First, CNN's John King became the Joy Behar of politics; he was almost twitching to get them to be quiet and I was distracted by his constant "but...but............but...alright...but..." the second anybody went over a minute. How can any substantive response happen in one minute? It was like a Miss America contest.."What do you think the world needs!?" they had about enough time for "World Peace!:-)" The questions asked of presidential candidates deserve at least two minutes, don't you think?
CAIN: As usual, he was pretty vague. I'd like to hear a little more solutions and less his never-ending overview of "first we have to define the real problems".. SO, define them, already, we had little time for you to speak but we were listening. (I also like thin crust pizza better :-)
BACHMANN: As you must have heard, she announced she is running tonight. She was calm, cool, confident, and knows her stuff. She's also optimistic; one of the most striking attributes of all the candidates tonight was optimism; nice to hear, for a change. I thought she scored big points tonight and that the audience liked her a lot.
ROMNEY: I thought he scored points pretty effectively when he responded about Obama basing his health care plan on Massachusetts ... Romney said "why didn't he ask me what Massachusetts did wrong?" that hit the mark. He got the fewest questions and seemed perturbed by that.
PAWLENTY: Missed some really good opportunities in which to set him apart. He wimped off the Obamney Health care thing, etc. Not good. But, I think he's very bright and very, very sincere and, sadly, that sincerity can sometimes come off as too eager, a little unconfident, and I don't think he's that. I liked his Right To Work stance and how he explained it.... His cringe quotient is a tad too high still....but I liked him tonight. (I like Coke more than Pepsi, too!)
SANTORUM; Confident, informed...great answer on illegals. I'm first generation American, too, my mother is such a proud naturalized American citizen that I used to say that she made our house during the Bicentennial year make the White House look unpatriotic. I mean, she had Americana everywhere. (even too much for ME ;-) Santorum is well spoken and has good values and had some smart answers.
RAND: Had a lot more fans than I'd have thought in the audience, especially regarding his foreign policy. That surprised me. I think a lot of Americans are just about done with the Afghanistan/Iran situation. He said a very stupid thing, in my opinion, when he suggested marriage should be a church thing and not a government thing; how the heck do you ignore the fact that so many legal situations arise from marriage; like ownership of real estate, taxes, inheritance. I'm not a fan, but I didn't think he's utterly unthinking...and that seemed really dumb to me.
GINGRICH: I thought he scored points on having questionable people in an administration at the White House. I don't think he's very confident because he's constantly sneaking furtive looks at the audience; that surprises me. He did well tonight, especially considering that he'd dug himself into quite a hole lately. But, ...there's 'ick' factor there for me. A high cringe quotient....trying to hard. (check out the image above)
THIS surprised me...Britain's TELEGRAPH calls the Palin email frenzy as "enhancing her reputation" as “idealistic, conscientious, humorous, and humane,” Interesting. Score one for her. Who knew?
Rich Galen just emailed his subscribers and disagrees with me on Bachmann; hated her answers and thinks she ought to get her application for president back. He thinks Romney won because he was softballed questions, etc. He completely agrees with me on the John King style...and how they only had one minute for such heavy material.
z
57 comments:
CAIN: As usual, he was pretty vague. I'd like to hear a little more solutions and less his never-ending overview of "first we have to define the real problems"
-----------------
Someone wants a pizza and doesn't want to leave the house. So you put the pizza in a car and deliver it.
Not that tough.
I'm still working on the Mullings score card but expanded into a "Beamish score card" reviewing the tape and transcript question by question, but I still find myself wishing I was on that stage giving what for. (I'd make Ron Paul run to the lil' boys room and cry.)
I wanted more substantive policy questions, but until CNN allows journalists into their organization, that wasn't going to happen.
So far, by my account, Ron Paul and Herman Cain are neck-and-neck in cringe factor.
Results later.
Someone wants a pizza and doesn't want to leave the house. So you put the pizza in a car and deliver it.
Not that tough.
