GOP Debate

[Maggie]

My thoughts on the debate last night: In the spirit of the many 3, 4, 8 point plans – (1) I thought it was entertaining (even Mrs. Maggie was watching – she normally avoids politics like the plague); (2) overall better questions than the CNN debate; (3) I was hoping Thad would be there, his absence made me sad, really, it did; and (4) I didn’t come away from the debate particularly encouraged by any of the candidates. I was not discouraged either.

Romney was solid. He has assembled, by far, the best political organization and it showed. Now I could pick apart some of his answers – but no one managed to take him down a peg or two.

Gingrich, for the most part, impressed me and I think on points he won the debate. I also think he went into the debate looking to pick a fight with his inquisitors. Not that I think he is a viable candidate – too flawed. Oh, and Six Sigma? Really? – no one knows what you are talking about. P.S., he stands at the podium like he is leaning against a parking meter.

Ron Paul. When he talks about Austrian economics and monetary policy, I’m right there with him for the most part (heck even Mrs. Maggie says he is right about those issues – and she was pointing at the TV, emphatically), but then he falls back on “militarism”, etc. And his comments about the Iranian nuclear “issue” left me…..frankly speechless. The only thing I could think of was
this. Now Paul might win, for what it is worth, the straw poll – he has a good ground game and Romney is not competing against him.

Pawlenty is a good guy, a solid policy guy but in the first half of the debate he seemed desperate to me. Better in the second half; but all in all I don’t think it will be enough. Shame though, the GOP could do a lot worse than Pawlenty.

Herman Cain. Great answer on immigration but clueless on foreign policy. I think he could serve our country well contributing to a GOP administration but not as President.

Santorum I thought came across reasonably well. At first I thought it is hard to “look” presidential while essentially saying, “Hi, I’m lonely”. But I changed my mind. I thought his “cage match” with Paul was a (on both sides) principled, philosophical, fundamental disagreement. You don’t see that often. And I think I finally figured out how Santorum plans to get to the White House: (1) Tackle Ron Paul; (2) ?; (3) President Santorum!

Bachmann was generally ok (not making it back before the commercial break ended was a little weird) but she also sounded a little too scripted at times to me. But I think she got the better of Pawlenty in the first half.

Huntsman. Not impressed, sorry MSM.

[SB Shock]

I thought Romney was the most solid. I thought he had good answers on marriage and pretty good answer when attacked on his healthcare in Mass - he said simply it was the right choice for Mass. people but should be a states choice not the federal government choice.

On Ron Paul - his comments on Iran is a reason why I will never take him serious. Santorium had a very nice rebuttal.

[WuDrWu]

For whatever reason, when I completely agree with Maggie's breakdown it at least makes me feel like I paid attention properly.

I probably was a little more impressed with Santorum. I think he would make a fantastic President.

I agree we could do a lot worse than Pawlenty, but he seemed really desperate and I think it's just a matter of time before he's out.

And I think Newt is brilliant and would also be a fantastic President, but is unelectable.

Romney acted like the leader (to me at least) and did well.

The rest, to me, are just window dressing.

[RoyalShock]

Why did they include the guy from the Washington Examiner? He had an entire series of questions in the 2nd half that made my forehead red from all the facepalms. Save the liberal mods for the general election debates. I mean really, a question to Bachmann about Christian submission to her husband?

I was really turned off by Santorum's talk about state's rights. What I heard was basically, if I think they are doing bad things, I will stop them. And his thinking that our conflict with Iran started in 1979 demonstrated to me that he (and most of Washington) don't understand the Middle East nearly as much as they think they do. While I don't completely agree with Ron Paul that Iran should just be left alone, I think he's closer to understanding it than Santorum. After all, he named an act putting sanctions on Iran the "Iranian Freedom Act".

[BOBB]

Things can change, but I don't see anyone up there with the kind of appeal that translates to beating the president. I think Obama is Carter 2.0 and could be swayed to vote for a Republican. (Clinton twice, Bush twice [grudgingly, wanted McCain hated Kerry], Obama).

Also pretty sure the country will elect a LDS president right around the time we elect a female muslim. Not stating that as a good thing on either front.

Of course one might have said something similar about a black president.

[Maggie]

Why did they include the guy from the Washington Examiner? He had an entire series of questions in the 2nd half that made my forehead red from all the facepalms. Save the liberal mods for the general election debates. I mean really, a question to Bachmann about Christian submission to her husband?

Royal, the guy from the Washington Examiner was Byron York formally employed by National Review – was it kind of an “unfair” question, maybe, but it is bound to come up. That issue is out there, and he gave her an opportunity to address it, and she did, gracefully. I think it was a good moment for Christianity, marriage, women, etc. Rather than other media outlets being creeped out by evangelicals, he let her provide an explanation in a national forum.

As an aside, Mrs. Maggie was miffed. She thought it was "dismissive" not "submissive" - had to rethink everything.

[Kung Wu]

I didn't watch the debates.

