Rick Santorum Faith Family Freedom

Representative Ron Paul is a great congressman and has been a good ally in the fight for limited government, less taxes, less spending, and less government intrusion.  Paul’s public record shows no record of flip flops, unlike Gingrich or Romney, and consequently seems very congruent to the words that he speaks.

Paul’s “stick our head in the sand” foreign policy scares the heck out of conservatives, but otherwise appeals to many liberals and moderates.  His common-sense limited government views are attractive to people across the political spectrum.

Paul, however, is somewhat unelectable as a presidential candidate.  He is old, has wrinkles, a few strands of white hair, and doesn’t “look presidential.”  I apologize for the reality check but that is the fact of the matter.  He comes across as a charming, doddering, old grandfather-type, which is very appealing to some people, but it doesn’t make him electable.

Given that nobody even knows what Romney or Gingrich actually stand for anymore, the stage has centered on former Senator Rick Santorum.  He has no set of flip flops, environmental or otherwise, unlike the two former frontrunners, Gingrich and Romney.  Oh and let’s not forget, he just swept three states, including an annihilation of the competition in the “show-me-state,” to the tune of 55%.

Just when you thought the race was almost over, and the establishment candidate, Romney, was about to run away with it, a former Senator that is just as knowledgeable on the issues, almost as good looking, and has adequate hair to be elected, has entered from stage right.

It is true that Santorum was fired from his job in the Senate in 2006 by an 18% margin. However, we know that the 2006 elections were a referendum against President George Bush, for his Big Government policies and “war-mongering” in the Middle East.  Some great senators such as Santorum and George Allen (VA) were casualties of this referendum.

American voters smartened up again in the last general election, having realized what a huge mistake Obama has been. If the 2006 election had been in 2010, Santorum and Allen would have likely won in landslides.  When analyzing an election, you always need to take into account the circumstances and the ruling party or president at the time.

The fact that Santorum lost his job is a liability to his candidacy, but appears to be his only real problem.  Normally, the lack of executive (state governor or VP) experience is somewhat of downfall as well, but given the fraudulent elections of Obama and former President John Kennedy (RIP), senatorial experience seems to be adequate.

Years ago, in 2004, I stood outside the voting precinct handing out GOP propaganda, primarily because I was rightfully horrified by the thought of a John Kerry presidency.  My democrat party counterpart engaged me in a discussion of our differences, and I never forgot what he said.

The democrat propagandist was averse to the incumbent President because Bush was a “moron,” primarily.  He had problems with the fact that someone that stupid could be president of the US.  I countered by saying that the president doesn’t need to be a genius, just someone with a vision, and the judgment to put smart people in charge of the cabinet positions, which Bush certainly did.

Another thing I did not forget the democrat saying was that if it were Rick Santorum running for president, he would have probably voted for him.  The democrat said, “Santorum, now that guy is smart. I can see voting for him.” Whoa!  A democrat would have voted for Santorum because he is one of few politicians that actually is intelligent. If you have heard him in a debate, then you understand.

I couldn’t believe my ears at the time, but he was serious, and he had a good point.  Many democrats think they’re intelligent, primarily because they can regurgitate the brainwashing they received from the liberal media and public schools.  Some of them actually are intelligent and just lean socialist, under the faulty conception that socialism can work on a national scale, which has been proven false. In other words, their historical notions are inaccurate.

But the fact that a democrat would vote for a die-hard, solid, unapologetic conservative because such a politician not only seems smart, but is clearly intelligent and has a solid grasp of the issues, was an awakening for me.  Democrats and others voted for Obama because they thought he was smart, which he really isn’t but apparently has done a good job convincing many in the public that he is of higher intelligence, with some help from the media that is in love with him.

Let’s go back to the available list of candidates.  Do you think any democrat would ever vote for Gingrich?  There is evidence that this would never happen, given his consistent opposition to the democrat party.  It is true that Newt passed some great measures in cutting government spending and welfare reform, all of which Clinton took credit for regardless of the fact that Congress would have overrode his veto.  However, all of the measures were very conservative and Newt has little support outside the GOP.