I hate to admit it, but ROFLMAO!
That's okay, Beamish. Some of your material isn't bad.
Ducky,
I guess we'll see eye to eye on what's actually funny.
Can you see Doonesbury caricaturizing Herman Cain and Ron Paul as Elmo and Mr. Noodle (respectively) from Sesame Street?
Someone wants a pizza and doesn't want to leave the house. So you put the pizza in a car and deliver it.
And you have your choice of 620 locations to boot.
Hmm I bet even Obama may have stopped in for a slice in Chicago during one of his Community Organizing events.
i have to agree with Santorum as far as his preciseness and his knowledge of the issues.
Pawlenty is a likable guy but after tonite I am leaning toward Santorum.
They all chose not to go after each other, which was the smart thing to do. Though the moderator tried to get Pawlenty to go after Romney, he wiggled out of it.
I don't fault Pawlenty for that. It was a clumsy gotcha moment which failed.
Actually, King took more time to ask the questions than he gave the candidates to answer them, and it was obvious. Not good.
I thought for the most part they all did pretty well, when you consider they were given a minute for a three minute answer.
As far as I'm concerned Romney gave himself away a couple of days ago. He didn't recover from it tonight, if he ever can.
I noticed King avoided a gotcha with Romney over global warming, but then, the media has chosen Romney to be the nominee, haven't they? I think so!
Bachmannn came across confident and sincere. She's consistent.
The only one who always makes me cringe is Ron Paul.
Santorum was good, and also consistent with what he's said in the past. I like him.
I don't see an "ick" factor with Newt, and never did. He's the most experienced of the bunch, but it might be too late for him. He is quick on his feet, but I'm not sure he can get over his rough beginning in this race.
Finally, I'm still holding my cards close to the vest. I haven't made up my mind yet because I don't have to.
Okay, I drew inspiration from the scorecard Z brought us from Mullings, and watched the debate in its entirety a second time. I compiled my scores in four categories:
- How prepared the candidate was for the question?
- How knowledgeable of the subject was the candidate?
- Did the candidate's answer made me cringe, and if so how badly?
- How much confidence I have in this candidate winning this question in a debate with Obama?
For each question, I rated the candidate on a 5 point scale, then divided their score in each category by the total points possible to come up with a 100 point percentage rating (some candidates were asked more questions than others). On the "cringe" question, I simply totalled up their negatives as a percentage of answers and subtracted that figure from 100%
I skipped rating the vapid "this or that" questions.
Their "total rating" is the average of all four scores.
My rankings, from favorite to loser...
=====
Pawlenty (was asked 13 questions)
Prepared for question 97%
Knowledge of subject 97%
Didn't make me cringe 98%
Confident to defeat Obama 97%
Total Rating: 97.25%
=====
Santorum (was asked 13 questions)
Prepared for question 95%
Knowledge of subject 91%
Didn't make me cringe 100%
Confident to defeat Obama 95%
Total Rating 95.25%
=====
Gingrich (was asked 12 questions)
Prepared for question 90%
Knowledge of subject 95%
Didn't make me cringe 92%
Confident to defeat Obama 81%
Total Rating: 89.5%
=====
Bachmann (was asked 13 questions)
Prepared for question 83%
Knowledge of subject 88%
Didn't make me cringe 91%
Confident to defeat Obama 85%
Total Rating: 86.75%
=====
Romney (was asked 11 questions)
Prepared for question 80%
Knowledge of subject 69%
Didn't make me cringe 91%
Confident to defeat Obama 78%
Total Rating: 79.5%
=====
Cain (was asked 14 questions)
Prepared for question 54%
Knowledge of subject 41%
Didn't make me cringe 71%
Confident to defeat Obama 37%
Total Rating: 50.75%
=====
Paul (was asked 12 questions)
Prepared for question 33%
Knowledge of subject 23%
Didn't make me cringe 43%
Confident to defeat Obama 17%
Total Rating: 29%
And, my follow-up analysis...
