I finished all my papers and obligations last night and so I flopped down on the couch and stayed up until 11 watching the Republican Presidential Debate. THAT was entertaining. My initial reactions to the debate are that (1) Michelle Bachmann is on the war path (2) Ron Paul's foreign policy is incredibly naive. I stayed up late and watched Bret Baier and Co. asking candidates, Santorum, Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Huntsman, and Bachmann about issues like economy, leadership, judicial branch, Iran, and also about addressing allegations brought against the candidates. I had a good time. Now, it's the next day and the dust is clearing. Fortunately, the two initial impressions stand firm. Bachmann was on the war path. She called out Gingrich multiple times and came head to head with Ron Paul on Iran. Michelle is fighting for her life there in the Iowa caucus. She means business. She is pushing her ultra conservative views hard. That's going to be her downfall. I'm sure of it.
Ron Paul's views on government regulation and economy are so spot on. This man is a genius. But don't let him anywhere near foreign policy! Don't make Paul Secretary of State or Secretary of War. That wouldn't end well. Secretary of the Treasury? That's more like it. His naive belief that Iran will somehow fit into the Cold War model of mutually assured destruction is absurd. His blind faith in "diplomacy" betrays an underlying misunderstanding of human nature and of the Islamic zeitgeist! Bachmann rightfully called him out on this in no uncertain terms. Sadly, Paul did himself a disservice because his responses were weak and he appeared to be losing his cool.
A nuclear Iran is a global nightmare that is incredibly complex. War is not the automatic answer, but war cannot be ruled out. I feel that we don't understand the ramifications of a nuclear Iran and that leads us to a soft reaction. The Iranian Government (not the people) hates America. Iran hates Israel. Their religion is founded on extermination of infidel and martyrdom of their people. Such a radical regime having access to nuclear weapons is simply not an option. Frankly, Mr. Paul doesn't understand this and he's too biased against war to understand that sometimes the best solution isn't always the prettiest one. Because the Iranians sure aren't going to back down!
Mitt Romney was strangely silent throughout the night. He continually reminded us of his business successes. I think those are important, yes. However, I have observed that he leans very heavily upon saying "learning lessons from success and failure" than actually providing a plan. He's currently combating Newt Gingrich in Iowa and yet Bachmann and others went after Gingrich instead. Mitt was a seasoned veteran who showed restraint but his talking points became old after a while. Don't get me wrong. I feel that Romney is one of the most level-headed and electable candidates in the race. That is, if people can get over the fact that he's a Mormon. Please Christians, get over it and don't be so close minded. He may be a Mormon, but he shares a lot of the same basic values. Certainly, he's not saved, but that doesn't change the fact that, through God's grace, Mitt Romney is, in many major ways, our ideological ally.
My main problem is not his religion, but that he seems a little moderate on some things. He's by no means as ultra conservative as Santorum or Bachmann, nor does he have glaring political errors that have me leery of him. Largely? He's just vanilla on the issues. Yes, he may be pro-life, for true marriage, and supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I don't think that he puts as much stock in these beliefs as, say, Santorum or Bachmann. I think he's attempting to run on a ticket of getting the country's financial and economic state back on track. That's certainly a smart strategy and it's what American needs! However, if he's going to emphasize economy over social issues, he needs to be the clear choice in that category and I'm unconvinced that he is.
Santorum was also strong on conservative principles, but you could tell he clearly wanted to say more than he was allowed. Frankly, Santorum isn't going to win this. Not enough Republicans like him and he is hated by liberals as a homophobe and racist. That is just a losing combination. I feel that Bachmann largely follows this formula. She is ultra-conservative and is thus hated. I suggest searching Bachmann on YouTube to see the ire that she has aroused in many people in the country. She has become an easy political punching bag. I am 100% sure that neither Bachmann nor Santorum will receive the Republican Nomination nor could they possibly win the presidency.
Gingrich will kill the Republican party's chance of winning this election. This election is almost being handed to us because of how badly Mr. Obama has performed, but we can still lose it with a poor candidate! Mr. Gingrich's electability is so bad, I don't see why so many Republicans like him. They are going to shoot their election chances in the foot. He's been around too long. There is too much dirt to dig up. Plus, his name is Newt! Now, we have to look at this from a purely aesthetic point of view. Is it close minded of me to think that I don't want a president with the first name Newt? Just think of the international mockery. I'm sorry, Mr. Gingrich. It's not shallow. It's pragmatism. To me, Newt is a career politician and he's not a good choice for this country. He's simply been part of the problem for too long.
I was actually impressed with Rick Perry's performance. I was afraid he was going to be some ultra conservative hick, but he comes of as an accomplished and experienced man who knows what he's talking about. His real strong conservatism will prevent him from winning, but I would certainly vote for him over Bachmann or Santorum. From what I've heard and seen, he has improved greatly from the last debate. Apparently he's not much of a debater and that's apparent in the clips I've seen from the last debate. However, he certainly has improved and he impressed me.
At this point, I am endorsing Jon Huntsman for President. Jon Huntsman exudes confidence, experience, knowledge, and wittiness. Mr. Huntsman has a fantastic track record as governor of Utah (yes he's a Mormon.) He lowered taxes, abolished regulation, and improved business in his state. What he did with Utah, he can do with this country! It's fantastic to see a man who has a vision and yet we can look at his track record and see that his vision is something that is successful and works. Another fantastic skill he brings to the table is his position of US ambassador to China for many years. He understands how to deal with this incredibly complex and important foreign country. That is such a valuable and unique skill!
Mr. Huntsman puts a large emphasis on the economy and deregulation. In this election, that is the biggest issue. Social issues take back seat. Yes, he's pro-life (However, my quibble with him is his exceptions in case of rape or threat to mother's life. Even then, that is an incredibly delicate issue.) He believes that homosexuality is wrong though he wants to reduce discrimination and is for homosexual unions. He's largely consistent with my beliefs in that regard. I'm not happy with his acceptance of evolution and global warming, however throughout his campaign, he has made it abundantly clear that these are not the things he is seeking to focus on. For me, him believing evolution is a side comment. This man has the leadership skills, the experience, the know-how, and the professional attitude to lead this country where it needs to go. That's why I'm endorsing Jon Huntsman. I hope you'll do your research and made an informed decision. Maybe, you'll even come to the same conclusion as me. I can't vote yet, but I want to sway the opinion of those who can!
God Bless,
Stanley
P.S. I have a ton of material that I have been working on in fragments. There is more to come throughout the week!
No comments:
Post a Comment