I, for one, am grateful for the Republican debates. I realize they are part theater and part charades, but nevertheless, I think some reality shows through. I sit there watching the candidates and wonder, as I look at each of them, is this the person most aligned with what our country needs to survive the disaster that is Obama and the rest of the Progressive government we've inherited?
I ask questions like:
1. Will this person dismantle the constructions Obama and other presidents have put in place that destroy free markets and kill businesses?
2. Will this person micromanage our lives, just like the left does?
3. Will this person do what needs to be done to put the monetary policy on sound footing?
4. Will this person just do more social engineering?
5. Will this person take down the federal agencies that are draining the coffers and strangling our livelihoods and lives?
6. Will this person face down enemies and strengthen our military?
7. Does this person have a moral compass?
8. Will this person actually defend the U.S. Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic?
9. Will this person lie to the public?
10. Will this person downsize the federal government back to within its Constitutional limits?
So all of that is going on in my mind while I'm listening to the candidates answer questions. As they answer, I hear a lot of spin. Realizing they are trying to sell their ideas, I guess "spin" is what they think they must do. Some of them do not come across as "spinners." Ron Paul does not "spin," in my estimation. He just calls it like he sees it. Bachmann does not come across as a "spinner." She, too, seems to just speak her mind. And I like what she says. Her exposure of Perry's (Guardasil) cronyism is spot on. Johnson and Huntsman might as well go home. They have about two points each that are conservative, but otherwise they just don't go where I want to go. They seem smarmy and more interested in global initiatives than restoring America. Santorum seems sincere, but also seems hot tempered, which may be a good thing in some circumstances, but not good in others. His hard hitting style comes across sometimes as arrogance and that worries me, but I think he is just passionate on his points. Cain. Well, now there is a "spinner." He sells his 9-9-9 plan like a used car salesman. I'm sure he was great for Godfather's Pizza and a terrific businessman. I think he is probably a really nice man. I could like him personally. But I hate the Fair Tax and he will never get my vote because of it. Gingrich has the right personality for the job, is statesmanlike, and his experience shows. I worry he still likes government solutions and may not be "small government" enough. However, he is strong on American defense, foreign policies, and free market solutions to economics. He has a good grasp of the Muslim threat to us.
Assuming the lower tier of candidates can't win, I'd put Gingrich at head of state, Bachmann in charge of justice, Cain in charge of commerce, Paul in charge of treasury, Santorum in charge of defense policies, Johnson and Huntsman can do event planning maybe.
O.K. So that brings us to the two supposed front runners.
Perry lost me totally last night. He tried to spin the Guardasil episode as a matter of the heart. Same with his illegal "in state" tuition issue. It's all about "heart," is it? Well, we had one of those "compassionate conservatives" from Texas already...and we ended up with another unaffordable entitlement (the drug bill) and the "No Child Left Behind Act." Not to mention undefended borders. No thank you. Not going there again. So he has a heart? Don't we all? But does that mean we create more mandates that enrich corporations and unions? And does that mean we are in for another amnesty program? More entitlements that redistribute the wealth? And, his cronyism points to more corporatism and corruption. What is the difference between this Guardasil episode and Solyndra? Not much, if you ask me.
And then Romney. Well, I have said in the past that his Romneycare program would prevent me from ever voting for him. He definitely slid around that issue last night. He explained it in a way that sounded very plausible. He pointed out a huge difference between Romneycare and Obamacare, saying that Romneycare does not get between the patient and the doctor. That is a huge difference and makes me rethink things somewhat. My other problem with Romneycare is that it is mandated socialism. That is a core problem for me. It tells me he will use socialism when he wants to, to promote some so-called "common good." He defends Social Security the same way, though does indicate the program needs "fixing." In the end, Romney is another "compassionate conservative" who promotes socialism-lite.
I keep landing on Bachmann, with Gingrich as my second choice. You could flip those two around and I would be o.k. with that. Either one as President or Vice President. But at this point, if Romney or Perry get the nomination, I am flumblustered as to how to proceed. It is not that I am looking for purity, exactly. But it is going to take really tough and strong medicine to take this country forward on better footing. Whoever gets the Presidency is going to have one hell of a mess to clean up, not just Obama's mess, but those who went before him enacting disastrous agencies and policies. As far as I can tell, Romney and Perry are just more of the same and we will stumble along without fixing the real problems...those problems existed before Obamacare.
By the way, from my grasp of the issue, Obamacare is not just that one bill. Obamacare policies were funded through the first stimulous bill, are being put in place as I write, and have to be weeded out, one by one. That is more than just giving the states a "waiver" from Obamacare. That means the rest of it will have to be found and scrapped ASAP. Obama and Pelosi and Reid sent a slew of roaches into our healthcare system via the stimulus bill. Funding for micro-chips in persons is in there. Funding for the federal file system of all patient records is in there. Funding for implementing the bureaucratic death panels is in there. That must be addressed.
I was glad to hear most of the candidates say they would repeal Dodd-Frank, another redistribution bill that puts financial institutions in worse shape, a la the Community Reinvestment Act, but worse.
That's my take on the debates so far. There are questions not being asked regarding slush funds for Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, and Agenda 21. I would ask the candidates if they would dismantle Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development, Obama's White House Rural Council, the Food Modernization Safety Act, Bush's Part D bill, besides the EPA, the NEA, (both of them, arts + education), and cut HUD and the DOE. Would they reinstate funding for roads from the 30% diverted to greenways and bike lanes? What would they do about the continuing flow of block grants? Can we rethink the gerrymandering Voting Rights Act? (talk about a sticky wicket no one will touch. ) Can we change the "anchor baby" provision? So many questions.
It seems odd to me those subjects don't show up in the debates, but being media driven, who knows why. What do you think? Do you have a favorite yet?