We already covered Ron Paul, a great congressman and good man, but he seems unelectable.  Move on to Mitt Romney, this year’s establishment candidate.  He has many sets of flip flops on just about every major issue from health care to environmentalism, much like Newt.  However, he is also (gasp) a Mormon, something that doesn’t sit too well with many people.  I have nothing against the church of LDS, but that church is a very small minority in the country, and many consider it a cult.  We are just talking about practical electability here, and sadly, certain religions are a liability.

Here we go around again, full circle to Rick Santorum, who recently said “when the government gives you rights, the government can take them away.”  Let’s face the fact that there is nothing Santorum says that doesn’t make sense.  Foreign policy, domestic policy, all of it is hard to argue with.  So why does the establishment dislike Santorum?  Primarily because he is a true conservative, and the only one left in the GOP race. The establishment desires someone to preside over the decline of America, not a president that might reverse it.

There are four candidates left in this race to oust Obama, and two are proven flip-floppers that will likely not get any votes from registered democrats.  The third is a libertarian that is portrayed as an old clown, and the fourth is a common-sense conservative who has very few drawbacks other than his devout Catholicism and unelection from the Senate.  However, recall that Kennedy also unequivocally proclaimed himself as a Catholic before his fraudulent election as president.

Yes, we realize the likelihood of getting a GOP candidate fraudulently elected is very slim, since those tactics are pretty much reserved for the democrat party. Any republican fraud would be met with the greatest media outrage of all time, while jack-ass-party fraud tactics go largely ignored by the media. That is simply the situation we are in.

However, the appeal of a smart conservative that has command of the issues and can articulate his positions on such can be felt across the political spectrum.  Many democrats, Hispanics, independents, and other special interest groups could be intrigued and interested in Mr. Santorum because of his failure to toe the party line, but instead stand up for his beliefs and principles.

The case being made here is that Senator Santorum, despite his two drawbacks, could be the most electable republican candidate for president this year.  If you can get past his devout Catholicism and his failure to be elected to a third term in the Senate, the latter of which can be blamed on the referendum on GW Bush, then what are the remaining problems? None.

What you have in Rick Santorum is a solid, common-sense, “compassionate” conservative, that is simply unapologetic for his beliefs and principles.  The reason I enclosed the above word in quotations is that the real meaning of “compassionate” is often misinterpreted because of GW Bush using it as a term to propagate a big government socialist agenda under the Republican banner.  Real compassion means getting people off of welfare with jobs, not enrolling them as wards of a state which increases spending.

But Santorum believes in no such socialism as far as we know.  He hasn’t changed his views on the various issues of the day, in order to become more popular or likeable. In fact, he admitted the other day that he has not lost his principles, which the two former front-runners apparently have. Now, Santorum might be the frontrunner, after sweeping CO, MO, and MN.

There is more to it than just being the frontrunner of the day, however.  It seems very likely, given the intelligence of Santorum that even democrats admit to, that he would destroy Obama in any debate.  That of course, may never happen, and might in fact be a pipe dream.  Obama is not required to participate in a debate.  Obama has nothing to gain from a debate, since any of the remaining GOP candidates would utterly demolish him, teleprompter or not.

Instead, Obama will happily continue to let the media prop him up as a legitimate statesman, rather than the miserable failure that he really is, and the “mainstream” media will be delighted to continue endorsing him as some kind of messiah, even as their ratings go down the tubes.  That is because they have an agenda that is the same as that of Obama: presiding over the death and destruction of America.  Santorum has other plans, and that’s a good enough reason to get my vote.

The following comments were recently made regarding Rick Santorum:

What They Say

“Rick won’t apologize for America being great, and he will defend Israel. He didn’t shy away from taking on the partial-birth abortion ban or welfare reform, and he’s certainly not going to shy away from getting this country back on track.” — Kim Lehman, Iowa’s National Republican Committeewoman and former president of Iowa Right to Life

“Not many politicians have spine; this one does.” — Talk-show host Glenn Beck, introducing Santorum before a June interview on Fox News

Date: November 9, 2011

Moderators:  Maria Bartaromo and John Harwood.  Several other CNBC reporters participated in the questioning, including the fiery and popular Jim Cramer of Mad Money.

Immediately below are the participants in order of how they performed in the debate, and their best quotes of the night.  Following that is the debate summary.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul  U.S. Representative (Texas); Physician “The symptom is the current tax code, but the disease is spending.” “We need to differentiate between capitalism and crony-capitalism.” “The fact that there is over $1 trillion in student debt is proof that the government loans program is a complete failure.”

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney  Governor, Massachusetts;  CEO, 2002 Winter Olympics Organizing Comm.; Co-Founder, Bain Capital “The best way to improve the economy is to do the exact opposite of what Obama has done.” “The government needs to get out and let the markets work.”

Hermann Cain

Herman Cain  Chairman/CEO, Godfather’s Pizza; Chairman, Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank; CEO, National Restaurant Association “The tax code doesn’t raise taxes, politicians do.” “There are two other big problems with Dodd-Frank: Dodd, and Frank.”

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich  Speaker of the House, U.S. Representative (Georgia); History Professor “I have yet to hear a single reporter ask a single Occupy Wall Street person a single rational question about the economy … for example, “Who is going to pay for the park you are occupying if there are no businesses making a profit?”"

Michele Bachmann

Michele BachmannU.S. Representative (Minnesota): State Senator; Attorney “We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  Capital is mobile… and moves to where the lower tax rates are.”

Jon Huntsman

Jon Huntsman  Ambassador to China, Governor, Utah; Deputy U.S. Trade Representative “People are sick and tired of taxpayer money to bailout big corporations, and we’re not having it anymore.”

Rick Perry

Rick Perry  Governor, Texas: State Representative; State Agriculture Commissioner “Washington shouldn’t pick winners or losers; if you’re too big to fail, you’re too big.” “All regulations starting in 2008 need to be examined, and if it’s killing jobs, then get rid of it.”

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum  U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative (Pennsylvania); Attorney “We need to repeal all Obama regulations… repatriate those funds… have major energy development, and cut all subsidies.”

The debate was claimed to be almost entirely about the economy, and for the most part it was, but the line of questioning was somewhat odd, of course slanted, and specific questions demanded 30 second sound-byte answers, which kind of defeats the purpose about a general economic debate.

The first question was about whether we should let Italy’s economy fail, kind of an obscure question about the US economy, but no doubt CNBC wanted the participants to either commit or not to a foreign bailout, citing that if the IMF fails, US banks would.

Most of the contestants had different ways of saying we need to get government out of artificially propping up the banks, and let the market work by itself.  Paul was able to enunciate those points the best, and Newt added that Bernanke needs to be fired.

The next question from Maria, directed at Cain was apparently because CNBC was not satisfied with current level of infatuation by the media with the sexual harassment charges against Cain, but the audience became unruly at the question, and emitted some boos from being tired of hearing it already.

Cain stood his ground and was did not falter in vehemently denying what he called “unfounded accusations.”  He went further to say that for every accuser that has come forth, thousands of people would say that the behavior never came from Cain.

CNBC was still unsatisfied with the saturation of this topic, as Harwood asked Romney if, as a CEO he would have fired Cain for such behavior.  This was question was booed out by the crowd, and after the roar subsided, Romney wisely stepped back from the mic and said, “Cain has responded… I have nothing to say about it.”

Harwood then announced he would switch back to the economy, amid cheers from the crowd, and directed a class warfare question to Huntsman about 1% of the US making so much money, to which Huntsman said he wanted to be the president of the 1% and the 99%, but that America is sick and tired of taxpayer money going to bailouts.

Cramer then followed up with another class warfare oriented question to Romney on whether corporations have a “social responsibility” to create jobs, or whether they should just make profits.

Romney explained off the top of his head that profit is what’s left after all the employees and executives are paid, and are then used to expand business and grow jobs.  The profits and the job growth goes hand in hand, but Obama doesn’t like business and that’s the problem.

Newt then ripped into the media, “Sure. Look, obviously, corporations can and should do both. And what is amazing to me is the inability of much of our academic world and much of our news media and most of the people on Occupy Wall Street to have a clue about history.” Then added the media is inaccurate in reporting about the economy.

Maria took offense at this and asked him to be specific about the inaccurate reporting, to which Newt replied, “I have yet to hear a single reporter ask a single Occupy Wall Street person a single rational question about the economy that would lead them to say, for example, “Who is going to pay for the park you are occupying if there are no businesses making a profit?”

Then questioning ensued about why Romney doesn’t have a flat tax like the rest of his opponents.  Mitt responded that he’d like to focus on what can be done immediately to help the middle class, which has been hurt the most, by lowering their taxes.  But he’s not opposed to a flat tax in the future.

Others were asked to justify the “fairness” of their plans by making poor people pay more and rich people pay less, obviously with no regard to the fact that the poor pay nothing and the top 25% of income earners pay over 85% of the taxes under the current code.

Bachmann explained it best by saying 53% pay income tax and 47% do not, which is a big problem.  She said everyone should pay something even if it’s only $10, because everyone benefits from living here.

Most of the other candidates agreed that taxes and regulations need to be lowered, and support some sort of flat tax which grows employment, which takes care of most of the problems.  What they forgot to emphasize was that cutting taxes on the job creators is one sure way to create jobs, and we’d rather have poor people working then collecting government welfare.

Maria then gave them 30 seconds to say what they would do instead after repealing Obamacare, to which Newt scoffed and said it’s an $18 billion industry that affects everyone’s lives, and it can’t possibly be answered in 30 seconds.

Most of the others stated in some form that the problem can be resolved by states,  tort reform, and that doctors and patients can work out plans without the government regulating something.  Bachmann added that individuals should be allowed to buy any health insurance they want, outside the office, with no minimum requirements.

Perry said that we need to focus on providing health care rather than sick care, and need to get rid of frivolous lawsuits.  Cain said that the bill was already written called HR3000, which “Princess Pelosi” held in committee and never brought out for a vote.

On student government loan programs, most agreed that the government needs to get out of education, leading to Paul’s great quote about the loan program being a disaster that lowers the quality of education, and raises tuition rates. The subject then changed rapidly depending on the candidate’s talking points.

In the media highlight of the night, Perry announced he would cut out three cabinet level departments: Education, Commerce, and he forgot the third one.  He appealed to Paul for the third, to which Paul replied he had 5 departments to cut.  Perry would not remember until the next question that the third was Energy. It should be noted here that Perry would have finished about 3rd in this debate without this gaffe.

The media didn’t care that Obama thought there were 57 states, or that he couldn’t name even ONE program he would cut in the debates with McCain, but there will be no such forgiveness for Perry. Similarly, they didn’t care that Clinton was accused of actual physical sexual aggravation charges bordering on rape, but there will be no such forgiveness for Cain.

The question was proposed about how to avoid companies outsourcing to China to save on costs.  Most contestants said that lowering US taxes would level the playing field.  Mitt was most vocal, saying that China was a cheater, and he would label China as a currency manipulator and slap tariffs on them, due to China artificially devaluing their currency, stealing US info through hacking, and piracy.

Newt said the problem was complex and he would probably rely on someone like Huntsman who had a lot of experience with China.  Huntsman said applause-lines like slapping them with tariffs wouldn’t work, and China could claim the US was manipulating their own currency via “quantitative easing,” and then retaliate with tariffs on US products, creating a trade war.

The question was posed about how to gain bipartisan support, and only a few answered it with lackluster responses.  What I really wanted to hear was one of them say: the answer is to get rid of all the democrats in congress that have been steadily destroying this country, and replace them with people that will work for the country rather than against it.

They won’t attack him on his record of running successful businesses or his common sense political views however; it’s time to get personal.

Like Clarence Thomas, who the leftists still hate vehemently, they brought up some old sexual harassment allegations against Cain that were apparently never proven.

The facts seem to be that Cain, as president of the National Restaurant Association, fired a woman, who retaliated with a sexual harassment claim, in order to get some severance pay, which she then received in order to dismiss the matter.

If you’re not familiar with this type of business, what happens especially with large corporate organizations, is they will consider the cost of sending the CEO to court to defend charges versus a payoff to shut up the alleged victims. The cost of the settlement normally pales in comparison to that of the legal battle, which can drag out into massive attorney fees, not to mention horrible publicity for the executive and the company. Even if the charges have no substantiation, some kind of settlement is always far cheaper.

Why is this subject so important anyway? It’s not, but to the Democrat-controlled media it is a big part of their smear campaign against Cain.

It wasn’t important that Bill Clinton had numerous sexual harassment allegations against him, some of which included rape-like cases, rather than just “inappropriate comments” that Cain and Thomas were accused of. They tried to cover up the Weiner episodes and instead go after the accusers to vilify them instead.

It wasn’t important that Obama admitted in his book before being fraudulently elected, that he had been a drug abuser in college. Who cares if the person controlling the world’s largest nuclear arsenal is a drug abuser?

Things like that aren’t important. What is important is to smear conservatives on unsubstantiated personal attacks, because you can’t beat them on the issues.

In a disgustingly biased personal attack on Cain, posing as an actual news article in the Huffington Post titled “Intellectual Rigor vs Rigor Mortis,” the writer tries to portray Cain as some kind of idiot that would get wasted by the intellectually superior Obama in a debate.

No really, this is what they wrote about. The former CEO of a successful restaurant chain and the major national trade association for restaurants, is some kind of a dunce.

Obama, who has never run anything except a successful campaign, would beat up on Cain like Ali vs Urkel, it claims.

Here’s an excerpt:
“Beauty and brains against bigotry and bias. Truffle against trifle. You get the point. Obama does his homework and is not afraid of facts. But taking a look at Cain’s political positions, there is a consistent pattern of obstinate wrongheadedness.”

Wow, no bias there. The Obama “beauty and brains” comment is so nauseating that it’s hard to even read it, or any of the rest of that piece of garbage disguised as an article, but it was worth quoting just so you can see their vile, slanted, hatred towards conservatives.

Obama isn’t afraid of the facts that he has almost completely destroyed the US economy, and would have succeeded by now if the GOP hadn’t taken control of the house? Or the fact that he increased federal spending by over 30% his first year in office? Or the fact that he’s getting beat in the polls by a generic GOP candidate?

There are few facts that Obama should not be frightened about, such as the majority of the media who support him and his communist policies. Or the fact that he will likely raise more money from unknown sources than his opponent in next year’s election.

By far the majority of real facts do not reveal anything positive about Obama or his ability to run anything except a successful campaign using other people’s money.

Hermann Cain is infinitely more qualified than Obama to run anything, including his mouth. Cain actually understands how businesses operate and create jobs and wealth, since that is what he spent his career doing.

Obama only knows how to rob people of their wealth so that the government can spend it, while running his mouth about how great he is for doing so.

One of the best racist liberal rants about Cain is that “he knows his place in the back of the bus.” If the back of the bus includes being a CEO for a multimillion dollar company, maybe more people should be headed for the back seat.

Jo Biden is already taking credit for the Gaddafi death, saying, “We spent only $2 billion without losing a single life, and he’s dead.” The fact is that US forces weren’t even part of the air strike or ground troops that found the dictator, which is the primary reason there was no US loss of life, and we had no business in Libya anyway.  Senator Mccain has jumped on the bandwagon, giving Obama credit.

Gaddafi Dead Mug Shot

A NATO strike on his compound at 6am sent his convoy speeding away, but they could not outrun more NATO jets that struck his vehicles. Obama will no doubt at some point falsely claim that he ordered the strike, just like he lied about the Bin Laden death, which he also had nothing to do with.

Gaddafi then tried to escape on foot but to no avail. Gaddafi was reported to have been found hiding in a concrete pipe, pleading for his life. He was shot in the head and legs, and the details are unclear, but it appears he was fatally shot after he was found, telling them to not shoot, as an execution.

Pipe where Gaddafi was found hiding

The opposition forces who found the tyrant then paraded his body around for international TV so that everyone could see he was indeed dead, shouting “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is Great). They immediately released photos and videos, including the shaky video below provided by the UK Mirror. It has been reported that this rebel group is also persecuting Jews in the name Allah.

The bottom line is that the tyrant who once called Obama his muslim brother during a speech (that’s on video, it’s true) is now dead and it has nothing to do with this administration’s incompetent foreign policy.

