Category Archives: President

Why I’ll Be Voting For Romney

I’m rarely this bold with writing about my political preferences on an individual candidate, but considering there are only two (real) options at this point, I figured there’s no point in pretending to be objective. I’m not going to go into deep detail here, everyone reading this is well informed enough to make their own decisions and vote according to their own priorities, but I have been asked by some of my (less informed) liberal friends “How could you vote for Romney?” as if it were akin to beating a puppy. As such, I decided to make my last minute case for why I’ll be voting for Mitt Romney in hopes that you can at least understand, even if you disagree.
He has the experience we need: Okay, so a lot of people don’t like Romney. There are a variety of reasons, some valid, some silly, but I can understand why he’s not the most popular guy on the block. Regardless, his resume (love it or hate it) reads like the perfect applicant for the job position right now. We have a country that is in bad financial shape and getting worse, and a candidate that has experience at… turning around under-performing or near bankrupt businesses. Sure, they’re not exactly the same thing, but they’re a heck of a lot closer than some people would like to believe. He’s proven that he can balance budgets and spend within his means, a lesson our country desperately needs to learn right now. It won’t be easy, and it won’t be fun, but it needs to be done and Romney is the only candidate right now that has a resume showing he’s willing to get the job done.

He’s a leader: I can already hear the Obama fans starting to type angry replies. “You mean President Obama isn’t?!?!” Well, yes and no. I certainly don’t deny that it takes a great deal of strength and leadership capability to achieve the highest political office in the country. However, once he obtained that position he quit acting like a leader. Leaders don’t make excuses or blame their predecessors. Leaders don’t shift blame and focus away from their own short comings to put it on the people they work with. Leaders don’t base policy off the winds of political convenience. What leaders should do is develop a plan they intend to follow and keep their focus on their goals even when others doubt them. Leaders unite opposing views, they don’t deepen the divide. Leaders fix problems, they don’t push them off on future generations. Romney has shown, as a (moderate) Republican leading a solidly Democratic state, that he can be that kind of leader. Whether some of the President’s loyal followers are willing to realize it or not, we do not have a leader capable of uniting the opposing factions running our country right now, and until we have that kind of leadership, we will not break out of this unproductive political gridlock, and things are only going to get worse.

He’s not interested in expanding the government: This is the one that matters a lot to people regardless of their political affiliation (but I know it’s especially crucial to my libertarian friends). Romney has made it clear that his plan for getting the US economy and day-to-day government functioning back on track is shrinking the government. This is a clear distinction between himself and President Obama. This is not to imply that all Republicans are for small government, President Bush oversaw dramatic increases in government reach, intrusion, and overall size, but it is to explain that this Republican candidate disagrees both with his challenger and his predecessors over the role government should play in our lives. The simple math shows that the government has gotten larger, and most people believe that the government alone is not the answer to our economic problems and expanding it is a redistribution of resources to less productive measures at best. (Most economists flat out say that it’s a band-aid fix, and a dangerous one.) The President has shown that he thinks a government-centered approach to fixing the economy is the best path through his words as well as his actions. Romney’s intent to trim the government down will not please everyone, but history and economic theory suggests we’d be better off in the long run.

And finally, the one people like least:

