Last night was the Republican debate hosted by CNN and the Tea Party Express. I'd say that, though the debate still suffered from the critical flaw of the other debates of excluding some candidates while giving a platform to others, I'd say it was better than the others. Another thing I get really tired of in the debates, this and others, was the constant bickering between candidates ("I created more jobs" "No I did" "Nuh uh!" "Uh huhhhhh!!"), very juvenile. At points, though, it really gave insight into some of the candidates, with substantial issues (thank you Tea Party) and revealing questions for the most part. I wouldn't say that any candidate actually won the debate, but if Americans will critically examine and evaluate the statements they made in the debate, America could be the true winner, because it's not enough to choose the candidate that the media tells us can beat Obama, we need one whose policies are substantially different and significantly better. That said, here's what I took away from each candidate's performance at the debate.
Rick Perry: After this debate, I can't even see how Rick Perry could even be a contender. Though his performance early in the debate was strong, throughout the debate he said that he supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, that fortifying the border was essentially impossible (though he said otherwise the debate before), that he would not repeal obamacare, and that "he was sorry" for the Gardasil vaccine executive order (it's easy to say that in a debate, though, and he could just as easily not mean it as mean it). Furthermore, corruption accusations were very convincinglyl raised by Michelle Bachman, and his only response was that Merck had only contributed $5000 (of $30 million) to his campaign (without even addressing the chief-of-staff part of the issue). Though that was intended to show how ridiculous the statement is, it just sounded like he thought that wasn't enough to buy him off. No moral indignation, just "They only donated $5000, that's nowhere near enough."
But, they say, Perry can win, and beating Obama is what we need. Well, even if that were true, how much better is it to have a Republican who supports illegal immigration, won't repeal obamacare, and has the potential to overuse executive orders than it is to have Obama? All of the worst things about Obama, we still get. Oh, yes, *perhaps* he will lower taxes, and *perhaps* the economy and job market will improve (and as a recent graduate looking for a job, I realize the value of this), but America will continue to go down the wrong path, fast (and as an American who wants to actually live here, I realize that the danger of this is much worse than any recession could ever be). It is not worth the idea that maybe he's more electable to choose the single worst candidate of the group. And is he actually more electable? You don't know anything about him. Anyone who reads his book ends up disliking him, which indicates that the more you know Perry, the less you will like him, and the less electable he will be. Furthermore, if allegations of corruption are emerging already, it's too probable that something which shows him to be so corrupt as to be unelectable will emerge after the primaries when we have no other choice except to vote third party, splitting the Republican vote and ensuring another Obama victory. Perry is promoted by the media, sure, but he is standing on the edge of not one but multiple cliffs, and he could fall apart as quickly as he has come into the spotlight. I actually see him as potentially the least electable of all of the candidates.
Mitt Romney: He did a good enough job in the debates, but has nothing in his past which would indicate that he would govern according to the principles he now claims to espouse. Electability? Probably the highest on this list, but that does not mean high enough to win.
Michelle Bachman: She did an excellent job last night (and she, thankfully, raised issues which need to be raised, really her performance was great), but she can't be called a winner, really, because she is already too weak. Even if she strengthens, she'll be unelectable because the left will just throw a select set of quotes and soundbytes at her until people will not vote for her. Those statements will alienate everyone who is even on the fence about her.
Newt Gingrich: Greg Gutfeld said it best, albeit after the MSNBC debate: "Newt is really on point. Too bad about the "him being Newt" thing." Once upon a time he was good, but now he has no real credibility. No one takes him seriously, he will not be elected.
Rick Santorum: Pretty solid performance, though he doesn't manage to catch enough attention to be a serious contender. I'd be inclined to look more into him. I hear that he'll always be labelled un-electable because he was defeated as an incumbent, but I'm not sure.
Jon Huntsman: I'd talk about how unconservative he is, but he's not even relevant anymore.
Herman Cain: I like Herman Cain. He seems like a genuinely nice person with conservative ideals and values, and who I'd love to discuss politics with, but he's not presidential enough, and he was totally silent during the whole foreign policy section of the debate, as I suspected he would be, because he is focused solely on one thing: supporting small businesses. That's valuable, but not the only thing or even the most important thing you deal with as president. He needs to be convincing on foreign policy as well, and he was silent. He's not electable, either, because he does not act "presidential," a lot of people simply will not vote for him.
Ron Paul: Ron Paul is nothing if he isn't consistent. You can trust him to follow his ideology and ideas, whether they're popular or not. You can trust him to give a substantial response to a question, whether or not you agree with it. That's a valuable asset, and not one all of the candidates share (perhaps not one other on that stage, actually). His foreign policy statements yesterday were undeniably problematic, even distasteful, and though I'd never excuse such comments, at least he wasn't just catering his message to his audience. Electable? I don't know. If he could win the Republican nomination, he could win the presidency I think.
As time goes by, debates go on, people start hoping that more people will get into the race. What they don't know is that there's already a fantastic candidate running, but that he has been pushed out by the media, and his name is (I'm saying it again because it is so, so important. We need a better candidate than they're offering us, and this is a better candidate) Thaddeus McCotter. If you want more info, visit my wall, visit his facebook page, visit his twitter, or visit his youtube channel. If you're waiting for something better, stop waiting, and start helping it to become a reality. We need you, America needs you.
No comments:
Post a Comment