov. Hunstman would pick Cain because he likes the 999 plan and choice of ties.

 

The official debate results are in:

Winner: Herman Cain

Loser: the American public

More on how the American public can win from debates in the future

How the contenders weighed in on each position in the TEA Party debate moderated by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Social Security

Bachmann:         They keep raiding the funds. Obama stole $ millions from Medicare to use for Obamacare.

Romney:              Without stating views of his own, went on attack on Perry for his calling it a Ponzi, that it was unconstitutional and should be dismantled.  Clarified after Perry’s counterattack that he believed Congress raiding the SS fund was criminal.

Perry:    The system is broken and we need courage to transform it for those in mid career that don’t know whether it will be there or not.  Retaliated that Mitt stated in his book that SS was criminal.

Paul:      Said we should spend the money on SS instead of wars and other stuff we’re doing around the world. Young people should get out of SS and go it on their own.

Cain:      We need optional personal retirement accounts.  Instead of fed govt giving money to states, give it back to the workers.

Hunstman:          Americans don’t want to be frightened, they want solutions.  “We have the answers, we just don’t have the leadership.” Gave no specifics whatsoever.

Newt:   “I’m not worried about Romney and Perry frightening the American people, when Obama scares them every day.” (surprised by large amount of applause drawn.)  Obama has threatened to withhold SS checks, and politicians shouldn’t have the power to do that.  People should have control over their own accounts.

Santorum:           Wolf tried to get him to side with Perry or Romney, as if there hadn’t been several different views offered, to which he replied, “The question is, who’s with me?”  He said SS is in trouble and they need somebody with the courage to address it.

 

Balancing the Budget, Erasing Debt, without Compromising Senior Benefits

Newt:   We balanced the budget before starting in 1994, it’s not a theory.  If you modernize govt (strongamericanow.org) you can save $500 million a year.  “Check and see if the supercommittee of 12 in their august power, is willing sit down with that group and actually learn how to be smart rather than cheap.” $70-120 billion per year in Medicaid is being paid to crooks.

(Wolf then changed the subject to prescription drug benefits)

Santorum:           We can keep a RX program but we have to pay for it.  One size fits all system run by the govt is not the answer.  Obama thinks he knows how to purchase your medical care better than you.

Wolf then tried to get Perry to commit to voting to repeal the RX benefit for seniors that Bush passed.  Wolf: president’s don’t vote; they sign into law, or veto.

Perry:    No (on repeal). But it’s a big hole in the budget, and you have to find the savings while still delivering the service. They combined 10 agencies into 5 in Texas, and saved $5.3 billion by finding waste.  Then Wolf asked again would he repeal it, and Perry said that’s how I started the conversation.

Romney:              Would reform RX, Medicare, Medicaid, and SS.  We can’t just cut waste, we need to cut spending, which he would cap at 20% of GDP.  “We need to stop the growth of the fed govt, and start the growth of the private sector.”

Paul:      $1.5 trillion overseas on wars we don’t need to be in, we need to take that money and put it into here.  Need to cut dept’s of energy and education.

Bachmann:         The principal needs to change that fed govt is going to pay for everything for everyone.  We need to return to a society of personal responsibility.  (best answer)

 

What is the plan to get the economy moving forward again?

(Wolf rephrased:  What’s the first thing you would do, knowing Obama formally gave legislation to Congress today with his jobs plan?  That wasn’t the question, Wolf. We’re going post-Obama here.)

Huntsman:          “What we’re seeing play out in America is a human tragedy.”  People are dispirited, can’t find jobs, etc.  WSJ has endorsed his tax code reform plan.  We need regulatory reform and can’t go forward with Obamacare or Dodd/Frank.  We need to wean off “heroin-like” dependence on foreign oil and have energy independence.

Wolf then rephrased again for Perry:  Obama has offered all those tax credits, do you support that?

Perry:    Obama will pay for it by raising taxes.  “President spent $800 billion on the first stimulus package that created zero jobs. This one is $400B.  I can do that math on that one: half of zero jobs, is gonna be zero jobs.” President doesn’t understand how to free up business men and women and Wall Street by lowering their taxes and regulations.  “People are tired of spending money we don’t have on programs we don’t want.”

Bachmann:         With $1 trillion in new spending that you don’t pay for, the deficit can only go up.  They should have never raised the debt ceiling, giving Obama another blank check to spend.  It’s easy enough to turn around the economy, you just need the backbone to do it.

