Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The Christie impact

There have been discussions the past few days that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie might be joining the Republican race for the White House.

While much of the debate has been around if he’ll run, that’s a question that can only be answered by Governor Christie himself. Instead, we can look at what it means if he does get in the race.

Christie has become a rising star in the conservative movement. Since taking office in 2010, he’s taken on teacher unions and has earned the support of conservative political commentator Ann Coulter.

Christie is also a proven force in the world of campaign fund raising. He’s currently scheduled to attend a fundraiser in Louisiana with Governor Bobby Jindal where tickets will go for $10,000 to $100,000. He’s also attended a $10,000-a-plate luncheon this week in his home state. That’s nothing to sneeze at. Regardless if he’s in or out of the race, Christie could be a huge force for the Republican Party just by helping raise funds as the GOP looks to take on Obama in 2012.

Yesterday during his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said that Mitt Romney would be hit the hardest if Christie got in the race. I’m not sure how much I agree with that one. Much of the Romney supporters I run into cite either name recognition or a belief that he has the best chance to knock off Obama. Christie doesn’t exactly scream national name recognition. While conservative news junkies are well aware of him, it’s hard to say he’s got the same national name recognition as Romney. While he’s a strong candidate, I’ve yet to see him be as smooth as Romney has been of recent. The only way Christie might pull support from Romney is in that they’re both from the same region geographically. The Northeast hasn’t exactly been a huge player in the primaries.

Rick Perry, who seems to be losing steam over the past few weeks (failing to win either the Florida straw poll or the Michigan straw poll) is the one who appears to be one who could lose a lot if Christie gets in. Much of the support for Perry has come from the fact that he presents himself as the most conservative candidate (outside Ron Paul who scares most Republicans with his foreign policy). Christie provides another strong conservative who might be able to present himself better in debates than Perry has lately. He doesn’t have any of the conservative hang ups that Perry does with his border security policy and the Gardasil debacle.

The ones who will be hit the hardest are those who are looking to get some traction in the race. Michelle Bachmann has been slipping all too quickly. Newt Gingrich has been great in the debates but hasn’t really gained a huge following. While Herman Cain has been gaining strength, that could take a bit of a hit if Christie gets in the race. For the rest of the group, they could have their campaigns come to an end if Christie becomes a factor.

It will be interesting to see how things play out if Christie gets in the race. I don’t feel like most conservatives have found a candidate they really like. Many are just settling for the best in their right now. That could change for a few with a Chris Christie run.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Tweetin’ and Debatin’!

One thing I’ve come to enjoy this political season has been the live tweeting. What’s live tweeting? It’s the act of tweeting during an event. It essentially turns Twitter into a large chat room as people exchange their thoughts on what’s happening.

So for tonight’s Republican Presidential debate, I invite you to join me for a little live tweeting. I can be found on twitter @Dan12R. If you’ll also be live tweeting, share your Twitter username in the comments.

A few people I enjoy following during these type of events are as follows:

While I can’t say with much certainty that all of these individuals will be live tweeting this debate, I would say that there’s a good chance the majority of them will. I hope you’ll all join in. I look forward to some good comments throughout the night. The debate starts at 9 PM E.T. and will be on Fox News.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Obama says “Pass this bill” …Again

I hate to say it, but America doesn’t have a President anymore. Barack Obama is in full campaign mode right now at the expense of his role as a leader in this country.
I say this after yet another speech by President Obama asking Congress to “Pass this bill." Fun fact: it took Obama a total of 38 seconds to say that very phrase. During this speech, Obama presented his plan for paying for his American Jobs Act. In case you didn’t see it, here it is.



Early on, Obama engages in class-warfare. He talks about the concept of “Fair share” which is nice, but what does that mean? He talks about the middle class not carrying the burden and then essentially says that the rich and the corporations need to be taxed more. That doesn’t sound like everyone pitching in. He talks about not cutting entitlement programs while suggesting that businesses need to pay more. So in other words, Obama believes that a fair share is that businesses and the wealthy pay more in taxes while those taking advantage of entitlement programs keep taking the same amount from the pot. Where do these people give?