“He’s not President Obama”: I hate it when people say things like this, so I can imagine what you all think as well, but let me explain what I mean by this. I don’t mean that it’s worth voting for Mitt Romney simply because he’s not Barack Obama, that would imply that Obama is somehow the political devil and anyone is better. I disagree with that view. I would suggest that Obama isn’t the best, or even one of the best, candidates on the ballot, but that’s beside the point. The point is that Romney is new to the job, and comes with a great resume. We know Barack Obama. We know his record. And honestly, it’s not good. His most significant achievement was the healthcare reform bill, a law which has already been shown won’t really fix the problems facing our healthcare system (at all) and was passed through less than kosher means with a whole lot of bureaucratic pork added on along the way. It’s a terrible piece of legislation with seemingly noble intent, and that’s what we’ll remember the first Obama term for. The economy is in a “recovery” that’s so slow many have wondered how we can pretend we’re not still really in a recession. Even though we emerged from that in technical terms, we haven’t shaken off the economic malaise our country has been in the past 5 years, and it’s no longer possible to pretend we can somehow blame everything on Bush. (If you chose to believe that, you’re in denial.) We’ve had four years of failed attempts to address the problems facing us. Four years of blaming others for his own short comings. Four years of slinging mud on national television at the very people he claims he is trying to foster bipartisanship with. Four years of broken promises. Four years of fiscal standoffs and deliberately polarizing budgets. Four years of the leader of the free world behaving like a celebrity instead of a leader. Four years of disappointment, not hope, or change, or progress. I don’t know if another four of the same thing would somehow destroy the US like some seem to believe, but I can promise you this: It isn’t going to put us on a better long-term path. I want an America where people work hard and reap the rewards of their work. A land of opportunity that sets a good example by not spending more than it can afford to or passing debt off to future generations because we don’t have the guts to fix the real problems facing us. The country I want will not come from a second Obama term.

I’ll close with this: If the United States were a business with the taxpayers as its shareholders (and in many ways, it is), CEO Obama would have been fired at least a year ago and a new candidate with the right credentials would have been sought. In 2008 the company was hemorrhaging money and taking a public relations beating. We thought this new leader could turn things around and deliver the prosperity and change he promised the shareholders. He tried some bold, expensive moves, which ultimately were not successful. He kept the company limping along, but now in deeper debt and with even more executives and administrators than before and no strong benefit for the shareholders. Now the projections for the future health of the company have gone from bad to worse and our CEO claims to be able to fix that despite having shown no sign of being capable of doing so in the last few years he has been working here. So the shareholders have to make a tough decision and find a leader with experience at turning around this company that is now facing even bigger problems. Of the applicants, one has emerged that looks like he can pull it off, and that is Mitt Romney. We don’t know that he’ll succeed, but we do know that there’s no point in continuing on a path we can see isn’t working for our company. It’s time to move on.

Now, go vote, or you’ll lose the right to complain about the outcome after the dust settles.

-M

1 Comment

Filed under Politics, President

What Did We Learn in Florida? Ugly Politics Work… And They Don’t.

With the results in and the pundits having a field day making wild claims on TV about what Florida means for the rest of the primary season, it’s time to get down to brass tacks. The real question isn’t what Florida means for the rest of the primary season, but what did we learn from it? Did Romney finally show he can unite the Republican party and beat President Obama? Is the style we saw in Florida from Gingrich and Romney going to continue? I offer my thoughts:

What did we learn?

We learned that Romney intends to win this process by any means necessary. He didn’t just take off the gloves, he put on boxing gloves and wrapped them in barbed wire. He and his Super PACs spent an absolute fortune, pundits are saying he outspent Gingrich by $15 million in Florida (that means he spent a minimum of 4x more in Florida than Newt), and they spent almost 100% of it on purely negative ads trashing Gingrich. The attack ads (some of which were immediately disproved by Politifact and other sources, but people don’t normally look into things that well) aren’t a new tactic, we saw how well Romney’s negative tactics worked in Iowa when he demolished Gingrich there. What was a new development was how personal he got on the campaign trail. We didn’t see the Romney that promotes his business and leadership experience in Florida, we saw a new Romney that focused his energy on lashing out against Gingrich and pointing out his past in Congress and as a consultant and using that as a platform to make attacks against him. I wondered if Romney would go for the throat after being put on notice in South Carolina, but I underestimated how far he was willing to go with it. We also saw a different side of Gingrich than we’ve seen to date. The skilled orator who highlights his past as a political strategist and conservative while promoting his “grandiose” ideas was missing in Florida. We saw a Gingrich that appeared uncomfortable while under constant attack and failed to defend himself in an effective way against the attacks, whether they were true or false. He appeared frustrated, defensive, and angry and lost his focus on the issues and passion for his ideas we’ve seen so far. The other candidates, Santorum and Paul, barely register as having done anything in Florida. And before you start yelling at me, yes, I know both of them appeared at some events across the state and participated in the debates. Paul wisely skipped Florida to avoid wasting money and Santorum did what he could with the shoestring budget his campaign has been reduced to. We already knew Ron Paul was in this for the long haul, but it now appears Santorum is going to stay in the race as long as he can despite being flat in the polls too. I still don’t think this can continue all the way to the convention despite his claim that it will- Santorum simply doesn’t have the money or the loyal base of Paul to make it that far. He will have to win another state if he wants to build any momentum back up, and although that’s possible, I don’t think it’s too probable.