Cain:      “This economy is on life support.”  We don’t need govt picking winners and losers. “We need bold plans, like my 999 plan: 9% corp. tax, 9% income tax, and 9% natl. sales tax.  People say ‘you can’t do that, you don’t know how Wash works.’ I say, yes I do: it doesn’t.”

Wolf then tried to get Romney to give Perry credit for job creation in Texas. It was weird.

Romney:              Rattled off half a dozen things like balancing the budget.  Said Perry was dealt 4 aces in Texas and would have been a fool to fold them:  0 income tax, low regulation, right to work, oil in the ground, and GOP legislature.  That’s actually 5 aces but who’s counting.

Perry:    Obama has overseen loss of $2.5 million jobs.  Texas has created $1 million during the same time, which were rough times.  “You want to talk about some powerful job creation, tell the trial lawyers to get out of your state and stop costing business men and women.”  We cut taxes by $14 billion.

Paul:      Taxes and debt have doubled while Perry has been governor of Texas.  “You don’t have to pay for a tax cut, if you think about it that way, then the govt owns all the money.”

Newt:   In 4 years as speaker, America created more jobs than any state did during any of the governors did in their states during their tenure.

 

Federal Reserve:  Should it be audited and held accountable?

Santorum:           Yes, we need sound money.  “Obama’s economy would have to make a drastic improvement to become a disaster.”

Cain:      Yes. It’s scope should be narrowed and focused only on sound money.

Bachman:            The Fed can’t have this kind of power, making loans to foreigners, etc, and would not reappoint Bernanke, and would never have had the bailout.

Perry:    If you’re using the Fed for political purposes, that is treasonous.  Not a fan of using the Fed to cover up bad fiscal policy.

Romney:              People won’t invest in this country if they don’t have faith in our currency.

 

Taxes

Next, a young man from Napa asked: “Out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think I deserve to keep?” to great applause from both audiences.

Huntsman:          Has a tax program that lowers the flat rate and phases out corp. subsidies.  Need a fair tax code, we could leave it at 8%, 14% and 24% for the 3 rates.  Need to address debt and growth.

Wolf to Newt: Some of largest companies, like oil co’s, get govt breaks in form of tax breaks, exemptions, tax loopholes and so forth while making billions.  Is that fair?

Newt:  “I thought for a moment you were gonna refer to GE, which is paying no taxes.” To applause from audience.  “We have a problem with overspending, not with undertaxing.”

 

Wolf then went to a new question from Virginia, but at least it was somewhat on topic.  The question:  “Would any of you be willing to support the Fair Tax?”  Wolf clarifies that it means a national sales tax.

Romney:              It has a lot going for it, and reduces the burden on lower income and upper income, but not the middle income Americans.  His plan calls for no dividend tax or cap gains for middle income.

 

At this point, most people must have been confused that not everybody got to answer either of these tax questions, since they were the most popular, and most important to TEA partiers. But that’s the risk you run with a liberal like Wolf moderating.

 

Executive Orders:  When should they be used?

Paul:      It is often abused, and should never be used to legislate.

Perry:    Would use an exec order to get rid of as much of Obamacare as possible.  Had to clarify several times that he would have gone through legislature instead of exec order to do it again, but there was an opt-out that parents could sign.  He raised $30 million and couldn’t be bought for $5000.

Bachmann:         Attacked Romney’s exec order for cancer vaccine, and Obama’s exec order that insurance companies must offer morning after pills to everyone because he said so.  Claimed the drug company benefiting from Perry’s order had given campaign donations.

Santorum:           Students should be vaccinated at schools, but Perry’s policy was wrong. Give the opt-in rather than opt-out.

 

How to reduce the cost of health care and health insurance

Cain:      Repeal Obamacare.  Pass market driven, patient centered reform.  Pass loser-pay laws.  Medical liability is big expense because of tort suits.

Romney:              The cost of care is expensive because the patient co-pays and doesn’t know how much it really costs.  Obamacare raises taxes by $500 billion and cuts Medicare by $500B.  Obamacare panels dictate what kind of care you get.

Perry:    Obama said that Romney care was the model for Obamacare. They had the right to do it as a state (Mass) but they wouldn’t do it in Texas.

Paul:      They never turn people away from hospitals.  The churches would take care of those people that didn’t have insurance and needed emergency treatment.  Legalize alternative healthcare, let people practice what they want.

Bachmann:         No state or fed govt should be able to force a person to buy a product or service against their will.  (Best answer)

 

Plan to remove illegal immigrants from our country

Santorum:           Build the fence and secure the border with personnel, then address who’s already here.  Said Perry allowed in-state tuition for illegals.

Perry:    Govt has been massive failure defending 1200 mile Texas border.  $400M of Texas taxpayer money was spent for Texas rangers on recon missions to get some of these.   Great wall is not reality. Need boots on ground, aviation support, technology.  Fed govt needs to step up and do their constitutional duty of securing the border with Mexico. The choice in his state was giving them in-state tuition or letting them live off taxpayer money.  Only 4 dissenting legislature votes on giving them in-state tuition as long as they were working on citizenship.

Huntsman:          Fix homeland security, fix the root problems.  They gave in UT a separate driving privilege card to illegals so economy could continue to function.

Romney:              Build a fence, don’t give them drivers license or in state tuition.

 

Energy Independence

Cain:      Need to remove fed govt barriers to independence.  EPA has gone wild.  Need a Regulatory Reduction Commission, with appointees consisting of those that have been abused by the EPA.

 

Again, we’re not sure why only one person was allowed to answer one of the most important questions.

 

National Security

Newt:   Congress should be holding hearings now on threats from Iran, Turkey, and Mexico.

Paul:      Quoted Al-Qaeda on why they attacked us, to much displeasure from the crowd.  We have no authority to be policemen of the world, or to conduct nation building.

Santorum:           We were attacked because our civilization is antithetical to theirs.

(Subject changed to protecting women of Afghanistan by implanted Afghan woman)

Huntsman:          Time has come to get out of Afghanistan.  We don’t need nation-builders there when this nation needs to be built.  We can’t help other countries when our core is crumbling.  Need afghan people to take care of their own security.

Perry:    Agreed with Huntsman to bring our soldiers home.  Need conversation on how to deliver aid to those countries, and it’s not with soldiers with targets on back. We need some people there while their military takes control.

 

What would you bring to the White House as next President?

Examples:

Bush added a horseshoe pit.

Clinton added a jogging track.

Obama added a vegetable garden.

 

Santorum:           It’s obvious, we have 7 kids; we would add a bedroom and some beds.

Newt:   Reduce the size of it by getting rid of all the czars, creating a lot more space. We’d have music and ballet.

Perry:    Would bring the most beautiful, thoughtful, and incredible first lady this country has ever seen. (Awwww from crowd)

Paul:      Bushel basket of common sense, a course on something about the Austrian economics and business cycle to teach people why fed creates inflation and deflation.

Romney:              “You can count on Americans to get things right, after they exhausted all the alternatives,” by his hero Winston Churchill, whose bust Mitt would return to the Oval Office.

Bachman:            A copy of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights. That’s it.

Cain:      “I would bring a sense of humor because America’s too uptight.”

Huntsman:          Would bring his Harley Davidson and motocross bike.

.

 

A black guy, an Arab, an illegal alien, a Muslim, a Christian, a communist, a messiah, a democrat, a drug addict, a socialist, an idiot, and a pathological liar walk into a bar….

 

 

 

The bartender asks: What can I get you, Mr. President?

There is a minor uproar on the internet, mostly from the Paul-ites, about an incident during a commercial break at the Reagan Library on September 7, during which Rick Perry and Ron Paul appeared to have a heated personal argument.  Perry is seen to be touching Paul’s arm, but without the audio most people aren’t sure what happened.

Further, neither the Perry or Paul camps seem to recall exactly what was said and why.  Fortunately, we have body language experts and lip readers that have pieced most of it together, and while we don’t have the exact verbiage, the message became clear, and it went down as follows.

Governor Perry had figured out early on that the “unbiased” moderators were trying to get all participants to attack Perry and Romney (as if they didn’t know that would happen beforehand.)  So he approached Paul and said, first of all I can’t believe you fell right into their trap.

Clearly, while motioning at the moderators, Perry was kindly explaining their intent to get the candidates to attack each other, actions which, as communication experts will agree, discredit all of them equally.

Then, with a soft hand on Rep. Paul’s arm, and a stern finger raised in the air, Perry warns Paul that it could get ugly if they go on with the personal attacks.  (And no, he was not daring Paul to pull his finger.)

