I expected there to be a thread last night but since it didn't happen, I'll start it off. I watched it online via MSNBC. The questions I thought were in the fairly stupid department like as if the President is going to fix Social Security. The other dimwits are suppose to be the ones to do that and since we know they're not capable, it's not going to get fixed until it's bankrupt. Obviously more time was given to Perry and Romney which I thought was not fair. Here's my view of the respondents:
Huntsman- Half asleep and I wouldn't blame him. I think he was called twice for his response. Seems like a genuine kinda guy but did not strike me as Presidential.

Cain. I'm not sure why but I like this guy. No BS, no apologies, he just says it like he thinks it is. Of the respondents, I thought he gave the best answers.

Paul. As usual he was the most knowledgeable but he just doesn't look Presidential. While I understand that's not a necessary requirement, if he can't project in these elections, what is he going to do in a crisis?.

Perry. I like our Gov and he has done a lot for this state. He was polished but vague. I thought he ran hot and cold on the issues. He seemed like he was the "pinata" as he said, on the forum. I liked his answer about Texas prisoner executions which got the biggest round of applause.

Romney. Polished, no doubt, but he is business as usual and that's what he projects. We can't stand any more business as usual.

Bachman. Where did they find her? She's a long way from the sharpest tool in the box. If she wins the primary, Obama is a shoe-in.

Gingrich. A polished Washington bureaucrat. He knows the information but he doesn't bring anything new to the table.

Sanatorium as I call him. He was totally out of his element and added nothing. I was impressed they invited him to the debate at all.

So, whatcha think? Did anybody besides me even watch it?

 

I thought Herman Cain is best qualified out of all (democrats and republicans) to run this country. He is not the most eloquent speaker out there, but he carries his own and I don't hold that against him. Eloquence is what we have in the white house now and nothing has improved.

Whether he gets the nomination or not, Cain will get my write-in vote. Everyone else is either unqualified or too polished/political for me. I did get a chuckle when Gingrich said he would fire Ben Bernanke. Even though we all know he doesn't have the fortitude to do it.

 

Actually, I don't think the President has that power, Frank. I think Bernanke would have to be caught doing something illegal for him to be fired. Absent that, he has the position till 2014.

Personally, Gov Perry scares me. I doubt he has a conscience. And, he seems too much of a "cowboy" to me.

I like Herman Cain a lot, but don't see him having a chance in hell of getting the nomination.

We're in dire need of help as a Nation if Bachman or Gingrich are nominated, in my opinion.

I'd be fine with Gov Hunstman as the Republican nominee, but I suspect that won't happen. He thinks far too clearly.

At this time, the only one who seems able to take the nomination besides Perry, is Gov Romney. I'd be OK with him too. At least he seems to think before he acts, and I can't say the same for a couple of the others.

Ron Paul? I don't see him getting the nomination either. Santorum? Who's that?

Anyway, those are my personal thoughts, since we're "sharing". (Gosh, I feel like this is one of those "bonding" moments!)

- Jack

 

I honestly don't care - I just hope the one who has the best chance of beating Obama gets nominated. I could live with most of the current candidates, even the morons.

 

The only one up there worth anything is Paul IMO.... It's just to bad he not polished when it comes to speaking.

His idea's are solid, and he knows exactly what he wants.

For people worried about his "looney" ideas, which yes I will agree they are some, they would never pass the house/senate.

Cain would be my second pick.....

All the others are typical political trash.

 

Jack: It has never been done before, and some argue he does not have the power, but the President of the United States can fire the Federal Reserve chair and any of the Federal Reserve governors for cause. Inflating the currency and secretly loaning taxpayer money to European banks could easily be "cause"(s) for firing. Anyone who has studied the Federal Reserve extensively knows that they are not "Federal" at all and there is no "Reserve". They are essentially legal counterfeiters of fiat currency.


Ford: I agree with you that Paul and Cain are the only 2 that are non-political and would actually work to cure our economic problems, instead of using them for political advantage (Never let a crisis go to waste--Rahm).

People actually thought Ron Paul was crazy when he predicted the failure of Fanny and Freddy around 2002-2003.

