"life lessons", African Americans, American Conservative, American Interests, American Morality, Bachmann, bisexual, Cain, Committment, compromise, Conservative opinion, Democrat, Don't Ask- Don't Tell, elect-ability, Gingrich, hearing impaired Americans, heterosexual, Hispanic Americans, homosexual, Huntsman, illegal immigration, Johnson, Limited Government, Military appreciation, moderate, out-of-work Americans, Paul, Perry, rich Americans, Romney, Santorum, settle, Sexual choice, spiritual, The BEST of America, US Military Veterans
Details may change from debate to debate, but my observations are the same. Christie’s endorsement of Romney only confirms to me that We-the-People can do better, more conservatively than Romney. I still like Cain & Santorum … I like Newt, too, but not in the Oval Office!
It has only been a few years since Sen McCain won the Republican nomination, and I still wonder how that happened. He was no one’s favorite, but it seems, the others cancelled each other right out of the race. At least that’s what we were told! I don’t know, but I am concerned that the same thing might happen … that an UNPOPULAR candidate may come away with the nomination just because
With no further ado, my blogsense take on the candidates:
This was certainly the single most pointed question of the evening, and Santorum handled it truthfully and well. Sexual choice has no business in the military “standard,” for or against. Their mission has nothing to do with sex! Similarly, in the general population, gays ought not be a “separate” group of Americans! I think it was Herman Cain who said something about the various ethnic and social groups in America, i.e African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Irish Americans, hearing impaired Americans, rich Americans … the only separate group that deserves special attention right now is the “out-of-work Americans!”
Where Perry loses me is his record and stand on illegals. Nuff said.
Romney (and Perry, IMHO) are just too plastic – to prone to seek the applause rather than telling it like it is.
Ron Paul – is acceptable on financial matters and the Fed, but foreign policy, well … sticking our head in the sand is NOT a viable option!
Michele Bachmann seems to be losing some of her razzle-dazzle. She is well spoken and poised, but lacks … Je ne sais quoi
Newt is great, and I want to see him active, but not sure the Oval Office is the place for him. His vast experience, however, might make him a fabulous Chief of Staff or Sec of State!
Huntsman and Johnson are duplicates … Neither offer anything particularly unique to the field. Huntsman does not come across as “genuine,” and Johnson is cut from the same cloth as Paul.
I really resent the whole notion of “elect-ability!” That should NOT be our consideration as we evaluate the candidates. If the party nominates the person We-the-People select, he/she will win the election! What happened in ’08 was that a “compromise” candidate was nominated (and I still wonder what went on behind closed doors,) that polarized the party. As Bachmann said last night, for too long the Conservative Republicans have waited in the wings, settling for the choice of more moderate party-members. ENOUGH COMPROMISE! Do we just want someone who LOOKS presidential, or do we want the substantial character and leadership of a genuine, “belly-deep” conservative??? Do we want a Butt-kisser or one with the courage of conviction to stand against the tide of leftist opinion???