click image to enlarge
Yes, once again I sat through the two hour debate the other day, so I thought I would post my observations. I missed a little of it, because I was trying to help my daughter for an English exam, and that of course, was infinitely more important than watching nine buffoons vying for attention to see who can get in the most memorable sound bite. Helping my daughter with her homework also prevented me from falling asleep.
Statistics were thrown around by the candidates and moderators alike. I wonder how many of these statistics are actually true. I would venture a guess that probably a good portion of the statistics is just wrong, but who would know? There should be a fact check site where we could check the accuracy of these statistics.
So on to the candidates ---
Ron Paul,
If anything, you have to admit Ron Paul is entertaining. One wonders how this dolt ever made it to public office. He actually said something with which I agreed. When other candidates were saying the government should continue paying for farming subsidies including ethanol, Ron Paul was against it. I guess he does understand the concept of a free market.
In one part of the debate, Ron Paul started flailing his arms about yelling that the United States needed congressional approval before launching an attack against Iran. He then said, In 220 years Americas has never been under imminent attack. Guliani chimed in and retorted that there were 23 plots against the United States since 9/11. I am betting that 23 figure is correct since Guliani was probably just waiting to use it. There was no response from the other candidates. Somewhat puzzling.
Okay – I am going to give all the candidates help with this one – Pearl Harbor!!!! Can you believe it? Not one of the candidates mentioned it. They should have watched the recently aired PBS special The War by Ken Burns.
Fred Thompson,
Needless to say, I am not enamored of Fred Thompson like so many of my fellow conservatives seem to be. Here are a few adjectives that I would use to describe good ole Fred during the debate: laconic, lackluster, lethargic, uninspiring, humdrum, insipid, geriatric, and torpid. I think I have adequately described Fred – Reagan, he is not. I don’t think a moribund candidate who appears excessively tired can ever win the presidency especially against Hillary. Remember the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon Debate?
Chris Matthew did try to stump him with a gotcha question, “Who was the Prime Minister of Canada?" and Thompson retorted, “Harper.” – That was good. I actually forget what the original question was, since I was so impressed with him knowing who the Canadian Prime Minister was. He nailed it – so there Chris Matthew!!. Now Matthew should have asked the other candidates some additional “Are you smarter than a 5th grader questions.” Come on, let’s be fair.
Mitt Romney,
The poster boy for Mattel’s Ken (Barbie’s friend), in my opinion, was never electable anyway. For too many evangelicals, Mormonism is a cult, and without the evangelical vote, you can’t win the Republican nomination.
In any event, Mitt made his biggest guffaw when he said he would consult with his attorneys before he goes to war with Iran.
Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee
What’s the point of talking about them, they aren’t going to even be a blimp on the radar screen come election time, and they have no money anyway.
Rudy Guliani,
There is so much about Guliani I do not like, but I believe he is the only viable candidate who has a chance at beating Hillary, and Hillary must be beaten at all cost.
Guliani is fiscally conservative, and he will be a good warrior in the war against radical Islam.
There is a movement afoot led by Doctor James Dobson and other evangelical leaders to bring in a 3rd party candidate. If this happens, Hillary will win by a landslide as predicted by a recent Ramussen poll. This will be a huge mistake.
I agree with Dr Dobson on most everything, but I disagree with him on this. As a Christian and a conservative republican, I believe we can only further our cause if we can prevent the Democrats from regaining power. A vote for a third party candidate or a vote not cast at all is a vote for Hillary.
I understand the frustration with Guliani, but I am not willing to hand over the presidency to Hillary without a fight. Four years of Hillary can devastate this country and this economy.
Because of Guliani’s position on abortion, many pro-lifers will not vote for him. I look at this as an absurd position. Would it have been better for him to change positions as so many politicians do for political expediency, or is it better for him to maintain his honesty? He has said he will put strict constructionists on the bench, judges who interpret the constitution rather than legislate. If we had strict constructionists on the bench during Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade would never have become law, because there is nothing in the constitution that gives a woman a right to an abortion. If Roe v Wade is overturned, the issue of abortion will just revert back to the states anyway.
There was a point when I would never have voted for a pro-choice candidate, but after 9/11 that changed. We can choose to stay home and let Hillary win. We can choose to vote for a 3rd party and let Hillary win, or we can choose to be apathetic and let Hillary win. The war against radical Islam is now paramount in my mind.