 

Huntsman? Really? Did you watch any of the debate? He actually still believes in anthropogenic global warming. You could actually hear people laughing in the audience when he tried to sell his opinion.

Then again, maybe he has invested with Algore in Silver Spring Networks:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...llionaire.html

 

Missed most of the debate, but saw a little and am starting to form some opinions.

Fair or not, it's going to be either Romney or Perry with the nomination.

The good news is either one of them will kick the stuffing out of Obama in the general election.

Perry - Stumbled more times than I thought he would. He's capable of coming off better. If he picks his game up a little, it's his nomination to lose. He's sufficiently appealing to the far right and the mainstream Republicans.

Romney - Could be accused of being too centrist for some on the right. But if he gets the nomination and picks a true conservative VP, he will win huge and probably turn out to be a pretty good president.

Cain - I like him, because he keeps the focus on jobs/business and tells it like it is. He won't come close to winning the nomination, but he will be a good campainger for whoever does.

Bachmann - Iowa straw poll was a fluke. She's mid pack in this group and has no chance to win it. I like her conservatism, but she is not a good fit for the presidency and comes off poorly too much of the time. She would be demonized worse than Palin got. Probably best if she sees the writing on the wall, drops out and starts fundraising for the party and eventual nominee.

Paul - Love his domestic and ecnomic policy stuff (mostly), HATE his stance on foreign policy (mostly). The foreign policy part is a deal breaker for me. No chance to win it, but he keeps it lively and the country needs to hear what he has to say about the fed and monetary policy. So keep him around for awhile.

Gingrich - Also have a love/hate with him. When he goes all partisan conservative and anti-media, he is very articulate and I agree with him much of the time. BUT, he has weasled far too many times in the past, so I don't really trust him. I think the sense is his time is past and he has a weak organization, so he has no shot to win. VP, maybe? Not my pick, but he seems to know how to navigate DC, and that is useful in a VP.

Santorum - Nice guy, bright, decent resume, and should be doing much better in the polls than he is by now. He needs to recognize he has no chance, and step aside. So little name recognition and support, even VP nomination is beyond his reach. I thought he would do better, but his showing is so bad he probably will never be relevant in the future, either.

Huntsman - Go away, global warming alarmist. I admit I do like some things about him, but he is not what the GOP needs in a nominee, and he is wasting everyone's time. If he ran in the general election as an Independent/3rd party, he would probably draw more votes away from Obama than he would from the GOP nominee.

Bottom line is I'm waiting for Perry or Romney to dazzle me, but I'll vote for either one in the General without having to hold my nose like I did for McCain.

 

I'm sorry Frank, I know you buy into the pseudo-science that rejects the climate change theory. I happen to accept the majority opinion of the real scientific community on this.

I know there are others that share your views, just as there are folks who share mine. I'll probably be dead of old age before it's proven one way or another to everyone's satisfaction.

- Jack

 

What's most impressive to me is that everyone of your opinions are as weighty as the most powerful and richest people in the world.

I might as well been reading their posts.

 

Ron Paul pissed me off when he snubbed Bill O'Reilly and refused to appear on the Factor, saying that he's not a journalist. That's pretty cheeky when you are complaining that you aren't getting sufficient media attention.

Paul isn't in it to do anything, he's just an attention *****. If he were President, he wouldn't do jack squat.

 

Jack, I think he insulted you.... do your MODly thingy!

Seriously, I don't think any of them are a shoe-in to unseat Obama, which will not be a good thing for this country.

 

At my age, I find it kinda hard to "squat". Pretty hard on the knees.

- Jack

 

Climategate. Do some reading on it if your mind is as open as you say it is.

 

Frank, read some scientific journals if you want to learn anything. Forget the "soft pap". Hint: Pseudo-science sources are loaded with emotional words and phrases that try to convince you how right they are. You won't find that kind of thing in a peer reviewed journal.

So, I read both the "pap" that you seem to read and the other besides. I'd honestly love to learn that climate change is not happening. But, I doubt I'm going to be made happy.

- Jack