Did Romney show us he can unite the Republican Party and beat President Obama?

In a word- No. Romney had his strongest performance to date which is certainly important, but he still has a long ways to go to prove he can unite the Republican base and still appeal to any independents in a general election. Florida was a mixed bag for him. Yes, he won the primary and the delegates, but at a great cost. Not only did his campaign spend more than quadruple the amount of money campaigning in Florida than Gingrich (Santorum and Paul won’t register on the spending scale compared to either in Florida), he also lost a lot of his appeal to independents and potential Democratic defectors with the way he spent the money. Polls now show Romney’s likability numbers have been dropping since his scorched earth attack ad strategy started, and most surprisingly polls now show that Floridians would rather vote for Obama than Romney. This puts a whole new kink in the whole process. It has been assumed up until now that Romney was the most electable candidate and polls to date had shown him as the most likely to beat Obama, but that image of inevitability could be shattered if the way he wins the Republican nomination makes him so unlikable he can’t beat Obama. Romney is going to have to find a new way to beat Gingrich if he wants to be the nominee, because his constant negative attacks are taking a toll on his electability and overall appeal. Jabs here and there are fine and are pretty effective, but his current plan is a two edged sword and it will end up cutting him as badly as it cuts his opponents if he isn’t careful.

Is the style we saw in Florida from Gingrich and Romney going to continue?

No, I don’t think so. Gingrich’s concession speech (well, there wasn’t really any concession going on in it but I’m not sure what else you’d call it) after the results were almost all in was probably a signal of how his campaign will be run from here on out. He knows he didn’t handle the attacks well in Florida and that his own counter attacks failed to do any real damage to Romney and he needs to adjust his strategy if he’s going to be the nominee come August. I think Gingrich will stick to what he does best: promote big ideas, rail against Obama and the media when it’s beneficial to him, and lay out his vision for “rebuilding” America. He’ll have to get some jabs in against Romney here and there, but he needs to appear to rise above the attacks to beat them and I think he now knows that. Romney’s campaign machine is too big and well funded not to know that although they won the delegates in Florida, their current direction could cost them the election in November even if it succeeds in getting them the nomination. I think you’ll see Romney focus more on railing against Obama and trying to paint himself as someone the “common man” can connect with, because right now he’s still not making them believe he is the one that can make the economy work for them again. I think too many of his Gingrich attacks have been called out in Florida and Newt will theoretically be wiser from the mess of Florida and be better prepared for future grilling by the Romney ad machine, so there’s no logic in continuing in the vein of relentless negativity. The Super PACs for both will probably keep the anger dialed up for the rest of the process though, and the candidates will of course claim there’s nothing they can do about that.

So, like I said after South Carolina: Things are getting fun, and it will be interesting to see where things head. Luckily for my study habits February is a pretty slow month for the campaigning, but let me know what you think and I’ll do my best to respond.

-M

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 Election, Candidate, Florida, GOP, Newt Gingrich, Politics, President, Republican, Romney, Ron Paul, Santorum

South Carolina thoughts: What Romney, Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum need to do now..

