If you think of what Newt accomplished in his career in the House, and it WAS a very conservative career and he DID have to work with a Dem in the White House – it was amazing. It was only when he really tried to make some huge changes – like privatizing Social Security – that he ran aground. It truly pisses me off that all the republicans he dragged into office in 1994 are turning against him. As for his position on the judges – there should be no lifetime appointments, even at SCOTUS – I would like to see a judge appointed for 9 years, and every year ONE would come up for re-confirmation. At the lower levels, judges should be elected. As for Newt’s time as a consultant with Freddie Mac… Newt is a product of his own marketing – he had a consulting COMPANY and he negotiated with FM for his SERVICES and the services of his company – and he was PAID for his services. The fact that FM was a GSE is immaterial – FM was free to negotiate and they did, and Newt was the beneficiary because of his reputation. Free market exchange of goods and services – a willing seller and a willing buyer. If you want to blame anyone, blame Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who saw to it that FM operated without regulation and could MAKE this sort of deal with a consultant.
I won’t waste ink on Huntsman.
Romney is NOT a conservative and I fear he’s not aggressive enough to take it to Obama. And at Bain, he led the buying of companies that had problems – broke them into sub-companies, sold what could be sold for huge profits, and shut down what couldn’t be sold and sent the employees packing. That’s not creating jobs IMHO – but again, it’s the free market.
Santorum was far less arrogant and dismissive than in some of the previous debates. He answered all the questions he was given in a very direct manner. I'm still surprised that he hasn't done better in the polls. I think his lack of any type of executive experience is hurting him. I very much respect his stance on family values and the role of family in putting our country back on the right track.
Bachmann – this is her record, the one she continually touts:
Despite Bachmann's early success in the presidential polls, her congressional record is composed almost entirely of confusion and failure. She's authored bills that not a single other lawmaker will cosponsor; she's sponsored the exact same failing bills over and over again; she's entered bills on obscure or trivial topics. Some are probably well-meaning, such as those relating to foster children or adoption services. Others seem downright awful, like the Emergency Energy Cut the Red Tape Now Act of 2008, which would allow pretty much anyone to start blowing up national parks to look for oil or natural gas. Of the 46 sponsored bills to her name -- only two of which have actually passed the U.S. House. [Source: City Pages, 401 N. 3rd St. Suite 550, Minneapolis, MN 55401]
She’s also made tiny, stupid mistakes that make her seem scatterbrained. I don’t doubt that she’s conservative – she’s just unqualified.
I don’t think Perry had a very good debate – I liked his idea of a part-time Congress but that ain’t his call and it ain’t gonna happen. He lacks substance, but he would be fun to hang out with ‘cause he’s a good ole boy.
Ron Paul – he had his foil had on last night and the one good thing Bachmann did was nail his ass on Iran. Ron Paul will be 77 before the 2012 elections. In my mind, that disqualifies him. Reagan was 69 when he became president – and Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan.
I still think Newt is our best shot at taking the White House.
Romney couldn’t even beat McCain! How can he beat Obama?