Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Obama Makes Final State of The Union Address Before Election: Visionary or Hypocrite?

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

Tonight was President Obama’s final State of the Union address before the November elections, and he spoke with much of the oratory skill for which he is lauded. He made a fairly decent effort to avoid outright attacks which was the proper move to avoid looking petty and maintain the brand he built in 2008. He mentioned specific programs, goals, and statistics. He said the state of the union is “getting stronger,” and he shared a vision of a prosperous America. Below is a recap of some key points and some commentary, but I ask you to make the call. Did President Obama sound like a visionary or a hypocrite in his big speech?

President Obama started the speech by highlighting that we don’t have troops in Iraq for the first time in nine years. He was eager to mention the assassination of Bin Laden saying, ”For the first time in two decades Osama Bin Laden is not a threat to this country.” For that, he received a standing ovation, as it’s one of the few issues that just about everyone is in agreement on. In what I thought was the strongest portion of the speech, Obama praised our servicemen in uniform, really getting everyone on his side early.

Referencing those heroes serving our country, he asked listeners to “imagine what we could accomplish if we follow their example.” He proceeded to share a vision of a beautiful flourishing America. He mentioned high-tech manufacturing jobs and energy independence.”We can do this. I know we can because we’ve done it before.” I found it particularly interesting that he paid so much attention to the manufacturing sector. This compares interestingly with Rick Santorum who has also focused on manufacturing and explained that the regulations and taxes on US manufacturers create 20% greater costs (excluding labor costs) as compared to our top trade partners. Santorum has proposed cutting their corporate tax rate to 0% and repealing Obama’s regulations.

Similar to Mitt Romney‘s line about this election being about the “soul of America” Obama said “we have to reclaim them [American values].” Then dissimilar to what Romney and many would say is consistent with American values, he began to start his attacks on the most wealthy Americans. He described how the wealthy got richer and the poor were struggling and then the “house of cards” collapsed in 2008. He assured that his new rules will hold Wall Street accountable so a crisis like this never happens again.

He really got his fellow Democrats fired up when he said he’d strongly fight against those who’d like to move us back to the policies that got us into this mess, a subtle shot at the previous administration. One of the biggest triumphs of his economic theory was GM’s positive response to government intervention. Obama exclaimed, “GM is back on top as the world’s number one auto-maker…What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries.” It’s the second sentence that rings especially loudly, and I’ll reference it again shortly.

The President then mentioned that his administration has brought up twice as many trade cases against China as compared to the Bush administration. He announced plans to create a new governmental body to investigate and check for unfair trade practices, primarily in dealing with China. While he was on the topic of China he mentioned that we have to protect our intellectual property rights, an obvious reference to the SOPA debate and likely a plea to his friends in Hollywood, telling them I’m still looking out for you.

Something I found a little hypocritical was his call to “turn our unemployment system into a re-employment system.” He has pushed extension after extension of unemployment benefits so now one can receive those benefits for nearly two years (99 weeks). Unemployment benefits have been statistically proven to dramatically increase the time it takes for one to re-enter the workforce, so I felt his rhetoric was intellectually dishonest. He also mentioned skill training which conservatives love to hear and heard from Newt Gingrich  in a recent debate.

In what I thought was the boldest part of the speech, President Obama called for every state to pass a law requiring everyone to stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.

Obama then turned his attention to immigration. He argued that his administration has put more (federal) troops on the ground to defend the border, and that’s why there are less illegal border crossing. The slow economy, especially in the construction industry likely played a greater role in any reduction than any direct government action. (On a sidebar, how could they figure how many undetected illegal border crossing there are? Wouldn’t they have to see them to count them?) Of course, his Department of Justice also sued Arizona, Alabama, and South Carolina for enforcing immigration laws on a state level. 

The President is ready to open more than 75% of offshore gas resources. American oil production is the highest it’s been in eight years–both are good news. He wants to create 600,000 jobs around our natural gas resources. Further, he said “I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy,” even saying some subsidies will fail obviously referencing Solyndra. He continued to talk about exploring our energy options and more spoke about jobs created via infrastructure projects without direct mention of the Keystone XL Pipeline. He later called for an extension on the payroll tax cut with nothing attached, a reference to the pipeline. After stopping construction on an infrastructure project that would have create 20,000 direct jobs these promises don’t seem that genuine. I thought this was one of the weaker parts of the speech as he was defensive about Solyndra and doesn’t appear genuine about energy and infrastructure to anyone who supported the Keystone XL Pipeline.