If we’re talking about a “fair share,” wouldn’t that mean everyone pays the same percentage? However, the current tax rates have the rich paying the vast majority of the financial burden on our country. I’m not saying we need to move to a flat tax, but the terminology used by Obama is questionable. It’s very much campaign speak. “Fair share” sounds good, especially to Obama political base on the left when coupled with talk of more taxes on the rich. The same goes for the phrase “Balanced approach.” It all really doesn’t mean much when said by the Chief Executive. There’s no real metric.

It wasn’t just class warfare and campaigning. Obama engaged in a little hypocrisy as well. When talking about a speech given by Speaker John Boehner, Obama said Boehner said “we can’t afford the kind politics that says ‘It’s my way or the highway,’” and that this encouraged Obama. Obama then started criticizing him for not accepting any plan that involves increasing revenue. Isn’t this what Obama’s doing with the tax increases on the rich and corporations? I’m just saying. It seems like Obama’s doing exactly the same thing.

Obama also said that he’s ready to work with both parties to reform our tax code and get rid of loopholes and whatnot. In fact, he said he’s eager to reform the tax code. He mentions how our tax code gives benefits to the best connected companies (Solyndra?) and how reform could help businesses be more competitive. Obama’s been in office for almost three years. Why is he just now getting to this? The economy has been in the tank for some time and he’s just now talking about reform of the tax code? This whole part of the speech was a campaign effort.
The Warren Buffett and his secretary example came out yet again. It’s rather telling that even with all the resources at his disposal, this is the example that Obama keeps going to to illustrate this point. Why? Because this is most likely a very rare case. Some new material would go a long way in Obama’s efforts to defend this argument.

But the most interesting point from the whole speech is that none of his numbers consider people going back to work or new investments by businesses because of his jobs plan (we are still talking about his jobs plan, right?) All of the new income from his plan comes from taxing the rich. America has an unemployment rate of over 9% as well as a significant number of people who are unemployed but have given up and even more who are underemployed. Getting these people back to work means that they can be taxed. They can also spend more which means those they do business with will pay more in taxes. However, Obama never mentions this. So he either doesn’t believe his jobs plan will get people back to work or it means that this is really all just about increasing taxes on the rich. Either isn’t very promising. Speaker Boehner should point to this when Obama asks for new revenue.

It should be abundantly clear at this point that this county isn’t going anywhere until January 2013 when we’ve got a new Congress and possibly a new President. Right now, we’re stuck. The best we can do is hope things don’t get any worse before then. Fortunately, it probably won’t. Obama’s too busy campaigning right now.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Holding Attack Watch accountable: Israel

The Obama Campaign created Attack Watch to make sure everything’s reported as fact they want it reported. So in my continued efforts to get myself and this blog listed on Attack Watch, I thought I’d put things into perspective on all the things they claim Obama’s being attacked on. Each of my next few posts will focus on one of the claims that is made on Attack Watch.
  • “President Obama is a friend to Israel, despite unfounded claims to the contrary.” – Attack Watch.
President Obama has called for Israel to return to their 1967 borders. You know… the borders prior to the Six-Day War when Israel was attacked. On the flip side, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that the 1967 borders are “indefensible.”

Skip to 7:10 if you don’t want to listen to Obama talk. I highly recommend it

The changing of the borders has been an issue that President Obama seems to be set on. Either President Obama hasn’t read a history textbook or he’s just clueless.
Attack Watch presents as an argument comments made by various politicians. While that’s nice and all, in the world of politics there’s a need to be courteous to each other when allies are involved. It’s very telling that there’s no mention of any specific policy or legislation that has been a part of President Obama’s efforts to help Israel. The best it does is mention a speech by Obama at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. Some of what is mentioned regarding that speech by Obama needs to be taken into context. He says cooperation between the militaries has been increased to unprecedented levels. That’s not exactly quantitative. He says that we’re making our most advanced technologies available to Israel. That’s pretty much par for the course. It’s just that it’s a new day so the US has new military technology to sell. Obama also mentioned increasing foreign military financing to record levels. What allowing US military contractors to sell goods to countries like Israel does is it allows them to have another customer for their products. That helps keep jobs in America and bring money into our economy more than anything. Helping them finance it is like what GMAC does for GM. It allows customers to buy more of their cars sooner. So while Obama does get a few points for helping the economy with these moves, it’s hardly proof that he’s a friend of Israel. It’s not like Israel’s going to use these weapons against the US.
Then there’s the biggest threat to Israel, Iran. It seems like Obama hasn’t been consistent on that issue. During his campaign, he didn’t seem to think too much about Iran.

So... which is it?

Here’s the real telling part of this. Then Senator Obama had the time to research how much Iran spent on the military, but never really looked at the situation. Any casual observer knew that Iran had said that they wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, they have numerous human rights violations, and were a serious threat to the stability of the Middle East. And yet, Obama thought they were a nobody. I don’t know if he was placating to an anti-war group or what the case was. Either way, we could do better than a leader that has trouble with International Politics 101.
Back in 2010, the United States supported an action plan on nuclear weapons that said it was important for Israel to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty while the proposal had nothing in it about Iran’s nuclear program. The Israeli government released a statement that said:

“(The plan) singles out Israel, the Middle East’s only true democracy and the only country threatened with annihilation. Yet the terrorist regime in Iran, which is racing to develop nuclear weapons and which openly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, is not even mentioned.”

This is not the behavior of a friend of Israel. By the way, this took place after the election. President Obama should have been well educated about Iran by this point.
At the very best, Obama is neutral on Israel. Even that’s a stretch. There’s no way he’s a “friend” to Israel. We could do better. My question is this: If Obama’s a friend to Israel, what’s it like to just be an acquaintance of the President?

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Attack Watch!

Oh, Obama. You’ve outdone yourself. In an effort to keep tabs on false information about Obama and his campaign for re-election, a website called “Attack Watch” has been launched. Here, people can get information about “lies” regarding Obama as well as snitch… I mean report anyone who is involved in the propagation of these “lies.”

Along with the launch of “Attack Watch” has been the Twitter Hashtag #AttackWatch. This hashtag has become my entertainment for the day. The Tweets that have been streaming from this have been quite humorous. A list of the top 10 “attackwatch” tweets has been posted already. It just scratches the surface. The best thing I’ve seen about it so far is a rather entertaining YouTube video.

ATTACK WAAAAAATCCCCCH! (Caution: some censored profanity)

But the latest snitch.com efforts by the Obama campaign have given me the goal of appearing on his website. I want to be on his list. So go ahead, report me to attackwatch.com. Be sure to include in the report “Dan Roth said” and a link to this blog. Here are some things I’m spreading about Obama:

  • ObamaCare raised my health insurance rates. That’s according to a letter I got from my health insurance company.
  • Stimulus 2 is a lot like Stimulus 1. Stimulus 1 didn’t work. Do the math!
  • Obama is a Keynesian.
  • President Obama apparently believes “Pass this bill” is a great argument. He sure uses it a lot lately.
  • Obama has praised Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick who was undoubtedly the worst mayor in the history of Detroit, if not the nation.
  • Bob Turner was recently elected to the House of Representatives in a heavily Democratic district. Many observers view this as being caused by President Obama’s low approval ratings.
  • Obama didn’t present a jobs plan until well after the nation was asking for one. Then he comes up with something that’s a lot like the first failed plan.
  • Obama is declaring that his jobs plan will be paid for but hasn’t announced how, beyond saying that it’ll be the job of the super committee already tasked with cutting over a trillion from the budget.
  • Our national debt has increased significantly during the Obama years (and it’s not just “Bush’s Wars. Out of control spending played a role).
  • Instead of actually presenting his bill to Congress, Obama has been going on TV, calling for a joint session of Congress, and taking a trip around the nation drumming up support for his American Jobs Act. He’s taken so long that there’s a different bill in Congress called the American Jobs Act. It really does beg the question: Is Obama really concerned about jobs or is he using this time and effort to campaign? (Hint to Obama: They can’t pass the bill if you don’t send it to them!)
  • When Boeing looked to open up a new production facility in South Carolina, the National Labor Relations Board worked to block it. Despite what would be a job creating venture (in a high unemployment environment), Obama really didn’t say much when asked about it at a June 29 press conference. He certainly didn’t have the same passion as “Pass this bill!”
  • Obama said “The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra.” The company received over $500 million in loans from the Department of Energy under the first failed stimulus. It then went on to lay-off over 1,000 employees, suspend operations, and file Chapter 11. If that’s his idea of economy growth, I hope I never have his econ professor.

There it is. Report me, please! I can think of very few honors greater than being listed on this site!

Monday, September 12, 2011

The problems with Obama’s Jobs plan

If there’s one thing President Obama has sufficiently communicated in the past few days, it’s that we should “Pass this bill.” He has also gone on to suggest that this is a good bill because it contains elements that both Republicans and Democrats like. That’s not exactly a very good argument.

While the tax cuts seem to be pretty good, it’s the spending that annoys me. Why? Besides the fact that we’re broke, it’s because of where the spending is being done. President Obama has said that this bill will create construction projects and put teachers back in the classroom. These are horrible ways to jumpstart the economy. It probably will get some people back to work… for a while.

Here’s the thing about these jobs. A new road doesn’t generate work once it’s done. We hire a handful of people to work on these projects that Obama is talking about and then they’re back where they were once the jobs are done. We can pay the salary of a group of teachers to get them back in the classroom this year, but where does that put those teachers once the funds are gone? They’re back to where they were.

Now it’s true that the people hired for these jobs will spend the money they earn and this will help out other businesses. The problem with this is that it will only go so far. It also begins to slow down. Let’s say we pay a construction worker $100 for a job in an economy where there isn’t much going on in private construction. This means this worker doesn’t really know when his/her next job is and probably doesn’t have much hope that it’ll be very soon. So that $100 goes into the pocket of the worker but it’s going to be slow leaving the pocket. They need to make sure it lasts until the next job.

Then, in a poor economy, the money they spend is going to be slow leaving the pockets of the people who receive it because they need to make sure they have cash on hand when they have to pay employees and other bills. It’s hardly getting the wheels of the economy going. When the funds of these workers run out completely, we’re back at square one.

Then there’s the issue of having this thing paid for. President Obama has said time and time again that this bill will be paid for. It’s not. At least not yet. The bill requires the deficit super committee to find places to cut to free up funds for it. That’s a committee that already has enough on their plate. Then we have to ask what will get cut to pay for this. It’s so vague, it’s completely unacceptable.

It reminds me of the last Indiana Jones film. After saying time and time again that they were writing for the right script, they release Kingdom of the Crystal Skull which was completely horrible. The Obama plan is a lot like this. After waiting all this time saying that a plan is coming, this is what Obama puts out there? Come on! Time to go back to the drawing board.

My big concern (well, besides that this might get passed) is that if this is shot down, Obama will go to this bill in the upcoming election and point out how Republican candidates opposed this bill and, therefore, opposed tax cuts and putting people back to work. Sadly, some people will probably fall for that one.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Ten Years Ago Today…

I’ve had a hard time figuring out how to start this post. I didn’t want to start it with a cliché like “I’ll never forget the day that…” or “We all remember where we were…” It just feels too light. It doesn’t carry the weight of what took place ten years ago today.

I was a senior in high school. I was walking into my broadcasting class and passed a television with the news on it. I didn’t think twice about it because it wasn’t uncommon for the news to be on when we were entering the room. I didn’t think twice about the silence in the room either because I was usually one of the first people in the room. Then I looked at what was on the screen and I became as focused as I had ever been in my life.

At this point, I wasn’t aware of the gravity of the situation. I saw that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. I had naturally assumed that this was a case of a plane crash happening in what’s probably the most densely populated area in the world. This didn’t seem incredibly unique to me.

Then, as the camera was firmly on the first tower, the second plane came into the shot. As I watched it hit the second tower, I started thinking it was just a War of the Worlds broadcast and that none of this was real.

I don’t know if I thought that because I was afraid of it being real or if I just couldn’t believe it was real. Either way, I could feel myself becoming one with other Americans in a way that I never had before. It wasn’t until the end of the class that I knew what we were seeing was real. The world was different before.

This was a day that changed our perceptions significantly. This was the new world.

I’m glad to say that we haven’t forgotten. We don’t need to mention the year, just “9-11” will do and people know what we’re talking about. Every time I fly, I go through the extra security that was unthinkable prior to 9/11 and I’m reminded of what happened that day. Despite the body scanners and procedures that may appear draconian to some, I do it keeping in mind the events of 9/11. I put up with it in honor of those who lost their lives.

Every time I watch an older film and there’s a shot of New York with those towers standing tall, I’m reminded that freedom isn’t free. And while I know when those films were made it wasn’t intended, I can’t help but have certain emotions come to the front of my mind.

While I was a senior in high school when the events took place, I look at today’s high school seniors and know that they were just 7 and 8 when it happened. I can’t help but wonder if they fully understand how things changed after that day. I do my best to educate them.

I don’t ask that every American wears 9/11 on their sleeve today. I do ask that we all remember. Remember those that we have lost. Remember when Al Qaeda wasn’t part of our vocabulary. Remember when our soldiers took the call to make our country secure again so we could sleep in peace. In the midst of all we do, remember that the world was different before.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

The Sensitivity of the Left

Oh, it’s amazing how creative some on the Left can be. But their creativity has found a new level! A video game called “Tea Party Zombies Must Die!” is making headlines. In this game, players get to shoot zombie versions of various conservatives including Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Glenn Beck all while making those in the Tea Party look stupid.




While they had fun with silly spelling mistakes, that wasn’t the end of their portrayal of the Tea Party. They also decided to make them look like they’re poor and racists by including images of the Confederate flag as well as have these zombies come out of mobile homes.



The sad thing is that to anyone who can analyze information and come to a conclusion, this just makes the Left look incredibly dumb. I have a decent idea of how much effort would go into something like this. The developer didn’t knock this out during his lunch break. It took serious effort. Yet during all the time he spent on this, he failed to make an intelligent argument against the Tea Party. Does he offer any insight into why small government is bad? Nope. He goes to the effort of putting Newt Gingrich’s face on a zombie but does he point out the mistakes in the Gingrich platform? No again.

Shouting “Tea Party members are racists!” isn’t an argument and it doesn’t magically become one just because it’s been put in a video game. If it was, I could replace Tea Party members with hippies in a game of mine own. Checkmate!
The game tries to be educational. No, educational is the wrong word. The game tries to prove its stupidity be offering brilliant and proven “facts” like “There’s no such thing as God.” Really? Because saying it proves it. If they wanted to make the point have weight, perhaps they shouldn’t have lead with “You got teabagged!” Just a suggestion.

Apparently the developers are looking to go with the irony card too with the concept. Because pushing for a change from Beltway Establishment and ever increasing government size is very Zombie like.

But I’ll share something with everyone here. I don’t blame the makers of this game for making it. They’re no different than the smut peddlers or Michael Moore with his films. They’re a symptom. These things would not exist if there wasn’t a market. Conservatives need to make this a rally call about more than expecting the debate to be civil. We need to realize that we still have a lot of the public to educate. Many of us are able to look at this game and see that it’s stupid. The problem is that some aren’t so blessed. I suggest we change the discussion about this game from a talk about civility and make it one about educating those who might be drawn to it. So let’s brush up on our Constitution and economics so we can do what we need to do.