There is no other Republican candidate that can beat Hillary!!! None!!
Judges under a Hillary presidency will be much worse than anyone Guliani would appoint to the bench.
We have people in Islamic countries actively pursuing our demise. The Democrats have attempted to dismantle every measure put forth to keep us safer. Most Democrats don’t even believe there are people trying to kill us. Democrats believe We can just talk to our malevolent dictators and hope they will listen (you know like Stalin and Chamberlain did during World War ll with Hitler) and then invite them to our universities. If there is a nuclear bomb dropped, it won’t matter whether or not we have choice on anything.
If Hillary is elected, she will dismantle much of what the Republicans have put in place to fight the war on terror. She will head towards a far-left socialist agenda leaning towards a more centrally planned economy. It will be easy to pass her leftist agenda since both houses will be controlled by the Democrats.
The Economy
I surmised early on in this morass of a debate that these candidates fail to understand the basics of economics. Two books I suggest they read are Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations published in the 1700s, the first written account in the defense of a free market system. The second book I recommend was just published by Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence.
Chris Matthew asked McCain if Bernanke (he should have first asked him if he knew who the Fed chairman was.) should have lowered interest rates, McCain actually said, “He didn’t know. He was not an expert.” At least it was refreshing to see an honest politician. But then McCain continued, “it would be nice if interest rates were zero.” Huh? He should have stopped at the point where he said he wasn’t an expert, because saying it would be nice if interest rates were zero not only showed he wasn’t an expert, but it just showed he was stupid.
Interest rates control the liquidity in a free market. Rates are lowered if you need more liquidity in the market such as you needed in the subprime mortgage debacle. Rates are increased to decrease liquidity. You decrease liquidity if the economy is growing too fast, and you want to prevent inflation. It is a delicate balance.
I have a follow-up question for senator McCain, "If interest rates went to -0-, who would purchase our treasury bonds to finance our national debt?"
Continuing with the economy, Thompson adds that protectionism is a bad idea, but never expounds on why. Most of the electorate probably does not understand what these terms even mean, so the candidate needs to be able to explain why something is bad if he brings it up. Protectionism has always proven to be a failure. Protectionist policies or the idea of adding tariff barriers to prevent imports from entering into a country inhibits a free market and the free flow of capital. Countries were very protectionist before World War ll. These protectionist policies led to a decrease in international trade and eventually contributed to the collapse of world economic activity. Alan Greenspan writes is his book The Age of Turbulence, “The postwar liberalization of trade helped open up new low-cost sources of supply…it facilitated the foreword thrust toward global market capitalism even during the years of the cold war.” In essence, countries are wealthier because of non-protectionist policies.
I know the Democrats don’t understand the economy, but I thought the Republicans had a better grasp. I guess I was wrong. but how can you run for president if you do not understand how the economy works? Am I missing something?
Energy
I get so tired of hearing about ethanol. Ethanol won’t work, and all the candidates keep talking about it as the panacea to our energy crisis.
Guliani said France is using Nuclear Power – why aren’t we? Yeah!!! One of the first intelligent comments I have heard in the entire debate. But no one mentioned ANWAR.
This is what I think we should do to become energy independent. first, we should build nuclear power plants, second start drilling for oil. We have an abundant supply of oil, but we somehow would rather send our petrodollars to people who want to kill us, and third look for feasible alternative energy sources. But nuclear power and oil should be first on the agenda, because we already know they work, and then we can look for alternative energy sources. We should then do what Kennedy did when he made a vow to go to the moon in ten years. We need a vow to become energy independent within some time frame (what a concept!), but not by schemes like ethanol, but by using common sense and what we already know works first.
Instead of the global warming fraud, why don’t the candidates come out and say why global warming is pseudo science. There is sure plenty of evidence. But they not only jump on the band wagon, they want to subsidize alternative forms of energy. This is just plain not conservative, and it belongs on the Democratic aisle.
At the end of the debate, there was some repartee between Thompson and Romney. I guess Thomson still had some comebacks left over that he wanted to use. Needless to say, I didn’t think the exchange was funny. There was laughter, so others may have thought he was funny.
Democrats are winning because conservatives are forgetting why they are conservatives.
After this debate, I could only think to myself, we better start getting used to a Leftist, Socialist (Pinko-Commie) President Hillary and first man, Bill.
If Hillary is elected get used to hearing this:
A little bit of forced cackle
No comments:
Post a Comment