FOX News/Google GOP 2012 debate: The “Obama lite” label and venture socialism; Updated: Wrap-up, winners, losers
Graphic via FoxNews.com
The latest GOP 2012 debate starts at 9pm Eastern tonight on Fox news.
GOP Rep. Thad McCotter dropped his quixotic, redundant bid today (really, how many pro-bailout, pro-health care entitlement expansion Republicans do we need in the race), so he’s off the schedule.
Taking his place: Libertarian Gary Johnson. Yep, another quixotic, redundant bid. Because, you know, there aren’t enough open-borders, foreign policy ostriches in the current field.
I will be watching to see if crony capitalism/venture socialism takes center stage tonight.
With Obama’s Solyndra and LightSquared scandals breaking out all over, which of the current candidates is best equipped to provide a clear, credible alternative on this central fiscal/integrity issue?
It’s GOP Gov. Rick Perry himself who said the other night:
“We don’t need to nominate Obama lite. We don’t need to nominate someone who is going to blur the lines between President Obama and our nominee,” Perry said in an interview on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity.”
And yet, as I noted last month, Perry has exercised a disturbing habit of overriding the deliberative process, exercising unilateral executive authority, and benefiting donors and cronies with pay-for-play rackets galore.
Some remedial reading in preparation for tonight:
It is no surprise — given the Merck ties — that Perry is a consummate practitioner of corporate welfare “public-private partnerships.” Tim Carney, who wrote the book on Obama’s crony capitalism, dissects Perry’s big government-big business collusion in the Examiner today. As with the Gardasil mandate, Perry exercised his habit of overriding the deliberative process, exercising unilateral executive authority, and benefiting donors and cronies:
Corporate welfare king Boeing provided a formative experience for Perry. Weeks after Perry took over the governorship in 2001, the jet maker announced it was moving its corporate headquarters out of Seattle and was considering Chicago, Denver and Dallas. Undoubtedly, Texas provided the best business environment: lower taxes, less regulation, better weather, less traffic. But Chicago won because Mayor Richard Daley and Gov. George Ryan offered Boeing $63 million in “incentives,” including a $1 million buyout to a tenant who was occupying Boeing’s preferred office space.
One problem: Texas’ slower legislative process prevented the state from making a counteroffer. Perry was determined to fix this inefficiency so he would never be out-corporate-welfared again.
In his next State of the State address, Perry pushed the Legislature to create the Texas Enterprise Fund, giving the governor, lieutenant governor and House speaker the power to hand out multimillion-dollar grants to businesses seeking to relocate to or expand within the state. Two years later, Perry and the Legislature created another subsidy bank, called the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, using taxpayer money to invest in high-tech companies. Perry made government a venture capital fund.
Muckrakers at the Los Angeles Times and the Austin American Statesman have shown a strong correlation between Perry’s biggest campaign contributors and the money handled by these funds and Perry’s other public-private partnership. Almost half of Perry’s “mega-donors,” according to the Times, have received profitable favors from the Texas government. Poultry magnate Joe Sanderson, for instance, gave Perry’s campaign $165,000 and received $500,000 from the Texas Enterprise Fund to open a facility in Waco, the Times reports.
The Austin paper documents the unsavory case of $80,000 Perry donor David Nance winning a $4.5 million grant from the Texas Emerging Technology Fund. A regional board had denied the grant to Nance’s Convergen LifeSciences, but Perry intervened and ushered the grant through.
The Wall Street Journal earlier scrutinized Perry’s crony capitalism here.
Then there’s Perry’s troubling erosion of private property rights via the Trans Texas Corridor.
It is all of a piece.
The American Thinker has an excellent piece on “Perry’s Solyndra?” that delves into the aforementioned Convergen deal. Brian Carter writes:
Taxpayers continue to pay the bill for cronyism as the debt balloons, the dollar collapses, and our credit rating falls. From the 2008 financial meltdown, the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle, and multiple pork-laden stimulus bills to auto bailouts, TARP, and easy federal loans for speculative projects, the costs mount.
With such a clear pattern of corruption and special deals for contributors and insiders, how could Republicans possibly fail to capitalize on Obama’s reckless waste of taxpayer money in rewarding his biggest fundraisers? Republicans can easily throw away the advantage by nominating a candidate with a record of rewarding friends and donors with the spoils of government power.
In Texas, bio-tech firm Convergen LifeSciences looks a lot like Governor Rick Perry’s Solyndra.