Pawlenty (97.25%)
He needed to present himself confidently, focused, and knowledgeable. We all want him to destroy Romney on the health care issue. He will. He savaged Joe Biden with the same ninja efficiency he'll take down Romney later.
Santorum (95.25%)
I like Rick Santorum a lot, but I though he would fade into the background noise. He more than didn't. Pawlenty and Santorum represent a credible threat to Obama.
Gingrich (89.5%)
There's no doubt who the policy wonk on the stage is. Equally impressive is Gingrich pulled this ranking off with NO campaign staff. He practically phoned in this effort. Sound political instincts. Like a predator.
Bachmann (86.75%)
She did a hell of a lot better than I expected she would, but the knives haven't come out yet. I thought it was amateurish of her to announce her candidacy mid-debate, but it wasn't that big of a deal overall.
Romney (79.5%)
He fielded the least amount of questions, and most of those were CNN softballs. He's likely rubbing his magic underwear in thanks that the knives haven't come out yet. What do we know about Romney that we didn't before this debate? That he's not conservative enough to beat John McCain for the GOP nomination. Ouch.
Cain (50.75%)
Cain's problem is really three problems. One, he's easy to satirize. Two, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Three, he's not going to do anything about that.
Paul (29%)
I don't think we can have an honest, respectful discussion of Ron Paul without acknowledging the fact that he's a blithering idiot.
It's a short list of Democrats that are more left-wing than this twit. I think he masterfully demonstrated that. Ouch that Herman Cain was relatively more credible in comparison.
I didn't watch the debate because of my sick cat Cameo. The vet comes again today. **sigh**
Z, I'd like to know if you agree with THIS about Herman Cain.
Great analysis, everyone. I didn't watch the debate, so I appreciate the in-depth recaps.
AOW: I'd seen that Herman Cain piece, and he confused Kenya with Indonesia. Go read the whole interview it's clear liberal Jeffrey Goldberg is out to knock Cain down a peg or two.
Having said that, I do have to agree with Pastorius that Cain needs better prep if he wants to be a serious candidate.
I think he's a very smart man and he has the skills and experience I look for in a president, but he needs to do his homework on the detail, or the press will continue to help him make himself look stupid.
I do not blame this on "gotcha" journalism, which I've always considered a whiner charge. That's the press's job. I just wish they would play gotcha equally, and not just on conservatives
So funny this is the best the GOP can offer. This debate as just another wingnut lie and hypocrite fest all trying to 'out-extreme' the other with fear mongering
Pris, thanks, I agree with most of you analysis. One thing I don't agree with was how Pawlenty handled the 'gotcha' moment; King was right..he critizied Romney on the healthcare thing on a FOX interview but couldn't do it on the debate. It wouldn't have had to have been a gotcha moment; he could have just told the facts that make Romney's plan a problem. Anyway, that's how I see it.
Beamish, thanks....91%? Well, you were specific :-)
I thought it was a little silly, frankly, for Bachmann to announce that way...that's true. On the other hand, she knew she reached a lot of people.
AOW, I think there's a little truth to the article. I do like Cain's stance on 'African American' versus 'Black', though not being Black, I have no right to really weigh in there.
As liberals took solace in their Obama pick to show how open minded they are (let's face it, how many parties pick a Black candidate and one with no experience and no known background and who lied..? That's pretty darned OPEN MINDED, huh?!), I think there is something to the fact that Cain is liked a lot more because he's Black....I think there are people who feel that gives him a certain appeal to the Right. It doesn't make a smidge of difference to me; I just wish he showed how smart he supposedly is. Of course, it's funny for a liberal like Goldberg to say that because they're the guys who think Conservatives are racist! So, to suggest his color will make him more appealing to Republicans is kinda nice in a perverse sort of way!! :-)
Silverfiddle; Oh! And there you are saying how smart Cain is. Well, I HOPE SO! I've never heard his talk show....do you listen to him? Do you think he's representing himself well so far in the candidacy? I wish you'd seen the debate.
Gad...the liberals will slam Cain for confusing Kenya and Indonesia on a small point in Obama's childhood, but Obama can say he barely new Ayers and they don't think twice about that? this is one of those moments that makes it clear why I named my blog "GEEEEEEEZ"
I started to watch but then realized that none of these fine folks will ever be President and changed to "Pawn Stars".
BD, I'm leaving your comment so the smart Conservatives can see what we're dealing with. Maybe we WILL win 2012 after all.
Common Sense...sorry you didn't watch.
I felt like you did until I saw the debate.
Z: Unlike Obama, Cain has a proven track record that shows he is indeed a smart man.
But being smart and successful is not the same as being politically astute, and Cain needs to develop his political skills fast or he's toast.
It seems that a lot of people here are keeping their options open, which is what we should be doing. Becoming personally and emotionally invested in a candidate, especially this early, is a recipe for disastrous political Balkanization.
I like Herman Cain, but I want to see him tested. If he continues to stumble and speak in easy, broad generalities, he will rightly fade away.
Karl Rove tells us this election will be unlike anything we’ve seen in the past 60 years. Only time will reveal whether this is true, or a good thing. I’m not a fan of Herman Cain; if we think a community organizer is not qualified, then we must certainly view an ingredients organizer with some trepidation. Rand Paul is apparently competing with William Jennings Bryan for the highest number of presidential candidacies: he seems incapable of “going away.”
Gingrich is smart, but a sleaze, and arrogant; he represents “politics as usual.” Santorum appeals to the far right, but loses moderates and Romney appeals to moderates, but loses the far right. Bachmann has a very positive outlook … the sort of confidence in our future I think Americans want and need, but I think it is too early to tell whether she has staying power. Pawlenty is smart, but his Midwestern personae make him look like milquetoast —this won’t work in the 2012 election.
We are still too early in the process to decide on one over the others … and we still don’t know whether Gov. Rick Perry will run.
Silverfiddle, I've had that comment here a few times about not picking anybody at this point and I wonder if anything I'm doing has made anybody feel I'm looking for that? I certainly am not.
"miles to go......" MILES.
At any given moment our media can dig up something on any of our candidates, and THEY ARE LOOKING.
Lovely that their hopeful final annihilation of Palin went so badly :-)
Mustang...of course it's too early. I don't think anybody's really picking someone finally ..yet. I hope not, anyway.
I agree with you, mostly; but I think Bachmann has more fire in her belly than anybody up there and determination to get rid of the thugs in D.C.
What did Rove mean? "unlike anything we've seen"? just in general, the confusion, the nastiness? WHAT?
My hope is that people realize is that we cannot afford another 4 years of Obama and his left wing policies.
We may not hear it or see it as much as we would like but we are hearing and seeing it more than we were.
So funny this is the best the GOP can offer. This debate as just another wingnut lie and hypocrite fest all trying to 'out-extreme' the other with fear mongering
Wingnut lies? Hypocrisy? Fear-mongering?
Are you really that afraid that Obama's going to get put in a wheelchair and pushed over a cliff?
You all might want to read SilverFiddle's post today...very good stuff.
How can any substantive response happen in one minute? It was like a Miss America contest.."What do you think the world needs!?" they had about enough time for "World Peace!:-)"
Albeit I did watch the debates and will watch future ones, I came to the conclusion a LONG time ago that one can’t draw any conclusions from these debates as to the quality of the debaters’ ability to lead.
It’s all just a matter of one sound bite after another sound bite. I suppose that is OK to a certain respect as it seems that many if not most folks seem to make their decisions on the basis of sound bites(I offer Bd as proof)……sad. Short answers certainly make it easy for the MSM to do their reporting.
More times than not debates only serve to prove who is a better debater over another. Often times boiling down to a personality contest.