He moved his attention to regulations and the economy, saying “no bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs…we won’t bail you out again.” Republicans loved this line in Frank Luntz’s dial testing. What I thought was interesting though was that earlier he said what was happening in Detroit because of the auto bailout could happen in other cities. I don’t understand how the two can be reconciled. No bailouts, but we can do more bailouts and revive a city like we did in Detroit? I may have missed something, I admittedly made some nachos at one point during the speech.

He then unveiled what we were all waiting for, the Buffett Rule. He argued that those who make more than a million dollars a year shouldn’t pay under 30%. This specifically targets investors that pay capital gains taxes and subtly references Mitt Romney’s tax release. This is a divisive issue that Republicans and Democrats strongly disagree on. In what was the most partisan moment of the speech Obama pitted those making under $200,000 against the very wealthy essentially saying we can cut your taxes if we tax them more. Conservatives are willing to sacrifice fairness for everyone’s overall well-being while many liberals are willing to sacrifice everyone’s well-being for the sake of fairness. Definitely click here to view an extremely interesting video of Obama debating Hillary Clinton on this topic.

Finally, President Obama assured the American people that we are not prepared to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. This was a great moment and while some may be skeptical, it was good to hear nonetheless. He finished off by promising his “iron clad commitment to Israel’s safety,” despite just recently calling them to give away land and return to 1967 borders.

Overall the speech was well articulated, but I thought some points were inconsistent with his actions and thus misleading. What did you think? Please share your thoughts and as always with the political posts, please keep the comments respectful.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading! 

Newt Gingrich Earns First GOP Primary Victory

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

As I’m sure you know by now, Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina GOP primary, and did so decisively. Now, Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich all may claim victory in one state. While the winner of South Carolina has gone on to win the nomination in every GOP primary since 1980, each of those winners also won either Iowa or New Hampshire. We truly have a toss-up race at this juncture.

It was expected that Newt Gingrich would give Romney a tough race in South Carolina, but nobody was expecting Gingrich to win by over 75,000 votes and 12%. It’s interesting to note that his second wife’s comments which many thought would ruin his election hopes, didn’t have a negative impact. He handled questions about the issue so well, most notably in the debate, he diffused any crash that could have happened and even seemed to benefit from being the center of attention.

Gingrich will pick up quite a bit of momentum from this strong win, but as Karl Rove explained, let’s not mistake this victory for a historic blowout, as the average margin of victory in South Carolina’s GOP primary is 17%. The only piece of history from today’s win is that this is the first time we’ve had a different winner in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Romney still holds the most delegates at the moment, which in the end will decide the nominee.

Santorum looks on. He’ll need a respectable performance in Florida so he can go on to what he calls “neutral turf” with sufficient momentum, and more importantly, the resources to compete.

In Newt Gingrich’s victory speech he spoke harshly about what another term with President Obama would be like, asking America to “imagine how radical he would be in a second term.”

He stood up for those of faith in our country saying, “one issue is the growing anti-religious bigotry of our elites.” He more specifically referenced a judge in San Antonio who threatened to jail any superintendent who allowed a school to use the words “invocation,” “benediction,” or “God,” recite a public prayer, or hold a moment of silence in a graduation ceremony.

Even after racial criticism for calling President Obama the “best food stamp president,” Newt refused to relent, asserting that “historically, President Obama has been the best food stamp president in American history…I want to be the best pay check president in American history.”

He also touched on America’s lack of energy independence, an issue on which President Obama is particularly vulnerable. “I want America to become so energy independent that no American president ever again bows to a Saudi king,” referencing a moment early in Obama’s presidency on a trip to Saudi Arabia. He continued by promising to authorize sequestration of our natural resources on day one. He then criticized President Obama for stopping the Keystone Pipeline which would have created jobs through the building of the pipeline, the maintenance for the pipeline, and the refining of the oil, and explained why President Obama did so “…because Barack Obama is taking care of his left-wing friends in San Francisco.”