Governor Perry manages the Emerging Technology Fund (ETF), providing financial support to companies developing new technology in the hope of creating high-tech jobs. First created in 2005, ETF is made up of regional panels that screen proposals for a statewide advisory panel (all appointed by Perry). ETF dispersed $342 million through August 2010.
Like Solyndra, Convergen’s project to develop a lung cancer treatment was easily identified as a speculative endeavor. Convegen’s proposal was rejected at the regional review board, part of the normal ETF evaluation process designed to insulate the program from politics.
Solyndra had George Kaiser, mega-fund-raiser for Obama. Convergen had David Nance, mega-donor for Perry. Nance is the founder of Convergen. Despite several business and personal bankruptcies — including previously failed companies partially funded by the state — Nance managed to donate $335,000 to Perry’s campaigns, association fundraisers, and foundation.
As in the case of Solyndra, Convergen received help in circumventing the normal process. This part is very murky. Somehow, the proposal that failed the regional review was presented at the closed-door session of the state advisory panel (which previously included Nance), where it was approved. While the governor’s office claimed that an appeal was filed, there is no appeals process in ETF’s charter. The process by which Convergen received $4.5 million — the highest amount ever awarded — was “extraordinary.”
Where Solyndra received a below-inflation interest rate, Convergen gave Texas an 8% annual interest promissory note with no due date.
Just like Solyndra, the principal investors unloaded risks on taxpayers. According to the previously secret state grant application, Convergen founders put up only $1,000 each, while Texas taxpayers put up $4.5 million. They were entering phase II clinical trials in late 2010, but only 33% of successful phase II drugs make it to market, and the success rate for cancer drugs is only 4.7%.
The big difference between Solyndra and Convergen is that Convergen hasn’t failed. Not yet, at least. The odds of success might be better than a roulette wheel, but this is taxpayer money.
Convergen is not an isolated case, either. In fact, Nance previously received state money “at the direction of the Governor’s budget office” for a now-bankrupt company which still owes Texas $50,000. Max Talbott served on Perry’s ETF panel and simultaneously was a paid consultant for several firms that sought and received money from the ETF. While he claims that he recused himself for some conflicts (in closed-door sessions), conflict of interest questions remain for other clients; $16 million of ETF funds went to the firms of major Perry donors, and $27 million of ETF funds went to firms of former ETF advisory board members.
There are also questions about unusual access by lobbyists who went to work for Perry and then returned to lobbying for firms doing business with the state. Still more questions exist about major donors influencing decisions, approvals, and the reorganization of state agencies. Much of this will almost certainly be revealed in the course of the campaign.
So far, the response from Team Perry has been to lump all critics of these deals in with George Soros and complain about the left-wing smear machine while failing to address the actual substance of the concerns.
The fact that Perry shares some of the same lefty critics as George W. Bush does nothing to answer the actual stench, appearance, and reality of pay-for-play under the Perry administration.
I was one of the critics on the RIGHT assailing W.’s corporate welfare deals in 1999 and his statist bailout deals during his last year in office that pre-socialized the economy for Barack Obama.
I agree with Perry on this: “We don’t need to nominate Obama lite. We don’t need to nominate someone who is going to blur the lines between President Obama and our nominee.”
Will Perry’s challengers put him to his own test? God knows the MSM will if he makes it to the general. And God knows the White House would welcome a GOP candidate who has to fight Obama’s culture of corruption with his own crippling baggage on the issue.
***
Update: Here’s my quick and dirty debate summary.
Herman Cain’s passion and personality really stood out. Still wish he hadn’t taken the Beltway GOP line on TARP, but his personal story, business experience, humor, and faith in the American dream really do add a grass-roots Tea Party flavor to an otherwise bland establishment field.
Rick Santorum came off well, I thought, on foreign policy and parental responsibility issues. Michele Bachmann stayed strongest on economic issues; she refused to take responsibility for overreaching in her Gardasil critique of Perry. Perry dug in on his Gardasil demagoguery, repeating his “erring on the side of life line” and invoking the Heather Burcham story as a defense.
Mitt Romney and Rick Perry played Punch and Judy throughout the night. Perry lost big in his continued defense of DREAM Act illegal alien student preferences. Frank Luntz’s focus group on Sean Hannity’s show after the debate unanimously panned Perry on immigration and especially took umbrage at his condescending line about critics not having a “heart.” Which follows on his similarly-toned line from the last debate about how Republicans should care about students no matter what their last names sound like.
(Reminder: Texas Tea Party activists to Perry: Hey, what about our borders?)