So many years ago I was taught that we elect a President based on three things. Foreign policy, his ability to lead as the Commander In Chief and their ability to appoint candidates for the courts.
Apart from the Congress and the Senate the President can to little, he, or she, can only suggest. The real battles are fought or won with the walls of the Senate and the House.
i.e. Obamacare had little to do with President Obama but had everything to do with the fact that Democrat/Progressive liberals controlled the House AND Senate. He only signed the bill!
So to me? Are the Presidential debates really that important? Not so much……BUT they can be a source entertainment at times if, one can sit through tedium that goes on between the big moments.
Z said...BD, I'm leaving your comment so the smart Conservatives can see what we're dealing with.
Really, there are 'smart conservatives?' Lol!
Notice there was no mention of jobs. That becasue their plans are non existent.
And Bachmann is still calling HCR 'job killing Obamacare' after the CBO said not only was that not true, it will save the economy trillions over time.
I didn't watch it. Meh. Until Gingrich gets out I can't get interested.
"Notice there was no mention of jobs. .."
Maybe cause Kings 30 second rule didn't allow time for substantive answers to those questions...that he never asked?
Dunce...POS
Pawlenty already going for VP?
Notice there was no mention of jobs. That becasue their plans are non existent.
I think you've reached your quota of stupid today, Bd.
Not only was the bulk of the debate specifically about jobs and the economy, virtually all of the candidates identified key solutions to reverse Obama's stimulating the growth of unemployment from 6.5% to 10% in less than a year.
Let's do a mind exercise, Bd.
First, let's imagine that you have never ever voted for a single Democrat in your entire life and thusly have a legitimately reasonable expectation of being assumed to have more than 65 IQ points on sight.
Now look at reality:
- Obama's record-setting job loss numbers (more jobs lost than any other President in US history including Hoover as of June 2010 and still counting)
- Obama's record-setting growth of the poverty rate
- Obama's record setting debts and deficit spending
- The Democrats failure to introduce a budget in over 2 years
Now, since this is merely a mental exercise where we're pretending you're not a complete idiot, keep playing along and answer the following questions:
Is the Obama administration right in saying the economy is improving?
If so, why do the Republicans need to present a job creation plan?
Isn't the Democrat plan working?
Where can we see the Democrat plan?
Is it on a golf course somewhere?
Z: Thanks for the bump!
I probably wasn't very clear. I was not saying you have picked a candidate. I was actually agreeing with the general mindset you project here, which seems to be to weigh the candidates and not pick a favorite too early. I think that is the wise approach. That is what primaries are for.
I must confess I did not see the debate.
I am still going for Cain and I guess Bachman. As for the rest, nope.
Scott....I think the president's more influential than just signing a bill, but you've got a point.
I know they blame Bush STILL for the lousy economy which started when Dems took over Congress and then he got intimidated into that ridiculous TARP thing........
I think also that the debates are so early it doesn't help much but it does give me a glimmer of personality and quick-mindedness, etc.
Bd...you're so wrong, where do I start? :-) Even the dumb conservatives look like rocket scientists with you around, no offense.
Brooke, a real Gingrich fan, eh? :-)
Major, exactly. But, of course, they ALL discussed lowering taxes when asked about jobs.
I think some people don't think it's a real JOB unless it's from the gov't.
Notice there was no mention of jobs. That becasue their plans are non existent.
And Bachmann is still calling HCR 'job killing Obamacare' after the CBO said not only was that not true, it will save the economy trillions over time.
Beamish; oh. you just told Bd the facts. thanks.
This was wonderful "I think you've reached your quota of stupid today, Bd."
SF...you're welcome. SOrry if I sounded testy on that :-)
Leticia...I wish you'd seen Cain yesterday. Do you hear his talk show? I'd like to see some details and less broad stroking from him...maybe he's better on the air?
Ducky, had to delete you; my readers don't have time for stupid jokes.
"Pris, thanks, I agree with most of you analysis. One thing I don't agree with was how Pawlenty handled the 'gotcha' moment; King was right.."