South Carolina Primary Results

South Carolina results are in and Newt Gingrich didn’t just beat Mitt Romney, he demolished him as effectively as Romney demolished the competition in New Hampshire. Some people on the internet are upset about this and claiming the Republicans are fractured and grasping at straws. I think this is where things get fun actually. The continuously shifting momentum isn’t really a problem as long as it produces a stronger overall candidate in the end. I do have some thoughts on what each of the remaining candidates need to do now though:

Romney has to prove he can appeal to more than 20-30% of the Republican voters, something he has failed to do so far. If he can’t, he’s screwed. For that (and some other reasons), I personally think that the DNC would prefer to run against Romney than any of the others, but explaining that takes more time than I have right now.

Gingrich has to prove this win wasn’t a fluke and that he can adequately counter the concerns about his past (whether those are political or personal) and improve his negative perception numbers. He has momentum on his side right now, and he typically gains the most from the debates, but there are a lot of people out there that still have very negative feelings about him and he needs to win some more of them over. I was one of them, so I know it’s possible, but it takes effort on the voters part and that’s not something I’d want to be relying on… Voters are lazy. He needs to find a way to make the Republicans that can’t stand him now, for one reason or another, more comfortable with the idea of a Gingrich nominee.

Santorum needs money and organization to start doing better again, but I don’t think he will. His stances are too extreme even for many social conservatives and he is possibly the worst overall speaker of the bunch. If he continues the tactics that failed him during the S.C. debates of lashing out at all his opponents with exaggerated (and occasionally false) attacks, I think what momentum he has will fade and his campaign will be over in the next few weeks. He would have to replace his attacks, despite his statement tonight that he is running a positive campaign, with real substance and plans, something that he has yet to really do. His pro-family views appeal to some conservatives and we all know by now that he wants to get manufacturing going again, but how any of that translates into policy or action has been poorly defined in debates or ads so far. Any chance for his campaign to survive requires fixing that issue.

As for Ron Paul… well, I don’t know that he has to prove anything. He’s done better than most early media assessments thought he could, and his message has appealed enough to the voters that all the other candidates are paying attention and adopting more and more of his principles. He seems very happy with that and I’m honestly not sure if Dr. Paul actually wants to be president or not. If he does, he needs to have a primary win and soon to allow him to get enough momentum to have a shot at the nomination. To do that he needs to focus on his strengths and shy away from the issues people aren’t comfortable with, like his stance on Iran. Personally, I think he should start talking about how he would fix healthcare. As a physician this should be a strong point for him, but he hasn’t used it to his advantage yet and I don’t understand why. He also needs to stop rambling during speeches and debates because it’s pulling him off his message and dilutes his natural passion. If he can do those things he’s still very much in the game and I personally think he has a better shot than Santorum at remaining a viable candidate.

But those are just my ramblings, I’d like to hear your ideas on this one. Reply below and let me know what you think!

-M

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 Election, Newt Gingrich, Politics, President, Romney, Ron Paul, Santorum, South Carolina

Does media bias exist against Ron Paul, for Romney, and for Obama? My response to Beer Barrel Politics:

Today another political blog called Beer Barrel Politics posted a graph and short reflection about the Media “Bias” in politics. I enjoy reading their posts and though it would be interesting, but their take on this troubled me simply because the way they interpreted that graph is part of the problem with our country right now. We like to jump to snap conclusions based off very little information or just enough information to agree with what we want to believe regardless of what more adequate information would actually show us. You can view their post and graph here: http://beerbarrelpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/media-bias-in-one-chart .

The quote that they summed up their graph with was:

“Here are some common perceptions that this graph dispels:

1) Ron Paul gets abused by the media, is treated unfairly, and does not get the respect he deserves.

2) The media loves establishment politicians like Romney.

3) Back Obama is beloved by the media, and gets disproportionately positive coverage.”