On a side note, what’s with the red light on the gun? Is there some thing about zombies being repelled by red light? I’ve seen a zombie movie or two and I’ve never heard that. And shouldn’t the player in the game be thanking the conservatives? They wouldn’t have a gun at all (let alone what appears to be a MAC-10) to shoot the zombies with if the other side had their way.

Republican Presidential candidates square off on MSNBC

It just seemed odd that MSNBC would host a Republican debate in the Ronald Reagan Library. But that was the scene Wednesday night as the candidates took to the stage to discuss. Going into this debate, Texas Governor Rick Perry was the leading candidate in my book. But that wasn't because I thought he was great. I just wasn't impressed with anyone yet. No candidate had really impressed me. It was going to be interesting to see how things would play out in this debate. I figured I’d break down what I saw each candidate.

Rick Perry
With Governor Perry as my front runner, I was keeping an eye on him to see if he would step up and be the candidate that I was hoping to get in this debate. Perry seemed a little off until he got a question about the death penalty. Perry then answered the question with authority and conviction, standing behind the death penalty in Texas. And this was despite the moderators setting the question up as if the death penalty was a bad thing.

While this was impressive, it was also kind of depressing because Perry didn’t answer many other questions with the same kind of authority. So it gave the impression that he’s solid and passionate about the death penalty but not so much on other issues. I agree with Governor Perry on the death penalty.

There was one issue where Perry stood out from the crowd and that was regarding Social Security. He called it what it is: A Ponzi scheme. If you don’t believe it is, consider these nuggets of information. Those collecting Social Security today get their money from the people who are currently paying into the system. The hope is that there will be a new generation to pay into Social Security to support Generations X,  and Y in their retirement years. Well here’s the thing. A problem with Social Security is that people are living longer, meaning they’re pulling from the system longer. To compound the problem for future retirees, birth rates in the nation are on the decline. So just like a Ponzi scheme, there won’t be enough new investors to cover the investment of older investors. Kudos to Perry for understanding this and calling it like he sees it. The other candidates seemed afraid to call it that because of concerns for losing the votes of the older people in the audience.

On the down side, Perry has me a bit worried given how he handled the HPV issue. It’s not just the policy but more the fact that it was an executive order. While Perry suggested that if he had a mulligan he would have done it differently, it’s a pretty big mistake. The candidates need to make them look as different from Obama as possible and an executive order of that magnitude just has him looking like Obama.

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich has always been a bit of a wild card in this campaign. After spending so much time in Washington, he just reeks of Beltway. I could smell it three time zones away. But then in the last debate, he was very assertive and wasn’t putting up with any crap from the moderators. Given the possibility that the next president may have to deal with a decent number of Democrats in Congress if not a majority, one key factor that he or she will need is that they can shut down any typical DC BS.

Gingrich has been impressive the last debate and this one as well. He seemed to unite the Republicans in encouraging them all to limit their attacks against each other and focus on Obama. He called out the press for being on the side of Obama. These were gutsy moves for Gingrich and I applaud him for such things.

Newt also stood solid when it comes to education. He promoted school choice so parents can make their own decision.

Gingrich moved up on my chart. He’s gone from not even being in consideration for my vote next year in the primary to having a bit of a chance at it.

Ron Paul

What can anyone say about Ron Paul? I think of Ron Paul as the crazy uncle everyone loves but never wants around their friends because you just don’t know what he’s going to say next.

Ron Paul has always earned points in my mind by being dedicated to standing by the Constitution and following it as it’s written. When I first heard him speak at a rally in Ann Arbor, MI leading into the 2008 election, I thought that this guy knows what’s up.