Hi Z, I think they all agreed not to go after each other. At least it seemed like that to me. Time will tell.
I dunno, Pris...Not that I care too much about talk show pundits, but I had the radio on in the car today and a lot of people agree Pawlenty only had to remind folks of the similarities, not insult or get nasty.
I think everybody's afraid of looking grabby or tough; they know what the leftwing media will do. It's a real shame because we need to see their personalities and this doesn't help.
I thought the softball questions to Romney situation was very curious. As some were saying this morning, it looks like the media's deemed Romney the one they think could lose the best :-) They have to protect their Obama at all costs. I hope he gets MUCH tougher soon because the slickness he displays isn't attractive at all. I think that's why the media likes him; he's a safe bet.
They also seem to be a little curious about Huntsman suddenly, too...the Yahoo headlines have had the article about him throwing his hat in the ring since he said it....I watch those headlines carefully to see what's scaring the lefties the most, and, again, if it's not palin, it's Huntsman now.
This is all so hilarious.
Have your pick of the litter.
Have your smooth talkers, your eloquent speakers, your nice hairdo, your "business" experience, blah blah blah.....
Santorum, Bachmann, Cain, Romney, Pawlenty, et al. are all the flip side to the same damn coin you've had in your pocket since the post WWII era.
It's the spending stupid. It's the economy stupid. The commander in chief doesn't run the economy the banksters do. It is astounding how many are completely oblivious to this fact.
As long as fractional reserve banking exists it doesn't make a damn bit of difference which one of those puppets you pick.
"Soon everyone will come to realize that one of the important sub-definitions of money, perhaps the most important one of all, is that money should be a store of value, and that therefore printed-from-the-Brow-of-Zeus socialized currencies are simply not money, but are more akin to Soviet ration tickets."
soapsters, is that implying none of the pick of YOUR 'litter' have "your smooth talkers, your eloquent speakers, your nice hairdo, your "business" experience, blah blah blah....."
If we'd only thought of business experience in 2008, and less of smooth talkers and eloquent speakers, MAYBE we'd not be in the trouble we're in now, huh?
Or is it still Bush's fault?
Can I get a clarification here.
We actually have someone proposing complete elimination of fractional reserves rather than just a tightening of reserve standards?
Start buying the freeze dried food, folks.
Ducky, soapster's a leftist. Bring it on...
A leftist who wants to abolish central banking? He's a hard core Libertarian.
Ducky, you're right. He does call himself a libertarian, I forgot.
Fractional banking is a libertarian bugaboo. If we did away with it, it would completely hamstring leftists and statists of all parties.
Unfortunately, it is a difficult and boring topic, so it would be dang near impossible to get even 50% of the electorate interested in the subject, let alone understand it. That's unfortunate, because the DC-NY axis of evil gets rich on our backs by deliberate currency manipulation.
Is doing away with fractional reserve banking really that extreme a position to hold? Isn't the point of money to be scarce?
People don't want money; they want the goods it can buy. Money is a unit of measure. Letting a unit of measure fluctuate defeats its purpose. Would it make sense to define a mile as 5280 feet on Monday and 3600 feet on Tuesday?
Am I really an extremist here? Tell me where I'm going wrong.
bftm
Mike: You are right!
The price of things is a fundamental signal for a rational market. Money manipulation and government intervention distort market signals resulting in dysfunction, like housing bubbles, artificial shortages...
why does the name SOROS suddenly pop into my mind as I read this stuff you guys are writing?
Soros is not the author of this system, he's just a master a manipulating it and cashing in.
Pointing to nefarious international figures obscures the hard fact that DC (perhaps unintentionally) and Wall Street (definitely intentionally) are screwing us via the federal reserve system and our nation's monetary policy.