Gaddafi and his brother Obama

All of Obama’s actions in sending US soldiers off to die in foreign lands that they shouldn’t be in, are geared to shore up his national security credentials, which he doesn’t have, so that he can claim he’s tough on foreign policy and so forth, to get re-elected.

Location:  Sands Expo Convention Center, Las Vegas, NV

Moderator:  Anderson Cooper (90)

Participants:  Gov Mitt Romney, Gov Rick Perry, CEO Herman Cain, Sen Rick Santorum, Rep Newt Gingrich, Rep Ron Paul, Rep Michele Bachmann (Gov Huntsman boycotted due to date changes.)

GOP Debate Participants and Moderator Anderson Cooper 90

The debate began with Anderson Cooper’s open-ended invitation for everyone to attack Hermann Cain, an offer they all took him up on.  Then it proceeded with quarreling and attacking, mostly involving Romney and Perry, and ended with Newt disapproving of the constant squabbling during the debate.

Romney and Perry bickering during CNN Las Vegas Debate

The following is a list of topics to choose from in this article. Underlined comments in the section represent best answers given.

Ranking the Debaters and Summary

Taxes and Cain’s 999 Plan

Obamacare Alternatives and How to Implement Them

How to Secure the Mexican Border

Opening a National Nuclear Depository at Yucca Mountain

Nevada Devastated by Real Estate Bubble

The “Occupy Wall Street” Idiots

Should a Candidate be Judged on Religion

Proposed Defense Budget Cut of $500 Billion

Foreign Aid: Should it Continue?

Who Can Beat Obama in the Presidential Election?

Conclusion

Ranking the Debaters

This is how the candidates performed and their best answers or quotes.  Note, these are not a ranking of the candidates themselves, just how they performed in the debate.

Details of the debate are listed below by category.  Best answers are underlined.

Taxes and Cain’s 999 Plan

Bachmann said you can’t give congress a new tax because they won’t get rid of the old one and they’ll raise the rate on it, whatever it may be. Her plan, which was not specified, calls for abolishing the income tax and flattening it for all Americans, however, everyone should pay, even if it’s just one dollar, just for the benefit of living here. Obama’s plan is destroying the economy.

Others such as Perry and Romney told Cain his plan “wouldn’t fly” because people would have to pay a national and state sales tax, in fact doubling purchase tax in some states.  They also claimed it was a “regressive tax” that would increase burden on middle class, raise rates, and not account for family support.

Cain had few allies, but defended his plan, said the math is available on his web site, and told the other candidates they were trying to mix apples and oranges, as in national and state sales taxes.  He emphasized removing the 10 million word tax plan with something simple that would create jobs.

The other candidates sounded kind of slow, by pretending they did not realize there’s a difference between the two, but they claimed to not understand it.  Newt defended the plan as bold, but said it would take several years to think it through.

The next invitation Cooper issued was for Perry and Romney to attack each other since Perry had previously called Romney a failure as governor.

Perry said we need an administration that doesn’t block our ability to harvest our own energy, so we can create jobs and have energy independence, to which Romney agreed.  Romney defended Romneycare from various attacks, as not being the basis for Obamacare.

Newt pointed out a Boston Herald report that the state is fining small businesses $3000 each, because their $750 per month health care plan is inadequate to the bureaucrats in Boston.  He said it was a faulty plan because it was designed in a top-down, big government fashion.  It also would not have worked in other states that didn’t have such an expensive federal Medicaid donation.

Obamacare Alternatives and How to Implement Them

All candidates agreed that Obamacare needs to be repealed, and offered solutions where patients and doctors could make decisions rather than the government.

Rep. Paul summarized the mutual feelings best: “Too much government is the problem… whenever government gets involved in something, the prices go up.”

At this point, Perry suddenly turned to Romney and brought up the same accusation from 4 years ago, that Romney had hired illegal aliens to work on his property (which McCain had, with the same certainty, accused of Romney, along with having a pink house, both of which Romney had denied.)

Romney, first laughed off the comment, then after being repeatedly interrupted by Perry in his defense of this, proceeded to lecture Perry on the rules of debate, told Perry he might be testy after some tough debates, and that if Perry wants to be president, he should learn to let other people speak. Perry received some boos during his interruptions.

How to Secure the Mexican Border

In the next question, Cooper stated that Cain had said at one point he would build an electrified fence on the Mexican border, but later said it was a joke, then again said he meant it. Cooper asked him to clarify.

Cain responded that we should secure the entire border with a fence, and use technology and boots on the ground to monitor it.  He also wants to improve the existing path to citizenship and enforce current immigration laws.

When asked if he would build a fence, Perry stated that we could build a fence, but it would take 15 years and $30 billion, but in the meantime we need boots on the ground.  A wiser expenditure would be to build fences in places where it makes sense, and use predator drones to monitor the entire border and give real time information to soldiers on the ground.

Bachmann’s take was a bit different, as she believes it already costs $118 billion per year for our government to take care of illegal immigrants, robbing each American household of about $1000 per year.  Therefore she would build a fence along the entire border, and remove taxpayer subsidies for illegal aliens.

Romney basically agreed with a fence and personnel to secure the border, and noted that 400 million are waiting to come here legally, and he would prefer they come in that way.  He also claimed that illegal immigration to Texas had increased 60% under Perry because of the “magnets” like in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants.

Cooper then of course raised the question of how they will woo the Latino vote after the racist act of closing off the border.  Newt said that people that came here legally should have the same America as everyone else.

Paul wants to remove the incentives for illegal aliens to be here, and to stop the group mentality of giving to one group (race) of people and removing benefits from another, and also that we should worry more about securing our own border than the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Cain said people of all color need a growing economy.  Perry said using our own energy resources would create jobs for them, but the current administration wants energy prices to go up instead. None of the candidates would repeal the 14^th amendment which protects “anchor babies.”

Opening a National Nuclear Depository at Yucca Mountain

Obviously a controversial topic in Nevada, there were some well thought out answers for this issue, which would require all nuclear waste in the nation to be hauled to Yucca mountain for storage.

Newt said we need to find a place to keep the waste geologically safe for however many thousands of years, and previous studies suggested Yucca was such a place.

Paul questioned the right of 49 other states to punish one state by dumping their garbage in it. The private companies should solve it, and energy shouldn’t be subsidized.

Romney said that Nevada should be able to say no if they don’t want the nuclear storage at Yucca, and the energy companies should give them a good deal to change their mind.  States could have competing bids if Nevada doesn’t want it.

Perry, in a rare moment, said “Mitt has hit this nail on the head,” and also agreed with Paul’s take.

Nevada Devastated by Real Estate Bubble

Santorum first claimed that everyone else on the stage supported the TARP bailout plan, except for himself, to which he was met immediately with shouts of “Wrong” by Perry and Cain.  The former senator insisted that Perry wrote a letter to congress to pass it on the day of the vote. He added that we need to let the markets work and not have managed failure.

Perry stated his letter was not to pass TARP, but to decrease regulations and taxes on business.

Romney disapproved of the idea that Washington DC can help the economy by intervening.

Cain said he supported the concept of TARP, but not how it was used by the administration.

Bachmann used this opportunity to appeal to women who are at the end of their rope and losing their homes where they raise children.

The “Occupy Wall Street” Idiots

Cooper quoted Cain as saying, “don’t blame banks or Wall Street; blame yourselves.”

Cain said that Wall St didn’t put in place failed economic policies or destroy the economy, and they’re taking out their frustration in the wrong place. They should be going to the White House.

Paul would blame Wall St, the White House, and the Federal Reserve. The bailouts from both parties went to big banks that were ripping people off. They should have given the money to people losing their houses, not the banks.  He added that the government is not capable of managing almost anything.

Romney pointed out that Obama has failed us on the economy, because he has no idea how the economy works or how to create jobs.  Median income has dropped 12% in the last three years.

Should a Candidate be Judged on Religion

Cooper brought up the controversy surrounding Pastor Robert Jeffress, who supports Rick Perry, saying publicly that Mormonism is a cult, and asked if the voters should pay attention to the religion.

Santorum said the voters should pay attention to the candidate’s values and what their faith teaches them about how to live their lives.  He said the road to salvation is not applicable to presidency, but the religion does have an impact on how the president will govern with respect to values.