He blundered through what should have been an easy attack on Romney’s flip-flopping, leading Charles Krauthammer to note his fizzled-out answers. He “dissipated.”
And Gary Johnson delivered a recycled Rush Limbaugh joke about his neighbor’s dogs creating more shovel-ready jobs than Obama.
Winners: Rush, Cain.
Loser: Perry.
Also losers: Grass-roots conservatives looking for a more sustained discussion of how these candidates would distinguish themselves from Obama on the issue I highlighted pre-debate. Believe it or not, there was a single question about Obama’s spending corruption scandals. And it was wasted on Jon “MUTE BUTTON!” Huntsman.
Maybe next time…
***
One more entry for the losers’ column: The morons in the audience who booed the gay soldier. Shame on you.
More cringe: “HPV Vaccine Fact Check: Perry Misstated Relationship With Dying Woman.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments
Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing the economy
May 23, 2012 01:55 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Palin officially endorses desperate, clingy Orrin Hatch; time to rally around Dan Liljenquist
May 22, 2012 11:32 PM by Michelle Malkin
85 CommentsCatholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
A 2012 campaign must-read: The conservative survival guide to Mitt Romney
May 21, 2012 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin
159 Comments
Biden: Hey, I don’t blame people for voting for a convicted felon instead of my boss
May 18, 2012 01:21 PM by Doug Powers
73 Comments
Categories: 2012 Campaign,GOP,Tea Party
JustOneMinute
» Patterico And The Brett Kimberlin GangBabalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year
When I was in the military, there was a girl who we all imagined was a lesbian. She was excellent in her field of choice, and never hit on the guys OR the girls in the group. Just rumors. I was questioned once by the military police, digging for dirt, but she had never made a pass at me. I would visit her in her barracks room, but we always had the door open so there would be no question about what was going on. Good girl. Great worker. Smart. Don’t know what ever happened to her.
Alright, let’s sort out what we have here……
Perry, Romney, Huntsman….RINO’s, or at best moderates (on a good day)
Paul….the strange uncle you keep locked up in your attic. A few good ideas Ron, but an isolationism policy is not our best interests. And does anyone really trust Ron with the button and briefcase? I thought so.
Palin. Great for the moose population and hockey teams, likely not electable.
Bachmann….as conservative as they come, but again, doubtful that she could be elected and I say this about Sarah and Michelle because we have a conservative MINORITY, just like the progressive liberals have….in order for us to get an election win, it is absolutely imperative that we win the majority of the Independents….if not , we lose…it’s as simple as that.
Given that, I don’t think we can win with either of them.
Herman Cain. I love this guy, I really do. Would the winner please add Mr. Cain as the VP candidate? Thank you.
Santorum…..Feisty, fairly conservative, but seemingly lacking support.
Johnson….would get blown out by Obama
And that leaves Newt. Yes, I agree with those of you that did not like the couch session with Pelosi, but there is not one candidate that is perfect. None of them.
What Newt has going for him is education, intelligence, humor, a record with the Contract with America and a unique ability to answer the direct question with a direct answer and not politician b.s.
I would be interested in hearing all opinions, but I really believe that Speaker Gingrich is the best candidate and one that can easily take down Obama and would get this country going in the right direction and pronto.
No, I’m advocating it will that 16# to penetrate that thickness of ignorant bigotry.
Are you advocating that you agree with the bigotry?
Dang, is the stage set for Palin now?
Are you advocating that agreeing with the Bible is bigotry?
On September 23rd, 2011 at 12:37 am, Speakup said:
Yes.
babiesgrandma,
Sounds oh… so familiar. I was in TPU ( Transient Personnel Unit ) at Treasure Island in… ’81? We had an older E-5 that was in the process of retiring. He really didn’t want to but..?
Anyway, the Navy Gestapo called myself and others into the “tree of trust” to snitch on the poor guy. Total fishing expedition. “I mean, did he approach you about drugs?”
Like any good Chicago-raised kid, I ain’t saying nothin’! So they kept digging. It got more colorful and the only thing a jr. Enlisted can do in that situation is “dummy up”.
I know it’s hard to imagine in today’s military but, screwing people out of their retirements was pretty common place. After all we’re talking about $500 a month here!
All you could think was, hey, this could be me! Things just weren’t as formalized as they are today. Local discretion was everything. Of course being a full blown alcoholic was totally cool!
Which quote from the Bible was that again?
OK_Loyalist, you keep throwing the bigot accusation out there. Explain how my opinion is bigotry? I gave you the definition of bigotry.
