A Commentary on the Modern World


And the Winner of the GOP debate is…..
August 12, 2011, 6:49 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

So who won the Republican debate tonight in Iowa on Fox News?  This is the question that will be asked countless times tonight and tomorrow.  Given the fact that Rick Perry will soon enter the race, it really doesn’t matter.  Yet, it is important to better understand what a candidate is saying and why they are saying it to determine who deserves your vote the most.  So to that end, I will take a few seconds of your day to explain my choice for who won the debate.

Now all of these candidates have their issues, and I will address them from top left to bottom right:

Michelle Bachmann:  Easy to make fun of and disrespect.  She picked a lot of fights to set herself a part from the rest of the crowd, but she just didn’t offer enough substance for me to take her seriously.

Tim Pawlenty:  About as exciting as watching a rock and appears a  spineless in his failure to take a stand for his record and his statements. At least Romney defends his actions and viewpoints.

Mitt Romney:  Obama used Romney’s Healthcare plan in Massachusetts as the primary model for the Affordable Care Act which is an expensive disaster for the economy – not to mention his record on abortion there. He is easy to listen to, but in spite of the many words he uses, it amazes me that he says so little.  He offers nothing new to change the economy other than “I had a business so I can fix this.”  So does Cain.

Jon Huntsman: Boring and forgettable.  He sounded like a liberal.

Newt Gingrich:  Came absolutely out of nowhere to actually bring real solutions to the table. I have not been a fan of his at all, but he came out strong against the monetary policy and the Federal Reserve’s failure to act responsibly with our money – as well as damning the new super committee in Congress that is supposed to save us trillions of dollars.  By the way, Americans don’t get any say so in what they are cutting or who is going to be doing the cutting in this super committee.  This practically ignores congressional processes outlined in the constitution, so I’m with Newt on this one, and I am glad he brought it up.  He got my interest tonight.

Rick Santorum:  I haven’t heard much from Rick Santorum in a while.  It is adamantly clear that he understands a free society will only work if the people practice moral behavior towards themselves and others.  The problem is that he ignores the constitution when he believes an immoral action is being committed by the state.  The problem with this mentality is it makes the government the source for morality, and denies individuals the freedom to fail which is often the primary means for learning why we should not do something.  So I agree with Rick’s morality but not how he would implement it within government.

Herman Cain:  He is an excellent speaker, very easy to listen to, and always making the problems seem solvable.  The problem is that without enough specifics for how he could solve those problems, his dreams of fixing the problems is reminiscent of Obama.  He inspires you to think that things will be done but you cannot help but wonder if he has the knowledge to get the job done.

Ron Paul:  I have never ceased to say that Ron Paul would do for conservatives what Obama did for liberals.  Yes. He is a radical constitutionalist, but if he was elected,  he would only be able to move the country as far as congress would let him.  He would vocally reassert the authority of the constitution in America.  When I listened to him tonight, it just amazes me that he never ceases to bring his argument back to the constitution.  Where the rest of the candidates never cease to bring up their opinions and experiences, Paul never ceases to bring up the constitution as to say how he would do something and why.  For instance, monetary policy needs to be constitutionally sound – meaning back by gold in some way, fashion, or form.  This would have avoided reckless spending and the current debt crisis.  Furthermore, I always enjoy listening to him reassert the need to be wary of our foreign affairs – being involved as much as necessary but as little as possible.  Ron Paul will not get the nomination, but his voice has been heard.  Kudos to Paul for standing his ground tonight!

Conclusion: 

So who won?  Newt Gingrich walks away gaining the most attention because he has been pretty ignored up to this point.  I enjoyed his conversation, his content, and his tone. He is clearly the winner tonight.  Ron Paul – without a doubt – is the most constitutionally sound, but I always expect that from him.  Newt stole the show because he came out of nowhere.

However, Rick Perry joins this fight on Saturday, and we will see just how long Newt will ride this wave of victory before he wipes out.  If he keeps this up, it will be a three-way battle between Romney, Gingrich, and Perry.

Yet, this is the question you need to ask yourself of these three candidates – or any candidate for that matter: Will this person enable and empower me to protect and provide for myself and others or will this person enable and empower himself to protect and provide for me and others?

You must not seek to elect a candidate who elects themselves to save us from our troubles. You must seek to elect a candidate who elects and empowers you to save yourself from your troubles.  The more you do for yourself, the more you are able to protect and provide for yourself and others.  The more you rely on someone else to protect and provide for you, the more dependent on them you become, and the less able you are to raise up responsible children making your children less able with each generation.   A weak people can be overthrown with relative ease so it is always in the best interest of those who follow us that we have the ability and means to protect and provide for ourselves to protect and provide for others that they might protect and provide for themselves to protect and provide for others.  This will produce the strongest and most generous of people.  This is why it matters who you vote for.

Advertisements

2 Comments so far
Leave a comment

I noticed you had written a piece about hope and faith on your page, also. When people will cheer at the death of a human soul and be willing to let a person die because of no insurance, there is little faith and little hope left for me. The mean and hateful things these Republicans say is enough reason to give up any faith in mankind. I feel sad that my grandchildren will grow up in this kind of narrow minded, unaccepting society.

Comment by Betty Burgess

I don’t think you read what I wrote about faith, hope, and love because it deals with acting in spite of emotion for the hope and sake of better life.

Secondly, the candidates – themselves – didn’t cheer at the death of someone who doesn’t have insurance. People cheered that Ron Paul said people need to take responsibility for their own lives and not rely on the Government. I do concede and acknowledge that someone idid yell “let him die” in the crowd. However, it is a very unfair generalization to classify all Republicans to be this kind of person. People need to protect and provide for themselves, and people are safest when they do not have to rely on the government or any one else to protect and provide for them. This is the ideal and how God intended us to live.

Thirdly, if your hope and faith has been lost because a few nasty people cheered at something so sad, I suggest you place your faith and hope in God – who only seeks to give life – not destroy it.

Thanks for the feedback.

Comment by Ben Knotts




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: