I thought Cain won, even though he was not well versed on foreign policy matters. He gave straight answers without “political posturing” and spoke without notes and using “tired out” political phrases.
I like Santorum because of his passionate stance on the “unborn”, and foreign policy. He know the Washington arena, which helps him recognize our “advisaries”, but his history opens him up to attack. He’s not afraid to go after Obama; however, he has some “baggage” on some of his past Congressional votes like “earmarks”. He is a great “attack dog”, though!
Pawlenty says too many of the “right things” that “party hacks” want to hear (and I used to believe they were sincere), but comes from a state who elected Keith Edlison, Jesse Ventura, and Al Frankin (which certainly “overshadow”, “pleased-as-punch” Humphry!). His “Cap and Trade” stance, even though he admitted it was a mistake, tells me he would waste his time debating other “scams” and hoaxs like “climate change” if it would get him some “face time” with the press. I would still keep him #3 just because he is making the right “noises”. I’ll be watching to see if he can walk the “Tea Party shuffle”.
Ron Paul makes a lot of sense until you get into the subject of foreign policy and “smoking dope”. He turns into a Liberterian whose “litmus test” for everything is, “if it doesn’t harm your neighbor you’re going to be OK”! Problem is, most people I know are not liberterian and do not enjoy sitting next to loud “Paulistist” who go on the attack when anyone disagrees with their “icon”. Many good conservatives have sided with Paul because he has been one of the few fiscal conservatives to push against Bush policies that were anything but conservative. Until the Tea Party movement took root, he was one of the few in “town” that was calling for fiscal responsibility. I think many of his followers overlooked his “over-the-top” (IMO) opinions on Israel, Iraq, and immigration. I can’t agree with him on those topics and see the first three picks as better choices (I’d even put his son, Rand, head and shoulders above him for a candidate.)
Much the same for Gary Johnson as Paul. He may be a “fiscal conservative”, but lacks any credentials as a “social conservative”.
I was rather pleasantly surprised with the overall “showing” of the participants of the debate, and how well they all appeared to give a “stark” contrast to who we now have in office. I’ll certainly reserve judgment for the “finalists” (way early yet!), but any one of those that spoke would get my vote over “he who”, even if it meant legalizing “weed”.(Heck, we’re buying people on “food stamps” lottery tickets and Hawaii vacations, at least there might be a chance they might be too doped up to vote next time around!)
Regards, Ken