This graph is interesting, but it doesn’t dispel any of those perceptions simply because the sample size is far too small to claim those perceptions are false or unreasonable. One week of coverage is not nearly enough to claim people that believe any of those perceptions are wrong. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with any of those perceptions, but let me give three quick reasons you don’t address with a one-week graph that those things might be true:

1– Ron Paul has received much more positive coverage in the last few weeks since his strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire than I’ve ever heard before. However, I, like many others, have heard him repeatedly dismissed as a “fringe” candidate and “unelectable” by a variety of political media pundits.I was actually a Paul supporter back in the 08 primaries and all I heard from the pundits and anchors back then was how he wasn’t a realistic candidate, if they remembered to mention him at all. Being ignored totally in a process where name recognition is so crucial could certainly be considered negative by some people. In fact, until recently, was notorious for being ignored at debates. I think a graph showing the amount of time each candidate spoke at a debate, or the number of questions they were asked, would be more relevant to the Ron Paul perception, otherwise you need data going back pre-2008 showing the same information.

2– During the last couple weeks the Bain Capital stories and issues about Romney’s taxes have been hot topics, so of course the press about him is mostly negative recently. That doesn’t mean it always has been. Romney has long been viewed as the “inevitable” candidate by the media due to his resources and name recognition, and I find it hard to believe that having almost all of the media calling you the likely nominee and talking about your future campaign against Barack Obama like the primaries have already been decided isn’t positive coverage. Based off what I’ve seen about Romney in the press over the last several months, the media has spent a lot more time talking about the strength of his campaign than they have criticizing it. Having major news networks proclaiming you the likely/probable/inevitable/etc. nominee is certainly good news for your campaign (although the Romney camp has done a very poor job at capitalizing off of that), but more importantly it is bad news for all the other candidates who then have to spend time proving they’re still competitive to undecided voters. Causing his opponents to have to spend extra time and resources explaining how well they’ve actually been doing in the polls compared to Romney and trying to tear down that aura of inevitability surrounding his campaign is certainly a good thing for Romney, regardless of whether you consider that positive coverage or not. That doesn’t mean they “love establishment politicians”, but it does seem to indicate they don’t find a lot to criticize about Romney himself that they can turn into media friendly soundbites.

3– For your Obama perception you would need media coverage that covers the last four years. President Obama’s level of media appeal and charisma have been declining pretty much since he took office and as such the media has much less incentive to talk about him in a positive light. With his current approval ratings and an upcoming election, I wouldn’t expect there to be a lot of positive press for Obama this year, but that doesn’t mean you’re correct in saying that the perception that the media likes Barack Obama is false, just that the energy, passion, and rhetoric the media seemed to like so much in 2008 is gone and as such they don’t spend time talking about it. I don’t know if the media is pro-Obama or not, but I think that he’s going to have a much harder time in 2012 campaigning on warm fuzzy feelings and completely abstract (and I’d argue mostly empty) promises of “hope” and “change” when the media has spent the last few years reminding Americans how bad the economy is and running stories about his promises that didn’t happen or didn’t work like he’d hoped they would. I think the media will actually be a stumbling block to his reelection campaign, but that has more to do with current events than the way they have portrayed him in the past. There’s simply not enough information in the graph to have any influence on that perception.

The bottom line is this: I don’t have the necessary data to go through and counter your graph or I would out of curiosity, but a graph covering six days of data has little to no bearing on any of those perceptions. If you visited Little Rock this past week and saw it was in the 50s and 60s all week, you might say “Well that just dispels the perception that it actually gets cold in the winter down here.” and although your observation is true for this tiny window of time, it’s certainly false overall. I appreciate the time you put into your posts and the graphs are always fun, but making blanket statements based off too little data never leads to good results. You may think those perceptions are illogical, but your attempt to dispel them is equally so. You can’t put sanity back into politics without being informed, and you just don’t have enough information here to tell all these other people they’re wrong.

-M

3 Comments

Filed under 2012 Election, Bain Capital, Barack Obama, Candidate, GOP, Paul, Politics, President, Romney, Ron Paul

Ron Paul gets a raw deal from the pundits…

Tonight’s CNN debate was a mess. I thought Fox News did a mediocre job (they normally do) with the debate earlier this week, but tonight CNN managed to make that one look like it had substance. I don’t know if you could call anyone a winner tonight, no one really excelled they were so bogged down with personal background garbage, but watching the comments/”scorecards” going up on twitter and facebook I think Ron Paul is getting a raw deal. 


Everyone seems to have Dr. Paul as the weakest performer tonight and I think that’s incorrect. In my view, Santorum (who admittedly is my least favorite of the remaining candidates) was the weakest tonight simply because his entire strategy rested on throwing attacks, many of which were completely irrelevant to the issues at hand, at the others and attempting to play a consistent conservative high card with each attack. All three of his opponents put him back in his place repeatedly with answers or stats to counter his attacks and his strategy reeked of desperation and an overall lack of substance. You don’t play the “I’m doing well in the polls and I can take on Obama” card and turn around and pout or throw petty personal attacks at your opponents the next second and then not be able to adequately back them up. He did succeed in bruising Romney a bit, but I thought Romney had a pretty good first hour when he managed to inject some passion and excitement in his ideas for the first time I can remember since I started watching the debates. The rest of the night wasn’t as great for him, and he did a pretty poor job answering the tax and abortion questions, but I don’t think he did badly overall. Likewise, Gingrich has a very strong opening exchange, but you could tell he was a little off his game overall tonight compared to previous debates and I think this personal stuff going on with his angry ex-wife is taking a toll on his concentration regardless of how much of it is true. Paul didn’t do a very good job of delivering real answers to several of the questions tonight, which is a bit unusual for him, but his style was smoother than normal and he got some hits in on Santorum simply by countering Santorum’s statements against him.  It’s the first debate I wish I hadn’t watched, but I was curious to see how things played out with Rick Perry off the stage. The dynamic was certainly different, but it’s impossible to say how much the field has changed when a debate centers around unimportant personal history and petty attacks instead of the biggest issues facing whoever our next President will be. 


With that said, I think Ron Paul did a lot better tonight than the media is giving him credit for and he deserves to be placed ahead of Rick Santorum in any evaluation of the debate. Paul was able to counter every one of Santorum’s attacks and in my opinion did some damage to Santorum’s credibility in the way he handled the issues. I may not have Dr. Paul as my top pick in this race anymore, but I won’t ignore it when the media ignores his strengths. 

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 Election, CNN, Debates, GOP, Newt Gingrich, Perry, Politics, President, Republican, Romney, Ron Paul, Santorum

I’m a Ron Paul Defector, but Let Me Explain…

In the second South Carolina debate this week, Rick Santorum said he was the best person for the presidency because he could get results in Washington. While doing so, he criticized Newt Gingrich for the “grandiosity” of his ideas and said that Newt rarely gets results. Although I think that’s just factually incorrect, I found it interesting that with the candidates whittled down to the final four, they’re finally getting more serious about who can actually accomplish what they preach. Although I explained in my last post why I think Gingrich is the most logical person to get results as President, I want to explain why I think Ron Paul, my other favored candidate in the race, isn’t the right choice for the nomination. 

My concern with Ron Paul is exactly Santorum’s concern with Gingrich. Ron Paul has a good talk and a lot of pro-liberty/freedom rhetoric, and I do like quite a bit of what he says, but he can’t get results out of any of it because he has little to no interest in working with others. I voted for Ron Paul in the 08 Primary, and I do like him as a politician (which is rare for me), but I can’t get over the feeling he’d be an incredibly ineffective president. He has been in Congress a very long time and his record reflects his beliefs, which I like. Unfortunately he’s largely ignored by both parties and spins his wheels when trying to push for or implement any of his ideas. This is actually a large part of why (other than the intelligence, etc. mentioned previously) I currently favor Gingrich- I think he would actually get results simply because of his history. No, I don’t think he sticks to his beliefs as hardline as Paul does, but I don’t think you can actually be that inflexible and get anything accomplished in Washington D.C. No, I don’t really like parts of Gingrich’s personal background, and no, I don’t agree with everything he has done (this goes for both though), but he did get results in the 90s working with both sides and I think he could do it again.  Gingrich was instrumental in reaching a bipartisan balanced budget even after his very aggressive campaign to put Republicans into Congress in 94 and he actually got Bill Clinton to sign it eventually. I’m sure there were compromises made along the way, but I can’t think of any American right now that doesn’t want their government to get back to a balanced budget and put the ridiculous partisan politics aside long enough to actually get some work done. 



