First of all, I find it absolutely reprehensible that a GOP debate would be held on MSNBC. They might as well to have had it in Beijing or Moscow. And while we are on that subject. What was Rachel Maddow railing on about in front of the Hoover Dam? Doesn’t she understand that because of the type of Government she loves, projects like the Hoover dam can never be built any more. Bridges can’t be built and most buildings never get built because of the litigation from Environmentalists. Their super power, the EPA, has made enough rules and edicts that has made it almost impossible for anything to get done any more, and even projects that are working nicely are being killed because of their ridiculousness.
Ok, on to the debate.
Huntsman: This man is seriously a Democrat and I have no idea why he is in the debate to begin with.He is in bed with the Environmentalists and global Warming “scientists.” He spent too much time in China and I have doubts about his true loyalty to the country
Cain: I really like this guy and to be honest I think he would be the better candidate. The only problem is that he doesn’t have enough of a following to be a winner. I love his 9,9,9 tax schedule and wish it would go through. His weakness would most likely be foreign policy. I would still vote to give him a chance mainly because he has a proven record for pulling companies out of the red and into the black again and he just has plain good ideas.
Santorum: I really like this guy’s moral codes and give him credit for standing up for what he believes in, but unfortunately he keeps answering questions by telling us how much he agrees with the other candidates.
Gingrich: I really like Newt and I have a lot of respect for him. His main drawback is that he is a career politician and I have some reservations as to his ability to put the country ahead of his political gains.
Paul: Ron Paul sounds really good on some things, and then there is the other 25% of the time that he proves he is an absolute lunatic. I am convinced that most of his support is from people who want to legalize marijuana. His foreign policy ideas would ruin our country forever.
Bachmann: I really like Michelle. She is proud to stand up for her beliefs and she has a good record for standing up for family issues as well as conservative ideals. She would make a good leader and I envision her as an equal to Margaret Thatcher. Again, I am not convinced that enough people would vote for her and we do not need a candidate that could win beyond a shadow of a doubt. Time will tell with Mrs. Bachmann.
Romney: Romney is a good politician even though he keeps bringing out the fact that he made most of his money in the private business world. There are several things that I dont particularly care for about him. First, he comes from the most liberal state in the union, with perhaps California being an exception, and he brings to the table this Teddy Kennedy mentality to running the country. He signed into law Romneycare and still defends that monstrosity as a good thing. He is the true definition of a RINO and the mainstream media seems to love him and wants him to be a front runner so bad they cant stand it. I dont think he has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning anything and he is falling further and further behind.
Perry: Rick Perry is the man to beat at this point. I think he has the nomination as long as he don’t shoot himself in the foot between now and the primaries. He has some issues that I have questions about, starting with the executive order to give all 12 year old girls Guardisil and the second item of interest is his participation in the Bilderberg meetings. There are a number of web sites that claim he has some issues with sex and/or gay issues. I would like somone to ask him point blank if he is gay and if he has sexual problems. Other than that, I think he would make an excellent president. So far he has my vote unless he says or does something to change my mind.