Perry tells Paul that, while the governor has not yet made any personalized attacks on the Rep, he would play dirty if Paul continued to fall into the interrogators’ traps of attacking Perry and Romney.

The conversation involving both Huntsman and Paul happened when Perry was lecturing the both of them on falling into the personal attack trap. Perry again kindly explained that he would begin counter-attacks on them if necessary but would prefer to be civilized and debate the issues.

Huntsman clearly didn’t want to hear it, and didn’t want anyone lecturing him on how to debate, but he reluctantly agreed.

As for anyone that thinks putting your hand on a someone’s wrist constitutes assault, they’re delusional. Good luck with that lawsuit. If it were assault, Perry would have never done it in public with thousands of witnesses and cameras. It was simply a stern warning from one politician to another.

In addition, Paul would have pressed charges, but instead he laughs the whole thing off. For a good chortle, watch the charming and doddering story as Rep.Paul tells it. This is, in fact, more of a comic act than anything else, because nothing was revealed. Paul even claims to not recall what was said.  However, it is humorous and worth watching.

What do you think was said during these photographed moments?

The NBC/Politico Republican debate of September 7, 2011 had a clear goal:  Get the top GOP candidates to attack each other while giving more credibility to the fringe contenders, thus raising a reasonable doubt about all of them.

Analysis: 

Brian Williams was clearly trying to get top conservatives Perry and Romney to attack each other, and succeeding.  Almost every question directed at Perry was either an attack on Perry or bait for him to attack Romney, and vice versa.  This was so noticeable that it should have been embarrassing to NBC or Politico, but alas they have no shame.

On the other hand, the questions directed at Huntsman were teed up and ready for him to knock out of the park, which he took full advantage of. The other candidates were given regular questions as well as those which invited attacks on Perry or Romney.

At first, I wasn’t sure why Newt was there, but was pleasantly surprised.  Not only did he call out NBC on their effort to get GOP contenders to fight each other, but he had some of the best quotes of the night (below), and added some solid intellect and oratory skills to the debate.

Rick Perry was the number one target of NBC and Romney was a close second.  What you have to understand is that the amount to which the “mainstream” (liberal) media (MSM) attacks GOP candidates directly correlates to their fear of the candidate, which is approximately congruent to the strength of each candidate.

The candidate they pander to the most (in this case, Huntsman) is the one that they either consider the most beatable, or one they wouldn’t mind being in office should he beat out Obama, but they don’t really want the latter, so the primary concern is his weakness as a legitimate candidate.  Paul is truly the most unelectable but everyone knows that, so they didn’t bother hyping him.

So, if we take nothing else from this debate, we know that Perry is the strongest GOP contender, closely followed by Romney, and Huntsman is the weakest, despite his good hair and solid tan.

 

Random Notes on the Debate:

• Use of “Bittersweet Symphony” as theme when introducing Reagan.  While most just think of it as a nice song, I think it was intentionally chosen by title because of the MSM’s bitterness for Reagan, even though the public rightly considers him one of the sweetest ever.
• Paid yawning woman during debate on camera, but notice it was while Williams was asking questions, so that kind of backfired. WTH NBC LOL.
• Both snipers (Williams and Harris) trying to demonize Romney as a TEA Party member even though he doesn’t have strong TEA Party support and Bachmann is the TEA Party candidate.
• Both snipers attacking Perry with every question in a disrespectful and embarrassing manner.
• John Harris looked really familiar, and I had to think about it for a while, before realizing that it’s because he closely resembles a penis.  Of course there is nothing wrong with penes, but they should never be shown in public, or allowed to … nevermind.
• Newt Gingrich acting as the voice of reason, and rebuking the snipers on their efforts to shoot down the top contenders.

 

Top Quotes of the Debate: 

 

Rick Perry            “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme; it’s a big lie to tell young people they will get anything out this program they’ve been paying into.”
“Maybe it’s time to have some provocative language in this country…”

Romney               “We have people on this stage that care very deeply about this country.”
“Right now, this president’s gotta go; this president’s a nice guy; he doesn’t have a clue how to get this country working again.”

Cain                       “… so we can move this society from an entitlement society to an empowerment society.”

Santorum            “It’s a very good first step that if you come to this country, you do it as a legal act, not an illegal act.”