What’s your take on Newt Gingrich’s big win?

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading! 

Pros and Cons of Mitt Romney Becoming the GOP Nominee

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

Today’s New Hampshire primary is historic. Mitt Romney’s win makes him the first non-incumbent Republican to win both Iowa and New Hampshire since Iowa became the kick-off state in the election cycle. (Update: Recount has shown that Rick Santorum actually edged Mitt Romney in Iowa) While that doesn’t mean he’s the nominee–Rick “Sweater Vest” Santorum, Ron Paul and to some extent Newt Gingrich still have a viable shot–but at this point you have to bet on Mitt Romney over the field.

With that being said, I’m not a Romney-hater searching for the best “anti-Romney,” nor am I a supporter of his. That gives me an open mind to evaluate the pros and cons of him as the GOP nominee. I may go back and add more later, but here’s what comes to mind. Please add pros and cons that you can think of in the comments. For every con try to add a pro and vice versa.

PRO

CON

PRO

  • Mitt Romney has committed to cutting spending to 20% of GDP.
CON
  • Government revenues are typically 18% of GDP meaning even if Mitt accomplishes this goal we’ll still be running a deficit. His ideas are not bold enough, and he’s rather moderate.

PRO

  • Mitt Romney‘s experience in the private sector is stellar. Some, including fellow Republicans Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, have attacked his tenure at Bane Capital and called him a corporate raider. Romney has proven that he created a net job growth while there, thoroughly debunking that argument. Rick Santorum called the criticism unfounded last night on Fox News. Mitt did great work for Staples while working with Bane Capital and then worked with the Olympics. He really understands business at a level that President Obama simply does not and is much more qualified to handle the economy.

CON

  • While his private sector experience is fantastic and his tenure as Massachusetts governor seems to have been quite successful, he lacks foreign policy experience. We haven’t heard him say much about foreign policy in speeches or debates either.

PRO

  • He has unequivocally stated conservative social values, yet hasn’t been viciously attacked and demonized by the media like someone with similar views such as Rick Santorum.

CON

  • As much as he wants to say about his social views, it’s hard to believe they are strongly held convictions when they differ so wildly from what he said about his social views when running in the very liberal state of Massachusetts.
PRO
  • Mitt knows how to make political allies and get things done. His historic run through the first two primaries was aided by endorsements from conservative politicians in key states. He was able to work with liberal Democrats while serving as Governor in Massachusetts and is a better hope to end the partisan strife in Washington than any very liberal Democrat or very conservative Republican.
CON
PRO
  • Romney has the strongest organization among the GOP nominees. He has the biggest war chest, the best advisers, and the strongest get-out-the-vote effort. These will be critical if the GOP nominee is to give President Obama a worthy challenge.
CON
  • His aforementioned advantages over GOP rivals won’t stack up as advantages against Barack Obama and his powerful political machine. If Romney is winning the GOP nomination simply by outspending his rivals, having a stronger ground game, and crushing them with negative ads, what will he do when President Obama outspends him, has a stronger ground game, and runs more negative ads? Rely on $4.00 gas?

Feel free to share more in the comments and I may add them to the list. Thanks for reading.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading! 

#NHDebate Recap Jan 7, 2012

Posted on by Ryan Kantor
Less than 72 hours until the New Hampshire primary, the six remaining major candidates for GOP nomination gathered in Manchester, New Hampshire for a nationally broadcast debate. Here were the key points and most interesting tidbits.
  • When asked if he would stand behind his negative ads against Rick Santorum, Ron Paul didn’t back down. The ad accuses Rick Santorum of being a corrupt big government guy among other things. Paul cited a liberal activist group (CREW) that called him corrupt, his vote against right-to-work laws, and five votes for raising the national debt limit.
  • Rick Santorum defended himself by pointing out that the corruption charges came from a very left-wing organization saying (paraphrasing) ”you’re not conservative if you haven’t been attacked by CREW.” He explained that he was one of the few guys working on entitlement reform back when we were running a surplus, and that the debt ceiling increases were necessary to keep the government running and he always worked to tie-in spending decreases. He also noted that unlike Ron Paul, he is not a Libertarian, he is a conservative.
  • Rick Perry claimed to be the only outsider that has not been part of the Washington problem (despite sending lobbyists to Washington to lobby for earmarks for Texas).
  • Jon Huntsman argued for congressional term limits.
  • Ron Paul claimed that our drug laws and judicial system are racist, because many more African-Americans are arrested on drug charges than Caucasians, despite comparable drug usage. He went on to ask, (paraphrasing) “when was the last time you saw a rich white man get the electric chair?” He said this in response to accusations about his 20 year-old newsletters which apparently contained inappropriate racial commentary.
  • Newt Gingrich explained that the sacrament of marriage is of enormous, 3,000 year old, foundation for our country. He also said that everyone should be treated with respect, and there should be ways to give hospital visitation rights, include partners in wills, etc. Multiple candidates including the “moderate” Mitt Romney endorsed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and woman.
  • Newt Gingrich informed the audience that following Massachusetts’ decision to guarantee the right to marriage for same-sex couples, the state government attempted to force the Catholic Church to comply with a state law saying that homosexual-couples must be allowed to adopt children. The church’s non-compliance forced the shutdown of their adoption services in the state. The Catholic Church was responsible for about half of the adoption placements in Massachusetts. This was one of the more interesting talking points. Everyone on the stage seemed to agree with Gingrich when he pointed out how same-sex marriage has repercussions that aren’t being talked about by the biased media.
  • Santorum argued that the foreign policy weakness displayed by the Obama administration is culpable for what we are seeing from Iran, with their military exercises practicing closing the Straight of Hormuz.
  • Rick Perry literally said “I would send troops back into Iraq.” When asked if he agreed, Newt Gingrich flatly said no without showing up or confronting Perry.
  • Gingrich said we need to be more energy independent so “an American President never again bows to a Saudi king,” referencing Obama bowing down to a Saudi king earlier in his Presidential tenure.
  • Mitt Romney said something that all conservatives will love, (paraphrasing) ”government can do some things to create jobs, but by-in-large they get in the way.”
  • Rick Santorum said he would repeal all of Obama’s 150+ regulations (something he can do immediately) and replace them with more reasonable ones or not replace them at all.
  • Mitt Romney continued to push his new slogan, exclaiming that “this election is about the soul of America.” He makes a good point and makes one question where the country is headed, a question he likely wants voters to ask themselves as most have indicated that they feel the country is headed in the wrong direction.
  • Newt Gingrich pointed out that the Wall Street Journal called Mitt Romney’s job creation plan timid and more like Obama’s in comparison to his own. Santorum agreed that Mitt’s plans aren’t bold and added he didn’t like to talk about “middle-class,” “upper-class,” etc, as he has grown tired of all the class warfare (referencing recent rhetoric from President Obama).
  • “I’d be at the shooting range” was Rick Perry’s response to the final question, what would you be doing on a Saturday night if you weren’t running for President.

What did you think? Did I miss anything big?

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading! 

Santorum Surges In Iowa As Caucuses Approach

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

As the Iowa caucuses approach, it appears there was time for one more candidate to surge to the forefront. Conservative Republicans–likely feeling disillusioned with a field that doesn’t include Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal–may have finally found a consistent conservative in Rick Santorum, who after hovering below 5% for much of his campaign, has leaped as high as 16% in some polls of Republican Iowans. Santorum has earned key endorsements which overtime have eroded what could be the biggest obstacle he faces, the perception that he can’t win the nomination.

According to his own website:

“Sarah Palin praised Rick for his ‘consistency on protecting the sanctity of life.’ Mike Huckabee said he ‘adores Rick Santorum’s conviction.’ Glenn Beck called Rick Santorum the ‘next George Washington,’ and encouraged voters ‘to take a look at him.’ And Rush Limbaugh said it would be ‘great’ if Rick Santorum became President.”

In addition he earned a big endorsement from  a popular conservative radio talk show host in Iowa who said that Rick Santorum was the only one who fit the criteria for his ideal candidate:

“My ideal candidate must be a conservative who believes in a constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and unflagging devotion to life and traditional marriage.”  - Sam Clovis

The momentum from the endorsements and surging Iowa polls is causing conservatives finally give Rick Santorum a serious look. Many Republicans feel that Romney is the most “electable” candidate so much of Santorum’s plausibility will depend on if voters choose the candidate they feel is best or the most likely to beat Obama. For those willing to vote for the best candidate Santorum offers consistency that many of the other candidates do not.

Mitt Romney has proclaimed himself to be a “moderate” with “progressive views.” Comments like that coupled with some liberal stances on social issues while serving in super liberal Massachusetts have troubled some Republicans.

Newt Gingrich filmed the now infamous global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi, which he has said was the “dumbest thing I’ve ever done.” He’s also been lampooned for his work with Freddie Mac (which frankly has been overblown) and criticized for more personal issues including a reprimand and $300,000 fine from the House Ethics Committee and multiple extramarital affairs–the latter of which hurts perceptions of his electability. According to Ann Coulter, “Gingrich is almost certainly unelectable based solely on his having cheated on and divorced two wives.“

Ron Paul has also surged in Iowa, taking first place in most polls, but isn’t considered a conservative by many, especially on foreign policy issues. A true libertarian competing in the Republican primary, Ron Paul is not directly fighting for the same core group of voters as Santorum.

Rick Santorum’s most direct opponents are Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, who compete for similar voter blocks. Some have predicted that if one or two of them were to drop out the remaining candidate(s) would win the majority of their supporters about become a real force. This seems unlikely though. Rick Perry rocketed in the polls shortly after entering the race, but has faded since liberal streaks regarding immigration (in-state tuition for illegal aliens) and a state mandate for a HPV vaccination were exposed. Bachmann is proving her consistent conservatism, however other problems exist. In a recent debate she offered skewed attacks at best, dishonest ones at worst. After her assertions were called factually incorrect multiple times, she felt the need to tell the audience that she “is a serious candidate,” which to me made her seem much less serious. She also has been by far the most negative candidate, perhaps thinking she could be more aggressive and negative without rebuke due to her gender. While her attacks may have hurt opponents, they do not seem to have helped her candidacy.

For conservatives looking for the best candidate–the one that best represents and articulates their views–that leaves Rick Santorum. He’s been consistent on social issues, disagreeing with Ron Paul on the war on drugs, authoring the partial birth abortion ban act, and standing up for traditional marriage. Santorum has expressed better than all the other candidates that he understands the seriousness of a nuclear Iran.  Meanwhile, a high-tech US drone was captured and is being reverse-engineered by the Iranian government while President Obama sits idly. Santorum has offered real solutions to help the US manufacturing industry and in turn many union members, while Obama plays politics supporting unions with unionization laws, but hurting actual union workers more directly through economic policy (i.e., blocking construction of oil pipeline that would have require thousands of US jobs, many union jobs).

Liberals really loathe Santorum. They’ve gone as far as to conjure up incredibly disrespectful stories about him and his family. Possibly in response to Santorum calling abortion ban exceptions for health reasons “phony”–mental health issues like anxiety are often classified as a health reason–a story was circulated that calls Santorum a hypocrite for authorizing his wife to have a life-saving abortion amid a family tragedy. Aside from the story being untrue and tasteless, the real story is incredibly sad and touching. (6% of abortions in the US are done for health reasons, 1% for rape/incest, 93% for social reasons.) They’ve also attempted to tie disgusting vulgarity to his last name.

It will be interesting to see what they have to say if the most consistently conservative candidate in the GOP field continues to rise in the polls. How do you feel about Rick Santorum’s sudden emergence?

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. Thanks for reading!

Shall I Vote For The Best Candidate or The Candidate With The Best Shot To Win?

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

It’s the age old question; should you vote for the candidate whose positions are most in line with your own or the one that has the best shot to beat the opposing party?

In our two party system, voting for third party candidate in a general election throws a wrench in the process, making it less representative. We’ve seen this problem occur throughout history. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt who had already served two terms as President (the first being a partial term, taking over after President McKinley died in office), did not get the Republican nomination to run for a third term. William Taft would represent the Republican party, while Roosevelt would create the Progressive (AKA “Bull Moose”) party and oppose him. Woodrow Wilson would represent the Democratic Party and with the Republican vote split (23.2% for Taft, 27.4% for Roosevelt), Wilson would win the Presidency with just 41.8% of the popular vote.

More recently, in 1992 Ross Perot ran as an independent and sapped over 19 million votes from the two prime candidates, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. In an election where 56.4% of the votes went to conservative candidates (Bush and Perot), the liberal candidate won.

The 1912 and 1992 elections exemplify how a strong third party candidate in a general election actually makes the system less representative. Speaking about the Presidential Preference Primary though, does the same concept hold true? Should one vote for a candidate who they think can beat the opposition in the subsequent general election (in this cycle’s election that would mean the candidate that has the best chance to defeat Obama) or the candidate whose views actually align with one’s own most closely?

In the current Republican Presidential Primary, many voters want to be sure that their party picks a candidate that can beat Obama and his powerful political machine come November. As a means to that end, many are willing to vote for the candidate that they deem to be the most “electable,” instead of the one that would make the best president. While the logic is sound–a moderate Republican that appeals to Independents may have a better chance to win a general election–the long term consequences may not be worth it.

The party primaries are a time to pave the path for your party. They’re a time to assert the values of your party. Sacrificing those values to chose an “electable” candidate requires a denouncement of the importance of those core values. Additionally, choosing a candidate that doesn’t fit with the core values of the party for the sake of electability acknowledges that the values of your party are somewhat extreme–too extreme for the mainstream population. After an “electable” candidate wins, how can you go back to an “extreme” candidate? On CNN today, they called the entire Republican field extreme, but in reality most Republican voters find some candidates to be relatively moderate and think they have a better chance of beating Obama by attracting Independents and conservative Democrats.

The Independent voter block is a fickle mistress. I’ve always wondered how one can be well informed and still unsure of which party is more representative of their views. The differences are stark, which is why you see such a lack of cooperation on Capital Hill. Focusing on this voting block is a perilous proposition, and in doing so, you risk creating apathy in the base or even sparking a third party candidate to run closer to the true principles of your base.

Mitt Romney polls the best against President Obama, beating him in every poll I’ve seen. I think Romney would make a quality President, and I’ll be pleased if he’s the nominee. That said, come Super Tuesday, if he’s not my number one choice, I won’t hesitate to vote for a lesser known candidate like Rick Santorum or a less “electable” candidate like Newt Gingrich if they better represent my views and are not nearing mathematical elimination.

How do you view the situation? Will you vote for the candidate that would be the best for America or the one that you estimate will have the best shot of defeating President Obama?

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. Thanks for reading!

Drake University Hosts Thought Provoking Debate

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

on December 10th ABC broadcast a GOP debate from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. It was the first major debate with Gingrich as the front runner. Here are some key takeaways:

Mitt Romney defended himself on “Romneycare” when Rick Perry again claimed that Romney’s book said that he wanted the Massachusetts healthcare plan to be a model for the nation (implying at the federal level). Romney responded sternly (and awkwardly) by offering Rick Perry a $10,000 bet that he had in fact misquoted him. Romney then clarified the quote from his book which actually says that each state should consider such a plan, because they are the laboratories of Democracy. Mitt could not have made his opinion or past comments more clear, but he’ll probably continue to be asked about them, and the weird $10,000 bet offer may irk some Iowans come caucus time.

Shameless Plug for My Father: On the topic of Mitt Romney and healthcare, Dr. Keith Kantor, is working with the Romney campaign in a limited context to provide information about how to lower healthcare costs by promoting all natural food with a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel. Details here, be sure to check it out.

Newt Gingrich got an opportunity to reexplain his position on illegal immigration, clearly stating that he is not for amnesty, but rather a realistic plan in which people who have been living in the country for years upon years can receive residency (not citizenship). Decisions would be made on a local level with his plan. He refuses to support a plan where families who have been living in America, paying taxes, have children and grandchildren who live here, and are part of communities, and churches will be hunted down and deported. Good for Newt for saying something that may not be politically savvy in terms of gaining numbers in the polls, but is honest. Of course, he’d  quickly admit that it’ll all moot until the border is secured.

The real high point of the debate came when Newt Gingrich stood by his past comments regarding the Palestinians. Previously he stated,

“We’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community, and they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and I think it’s tragic.”

