reply to post by Misoir
This is pretty simple just give a numerical grade for each candidate, numbers range 0 (bad) to 10 (good), then list the two candidates
you thought really stood out during the debates. Tell us who your favorite candidate is so far this season and finally state (objectively) who you
believe has the best chances of defeating President Obama in November 2012.
My thoughts - and honestly I would need to watch again to possibly re-appraise as was distracted:
Rick Santorum – 3 (seemed a little less unlikable to me this time around but not too substantive)
Michele Bachmann – 6 (came off a lot better than I was expecting, and looks good - said a lot of right things although I know she's got some big
Newt Gingrich – 5 (definitely came off much better than I was expecting him to)
Mitt Romney – 4 (TOO 'politician-y' and pandering. Looks good but I didn't get much from him other than attacking Obama, and pushing questions
and moderator aside to go off on his own tangents annoyed the heck out of me)
Ron Paul – 7 (format definitely didn't help him out here, but I don't get a 'politician' vibe from him, and his answers are honest & direct, not
pandering, and if paying attention you can tell he actually has some background understanding of most of these issues as well as their priorities and
how to address them)
Tim Pawlenty – 3 (dodging the Obamneycare thing to push it back on Obama and not going after Romney bothered me, and I couldn't really appreciate
his presentation - too much nervousness and usual neoconning - thankfully not QUITE as much of a huckabee vibe this time)
Herman Cain – 2 (disappointed again - the muslim thing really bothers me [religious test for oath of office, anyone?] and as usual no real answers
or knowedge presented - "You gotta have a plan, advisors, blahblahblah". He looks & sounds good, but does it without really offering anything in my
opinion - and we all know that the advisors are usually life-long attractions on the Hill that don't lead to any change or solutions.
It was nice AND really bothered me to hear so many people regurgitating things Ron Paul has been talking about for decades - he's definitely
influenced the discussion in the right way, but the thought that such will help any of the others annoys me. How I wish he was at least a decade
younger and more polished for these formats, as well as able to readily package his thoughts and topics in ways most people can readily understand.
I still feel he's the best bet to beat Obama in a general election, honestly, as can outflank from the left and the right, and his record is
consistent over many years, in addition to the faith that he's faithful otherwise, with 54 years of marriage under his belt - Romney seems to adjust
when is politically expedient, as well as pander and be inconsistent in word and deed (2nd amendment, abortion, and so on).
We'll have to see how things develop and how chances to win a general election stack up as we start getting closer, but I just can't bring myself to
get behind anyone other than Paul at this point. I haven't heard anyone (other than Johnshon, who is effectively discounted) addressing other issues
very serious to me (drug war) or consistently represent a faith most claim to hold - too many for military lunacy and aggression. Some I know about
are inconsistent as discussed, too many have made bad decisions like supporting the PATRIOT act and not understanding the proper constraints on
government, and some have just shown such bad judgement in their personal decisions that I can't have faith in their political ones if they make
For me, Paul offers pretty much the whole deal - with everyone else (without a lot more research pleasantly surprising me) as compared to Obama, it
effectively comes down to "The devil that you know is better than the devil that you don't".
I've just heard too many things from republicans in the past that went out the window as soon as they were in office and a reason was presented for
them to change course to trust any of them other than Paul.