Newt                     “I’m not interested in your effort to get republicans to fight each other.”
“I’m with President Reagan: We ought to control the border, we should have a legal guest worker program, we ought to outsource it frankly to Amex, Visa, and Mastercard, so there’s no counterfeiting, which there will be with the Federal Government… we should make English the official language of government…”
“I would fire (Bernanke) tomorrow.  He’s been the most inflationary, dangerous, and power-centered chairman in the history of the Fed; the Fed should be audited.  The money that he has shifted around in secret, with no responsibility, no accountability, and no transparency is absolutely antithetical to a free society; his policies have deepened the depression, lengthened the problems, increased the cost of gasoline, and have been a disaster…”

 

Bonus Section:  Future Presidential Cabinet Recommendations

Here’s where I would put everybody based on their strengths and weaknesses.

 

Perry                     President.  He looks, acts, and speaks like a president, not a politician.  Tall, rugged good looks, powerful and confident voice, intangible charismatics, and common sense conservatism make him the preferred candidate.

 

Romney               Vice President if he will take the back seat.  He has the judgment, wisdom, and common sense to be President, and is highly intelligent, and should be allowed to at least preside over the Senate, which would also be fun to watch.  Two older white men might be a hard sell though, especially when it starts drawing comparisons to Bush/Cheney.

 

Newt                     State or Defense Secretary, or any other cabinet position that needs to be filled.  It’s time for Newt to get back into public service.  He understands all the issues, and all the politics involved, loves the country, and can contribute a great mind. He could also serve as Fed chairman since he has some obvious interest.

 

Santorum            Chief of Staff.  We really need a smart guy like Rick running things behind the scenes in the Washington.  It would really be a shame to leave him out of the mix, with all of his talent and knowledge.  Two Rick’s in the White House could be a great thing.

 

Bachmann           Energy Secretary.  She understands all the energy issues and the economic ramifications thereof, including job creation and affordable energy.  She’s sharp as a tack, very articulate, and quite easy to look at.  She should be considered a necessity in a future GOP administration.

 

Cain                       Commerce Secretary.  This man understands business and trade, front and back.  In addition he’s very intelligent,  likeable, and well spoken.

 

Paul                       Treasury Secretary.  Ron Paul can be trusted with the purse strings because he hates government spending like no other.  Unfortunately that’s about the only thing he could be trusted with.

 

Huntsman:          Trade Rep. or maybe even Secretary of State.  He looks and speaks like a diplomat, and expressed a lot of interest in international trade.   Ambassador to China at worst. He’s a pure politician and we shouldn’t let that go to waste.

 

Perfect cabinet? No, but much better than the one we have now.

 

I’m predicting the catcalls from the “mainstream” (read: liberal) media (MSM) before they even start. They are so predictable in their cheap shots and personal attacks, that I know what their next move is even before they do.

Having been right about every social, political, and economic prediction I’ve made for the last 10 years, I will make a new one that I have complete 100% faith in. The media rallying cry against Perry within the next year will be: “Do we really need another Governor from Texas?”

And the answer to that, in short, is yes. But not just because Texas is one of the largest geographic, populous, and economic states in the union, but because of the man that has been running it successfully for over 10 years.

Perry, previously unknown to many outside of Texas, is actually the longest serving governor in Texas history, and has never lost an election. In addition, he has served as chairman of the GOP Governor’s Association.

Governor Perry is a proud patriot and unapologetic conservative who stands for the primary values espoused by the mainstream conservative movement.

But we’re not here to just hype him up with feel-good compliments as the MSM did for Obama, without even knowing anything about him. We are here to cover the details, specifics, and real factors.

Reasons why we need another Governor from Texas:

Conservative Values: Perry supports solid mainstream conservative values that most Americans believe in. This is a center-right nation, despite what the MSM pretends, and people do sympathize with mainstream conservatism. See Ronald Reagan, the best president of the 20th century. Principles like smaller government, lower taxes, and less government intrusion ring happily in the ears of most citizens. Further, Americans don’t elect moderate republicans as President. See Bob Dole, John McCain.

Intellect: Despite his cowboy mannerism, which is charming, he did write a book called “Fed Up” which delineates his disapproval of the Federal Government’s expansion into the huge monster that it is now, robbing Americans of their income, spending other people’s money, and interfering with everyone’s life. This is a sentiment that most Americans agree with, as shown in the TEA Party movement. Contrast that with Obama’s book about his college drug use and communist principles.