He explained that the Palestinian argument for land is based on historical falsehood, and that the term “Palestinian” is a relatively new word that began being used after the creation of Israel. Romney argued that Gingrich should be more careful of what he says as his comments could cause “tumult,” and further claimed that he would exercise “sobriety” in his comments if he was to become President. Newt didn’t back off his comments, explaining that Palestinian textbooks teach hate towards the Jews. Michele Bachmann waffled on standing fully behind Gingrich, but did spend some time talking how her experience seeing the hatred written in their elementary school textbook, quoting one textbook that used murdering Jews as an example in a children’s arithmetic problem.

Did anything else really stand out to you? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. Thanks for reading!

Why Foreign Affairs Should Be A Bigger Part of This Election

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

With the economy still in tatters, the 2012 election has been laser focused on how candidates plan on fixing it. While nobody would argue that this shouldn’t be a critical point in the upcoming election, something arguably more important was been overlooked.

After the recent Iranian sponsored assasination attempt of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to America, foreign policy could jump to the forefront, and rightfully so. After years and months of seemingly worthless sanctions that were too soft to stop GE from doing business with Iran, the situation in Persia is getting scary.

John Huntsman has already demonstrated his willingness to be decisive and stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power, something we’ll never see from Obama.

“I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when
I would use American force, it would be that,” Huntsman says.

Who of the prospective candidates do you trust the most with foreign affairs? Cain and Romney have positioned themselves on their economic knowledge and experience. The moderate Huntsman has come out with a bold and decisive stand. Rick Santorum has carved out his niche as the social conservative with the toughest stance on issues like this. Ron Paul said Iran can have a nuke if they want, while Bachman said she would do whatever she could to prevent it from happening. Who do you think stands to gain the most if this issue grows as the campaigns continue?

 To subscribe to this blog please click the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. Thanks for reading!

Herman Cain Proves Critics Wrong By Winning FL Straw Poll

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

Two weeks ago I wrote in a blog post:

“Herman Cain has no shot. He’s said some things you just can’t say, and even if they were misconstrued, I don’t think he has much of a shot at this point.”

Well, I can admit when I’m wrong. Herman Cain, a so-called second-tier candidate, won the Florida straw poll. While a straw poll shouldn’t be confused with a normal political poll, and isn’t a great predictor of public sentiment, it gives Herman Cain quite a boost.

Rick Perry finished second with 15.4%, but devoted more time and resources to the straw poll than other candidates. His second place finish is considered a major loss.

Other candidates finished as shown below:

Mitt Romney: 14%
Rick Santorum 10.9%
Ron Paul, 10.4%
Newt Gingrich 8.4%
Jon Huntsman 2.3%
Michele Bachmann 1.5%

The take away from this is that Herman Cain is on the rise, while Michele Bachmann is on her last leg.

After Cain’s performance surprised the heck out of me, I felt that I had to give him some credit and admit that I was wrong about the legitimacy of his candidacy (although I still think Romney will win).

For information on how a straw poll works, check out this wikipedia explanation.

Mitt Romney Big Winner in 9/12 CNN Tea Party Debate

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

A few notable things came of the September 12th CNN debate sponsored by the local Tea Party organization.

  1. Ron Paul’s campaign essentially came to an end when Rick Santorum highlighted a blog post on Ron Paul’s website that essentially said it was largely America’s fault for our involvement in the Middle East. Ron Paul didn’t back down from the post on his website and was promptly booed. That’ll probably be it for him.
  2. Michele Bachmann was much more aggressive. She attacked Rick Perry multiple on multiple points, but most harshly on a mandate that Gov. Rick Perry enacted in Texas requiring young girls to be vaccinated for HPV, a STD that leads to cervical cancer. She tied the issue to Obamacare and big government. She even pointed out possible political dishonesty from the Perry administration in Texas. Perry denied any dishonesty, but admitted some fault in the policy itself.
  3. Mitt Romney was a big winner with all the attacks focused on Rick Perry. Rick Santorum also did well, but has a lot of ground to make up. Mitt and Bachmann could move up slightly in the polls. Ron Paul probably won’t move much, but no longer has any chance to gain ground outside of his base.