by Robert Arvay
Last night in New Hampshire, seven Republican presidential hopefuls participated in the first debate of the 2012 election season. Two big headlines stand out from this evening’s debate and both of them come from the Minnesota candidates.
1. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is now a candidate. She announced that she has filed her papers as such.
2. Governor Tim Pawlenty stated that Sarah Palin is qualified to be president.
First impressions:
1. Mitt Romney came across much stronger than I thought he would.
2. Tim Pawlenty came across much weaker than I thought he would, but what he said about Sarah Palin made up for a lot.
3. Herman Cain stumbled a couple of times, but what he lacks in polish, he makes up for with his plain-speaking manner and sincerity.
4. Michelle Bachmann seems quick on her feet, solidly conservative, and defended the TEA Party well.
5. Newt Gingrich is a no nonsense candidate. He will quickly point out the flaw in a question put to him, and then state his position.
6. Ron Paul has very little charisma; I disagree with him on many points, but what he says is well worth hearing.
7. Rick Santorum is a brilliant man, but could be more intense and engaged.
My pick from the seven: Michelle Bachmann wins first place, Ron Paul seventh.
A side note: John King interspersed non-serious questions during the debate, which I think was a masterful touch that lightened the mood. The big question is why was liberal CNN hosting a Republican showcase event?
On the issue of abortion, I think that all the candidates flubbed this one. If we really wish to win the presidency, it is critical to have a position on abortion that most voters will support. My advice is to frame the contentious abortion issue on the Constitutional principle of due process, with which Americans instinctively agree.
The liberal philosophy on abortion is to kill any unborn baby, any time, at the mother's whim, at taxpayer expense; that should be portrayed as the radical position that it is. However, if we focus on due process, then we can say that an abortion can occur only if the unborn child has a voice, through an advocate: a fairness doctrine that really is fair.
In my opinion, a pregnant woman must prove that there is a threat to her life or her health, to the satisfaction of a panel of physicians, before killing the baby. She would also have to prove that there is no reasonable alternative to the abortion. That would eliminate the ability of the liberals to focus all the attention on the rare cases where an abortion might be excusable. Anyone who would deny the innocent child at least this modicum of respect would be cold hearted, indeed.
All seven of the candidates were solidly conservative on fiscal and Constitutional issues. Certainly any one of them would be a vast, vast improvement over Obama.
The most important point that everyone made is that Obama has deserted his post. He has no energy policy, no jobs program, no coherent foreign policy, no plan to save Medicare, and no responsible budget. Obama’s administration is a total disaster for this country.
Given time, it is possible that despite a rabidly anti-American propaganda machine loosely called “the reporters,” the candidates can begin to show the American people that the federal government needs desperately to return to its limited, Constitutional role or our liberties will be forfeit.
One might ask, aside from a brief mention, where was Sarah Palin in this debate? Why didn't she ask to be included? Since she chose to not participate, can she still be considered a possible candidate?
To answer that, I refer you back to the first debate among Republican candidates who ran in the year 2000. One man was notably absent. His name is George W Bush, later known as two-term President George W. Bush.
Posts