Have I said anything about your or anyone else’s opinion about homosexuality? Have I advocated harm to or dismissal of anyone who disagrees with me?
You might as soon call it bigoted to say “the sky is blue”.
Explain to me how homosexual appetites can be considered normal, natural or healthy?
The purpose of sexual attraction is to produce offspring, just as hunger’s purpose is to encourage eating. If I become hungry for shoe polish, and reject any “normal” sustenance, it would be safe to conclude that there’s something wrong with me, either mental or physical. Or both.
There are lots of sexual deviancies. Some people get off on animals. Some get off on physical pain. Some get off on children. Some get off on dominance games. One might question whether any or all of these are debilitating; certainly a pedophile isn’t going to be raping babies in a foxhole. Nor is a sadist going to be torturing a cat in a foxhole. And if all military functions at all time were simply combat in a foxhole, an argument might be made that sexual appetites are irrelevant.
But, soldiers don’t spend 24/7 in foxholes fighting. Would you want to barracks with an open child molester? Would you want to share a shower with a platoon-mate as he describes in loving detail his latest encounter with the colonel’s mare? Would you practice hand-to-hand combat with a sadist, and be comfortable that any injury you sustain was merely an accident of training?
Would your sergeant inspire confidence if he walked into the barracks before an alert dressed like Eddy Izzard? Or Divine?
Do we really want the culture of San Francisco to be the culture of our military?
These are no debates. They are set-ups.
I love Herman Cain. I don’t have much money these days, but I’m sending him some. I hope he hangs in there. I wish I could have gone to his meeting here in FL the other day. He’s gaining support steadily.
I do NOT like Romney. He always looks like he’s been airbrushed or something. One of my friends will not vote for him because he is a Mormon. I won’t vote for him because I don’t trust him. I know I’ve said this before, but he reminds me so much of Ted Danson when he was on Cheers.
I LOVE Herman Cain. Did I say that already?
1. How old are you?
2. What area of the country were you brought up?
3. Did you receive a public education?
Drive to the panhandle and go to any feed lot and have them show you the “queer” lot. Who knows, one may grow on you.
On September 23rd, 2011 at 12:53 am, OK_Loyalist said:
Try this one…
lol
shirt
Drive to any hospital and ask them to take you to the cancer ward. I guess because people get cancer, and rats get cancer, it’s perfectly “natural” and “normal”, and should be given special acceptance in our society.
I prefer the diabetic analogy, actually. Being diabetic usually involves genetics, is not always debilitating, and not at all contagious. But, diabetics generally don’t pretend they aren’t sick, or that they don’t need treatment, and doctors don’t refuse to call it an illness.
Diabetes is perfectly “natural”. But it’s neither normal or healthy. Diabetics who acknowledge their illness don’t deserve scorn or ridicule or ostracism.
Oh, and neither diabetes nor cancer are known to induce people to take part in the Folsom Street Fair.
And while we’re at it…
Marshall_Will mentioned drugs.
Should illicit drug users be allowed to openly serve in the military?
Why not?
All addictions stem from the first addiction: sex.
Long ago I read yet another science article about a study where they studied heroin addicts, because they were the most recidivist. The reason given was that heroin gives a “high” most similar to the endorphin rush of sexual climax.
Prior to reading that, I always wondered why addictions existed. They are universally anti-survival. You’d think the vulnerability to addiction would have been bred out long ago.
But, one addiction is mandatory for survival; sex. There are praying mantis’ who will continue having sex even as their mate eats them. Sex without the physical pleasure, is messy, inconvenient, and undignified. Practiced at the wrong time or with the wrong partner, it can get you killed.
Animals (that would include us) without the higher cognitive skill to rationalize “I better have sex so the population doesn’t die out”, are far less likely to have sex without the addiction factor. If we managed to breed addiction out of our nature, we’d likely die off. Any such lack of addiction is likely to be bred out of the gene pool.
So, since sex is, and was the first, addiction, surely we shouldn’t discriminate against other drug addicts serving openly in the military?
I guess bashing the homosexuals gives you wood
HiraghmBig BoyHiraghm submitted well-reasoned comments, and OK_Loyalist responded with ad hominem.
OK_Loyalist, is that really the best that you can do?
It is not “bashing” someone to speak the truth in love to them.
Jesus loves you, but he does not approve of sin.
If you are engaging in homosexual behavior, it is the result of “a debased mind” and God calls that behavior “against nature”, “shameful”, etc.