Newt said none should judge others with their approach to faith, but because we are endowed by our creator with rights, who they pray to does matter.

Perry stated clearly that he did not believe the pastor’s remark about Mormonism, and Romney said he had heard worse disparaging comments about his faith.

Proposed Defense Budget Cut of $500 Billion

Bachmann said we’re losing international respect, as evidenced by an assassination attempt from Iran on US soil, and the president starting a conflict in a 4^th foreign country was stretching our troops too thin.  Her number one issue would be dealing with Iran and their nuclear ambitions.

Newt had the rant of the night by far on this one, and it’s worth quoting, “…look at this entire model of a super-committee, they have some magic number for us to get to, and if we don’t, then we all have to shoot ourselves in the head.  Then they’ll come back with the idea that we merely cut off our right leg, and then we’ll be grateful that they’re only semi-stupid…The idea that we have a bunch of historically illiterate politicians, who have no sophistication about national security trying to make a numerical decision about the size of our defense budget, tells you everything you need to know about the bankruptcy of the current power to lead in this country, in both parties….  We need figure out what threatens us, and find strategies to defend them… I’m a hawk, but I’m a cheap hawk… to say I’m gonna put the security of the US against some arbitrary budget number, is suicidally stupid.” This rant was met with intermittent but thunderous applause after each point.

Paul said he doesn’t want to cut defense, but would like to retract many of our troops stationed in Korea, Germany, Japan, and other places where we have no business. “The financial calamity is going to be worse than someone trying to invade us.”

Foreign Aid: Should it Continue?

Perry would like to have a serious discussion about foreign aid and funding the UN.

Romney pointed out that we’re borrowing money from China and handing it over to other countries. 

Paul said, “Foreign aid is where you take money from poor people in this country and give it to rich people in other countries, where they use it to build weapons of war.”

Bachmann said we shouldn’t cut foreign military aid to Israel, and we should be reimbursed by these nations which we have “liberated.”

Cain would like peace through strength, and start giving money to our friends instead of our enemies.

Who Can Beat Obama in the Presidential Election?

Cooper said a poll stated that 40% think Romney has the best chance, and Santorum only 1%. He asked if voters should go with the person they think can win.

Santorum said that less than half the people in a recent Pew poll could even name one of the GOP candidates.  He stated his track record as winning twice in the swing-state of Pennsylvania, against Democrat incumbents, as an unabashed conservative.  He neglected to mention that he didn’t win his last election, which in fact was more of an indictment on Bush and the entire GOP.

Romney stated his credentials as not spending his entire life in politics, but also as someone that created jobs in the private sector, and lowered unemployment to 4.7% in Mass as governor. He also stated that Perry supported Al Gore and 40% of Texas job growth involved illegal aliens.

Perry defended that he had created more jobs in 2 months in Texas than Mass has during Romney’s tenure, and said Romney was 47^th in job growth.

Bachmann claimed Obama will definitely be a one-term president.  She desires bold colors rather than pastels.

Newt said, “Maximizing bickering is probably not the best road to the White House,” referring to the debate format of back and forth quarreling. The former House Speaker said he would be strongest on sheer substance, and would like seven 3-hour debates, with no moderator, just a timekeeper.  He would like to reestablish American values.

Newt Gingrich disapproved of the squabbling like children

Conclusion

The closing remark by Newt, who seems to be the father of all the bickering children on stage, sums up the whole discussion.  Cain still refuses to attack other GOP candidates, but needs to do a better job of defending his tax and economic policies to have a chance.

The other candidates could learn from the wisdom of Newt and Ronald Reagan, but instead choose to attack each other, whether personally or on policy.  They should be disparaging Obama, and promoting their own records and policies, rather than assaulting their other candidate’s record.

Why they insist on viciously attacking each other makes no political sense at all, but they fall into the same trap every time.  It’s hard to believe but true.  All of the negativity they unleashed will be rehashed by their opponents next year, who will use the same tactics against them.

Perhaps the voters should elect someone who they think has the best chance of beating Obama, not only in a debate, but because of their electability, including appearance, available funds, and commercial ability.  Newt and Romney are the only candidates that seem capable of all of that.

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!

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

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?

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?

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.