Thoughts on GOP Debate

The number of GOP debates is great, it is allowing for a wide reaching debate on the issues and providing insight into each candidate.  The two front runners, Romney and Perry, may not be the front runners for long. 

I thought Rick Perry was absolutely disastrous.  His answers were barely comprehensible at times, especially on foreign policy and when he tried to attack Romney for being a flip-flopper.  It brought back memories of another Texan who struggled with "fool me once...".

Romney was a good debater, but his conservative credentials are seriously lacking.  His defence of Romney-care is weak considering the similarities it has with Obamacare.  He also can't really articulate why he was once pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-individual mandate, and now is not.

Johnson seemed like a less-angry version of Ron Paul, but he has no place in the debate.  Stealing Rush Limbaugh's lines isn't going to display his worthiness for being commander in chief either.

Ron Paul is Ron Paul.  I find it's such a time waster to even have him up there because he'll never be elected and will never win the nomination.  That said, he certainly sticks to his guns.

Rick Santorum was quite good and seems to be getting better as time goes on.  I can't say the same for MIchelle Bachmann.  She just spews out cliches which are so tiresome and remind of a more polished version of a former Alaskan governor.

Herman Cain is great.  He may lack some substance on foreign policy, but I do like his economic ideas.  His personal story on cancer was very moving as a key reason why Obamacare will really hurt the country and reduce individual freedom.

Hunstman is smart, but he comes across as a snippy smart-ass.  His moderate views will get him nowhere considering that Romney is already garnering the vast majority of the moderate vote.

Newt Gingrich is my personal favourite and I've supported him for years (see www.gingrichforpres.blogspot.com). He always seems to have the best applause lines, best ideas, and an incredible grasp of the issues.  I'm under no illusions that he's certainly the underdog who would have to overcome major doubts about his past regarding his personal life and political background.  The media hates him because he'd destroy Obama in any debate.

The one thing that certainly sets candidates apart is the ability the extent to which they have principles in their political views.  It's one thing to recite a cliche (i.e. Michelle Bachmann), but quite another to know why it's important to believe in American Exceptionalism (i.e. Newt Gingrich).  Rick Perry and Mitt Romney seem unprincipled and very un-Reaganesque.  They are populists, but they don't have principles which they believe deeply to the core of their being.  Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Gingrich, and Ron Paul do have such convictions, and it makes them more credible even if you disagree with them.

I'm actually shocked at how turned off I am by Rick Perry.  He seems like a George W. clone with less smarts, brown hair, and no conviction.  He likes power, but it didn't matter if it was being Al Gore's money man or George W.'s lieutenant governor.  He uses government power to give needles to pre-teens, but won't use it to build a fence.  He's against illegal immigration, but is willing to subsidize it.  The last thing the country needs is another "compassionate" conservative with no ideology, no plan, and no principles.

It seems to me that Ronald Reagan was the exact opposite of Rick Perry, and a new Reagan is exactly what the United States needs.

The Real Obama Returns

Charles Krauthammer brilliantly reveals how the "centrist" Obama was nothing but a sham, and the true re-distributionist Obama is again shining through.  Obama is, and has always been, an idealogue when it comes to his socialist mindset and redistributionist policies.

He undoubtedly wants to raise capital gains taxes, raise income taxes, and increase the size of government.
Charles writes, "The authentic Obama is a leveler, a committed social democrat, a staunch believer in the redistributionist state, a tribune, above all, of "fairness" — understood as government-imposed and government-enforced equality."

Obama is putting his un-American views on full display now.  While the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity, Obama wants equality of result economically and socially.  This is dangerous as it will undoubtedly involve central planning, increased government power, and an attack on the sovereignty of the individual.

Finally, Krauthammer writes: "That's why "soak the rich" is not just a campaign slogan to rally the base. It's a mission, a vocation. It's why, for all its gratuitous cynicism and demagoguery, Obama's populist Rose Garden lecture on Monday was delivered with such obvious — and unusual — conviction."

The election in 2012 cannot come soon enough.

"Atlas Shrugged" Movie Coming to Canada

The movie of Ayn Rand's famous book, Atlas Shrugged, is coming to Canada shortly:

 

"Pacific Northwest Pictures has acquired all rights for Canada to ''Atlas Shrugged Part 1'' and will distribute through its Cross Country Releasing.

Deal was announced Saturday at the Torono Film Festival. Pic opened to $1.8 million at 299 screens in the U.S. in April and finished its run with a $4.8 million cume.

Screenplay of Ayn Rand's novel was written by Brian Patrick O'Toole and John Aglialoro. Harmon Kaslow and John Aglialoro produced.

Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler starred. The film was directed by Paul Johannson.

Pacific Northwest Pictures VP Emily Alden said, ''Ayn Rand's philosophy still resonates strongly with people today. Tea Party organizations from all over the world remain hungry for Rand's message and we are proud to have Atlas Shrugged Part 1 as Cross Country's first project.''