Ultimately, I think that’s what we need this election, whether Republicans realize it yet or not. You don’t need a leader with great ideas that can’t get anyone else to support him- the Presidency is not a bubble of total power. We need someone who can get results out of a dysfunctional government and start getting things back on track. Unfortunately I just can’t find a way to convince myself that Paul is that candidate. Based off his track record of largely standing alone on issues and being known as “Dr. No” even in his own party, I don’t think Paul can get any bipartisan traction going or get many (if any) of his bigger reform goals accomplished. The president can’t stand alone and get anything done, and that is exactly what Dr. Paul has done with his time in Congress, no matter how much I respect him and his views. 

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 Election, Debates, Gingrich, GOP, Newt Gingrich, Paul, Politics, President, Republican, Ron Paul, Santorum

Why Newt Gingrich Dominates Debates

Tonight’s Fox News debate may have been the worst one I’ve watched from the perspective of loaded or “gotcha” questions. Juan Williams was far from the only one asking loaded questions, but his questions really seemed hell bent on creating racial tensions and judgments out of statements or policies that had little, if anything, to do with race and the audience was getting fed up with it too judging by their noises and twitter. The other moderators were no better, their questions were just spread over more issues. I don’t know if that’s a Fox News thing or what, but it was quite irritating. 

I thought Newt did a very good job tonight because he took his aptitude for these debate settings and injected enough passion into it to make him come across as the most genuine in their views tonight by a good margin. He normally does well in debates, but pretty much everything I’ve read tonight felt he “won” tonight with his performance and the feedback was surprisingly positive from people that I know don’t care for him. Romney had a rare “bad” performance, which is probably what allowed Gingrich to steal more of the show, mainly because he let himself get thrown off his normally smooth style by the others and their questions, most notably Santorum. It wasn’t all bad of course, but he was all over the place tonight and I think it might have actually hurt him a little as far as SC is concerned. Santorum had his best debate performance tonight by a good margin and I think probably scored some points off of Romney by being able to appear more knowledgeable on some policy issues and calling him out on his redirection in how he somewhat avoided questions. Perry did surprisingly well tonight, which I guess is nice, but I think he may almost be a non-issue at this point. Paul had a hit or miss night, he did pretty well until foreign policy and once again let himself get side tracked and preachy, which isn’t helping him out any. I think Paul normally comes across as one of the most genuine and straightforward, so appearing a bit disjointed and indirect tonight was a bit unusual for him from what I’ve seen.



The reason Gingrich’s performance tonight was so powerful isn’t because it was just that much better than all his other performances, it wasn’t. It’s because he has been top dog in the debates since this whole circus started. He may not always have the flashiest one liners (although now that Herman Cain is gone he’s had the most) in a debate, but he stays on message, he answers the questions, and doesn’t waste time with empty rhetoric or loaded questions meant to stir up trouble. He doesn’t lose composure like some of the others and can keep his train of thought when others throw a curveball, unlike Mitt Romney or Rick Perry. Tonight was just chaotic enough to show the American people how competent Gingrich actually is, and although I’ve been warming to him over the past several weeks and I researched his platform and watched the debates, I think tonight solidified his position at the top of my list for the Republican Nominee. Newt Gingrich’s intelligence, history of getting results in a bipartisan way, and overall speaking ability make him a powerful leader and I think that would translate into him being a very effective president. I know some won’t agree with me and there are many (I’ve received messages from more than a few) that think I’m nuts for this viewpoint, but I think that the Republicans, Independents, and defecting Democrats that want to get this economy and this country back on track should be listening to what Gingrich says. Not just because it sounds good, all of the candidates have some very nice sounding ideas, but because he actually has the history demonstrating an ability to get his ideas done, and that is what sets him apart as the most logical candidate to get results.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 Election, Candidate, Debates, Fox News, Gingrich, GOP, Newt Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Politics, President, Republican, Romney