So I only caught the last half or so of the Republican Debate on Fox (there were better things to do, like watch Community and Big Bang Theory), but I got enough of a glimpse to form a few thoughts:
Gary Johnson - Probably the only reason this guy is making the highlight reel is his dog joke regarding shovel ready jobs. I listened to Rush Limbaugh earlier that day, and Rush used the same joke (not sure if Rush "borrowed" it from someone else or what). Johnson admitted this morning that the joke came as a suggestion from a caller to a local New Mexico radio show. Who knows, maybe that caller got it from Rush. Regardless, the joke was not something Johnson came up with on the spot or even on his own, so why should he get credit or extra debate points for using it? At the very least he should have prefaced the joke by saying something like "it reminds me of a joke I heard . ."
Rick Perry - I really want to like Rick Perry, but for some reason I am still unusually suspicious of him. His debate performances have been awful, and they don't seem to be getting any better. Right now he reminds me of Fred Thompson four years ago: lots of hype coming in, but just cannot live up to it. Organizationally he is in much better shape than Thompson ever was, which might save him; but as someone who doesn't know all that much about the guy, I have not been impressed with him yet.
Mitt Romney - Romney is someone I do not want to like, but his preparation and up front skills are two things that appeal to me. With Romney, I am not convinced that he would come into office ready and willing to wipe away all the junk that Obama and his administration have managed to add to government in the past three years. He seems fickle. Either he is coming into his own over the years, learning from his past mistakes, or he is just wishy washy. Wishy washy equals moderate. Of course even just being a moderate would be a stark contrast to Obama, but I want someone with conservative convictions at their very core. Yes, Romney has some business experience in his background, something he is quick to bring up to contrast himself with those candidates (Perry in particular) who have spent their careers in politics; but as someone pointed out, Romney drifted back into his business career only because he lost a political campaign. If Romney had won all those times, he would have had a longer political career.
Michelle Bachmann - I have always liked Bachmann. She seems sharp and accomplished. She is not a lightweight. It just does not seem possible that she would get the nomination. Whether that is because she is a woman or because she comes from the House or because she sometimes says something that make your head spin . . I don't know. She does not seem to have the straight talk populace appeal that Sarah Palin had as a vice presidential candidate, but I think Bachmann would actually make a better candidate as vice president than Palin, if given the chance.
Ron Paul - This guy will always be a fringe, cult-like candidate. He says some great things and then he says some really off the wall things. He, of all the candidates, would probably come into office with the biggest agenda shift. Questionable if he could get anyone else (particularly in Congress) on board with him though.
All the other candidates I thought did a good job actually. They all seemed informed, passionate, and in many respects qualified for the job. No one candidate has wowed me though, which means that they all have their faults. It's a good process for all of us to go through, trying to determine what criteria is ultimately the most important to us individually and as a country. Do we want someone who supposedly speaks well (look what that got us today), or do we want a policy wonk? Are we comfortable with someone who has some moderate stands on some issues, or do we want a hard core conservative? This is the time to makes these considerations in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. If we don't, we get Obama. That should motivate us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment