Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!
In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
CNN Debate: November 22nd, 2011
Comments, concerns? CNN bias? Wolf Blitzer? Got anything to say?
Newt is winning so far. Romney is not being given enough chances. It shows the fear liberal CNN has of him. Cain is ok. Santorum is toast for suggesting we should profile Muslims exclusively.
Romney didn't do well, but is most presidential. They aren't giving him enough time. Newt won, will be on top of the polls tomorrow, and the lib media will start destroying him.
I believe that Mr. Gingrich was trying to follow debate rules, and was a bit 'snubbed' by Blitzer at first, I think Bachmann shows her complete intellegence, but Newt as usual, gives thoughtful intelligent answers. I think Perry is bombing, and Cain seems a bit aprehensive, knowing that some people see him differently..although I see that he got a bum rap. When Paul was defiant against Israel...it seemed to validate his 'anti-semitism' accusations that people have claimed against him. Newt wins again
Hmmm, good thoughts. They say "you never get a second chance to make a first impression." Newt made a GREAT first impression with his Patriot Act answer. He showed he is a great debater. I think he won tonight.
My opinion of the debate this evening...well to start off with, this is CNN. Couldn't they have tested the feed b4 starting the debate? Had a few times when the tv went black from a bad feed. Wish Wolf would have fulfilled his promise to give the candidates equal time and questions. Quite a few were put to the back of the field and only received a few questions...and they were the ones not blowing hot air only (except for RP, but he did have some good answers). I like Mrs. Bachmann's introductory comment where she wished the military overseas a Happy Thanksgiving and told them we want them home soon. I agree with her there. I think that any of the candidates on the stage would be better as President than Obama is, but I prefer Herman Cain and he has my vote at this time. I thought he did very well for being "ignorant" on foreign policy (media's push, not mine) and I think that speaks well of him as national security and foreign policy are intertwined. Ron Paul did worry me with his non-Israel stance yet again. Israel, along with England/UK, are some of our greatest allies and to basically turn your back on them is not a position that will resonate with the American people, IMO. I also found Newt's idea/position of some amnesty disturbing. We can't allow people who broke the law and pardon (basically that is how I see amnesty). If they don't go through the correct channels, then they get deported. I don't care how long they have been here. Yes, immigration reform might be a necessity, but they need to abide by our laws or they shouldn't be allowed to be here. If I chose to immigrate to another country, I would do it legally, celebrate their holidays, and learn to speak their language. That is just common sense and common courtesy to me. I think Herman Cain had some awesome answers...we will support Israel in an offensive strike against Iran if they had a credible plan and a clear way to win (not a warmonger with that answer), look at the Patriot Act and refine parts if necessary (yes, some refining needed, IMO), let our intelligence agencies help with targeted profiling (my word), our economic status is important to national security, secure our borders, and yes, cyber attacks are a problem to our national security. I also want to say that the candidates all did a great job and I am proud of all of them. This election is serious business and they all appear to realize that. There was not a lot of attacking, just some disagreement over solutions. I have seen worse, but I have also seen better. Overall, this debate rates around a 7 on a scale of 1-10 in my opinion.
Herman Cain is in way over his head. National Security and Foreign Policy and definitely foreign to Mr. Cain. I feel bad for his supporters. They are constantly having to make excuses for his lack of knowledge, which really isn't surprising as Cain does this himself whenever asked about his DUH moments. He was misinformed, didn't have all the information, was tired, needed a sandwich. Got news for ya Mr. Cain, as President you have to be on top of things. Your inexperience shines like a beacon in the night. We have already seen what inexperience does for this country. Cain would be like a redo of Obama. No thanks.
I would say either Huntsman or Paul. Their ideas on foreign policy are different than anything we have seen in recent years. What we have been doing isn't working so maybe they are on to something. The rest seem to eager to start another war. I do think it is wise to let Israel stand on its own. They are more than capable of taking care of themselves and that would keep the rest of the middle east in check. Besides messing around with Iran isn't in the best interest of the United States given the friendly relationship Iran has with China and Russia. Nothing good would come of war tactics with Iran.
"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors" - Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately, current republicrats's minds are filled with falsehoods and errors... And anyone who dares to question such inconsistencies will be marginalized and sometimes even censored.
Ron Paul is only marginalized because he exposes the hypocrisy and criticizes the inconsistencies of the status quo (establishment).
Anonymous, thanks for the post. But if you read this blog, you might realize the central theme is "proof." Just like in the post "Proof, It's What's for Dinner" we'd like to see people back what they say. I'm not saying your opinion is incorrect, but you made a statement: "Unfortunately, current republicrats's minds are filled with falsehoods and errors..." and this blog is an avenue to challenge opinions, whether they are from the same or the opposing political party.
I thought that Cain came across as just plain 'dopey'. I can't imagine him sitting down for a meeting with, say, Hamid Karzai and saying something like: 'Hey Karz, sure are alot of mountains around here in Adghangighanighanistan. It must be nice having such a natural defense system against. Mountains are good defense systems for the following 3 reasons: 1)....". His responses are often incoherent and seem more rehearsed than anything. He would be an embarrassment to the White House.
Romney just looks SO untrustworthy to me. I don't understand how people say he looks and sounds presidential.. That title, in my opinion, belongs to Huntsman. Romney looked like he was about to cry at times in sort of an 'I'm taking my ball and going home' sort of way.
Huntsman, as I mentioned looked and sounded the part. I didn't know much about him last night and was impressed with him. Also, he seems a moderate which is what this country needs right now.
Newt will do anything to get elected. He too sounded the part but I just don't trust him. That being said, I thought he had the best debate. He was assertive and in control.
Bachmann is not presidential material and that's about the bast I can say about her.
Ron Paul is someone I like alot, but think his 'social' program philosophy is WAY off. I totally agree with his position on Israel. If Israel attacks Iran, the United States should NOT be involved. In my opinion, they who strike first are the aggressor and you cannot build world support for an aggressor. Iran would be committing suicide to attack Israel. I am also one who thinks out relationship and blind support for them should be revisited. Ron Paul is also a Constitutionalist who, I believe, understands the rule of law and how the power of law should be distributed better than any other candidate. I also support his foreign policy of military isolationism. However, his social policy is something I totally disagree with. I also think that if any of the candidates were going to fix the budgetary crisis in this country, it'd be Paul since he has the least to do with special interests.
Santorum is WAY too far right. I like my politics without religion (which I think is a HUGE problem nobody focuses on - who cares if Romney is Mormon? or if Obama is Muslim or Christian?). Religion, already a divisive force throughout the world, only makes politics more divisive. Religion has no place in politics and Santorum would desire, essentially, a Christian state.
Perry, almost forgot about him... easy to do... enough said!
All in all, I think this should now be a 2 horse race between Huntsman and Gingrich (though it pains me to count Ron Paul out of this group). Romney is a puppet who will say and/or do anything depending on who's writing the checks. That guy can't make up his mind and can't be expected to maintain consistency. I'm amazed he has as much support as he does (must be the hair). Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Santorum are all different flavors of crazy and none have a legitimate shot at the presidency. They are handing around vying for a VP nod or posturing for cabinet positions.
@Newt2012 - Why do Ron Paul supporters have to be 'trolls'? Can't we have a discussion without calling each other names? Seriously, grow up!
Sorry LME - just sick of the senseless and useless name calling which seems pervasive in any sort of political discussion these days. It's part of the greater problem in this country's politics and society. We used to be about tolerance.
Whatsamattausa - Nice post! I agree with some, not with all.
Cain - Ok, I like Cain. I will admit. And with a favorite football team, you can admit with their quarterback is a terrible runner. Foreign policy isn't his strength. I do like his "I will consult the experts" approach. He started this in a debate in South Carolina a while back. To me, it came off as "honestly, I don't know, and I'm not going to try to BS you. When I'm president and I'm surrounded by experts, you'll get your answer then." I think that a candidate that answers with an "I don't know" here and there is respectable.
Romney - I can see why people say he looks presidential. I think he is good but not great. I'm a little worried that his "hey, can I finish my time" rants might get called out. He has had an argument about time in nearly every debate. Conversely, I think it shows a self-respecting man that is willing to stand up for himself when he feels he has been wronged. Still a good candidate, but to me, was slightly off.
Huntsman - Yes, I have said this for a while. "Man! This guy is a good speaker." He really is. I also think he is a good presidential candidate, but, unfortunately, no matter what he does, he can't get around the media's power and their ability to pick who is known and who is not known.
Bachmann - Definitely her best performance. Tough to shake the "crazy girl" impression the media has her painted as. Too little, too late. Never president material.
Ron Paul - Ehhhh. I don't even know. He seems ramblish (made up word) in my opinion. I can completely understand why people like his views. He is a strict constitutionalist (made up word #2). I envision he is the kind of guy the founding fathers would have loved. He seems to give everything a constitution check before taking a position. I respect that, but in my opinion, it might not fly in certain situations. His isolationist view, I'm on the fence on. The world is so intertwined that I think it's good on paper, tough in practice.
Santorum - Oh, come on. This guy should never have been in the race. He was voted out in PA in one of the biggest drubbings in election history. But, ah ha! A bright spot. You and I have found some GREAT common ground. "I like my politics without religion." Dead on. My religion (or lack there of) is none of anyone's business. For the president, it should be the same way. I'm not against religion at all. In fact, I prefer the company of most religious people, and I respect their beliefs. But it absolutely should be a non-issue and that should be the end of that.
Perry - Nothing but a talking head. Says gitchy catch phrases but has absolutely no substance. If anyone listens to him, he backs nothing with facts and reverts to the "while governor of Texas" tactic. Step out now, please.
I left Newt for last. I really liked his performance. I had him at #3 for me, but, with last night's performance, I thought he did very well. His post comment debate about substance was a hit. You can probably tell from this blog that I prefer people to back what they say. He made statements; he intelligently backed them. With a Ph.D in history, he has historical reference on his side. All in all, he definitely rose in my eyes. Can he beat Obama? Would the youthful voting segment vote for a white-haired old man? Who knows. You and I probably disagree on Newt the most. Either way, it was a good debate.
Thanks again for a great write-up. If you write back, awesome. If not, I hope you have a safe and happy thanksgiving!
HAHA, as far as the name callings, specifically "trolls" in this case, you know me, whatsamattausa, I don't like the negativity, but I can see why some people feel this way. If you check out Herman Cain's Facebook page, for instance, half of the comments are from Ron Paul supporters. But, to play it safe, yah, I agree with you; I'd like to see less nastiness.
I'd like to see Cain in a candid, one on one interview. His enumerated responses are very suspect to me in that they seem rehearsed so it's tough to tell how much substance he really has. I agree though that I'd rather hear a candidate be honest with 'I don't know' than try to BS their way through it (see Perry).
Too bad about Huntsman. I agree he can't get there but it seems to me that that is the loss of the American people. Not that I would or wouldn't vote for him but I'd like to see him gain a national stage and see how he does.
Bachmann - agreed on the 'crazy girl' stigma.
I don't disagree with you that he is somewhat ramblish but I really like his constitution first thought process. I agree with his isolationist position only because I think the Unitd States has alot of ill-will towards us for the simple fact that we occupy many countries throughout the world. Who else does that? Does any other country have military bases in other countries of just the US? We can support other countries militarily without having troops on the ground.
I wanted to bring up a point that I thought Newt hit right on the head and that is immigration. I know that so called 'amnesty' is generally not something that conservative's support but Newt was right on when he said (in rough terms) the GOP, which considers itself the party of family, would uproot people who've been here for some time and who have established roots here in the US and deport them. He was 100% right and Romney was VERY wrong to say that that was the exception and not the rule. I'm not sure how Newt would equally qualify all of the illegal immigrants in question but his position is one I support 100%. I'm not sure if he could get the young vote but my big question for him is whether the evangelicals (it's both impressive and a shame they are the force they are) would come out for him.
LME - you have a happy and safe Thanksgiving yourself!
Newt is winning so far. Romney is not being given enough chances. It shows the fear liberal CNN has of him. Cain is ok. Santorum is toast for suggesting we should profile Muslims exclusively.
ReplyDeleteCain is not getting enough chances that's for sure. Romney seems to be getting angry. Newt is just plain good. Paul is a loon.
ReplyDeleteYes. Newt is doing well. I personally think Paul is just rambling. Perry has a hard time making a point.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul 2012!
ReplyDeleteRP!
ReplyDeleteCain is about results. Raising some Cain!
ReplyDeleteEveryone here is clueless. Ron Paul is the only real candidate.
ReplyDeletePeople getting out tonight: Bachmann, Santorum, Hunts-who?
ReplyDeleteMiddle Road: Cain, Romney, Paul, Perry
Clear winner: Newt, hands down.
Newt, duh!
ReplyDeleteNewt or Cain. Liked Cain's results answer.
ReplyDeleteNewt, then a tie with Romney and Cain. All others sucked.
ReplyDeletenewt. all you ron paul trolls. give up
ReplyDeleteRomney didn't do well, but is most presidential. They aren't giving him enough time. Newt won, will be on top of the polls tomorrow, and the lib media will start destroying him.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Mr. Gingrich was trying to follow debate rules, and was a bit 'snubbed' by Blitzer at first, I think Bachmann shows her complete intellegence, but Newt as usual, gives thoughtful intelligent answers. I think Perry is bombing, and Cain seems a bit aprehensive, knowing that some people see him differently..although I see that he got a bum rap. When Paul was defiant against Israel...it seemed to validate his 'anti-semitism' accusations that people have claimed against him. Newt wins again
ReplyDeleteHmmm, good thoughts. They say "you never get a second chance to make a first impression." Newt made a GREAT first impression with his Patriot Act answer. He showed he is a great debater. I think he won tonight.
ReplyDeleteObviously RON PAUL
ReplyDeleteMy opinion of the debate this evening...well to start off with, this is CNN. Couldn't they have tested the feed b4 starting the debate? Had a few times when the tv went black from a bad feed. Wish Wolf would have fulfilled his promise to give the candidates equal time and questions. Quite a few were put to the back of the field and only received a few questions...and they were the ones not blowing hot air only (except for RP, but he did have some good answers). I like Mrs. Bachmann's introductory comment where she wished the military overseas a Happy Thanksgiving and told them we want them home soon. I agree with her there. I think that any of the candidates on the stage would be better as President than Obama is, but I prefer Herman Cain and he has my vote at this time. I thought he did very well for being "ignorant" on foreign policy (media's push, not mine) and I think that speaks well of him as national security and foreign policy are intertwined. Ron Paul did worry me with his non-Israel stance yet again. Israel, along with England/UK, are some of our greatest allies and to basically turn your back on them is not a position that will resonate with the American people, IMO. I also found Newt's idea/position of some amnesty disturbing. We can't allow people who broke the law and pardon (basically that is how I see amnesty). If they don't go through the correct channels, then they get deported. I don't care how long they have been here. Yes, immigration reform might be a necessity, but they need to abide by our laws or they shouldn't be allowed to be here. If I chose to immigrate to another country, I would do it legally, celebrate their holidays, and learn to speak their language. That is just common sense and common courtesy to me. I think Herman Cain had some awesome answers...we will support Israel in an offensive strike against Iran if they had a credible plan and a clear way to win (not a warmonger with that answer), look at the Patriot Act and refine parts if necessary (yes, some refining needed, IMO), let our intelligence agencies help with targeted profiling (my word), our economic status is important to national security, secure our borders, and yes, cyber attacks are a problem to our national security.
ReplyDeleteI also want to say that the candidates all did a great job and I am proud of all of them. This election is serious business and they all appear to realize that. There was not a lot of attacking, just some disagreement over solutions. I have seen worse, but I have also seen better. Overall, this debate rates around a 7 on a scale of 1-10 in my opinion.
Ron Paul was the most rational, honest and logical candidate tonight.
ReplyDeleteAgree with all the Paul supporters here.
ReplyDeleteN-e-w-t, Newt, Newt, Newt!
ReplyDeletePaul is a rambling old man.
Romney was middle of the road... again.
Cain showed that he has NO foreign policy experience.
Perry is nothing but, well, nothing.
Bachmann did surprisingly well. Too little, too late.
Huntsman... see Bachmann
Santorum... Heavily screen Muslims?! Strike three! You're out!
Herman Cain is in way over his head. National Security and Foreign Policy and definitely foreign to Mr. Cain. I feel bad for his supporters. They are constantly having to make excuses for his lack of knowledge, which really isn't surprising as Cain does this himself whenever asked about his DUH moments. He was misinformed, didn't have all the information, was tired, needed a sandwich. Got news for ya Mr. Cain, as President you have to be on top of things. Your inexperience shines like a beacon in the night. We have already seen what inexperience does for this country. Cain would be like a redo of Obama. No thanks.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. It's obvious you don't like Cain, but who do you think won?
ReplyDeleteI would say either Huntsman or Paul. Their ideas on foreign policy are different than anything we have seen in recent years. What we have been doing isn't working so maybe they are on to something. The rest seem to eager to start another war. I do think it is wise to let Israel stand on its own. They are more than capable of taking care of themselves and that would keep the rest of the middle east in check. Besides messing around with Iran isn't in the best interest of the United States given the friendly relationship Iran has with China and Russia. Nothing good would come of war tactics with Iran.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. Hopefully you like our blog. If you do, please follow and/or tell a friend.
ReplyDelete"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors" - Thomas Jefferson
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, current republicrats's minds are filled with falsehoods and errors... And anyone who dares to question such inconsistencies will be marginalized and sometimes even censored.
Ron Paul is only marginalized because he exposes the hypocrisy and criticizes the inconsistencies of the status quo (establishment).
Anonymous, thanks for the post. But if you read this blog, you might realize the central theme is "proof." Just like in the post "Proof, It's What's for Dinner" we'd like to see people back what they say. I'm not saying your opinion is incorrect, but you made a statement: "Unfortunately, current republicrats's minds are filled with falsehoods and errors..." and this blog is an avenue to challenge opinions, whether they are from the same or the opposing political party.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly are you referring to?
I thought that Cain came across as just plain 'dopey'. I can't imagine him sitting down for a meeting with, say, Hamid Karzai and saying something like: 'Hey Karz, sure are alot of mountains around here in Adghangighanighanistan. It must be nice having such a natural defense system against. Mountains are good defense systems for the following 3 reasons: 1)....". His responses are often incoherent and seem more rehearsed than anything. He would be an embarrassment to the White House.
ReplyDeleteRomney just looks SO untrustworthy to me. I don't understand how people say he looks and sounds presidential.. That title, in my opinion, belongs to Huntsman. Romney looked like he was about to cry at times in sort of an 'I'm taking my ball and going home' sort of way.
Huntsman, as I mentioned looked and sounded the part. I didn't know much about him last night and was impressed with him. Also, he seems a moderate which is what this country needs right now.
Newt will do anything to get elected. He too sounded the part but I just don't trust him. That being said, I thought he had the best debate. He was assertive and in control.
Bachmann is not presidential material and that's about the bast I can say about her.
Ron Paul is someone I like alot, but think his 'social' program philosophy is WAY off. I totally agree with his position on Israel. If Israel attacks Iran, the United States should NOT be involved. In my opinion, they who strike first are the aggressor and you cannot build world support for an aggressor. Iran would be committing suicide to attack Israel. I am also one who thinks out relationship and blind support for them should be revisited. Ron Paul is also a Constitutionalist who, I believe, understands the rule of law and how the power of law should be distributed better than any other candidate. I also support his foreign policy of military isolationism. However, his social policy is something I totally disagree with. I also think that if any of the candidates were going to fix the budgetary crisis in this country, it'd be Paul since he has the least to do with special interests.
Santorum is WAY too far right. I like my politics without religion (which I think is a HUGE problem nobody focuses on - who cares if Romney is Mormon? or if Obama is Muslim or Christian?). Religion, already a divisive force throughout the world, only makes politics more divisive. Religion has no place in politics and Santorum would desire, essentially, a Christian state.
Perry, almost forgot about him... easy to do... enough said!
All in all, I think this should now be a 2 horse race between Huntsman and Gingrich (though it pains me to count Ron Paul out of this group). Romney is a puppet who will say and/or do anything depending on who's writing the checks. That guy can't make up his mind and can't be expected to maintain consistency. I'm amazed he has as much support as he does (must be the hair). Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Santorum are all different flavors of crazy and none have a legitimate shot at the presidency. They are handing around vying for a VP nod or posturing for cabinet positions.
@Newt2012 - Why do Ron Paul supporters have to be 'trolls'? Can't we have a discussion without calling each other names? Seriously, grow up!
ReplyDeleteSorry LME - just sick of the senseless and useless name calling which seems pervasive in any sort of political discussion these days. It's part of the greater problem in this country's politics and society. We used to be about tolerance.
I'll get off my soap box now! :)
Whatsamattausa - Nice post! I agree with some, not with all.
ReplyDeleteCain - Ok, I like Cain. I will admit. And with a favorite football team, you can admit with their quarterback is a terrible runner. Foreign policy isn't his strength. I do like his "I will consult the experts" approach. He started this in a debate in South Carolina a while back. To me, it came off as "honestly, I don't know, and I'm not going to try to BS you. When I'm president and I'm surrounded by experts, you'll get your answer then." I think that a candidate that answers with an "I don't know" here and there is respectable.
Romney - I can see why people say he looks presidential. I think he is good but not great. I'm a little worried that his "hey, can I finish my time" rants might get called out. He has had an argument about time in nearly every debate. Conversely, I think it shows a self-respecting man that is willing to stand up for himself when he feels he has been wronged. Still a good candidate, but to me, was slightly off.
Huntsman - Yes, I have said this for a while. "Man! This guy is a good speaker." He really is. I also think he is a good presidential candidate, but, unfortunately, no matter what he does, he can't get around the media's power and their ability to pick who is known and who is not known.
Bachmann - Definitely her best performance. Tough to shake the "crazy girl" impression the media has her painted as. Too little, too late. Never president material.
Ron Paul - Ehhhh. I don't even know. He seems ramblish (made up word) in my opinion. I can completely understand why people like his views. He is a strict constitutionalist (made up word #2). I envision he is the kind of guy the founding fathers would have loved. He seems to give everything a constitution check before taking a position. I respect that, but in my opinion, it might not fly in certain situations. His isolationist view, I'm on the fence on. The world is so intertwined that I think it's good on paper, tough in practice.
Santorum - Oh, come on. This guy should never have been in the race. He was voted out in PA in one of the biggest drubbings in election history. But, ah ha! A bright spot. You and I have found some GREAT common ground. "I like my politics without religion." Dead on. My religion (or lack there of) is none of anyone's business. For the president, it should be the same way. I'm not against religion at all. In fact, I prefer the company of most religious people, and I respect their beliefs. But it absolutely should be a non-issue and that should be the end of that.
Perry - Nothing but a talking head. Says gitchy catch phrases but has absolutely no substance. If anyone listens to him, he backs nothing with facts and reverts to the "while governor of Texas" tactic. Step out now, please.
I left Newt for last. I really liked his performance. I had him at #3 for me, but, with last night's performance, I thought he did very well. His post comment debate about substance was a hit. You can probably tell from this blog that I prefer people to back what they say. He made statements; he intelligently backed them. With a Ph.D in history, he has historical reference on his side. All in all, he definitely rose in my eyes. Can he beat Obama? Would the youthful voting segment vote for a white-haired old man? Who knows. You and I probably disagree on Newt the most. Either way, it was a good debate.
Thanks again for a great write-up. If you write back, awesome. If not, I hope you have a safe and happy thanksgiving!
HAHA, as far as the name callings, specifically "trolls" in this case, you know me, whatsamattausa, I don't like the negativity, but I can see why some people feel this way. If you check out Herman Cain's Facebook page, for instance, half of the comments are from Ron Paul supporters. But, to play it safe, yah, I agree with you; I'd like to see less nastiness.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see Cain in a candid, one on one interview. His enumerated responses are very suspect to me in that they seem rehearsed so it's tough to tell how much substance he really has. I agree though that I'd rather hear a candidate be honest with 'I don't know' than try to BS their way through it (see Perry).
ReplyDeleteToo bad about Huntsman. I agree he can't get there but it seems to me that that is the loss of the American people. Not that I would or wouldn't vote for him but I'd like to see him gain a national stage and see how he does.
Bachmann - agreed on the 'crazy girl' stigma.
I don't disagree with you that he is somewhat ramblish but I really like his constitution first thought process. I agree with his isolationist position only because I think the Unitd States has alot of ill-will towards us for the simple fact that we occupy many countries throughout the world. Who else does that? Does any other country have military bases in other countries of just the US? We can support other countries militarily without having troops on the ground.
I wanted to bring up a point that I thought Newt hit right on the head and that is immigration. I know that so called 'amnesty' is generally not something that conservative's support but Newt was right on when he said (in rough terms) the GOP, which considers itself the party of family, would uproot people who've been here for some time and who have established roots here in the US and deport them. He was 100% right and Romney was VERY wrong to say that that was the exception and not the rule. I'm not sure how Newt would equally qualify all of the illegal immigrants in question but his position is one I support 100%. I'm not sure if he could get the young vote but my big question for him is whether the evangelicals (it's both impressive and a shame they are the force they are) would come out for him.
LME - you have a happy and safe Thanksgiving yourself!