Common Sense: Whatever happened to this principle? Well it’s still alive and well with Perry. Any American with common sense realizes that we can’t sustain the Federal expansionist movement, including Perry, who can now vocalize those views with a national audience. We don’t need a genius as president, just someone who sympathizes with what his constituents want, understands how to implement it, and has the judgment to make the right decisions.

Common Bond: The way Perry comes across as an average southern American patriot is appealing to a great many people. The truth is, he’s well above average, but you wouldn’t know it by listening to him. Americans, right and left, are already tired of Obama talking down to us and lecturing us like we’re a bunch of idiot schoolchildren, especially those of us that have much higher IQ’s than Obama, but that’s another story. The citizens of this country like a man that talks to them straight up, as a peer or equal, and that’s what Perry does.

Longevity: Hopefully, after the 2008 election debacle, Americans learned their lesson about electing a half-term, unknown Senator, whose place of birth is still a matter of debate. The fact that nobody really seemed to know where Obama came from should have been a red flag. The fact that he was never in an executive position of any sort should have been a huge concern. Perry is the longest serving governor in Texas history, and has a known public record to run on.

Track Record: Perry’s accomplishments as Texas governor are well documented. He has presided over the state for over 10 years and enacted what the people wanted, despite a partisan legislature. At one point, he even hired a former Democrat opponent from a previous governor’s race to get a bipartisan bill passed, and it worked. His state is one of few that has had any job growth in the last few years, and other economic factors of the state rank in the top half of the union, despite the fact that it’s getting flooded by illegal aliens, which, as a group, bring down all the economic indicators.

Physical Qualifications: Let’s be honest, Obama is the first President of the modern era that doesn’t have a 14 inch part in his hair, but he does have a full head of hair. Perry does have the 14 inch part, plus he’s tall enough, ruggedly handsome, and although 61 he doesn’t look a day over 59. Most men wouldn’t mind looking that good at his age. As aforementioned, the old white haired or balding thing doesn’t work, see Dole or McCain; it just doesn’t work.

Cleanliness: Let’s be even more frank. To get elected as a Democrat, you can be a dirt-bag, and that’s fine. If you want to admit in your biography that you were a heavy drug abuser in college, and that you believe in the principles of communism, that’s fine, see Obama. If you’re a Republican, no such luck. If you had a DUI 30 years ago they will use it against you. If you once used the word “makaka” which means “monkey” to refer to a reporter, they can remove you from the Senate. You basically have to be a saint, which works more in Romney’s favor since he is actually a “latter day saint,” but that’s another story. So far, no skeletons have surfaced for Perry, but if they don’t, the MSM will create some, you can count on that.

Electability: Last but far from least, this is a factor that the GOP tends to overlook, much to their demise. People are not going to elect an old white haired Senator that has been part of the problem for 26 years. But they will definitely give a second look to a governor that’s literally “Fed Up” with the way Washington DC politics have been running the nation. Perry speaks with determination and sincerity, doesn’t mince words, doesn’t backpedal, and doesn’t need a teleprompter. He knows what he’s talking about and is not afraid to say it. In addition, he will certainly carry Texas, which has the 2nd highest amount of electoral votes, and would get Florida were Jeb Bush to officially endorse him, which is completely hypothetical at this point.

Concerns: Democrats love to point out that Perry used to be a Democrat that supported Al Gore. Of course they skip over the fact that Gore used to be more conservative than most Republicans. At the time, Gore preached fiscal responsibility, and he was even (gasp) pro-life! That was before the Clintons lured him to the dark side and he became a flaming liberal. At that point, Perry jumped ship, not only deserting Gore but the entire Democrat Party, realizing there was no hope for it. Another Governor once went through a similar story after spending the first half of his life as a Democrat; his name was Ronald Reagan. Any other character concerns that opponents will point to are likely some kind of slant on the facts or just outright slander.

That’s the full rap on Perry, and those should be good enough reasons why we need another governor from Texas. Let’s end it with a few quotes from Perry himself.

I stand before you today as a disciplined conservative Texan, a committed Republican and a proud American, united with you to restoring our nation and revive the American dream.

In Michigan, a liberal democrat raised taxes and kept their government programs at the same level. And guess what? Their economy continued into the toilet, it continued down.

Let’s stand up. Let’s speak with pride about our morals and our values and redouble our effort to elect more conservative Republicans.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme; it’s a big lie to tell young people they will get anything out this program they’ve been paying into.

Texas has long been known as the nation’s largest energy producer, but we are equally proud of our distinction as the nation’s leading energy innovator.

Democracy functions best when we have an active citizenry.

The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we inhabit are not only critical elements in the quality of life we enjoy – they are a reflection of the majesty of our Creator.

Our party cannot be all things to all people. … Our loudest opponents on the left are never going to like us so let’s stop trying to curry favor with them.

The Obama administration is an affront to every freedom-loving American,and a threat to every private sector job in this country.

The people who illegally cross into the country are from countries that have very close ties to al Qaeda, whether it’s Yemen or Afghanistan, Pakistan, China. It is an absolute national disgrace.

This administration in Washington that’s in power now clearly believes that government is not only the answer to every need, but it’s the most qualified to make the most central decisions for every American in every area.

Under Obama, our federal tax dollars can now be used to fund abortion all over the world. With the stroke of a pen, abortion essentially became a U.S. foreign export.

We need to stop apologizing for celebrating life. We need to stop apologizing for wanting to protect an individual’s right to build a business.

Our shared conservative values, our belief in the individual is the great hope of our nation.

Maybe it’s time to have some provocative language in this country…

That about sums it up. It is time for some decisive language. It’s time to stop being a wussy about criticizing the useless idiot that is supposedly running the nation. Now, we have someone that’s not afraid to tell us like it is. That, my friend, is why we need another governor from Texas.

Updated: June 16, 2011

We were willing to forgive Romney of state health care, which his liberal legislature would have passed some form of over his veto, and the same with the Boston tunnel, but caving in to the global warming hoax is going too far.

Real Deal Politics has withdrawn the Romney endorsement at this time, keeping it open for other candidates that desire to run as conservatives. Romney is a fine man and was a solid business man and governor, but we simply can not support his new lean towards liberal tenets, regardless of his motive for supporting them.

Original article below:

The Real Deal continues to endorse Mitt Romney as the best US Presidential candidate currently available. It is not known for sure whether he will run again, but he hasn’t denied it. He will have his hands full with Donald Trump, and we just hope whoever does win doesn’t totally trash the reputation of the others, so they can have some respectability coming out of the primaries.

Reasons to support Romney:

1. Conservatism
2. Electability
3. Loyalty
4. Dogma
5. Purpose

Some old election links below that may or may not be updated yet:

Choose your candidate: http://www.votechooser.com

Liberal-created chooser but still works if you can see thru the BS:

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

 

Let’s not forget it was highly trained Navy Seals that killed Bin Laden, not Obama, who is a cowardly fool that the old man Osama would whip with his cane.

Here’s Obama’s hypocrisy:

2008: “Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney’s private assassination team.”
2011: “I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden.”

2008: “Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a fair trial.”
2011: “I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden.”

2008: “Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated.” “I will close Guantanamo.”
2011: “Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden.”

So why the change in heart over all of this? It’s quite simple, his aides told him he had to take credit for this, if it really happened, in order to get re-elected.

Obama is the same jackass whose administration tried to prosecute and court martial 3 Navy Seals for punching a terrorist while capturing him. So they’re not allowed hand to hand combat anymore? Soldiers can shoot, blow up, and otherwise maim the enemy, but can’t use martial arts?

If it sounds confusing, you’re not alone. Obama has no clue what he’s doing, doesn’t understand the purpose of the military, hates our armed forces, and has disdain for the entire Department of Defense. He is a naive, narcissistic, idiot pretending to be president, who will capitalize on any opportunity to lower his growing disapproval numbers.

Obama is not an American. Anyone who harbors such hatred for freedom, limited government, business people of all sorts, capitalism, the US Constitution and the US Armed Forces, and thinks the American people are stupid if they don’t agree with him, does not constitute an American.

In addition, anyone who aspires to increase government spending, taxes, and government control while decreasing the sovereignty, freedoms and bank accounts of the average citizen, can only be called anti-American.

An American is someone who believes in the American way as our founding fathers laid out and provided for us, not one who seeks to destroy it like the abomination called Obama.

This is the first cartoon video by RDP, but it certainly won’t be the last.