There is healing and a renewing of your mind that can come from repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Incarceration into treatment centers is well-reasoned?
Really?
Ron Paul won. Michele must have only seen part of the debate. Have a nice day.
Just checking in guys, hope your ready for your next new world order, globalist bastard approved Republican Presidential Candidate, cause that’s whats were gonna get. At least MM gets it that Bush helped pave the way for this Communist College professor to be king.
Pretty sweet huh? What was it that ol’ Bushy said about sacrificing the free market to save it? Somebody help me out here. Or have you all forgot how you were played back in ’08.
DONT get distracted by these ken doll fakers. Make sure we take the house, senate and local races. Obama can’t organize enough black panther thugs to steal it all, and THAT is where the hope is, friends.
Ron Paul has 39.16% of the vote right now on the fox news quick poll on who won the debate. It’s about 1:48 AM Central Time Friday morning, so he will probably move up before sunrise. Have a nice day! Romney is in second place with 23.12% and Perry eeking out a 3rd place over Herman “Netenyahu tells me what to do” Cain.
I watched. First debate I’ve sat through this season. My scattered thoughts:
Perry—bombed. [channelling my inner Dr. Suess] He cannot, must not, win the nomination.
Romney—didn’t completely suck, but he a) insists RomneyCare isn’t like ObamaCare, and b) said he’d issue an ObamaCare waiver to all states but said nothing about urging a repeal. He’s well-groomed, and he has good posture. He didn’t make me want to throw a rock at my TV, so there’s that.
Cain—one of the better candidates, which unfortunately isn’t saying much. His “9-9-9″ plan sounds too gimmicky. Why not “10-9-8″? “8-9-10″? “8-8-11″? How the heck would he convince the Beltway folks to implement the idea? Not only is it gimmicky, it’s unrealistic, just as it’s unrealistic to eliminate the EPA. Reform it? Sure. Eliminate the EPA and start over? Good luck with that. Cain’s picks for running mate would be Romney or…Gingrich? Urg.
Bachmann—meh, not much of a standout performance. Unlike the border fence proposal Bachmann made, I don’t think a fence from one end of the southern border to the other is practical or necessary. However, she’s the only one who said (or had the chance to say) she’d repeal ObamaCare. I need to brush up on my constitutional knowledge to know for sure if the president has the power to repeal a law. I hope so, or it would show that Bachmann doesn’t know the Constitution as well as she lets on. Her answer to the VP “game show” question was the best of the bunch, though.
Gingrich—another Contract with America? Oh goody. Caution to everyone: read the fine print before you sign anything. I haven’t forgotten who was sitting next to you on that couch, Newt. Also, training programs don’t get people off unemployment. Jobs do.
Paul—if not for his lame, total non-interventionist foreign policy stance and hints of Trutherism, I might pay attention to the other things he says.
Santorum—some hits, some misses. He was emphatic with his insistence that nobody’s saying illegals shouldn’t be able to go to school here. I guess that means I’m nobody. I like that he believes we should be fighting wars to win and that troops should stay in Iraq until that country’s transition is complete. But he lost me again with his “Vice President Gingrich” response.
Huntsman— thinks T. Boone “Windfarm” Pickens has good ideas on energy. He also says that only Pakistan can save Pakistan and that only Afghanistan can save Afghanistan. So who will save the U.S. from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the many others who would love to see us destroyed?
Johnson—VP Ron Paul. I have little else to say, other than he ought to go back to whatever he was doing before tonight. He’s not presidential material, no matter what Romney says.
I’m still unsatisfied with any of their solutions to stop illegal immigration. Illegals, their enablers, and their employers will always find ways to get around obstacles like E-Verify and border fences. End the incentives. Enforce the laws. Quit looking the other way, and put the violins back in their cases. The heart of America can’t afford to bleed. Not anymore.
Perry’s “putting aviation assets on the ground” remark was good for a chuckle, though.
Winner—words…that mean…things…’n stuff. Romney gets a candy bar. Cain gets a big cookie. Santorum and Bachmann each get a package of gum. And the rest, they get a rock.
In other words, I’m glad the election isn’t tomorrow.
As you said, it is natural and so is cancer. I’d say, thankfully, it isn’t ‘normal’ given that very few people are homosexual. That leaves ‘healthy’ which in a broad sense speaks to my main objection – homosexual behavior does not produce life so it is, in a sense, anti-life. If everybody was suddenly homosexual tomorrow is there any question that humanity would become extinct in short order? What purpose does having two genders have if not for being attracted to each other in order to create new life like any other sexual species?
There’s nothing ‘special’ about that aspect homosexuality outcome either because a multitude of physical defects, such as sterility, would incur the very same outcome. Just the simple cessation of sexual attraction altogether would cause the same outcome as homosexuality.
So in my mind, the above makes homosexuality an irrelevant defect, (irrelevant because it is only a small percentage of the population), that deserves as much ‘celebration’ as impotence or missing ovaries.
I agree with you Yoda. I think that most of the criticism on Newt have been coming from Paul supporters. Also, the media have been ignoring him knowing that he would destroy Obama in debates.
He clearly is the smartest, most experienced and most knowledgeable candidate in the field. Also, he’s the only guy in the field to lead Congress to balance the federal budget in the past 50 years. I predict that he will begin to climb in the polls and be a contender in the next 60 days.
The more they talk the more disappointed I get.
Realistically though, nobody is perfect (I have to keep reminding myself of that fact). At least whomever gets the nomination won’t be a surprise to us like Obama was to the dems.
The critisism I have on Newt is his personal life. Infidelity, dishonesty and corruption are things I just can’t tolerate in a candidate. Not saying Newt is all of them (just one), I just have a HUGE problem with those foibles.
That is an unfair assessment. In my case, the fact that Romney is a Mormon is one of the things I LIKE about him! Mormons have strong family values and deep faith. I have NO problem with Romney being Mormon! So your blanket statement saying that is the reason people don’t like him is the same as saying people don’t like Obama because he’s black. You should know that we judge our candidates on deeper issues than that! I have Mormon relatives, including Orin Hatch, who is my 8th cousin once-removed!
I really don’t like that Bachmann has dug her feet in with regards to the Gardasil issue. The least she could do is just drop it. She is in danger of losing my support. Especially consider that Cain performed so well. He needs more press. If he can find a way to get more exposure, I would be willing to get behind him. He can’t just be one of the crowd any longer.
I actually liked Romney. I’ll never vote for him, but I can see where he may sway independents.
Hmmm…where did I hear that before?
Oh, yeah…here – #15
This kind of statement makes me crazy!!! You would SIT OUT the election? What about the other races? Senate? House? Local races? You would throw your vote away because you are in a snit about the presidential candidate? I suggest you rethink that ridiculous statement and CHANGE.YOUR.ATTITUDE! We MUST take Congress…so whoever is POTUS will not have so much power. What part of that don’t you get?
Glenn Beck just said that he thinks the next POTUS will be Barack Obama. He doesn’t like ANY of the candidates. He said, “Please God, save us!” That leads me to another thought that many here disagree with. Marco Rubio. He has it all and would beat Obama. Now, I realize he is new and inexperienced. I realize he would make an incredible Senate Majority Leader. But we are getting desparate and he WOULD beat Obama, hands down. He is also a strong, moral, courageous Conservative who would serve this country well and restore honor and respect to the office of the Presidency. We MUST restore respect in the world! If we are not feard and respected, the other countries will destroy us.
The only other thing that would help is having Cain as VP running mate.
Glenn Beck just said that “If a progressive wins the WH in 2012, our country is OVER.” and…”If a progressive Republican is elected, our country is OVER, maybe just not quite as soon”.
Cain/Rubio
or
Rubio/Cain
Unbeatable
Happy
Unfortunately there are a lot of people who won’t vote for Romney simply because he is Mormon. See a previous post on this site stating that “my friend won’t vote for Romney because he is Mormon”.
I think you are saying that isn’t the only reason and I have no problem with that. There definately are still a lot of people who have been indoctrinated to think Mormons are some strange cult and thus NOT “votable” though.
I actually watched this debate out of curiosity. This is my take of the candidates’ performance.
Perry – I cannot for the life of me understand how he thinks he can be elected or get the nomination with his Dream Act stance. He’s totally out as far as this household is concerned. I do not see him going the distance.
Romney – Romney will do what he did before. Fight then fade. He came off as a bit of a weasel. Also in the fact checking, he is getting beat up badly.
Paul – We all know we get with him. He’s consistent. So are his supporters. As solid as most of his answers when not dealing with foreign affairs, he is lacking the charisma or leadership this country needs to overcome the depression in mood Obama has caused.
Bachmann – She’s fading due to self-inflicted verbal wounds. While she may have relatively good talking points, what is absent is…what has she done? What has she led? Where is the experience?
Johnson – Meh. He can go home. The paint on my wall gets my attention better than he does.
Cain – Most human of the batch. He showed everyone why he won me over early. He’s got the experience, leadership skills, and charisma to get something positive done. Of the batch, his warts are the smallest. Gingrich as a VP choice actually does make sense. Cain is weak on experience in the political realm. Gingrich covers that weakness.
Gingrich – Good with the humor and witty responses. But he relies to much on the past. VP – maybe. Pres – I cannot see how he could get the traction to win. Gingrich vs Biden in a debate – Biden would look even more foolish.
Huntsman – I wouldn’t buy a car from him. He looks like a hyper rat w/ graying hair. Totally lacking in leadership. Too much of a slimy weasel.
Santorum – Mixed on him. His answers varied from good to meh. But he really needs to work at his facial expressions. It seemed like he was sucking on a batch of Sour Patch Kids.
Myron
Please! You would rather have Obama than Romney? I had to really hold my breath to vote for McCain but at least I can say “I voted against Obama!”.
I thought Santorum had a great response when he said (paraphrasing here) why is it ok to give illegal aliens in-state tuition rates when American citizens and Legal Immigrants in the other 49 states that want to go to school in Texas have to pay a higher tuition rate. It isn’t about having a heart it is about entitlements to those who have no business collecting them.
.
And Ron Paul won pretty much every straw poll leading up to the 2008 election, but when it came to the primary vote how did he do? Oh that’s rigth he fell flat on his face. Online polls are not that accurate. It is not that hard to “fool” the site into letting you vote multiple times. For example, I have a total of 5 computers in my home for my family. I can vote 5 times in an online poll without needing to do anything else that can be done to manipulate an online poll. I can then go to work and use a few different workstations to vote again.
Here is my predicition about Ron Paul, he will stay in it continue to do well in the polls and drop like a stone when the Primary voting starts. In large part because of his foreing policy and who he has said he would consider for his cabinet (Dennis Kucinich).
With that said Congressman Paul would make an excellent Treasury Secretary or head of the Fed.
I truly believe the only two people in that group who would make a good POTUS would be Cain and Gingrich. A Cain/Gingrich or Gingrich/Cain ticket might work. Yes, I know, Gingrich is somewhat of a RINO, but he is NOT a progressive! He is smart and has strong Conservative ideas on the major issues. I know his personal life leaves something to be desired, and there was that couch “episode” with nancy, but that is minor compared to leading a country back from the brink of desolving! He really does have what it takes.
My big issue with Gingrich is, I can’t stand to look at his wife. She has that strange, fixed stare that is truly unsettling! I have a feeling she would be raked over the MSM coals!
Yes! And any of the others on stage last night would make excellent members of the new administration! Sure beats the communist czars in power right now!! It just sickens me to know who is running this country. Every one of them is disgusting. What a refreshing change it will be to get people with VALUES and COMMON SENSE in charge!
I liken homosexuality to dyslexia. It is naturally occurring and is not destructive but it is a crossed wire in the brain. I don’t dislike them, hate them or fear them. ( I DO hate the overuse of the word homophobic. seriously, stop projecting already) I really could not care less who they want to sleep with if they are consenting adults. I am quite sure I have worked with more than a few in my 25 years in the military and have never had a problem with them nor they with me. I think don’t ask, don’t tell was the best policy to date because it was not anyone else’s business who you were dating. But it is NOT normal. It just isn’t and proclaiming it so does not make it so. I think the biggest push back on gay/lesbian rights is them trying to force people to believe something they know is not true, namely that homosexuality is normal. Being gay does not make you a lesser person, it just means you do not process things normally- like dyslexia.
I can see why Sarah Palin is showing within five points of Obama on some polls; right now I feel like we’re getting at best a potential seat warmer for Hillary Clinton or Andrew Cuomo in 2016. Of the bunch officially in the race, I like Cain the most but realistically he doesn’t have much of a chance. We’ve bought the idea that we can only elect professional politicians.
Can anyone tell me why Huntsman is even still in the race? I have yet to hear anyone excited about him being in the race (perhaps if I was a fly on the wall in the WH it would be different).
Newt doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, but at least he has added to the debates (especially with his questioning the premise of the moderators).
I thought Romney came across as fairly polished and was able to handle himself pretty good (which whomever becames the candidate will have to do everyday with the MSM not just in the debates with Obama). With this being said, there are still a few things that I don’t trust Romney on (Romneycare, social security to name a few).