But then he opens his mouth about foreign policy and it all just falls apart. In this particular debate, he suggested that we take away air conditioners from our troops. He then later went on to imply that this would encourage them to come home. Is this guy nuts? Suggesting we take away a fairly basic comfort from our troops won’t win him points with a single Republican. Then to suggest that taking away their AC will get them back home sooner implies that they’ll reject their orders, say “Later” to their commanding officer, and hop on a plane back here. I know a number of people who have served and are currently serving and that’s not how they behave.

Paul shows his lack of filter when he answers questions like this. While I appreciate Paul’s ability to be frank with us on what he thinks, he crosses the line all too often. It’s foolish to bash to troops in the first place. It’s down right stupid to bash the troops when speaking to Republicans.

Paul’s comments and stances on foreign policy are the reason I’ll never vote for him. He’s just beyond recovery. I fear if he was elected he might do something incredibly stupid when meeting with a foreign head of state. Let’s be honest. If there’s one candidate that was up there tonight who it wouldn’t be surprising if they had a conversation about bowel movements with the Queen of England, it’s Paul.

Michelle Bachmann

When Michelle Bachmann first announced her campaign, I had high hopes. She has received decent backing from the Tea Party and looked like she could be a quality candidate. She started to slide during the first debate when she was all to quick to break out the whole Obama being a “One term President.”

Since then, I’ve found the way her campaign is run to be just annoying. Throughout the debate tonight, her campaign Twitter account (@teambachmann) was just blowing up. It seemed like a new Tweet was coming out of that camp every 30 seconds patting Bachmann on the back for what she said. It got so annoying that I stopped following the account half way through the debate.

I’m sure the objective was to keep positive Bachmann posts up on the hashtag #ReaganDebate. But anyone with even a halfway decent eye would see that their coming from the Bachmann team and take that into consideration. As someone who was following the account, it was too much. One may call me shallow for thinking this, but Bachmann didn’t really offer much that was impressive to me. I didn’t see or hear anything that would move her up the ranks. So even if we negate the Twitter spamming, she’s still where she was before the evening started. I guess on the flip side, she didn’t really say anything that rubbed me wrong so perhaps that is a positive.

Jon Huntsman

Wow! Was Jon Huntsman… orange. As soon as I saw him on screen I was just hoping he didn’t overpay for the spray tan. I don’t know if he was trying to look red to conjure up thoughts of Red States, but I hard a hard time listening to him at the beginning because I was wondering if the TV was broken. The orange war paint wasn’t the only thing bringing Huntsman down.

The big snafu came when talking about science. Huntsman proved to be ignorant and clueless on this one. He came out very much in support of man-made global warming and suggested that any candidate that is thinking otherwise is opposed to science since the majority of scientists believe in it. Huntsman proved to be clueless about science. As the late author Michael Crichton so wisely pointed out a number of years ago, science is not a consensus. There is no consensus in gravity because it’s proven that things fall. Everyone agrees.

Huntsman also proved that he’s not even aware of the latest scientific studies and discoveries happening in the field of climate change. First off, the climate data is saying that there hasn’t been any warming in the past 15 years. To top that off, new research is suggesting that it’s actually the sun and not man that’s been causing the earth to get warmer.

Offering nothing of value, I can’t help but wonder if someone would show Huntsman the door. And be sure to give him a towel to wipe the spray tan off his face. I don’t see him mounting much of a charge.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney has been the surprise of the evening. Going into this entire campaign, I have had concerns with him because of policies like RomneyCare. It’s not exactly from a Red State either. When I think bastion of conservatism, I don’t think of any state anywhere near New England. But then in Romney’s defense, when I think bastion of conservatism, I don’t think California and that state gave us Ronald Reagan.

During this debate, Romney along with a lot of the others reminded me that I have to prioritize things. The perfect candidate for the job isn’t up on the stage. I was hoping to see Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, or even Sarah Palin in the race. So I had to start thinking about what are my top four issues. These ended up being the economy, repealing ObamaCare, state rights, and border security.