I wrote about it here, relying chiefly on investment banker Lewis E. Lehrman's article on the same topic. (Yes, there are some good guys "on the inside.")
http://westernhero.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-dc-ny-axis-of-evil-screws-ordinary.html
beamish said...Not only was the bulk of the debate specifically about jobs and the economy, virtually all of the candidates identified key solutions to reverse
Wrong. Nothing was addressed as a plan, only criticism of Obama who in 2 years, created more jobs Bush did in eight years.
The GOP ran and won on a jobs plan in November. They have shown nothing.
Not only was the bulk of the debate specifically about jobs and the economy, virtually all of the candidates identified key solutions to reverse
Wrong. Nothing was addressed as a plan, only criticism of Obama who in 2 years, created more jobs Bush did in eight years.
Bush left office with a net employment gain of 1.08 million jobs after eight years.
Obama has "created" a loss of 5+ million jobs so far.
The GOP ran and won on a jobs plan in November. They have shown nothing.
The Dmocrats havent passed a budget since early 2009.
Who's showing nothing?
Beamish, the sad thing is this administration counted CENSUS JOBS as JOBS....and were so surprised the unemployment numbers went UP when the census work was done!!??
And, don't forget...was it 300,000 jobs that were deemed 'unnecessary'? I can never remember the exact word the Obama administration used but when the gov't was closing down they said those people would have to go. REALLY? And they're NOT necessary, anyway? (What the heck's the word?)
What America does better with is NONGOVERNMENTAL jobs...this is what lefties can't understand.
your facts are correct; some people call FOX biased then actually depend on KOS and MSNBC and MOVEON for 'facts' ;-)
My facts come from Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. I don't have much access to spin doctors.
I have CNN, but no news networks.
Top 6 Health Care Myths In Yesterday's Republican Presidential Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmvAHugxTtw&feature=player_embedded#at=12
And the sad thing is, they know they are lying. But they think we're stupid. Well, most of us are, I guess.
Yes the subject of fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve is boring. Dancing with the stars, Keeping up with the Kardashians, Survivor, et al. far more enlightening and less boring.
I also saw the debate and like you, I was disgusted with the CNN commentator. Barack Obama and his Administration has set race relations back 50 years . The divisiveness in America is higher than I can ever remember in my entire life time. And it’s all his fault. No, I'm not racist, but I won’t deny that I can't stand Obama for what he stands for, not because he is black.
Herman Cain can beat Obama. And I’ll tell you why. Blacks will vote for Obama no matter what he does or what he says, they love him because is is black. No matter what white guy is the Republican candidate, 90 percent or more of the blacks will vote for Obama. . Throw Herman Cain into the mix, and it all changes.
I do not mean to take anything away from Herman Cain as a candidate because I also think he's a good man and will do a good job. But we need a Republicans to get us out of this mess And we need to get someone who can win into the race. Obama must be defeated.
Bd.,.and how are those 'myths'? Because your video producer says they are? :-)
Don't be naive.
soapster; I'm pretty sure most of my readers don't watch any of that.
But, you're right; when those things are more interesting to Americans than our horribly failing economy, we have BIG PROBLEMS.
abluegirlami...thanks for coming by.
Disagreeing with Obama doesn't make you a racist, that's for sure.
Don't forget how the left calls us racists and two of our favorite politicians are Alan West and Cain (for some people)... !!
we must defeat Obama, that's for sure; I just don't think dignified, smart Conservatives can anymore. I hope I'm wrong but our kids are indoctrinated and the media is so leftwing (including lines on TV shows when you least expect it), etc., that it's going to be like salmon swimming upstream.
Yes the subject of fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve is boring. Dancing with the stars, Keeping up with the Kardashians, Survivor, et al. far more enlightening and less boring.
I wouldn't say that the subject of fractional reserve banking and the Fed is boring, per se. It's just when you get past the UFO cover up conspiracy theories of its naysayers, you find out they want to tie the economy to the South African metals mining industry.
beamish...
is it not better to supply the money supply to the south african mining industry than to the whims of bankers and politicians?
bftm
Post a Comment