Perry was the big looser in the debate. He fumbled around for answers and just came across as lame when it came to illegal immigration. I thought it was great when Perry said all the things he has done that would secure the border instead of building a fence and Santorum asked him how was that working out (of course he didn’t answer).
Bachmnan did ok. I don’t feel as though she gained ground, but she didn’t loose ground either in my opinion.
Herman Cain was great. His personality combined with his straight forward answers is great. I would love to see Cain win the nomination, but he would have to gain alot of traction by the Primaries to do so. He would make a great running mate for homever is the candidate if he does not win the nomination.
Santorum did a great job. He handled the questions pretty well and made some great points. I doubt that he will gain enough traction to make it through the primaries. If anything else he did shine a spotlight on weaknesses of other candidates (like Perry on immigration).
Johnson sounded like a one answer guy “if elected I will pass a balanced budget ammendment”. Sure the BBA should be passed, but it seemed that was he answer to everything. Perhaps he can take Huntsman and they can both go.
Practically any Republican could beat Obama. Obama’s TOTAL approval is averaging only about 2 to 3 points higher than his STRONG DISapproval.
The question is not “Can we beat Obama?”
The question is what kind of Republican do we want in the White House? One who will lead and champion a conservative agenda? Or one who has already sold out to the “prominent Republicans” in back-room deals, like Romney did on February 6, 2008? Romney is a classic “Rockefeller Republican”, and will represent the Globalists’ interests, not the grassroots conservative Americans’ interests.
And I’m not convinced that Perry is much better.
What we need is to take a “McCain/Palin” bumper sticker, cut off and throw away the leading “Mc”, and then swap the first and second halves… “McCain/Palin” becomes “Palin/Cain”…
I can’t speak for Hiraghm, but I didn’t see anywhere that he mentioned incarceration. He said homosexuals belong in treatment centers, and compared them to cancer patients. Well, cancer patients (many of them, anyway) belong in treatment centers also, but few would actually advocate incarcerating them there.
FROM:
McCain * Palin
TO:
Palin * Cain
Absolutely, I would never advocate incarcerating homosexuals into treatment centers! It’s not contagious, as far as I know. That would be like forcing young girls to get Gardasil injections, only worse.
That’s a very good analogy, better than my cancer or diabetes analogy.
Remember the 3rd X-Men movie, where they found a “cure” for mutants? Magneto (or whatever his name was) rejected it, because it dared to suggest that there was something wrong with mutants. While forcing mutants to be cured would be wrong, IMO, I kept thinking of Rogue, and how she could never touch anyone. Why should she be condemned to an isolated life because some other mutants might be insulted at the suggestion that they weren’t natural, normal or healthy?
And if homosexuals could be “cured”, shouldn’t they have the option? But, PC dogma condemns anyone who suggests that it is an illness that can be treated and possibly cured.
The question we really need answered is, who’s most likely to change the way Washington does business? My best guess at this point is Bachmann, but she is being marginalized by the MSM at every turn.
That pretty much sums up my viewpoint on homosexuality. None of anyone’s business and the gays need to stop flaunting their lifestyle. I don’t care what they do, just leave me alone and I will leave them alone. We have gays in our family, as most people do. They are just fine. I love them. We don’t talk about our sex lives and they don’t talk about theirs!!
Wait wait wait. So, McCain said I was racist for daring to notice the negative impact of unchecked illegal immigration. Now Perry is saying I am heartless for noticing the negative impact of unchecked illegal immigration? They really don’t want my vote very much, do they.
Enough already about these fools. The media and the dem primary voters are going to choose the candidate. Get used to it. The only way WE win is a tsunami in the House and Senate, yes, with Rubio as leader perferably.
Obama can then proceed to further disgrace himself and face possible impeachment by a REAL conservative congress. They can throw the book at him for everything he has done. No way he will continue the petulant child dictator act with a supermajority of solid TEA partiers in Congress.
Screw the New World Order approved candidates, this whole things a joke and the jokes on you! Support conservatives in the House and Senate primaries!
I could live with that.
I don’t hear Perry talking like a Presidential candidate…he’s stuck in his “Texas World” and can’t seem – as a POLITICIAN! – to shift the answer to a question into the proper NATIONAL framework.
Where’s the “this is what’s right for my state, but as for the Nation as a whole…” talk?!
Where’s the “I may support this for my state but as President, it is more inportant that…” talk?!?
IT’S NOT THERE. AND, UNTIL IT IS, PERRY IS TOAST.
He’s NOT READY for primetime.