That said, I cannot get past Romney = socialized healthcare in Massachusetts = FAIL.

[RoyalShock]

I didn't watch the debates.

That said, I cannot get past Romney = socialized healthcare in Massachusetts = FAIL.

I agree. However, I liked the discussion of what the states and feds can and cannot do. I think it was Wallace who asked the question and I got the impression he can't comprehend the difference between the COTUS and a state constitution. So I agree with Romney about the legality, but not the ethics.

[SB Shock]

Also pretty sure the country will elect a LDS president right around the time we elect a female muslim. Not stating that as a good thing on either front.

I have read that democrats have plan to use his LDS background against him. I don't think he is electable either. I think that the republican leadership knows it and that is why Gov. Perry is coming into the race.

[Maggie]

I didn't watch the debates.

That said, I cannot get past Romney = socialized healthcare in Massachusetts = FAIL.

I agree. However, I liked the discussion of what the states and feds can and cannot do. I think it was Wallace who asked the question and I got the impression he can't comprehend the difference between the COTUS and a state constitution. So I agree with Romney about the legality, but not the ethics.

That was not such a good question, was it?

[BOBB]

Also pretty sure the country will elect a LDS president right around the time we elect a female muslim. Not stating that as a good thing on either front.

I have read that democrats have plan to use his LDS background against him. I don't think he is electable either. I think that the republican leadership knows it and that is why Gov. Perry is coming into the race.

The democrats won't have to. Primaries in the south and heavily Catholic areas in the northeast will break that ground.

[MoValley John]

Also pretty sure the country will elect a LDS president right around the time we elect a female muslim. Not stating that as a good thing on either front.

I have read that democrats have plan to use his LDS background against him. I don't think he is electable either. I think that the republican leadership knows it and that is why Gov. Perry is coming into the race.

The democrats won't have to. Primaries in the south and heavily Catholic areas in the northeast will break that ground.

Catholics in the Northeast elected Romney.... As a Catholic, I know of few, actually no Catholics that vote along religious denomination lines. I know many that vote pro life, and several socially liberals that will vote for any Democrat. Many Catholics are funny, very fiscally conservative, yet extremely social justice libs. Regardless of that, none of the Catholics I know would refuse to vote for a qualified candidate that happens to be Morman.
We just hate the Dutch.

On the other hand, I know several protestants, mostly fundamentalists, that would never vote for a Catholic or a Morman, regardless of qualifications. I have never understood this and have questioned many of them on this. The answer never gets much further than the Whore of Babylon... They don't even begin with idol worship, just grab the dagger and go straight to the Whore of Babylon card.

As for the South in general, selling a Morman might be very difficult. This saddens me, especially when other than having a different religious denomination, that candidate just might mostly reflect their political views. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[SB Shock]

On the other hand, I know several protestants, mostly fundamentalists, that would never vote for a Catholic or a Morman, regardless of qualifications. I have never understood this and have questioned many of them on this.

Here is some scripture that might explain the thinking

Exodus 18:21 Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

You could even extend 1 Timothy 3 from church leadership to your nation's leader.

[BOBB]

Also pretty sure the country will elect a LDS president right around the time we elect a female muslim. Not stating that as a good thing on either front.

I have read that democrats have plan to use his LDS background against him. I don't think he is electable either. I think that the republican leadership knows it and that is why Gov. Perry is coming into the race.

The democrats won't have to. Primaries in the south and heavily Catholic areas in the northeast will break that ground.

Catholics in the Northeast elected Romney.... As a Catholic, I know of few, actually no Catholics that vote along religious denomination lines. I know many that vote pro life, and several socially liberals that will vote for any Democrat. Many Catholics are funny, very fiscally conservative, yet extremely social justice libs. Regardless of that, none of the Catholics I know would refuse to vote for a qualified candidate that happens to be Morman.
We just hate the Dutch.

On the other hand, I know several protestants, mostly fundamentalists, that would never vote for a Catholic or a Morman, regardless of qualifications. I have never understood this and have questioned many of them on this. The answer never gets much further than the Whore of Babylon... They don't even begin with idol worship, just grab the dagger and go straight to the Whore of Babylon card.

As for the South in general, selling a Morman might be very difficult. This saddens me, especially when other than having a different religious denomination, that candidate just might mostly reflect their political views. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

John, apples and oranges from statewide office to nationwide office, but fair point. Probably no greater concentration of Irish Catholics than in Boston. Living in the midwest you aren't as likely to come across large concentrations of Mormons. Here in the Nevada there are large concentrations as well as Idaho, Arizona and of course, Utah. My experience has been that the Catholics really have some difficulties with them. Not Iraq secular violence difficulties, just no likey.

Me being more or less agnostic, one man's version doesn't seem any more or less credible than the next. So voting for a person of any religion makes no difference to me.

I'm not a historian, but I'm guessing Kennedy didn't win too many southern states?

[Maggie]

Different world in JFK's time. Religion won't make a huge difference.