Romney has in the past few hours impressed me on both jobs and border security. Romney hit a homerun by stating that we need to discourage illegal immigrants from entering our country by taking away the incentives. He was the best candidate up there on that issue.

He seems sound on the economy and has both the experience and plan that show promise. Romney also has presented himself as a candidate who will support state rights. I have the impression that he’ll let states start making their own decisions on a number of issues.

Where Romney gets me worried is in health care. He’s stated that he’ll repeal ObamaCare but I’m just worried he’ll replace it with something that’s not quite as bad, but still pretty lousy.

Romney also said he wouldn’t dismantle Social Security, a move that felt like he was concerned about the votes of those getting mail from the AARP.

Right now Romney would be a solid #1 right now if it wasn’t for one simple thing. Let’s say things go as I fear with him. He gets in the White House, fixes the economy, secures our borders, lets state have the freedom they deserve under the 10th Amendment, and replaces ObamaCare with something I don’t really like. He’s not going to get any sort of challenge in the 2016 primary. So I essentially would have to wait until 2020 for a candidate who will make solid health care reform. Because of my concern, Romney sits at a very unsecure #1 after the debate.

Herman Cain

I’ve had a hard time putting much thought in Herman Cain. The main reason is that he has no experience in government at all. While I appreciate that he’s not a Washington insiders, it helps to have a little experience in government, preferably in an executive branch position. Forgive me if our recent experiences with a President with almost no real government experience has put a bad taste in my mouth.

So Herman Cain already is starting from the back. But it’s not impossible to come back from that. The problem with Cain is that he doesn’t have much to set himself apart from the pack. On top of that, he doesn’t have a political record to consider. He doesn’t have much to back up his talks. All he can do is run against the records of others. During the debate he mentioned that he’s running against RomneyCare. That’s great Herman, but so is everyone else up there.

I’m sure some would like to point out Michigan Governor Rick Snyder. He’s a businessman with no real political experience and he’s been doing great things for the state. The problem with that is that that’s just one example. That’s also a state that doesn’t have to deal with the same issues as the federal government.

Cain really needs to offer up something that makes him unique. Until then, he’s just going to blend into the background.

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum is still in the race? Why? His only memorable moment was when he referred to himself in the 3rd person. I was always taught to never trust anyone who refers to themselves in the 3rd person. Right now, he’s just good for the occasional entertainment.

The Conclusion

As of now, there’s no clear winner. Nobody really wowed me. Romney looks good. Newt Gingrich has been impressive with his no BS approach to these debates. That sets him at the #2 spot so far. Perry needs to start hitting a few out of the park and he’ll easily be back in the game. If there’s one thing that’s clear, it’s that the next Reagan was not on stage tonight.

We also have to consider the Palin Factor. If Sarah Palin does jump into the race, this whole thing practically starts over. I hope that she does if for no other reason than it’ll bring a new voice to the discussion.

Bonus: The Presentation, the Twitters, and all that jazz

The offensive award of the evening goes to MSNBC. To ask questions about border security, they brought in a correspondent from Telemundo. Really? Didn’t anyone at MSNBC think that that might be a wee bit offensive? This whole thing lead to the Tweet of the Night by @Doc_0 who said “Telemundo guy asks immigration question. Maybe they'll bring in an unemployed guy to ask about Obamanomics.”

So MSNBC hosted this debate and I figured out why right as the broadcasts ended. First off, MSNBC needs ratings. This may have been the first time they had better ratings than Fox News during Prime Time. But here’s the kicker. Right as the debate ended MSNBC threw Rachel Maddow and friends up who did nothing but bash the Republicans for what little time I could tolerate. I think that was 2 minutes at best. It just appeared to be a very cheesy setup to hook a bunch of conservatives with a Republican debate so you can bash them and their views for as long as they’ll stick around. Very classy, MSNBC!