Wednesday, October 12, 2011

New Hampshire Republican Primary Debate!

Welcome to our first class visit to the "blogosphere" of the semester! Since we're finishing up our unit on Elections & we're about to start looking at the process of campaigning, and since this will obviously be a story we follow throughout the semester, I thought a great topic for our 1st blog assignment would be the Republican debate that was held in New Hampshire (a key early primary state!) this past Tuesday evening, October 11, moderated by Charlie Rose. In case you didn't get to watch it live or recorded on TV (which I imagine applies to most of you!), click the topic title link above to watch online video of the entire debate--it runs about 90 minutes, and while I encourage you to watch the whole thing, if you can at least watch an hour or so of the debate, that should be enough for you to be able to thoughtfully participate in our discussion. After you watch the debate, please consider the following questions:



  • What were your overall general thoughts/reactions to each of the candidates?


  • Whom did you like and whom did you not like? Why?


  • Who stood out to you the most? Who do you think did well in the debate and who didn't do as well? Why?


  • Was there one line or one moment from the debate that really stood out to you? If so, what was it and why?

Remember, your assignment is to post TWO comments to the blog by the end of the day next Monday, October 17. Maybe you want to look at some previous topics and comments posted by last year's students to get a sense of about how long your posts should be; I don't have an exact minimum length in mind, but generally I would say a decent-sized paragraph would be required for you to adequately express your opinions and address all of my questions.


Your first post should be your answers to those questions I've posed above, and then your second post (this can be a couple days later if you want) needs to be a response/comment/agreement/disagreement on something that one of your classmates has posted. These second comments can be shorter than your initial answers to my questions in your first comment, but they do still need to be somewhat substantial with some thought put into them; simply saying "I agree with ________" or "________ is wrong in what she says" won't get the job done! Also, I hope at this point I don't need to tell you (though I will anyway!) that while I want you to passionately and enthusiastically express your opinions in this forum, please be sure to be respectful and appropriate in your comments, both about the Republican candidates as well as about the comments and opinions of your classmates.


Last thing: please make to sure to post your thoughts as "comments" on a continuing thread within and below this same topic--please DO NOT submit a "new post" which will appear at the top of the blog's home screen. The right way to do it is to click on the link down below where it says "0 comments" or "12 comments" or " 67 comments" in pink font--this will take you to a text box where you can post your own comments.


I look forward to seeing what you all have to say--good luck and have fun!


--Silvy :)

93 comments:

  1. Okay, to start with, I have to say that I am terrified to think of any of these people as being president after seeing this. Lets be honest, they have limited appeal when looked at how they respond to each other. I will say that while it was nice to see that they had all done research or had research done for them, I felt that they were mostly talking about theory, not actual political actions. Also, it sort of felt like they were just constantly accusing each other of negative actions.

    However, there were definitely some people who I liked, at least among that group. For some reason that I have no idea about, I thought that Michelle Bachmann did a good job bringing up conflict points and seemed to be able to both enter and avoid taking blame/credit for certain topics. Also, I thought Mitt Romney made a lot of good arguments in his case.
    ...Let's be honest: there were some characters in that debate. Cain needs to lay off his super defensive responses and overly aggressive accusations: its almost like he is taking everything said as a personal insult. Also, he needs to stop bringing up "9!9!9!" as it became old fast and almost became a joke.
    I think that Paul also needed to change the way he was acting, as he was unable to stand up fully to the other people's arguments (at least in my opinion).
    I thought the hosts did a good job with their questions of stirring up interactions among candidates, while still being able to stay mostly in control of the discussion.
    And for the most important line?

    "9!9!9!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry for the multiple posts. I had some typos.

    Romney- with Cain, effectively monopolized air time. It seemed like part of his strategy was to consistently give verbose and vague answers (Ex. European debt crisis, is there an institution too big to let fail?) in order to deny his competitors speaking time. However, the answers themselves were moderate and appealing to independents. He effectively portrayed himself as experienced and well qualified for the job. He defended himself well, and I believe that the debate was a success for him.

    Cain- did not do as well as he had in the past. His competitors were able to expose his lack of experience, one of his greatest weakness as a candidate. The pizza jokes and pointed moderator questions were indicative of Cain's relatively humble background as a pizza company CEO. Cain was never able to defend his national sales tax idea, which was heavily criticized, and his economic adviser appeared less impressive than Romney's Harvard and Columbia grads. Finally, I'm not convinced that 999 can pass since it's unlikely that congress will allow him to throw out the current tax code.

    Perry- Could he be any more of stereotypical Texas oilman? Whenever he said "energy independence", you knew exactly what he was talking about. It's obvious who his biggest campaign contributors are. Despite being a front runner, Perry slipped into the background while Cain and Romney took center stage. I did agree with his idea of supplying block grants to states so that they can develop their own health care plans. With this freedom, states can innovate and possibly create a health care plan that best suits their needs.

    Santorum- clearly represents corporate interest. He's convinced that repealing all Obama administration regulations and decreasing corporate taxes from 35% to 0% will create jobs that were taken oversees. With his policies, I can only imagine huge bonuses for executives. I'm skeptical of whether or not his plans will help struggling middle class Americans. At 91:48, an audience member angrily called out Santorum for his support of reinstating DADT at a previous debate. I agree with that audience member.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Paul- is the candidate with the most consistent and steadfast principles. It's a good thing when everyone knows your agenda. I'm not well informed about sound money, artificial booms, and easy credit, but he does sound like he understands the cause of recession. However, Jon Stewart once asked Paul if a Libertarian style government has ever worked. Paul couldn't answer him since there's no historical precedent.

    Bachmann- Of course all candidates need to shamelessly self promote. However, Bachmann's was especially noticeable and irritating. She spent most of her air time flaunting her record in congress. Her only memorable campaign pledge was to repeal Obama Care, something that all of the candidates promised to do. I was also disturbed by her defense of wall street executives who precipitated the financial crisis and avoided prison. As a former federal tax lawyer, she did make a plausible point about the danger of creating new revenue streams for congress as proposed in 999.

    Gingrich- employed the most invective out of all the candidates. A lot of his points went over my head, so I can't say much about whether or not I agree with him. I think he tried to portray himself as the veteran politician. Each time he said, "I just want to say something..." Gringrich was basically prompting himself to make what he thought was a profound point that none of the other candidates had brought up.

    Huntsman- As a minor candidate, he had the least amount of air time to work with, and I felt that he didn't use his time wisely. Despite his experience as an ambassador to China, he had the least appealing approach to confronting China, suggesting American governors should work together with Chinese ones.

    ReplyDelete
  7. While Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would simplify taxes, I don’t see how someone who is very poor can be expected to pay the same amount of taxes as Bill Gates. I’d be surprised if Cain got very far with it. Also, a 9% sales tax on top of the state sales tax (which is almost 8% in California) would amount to something extremely high, discouraging people from buying, and that has never helped the economy. However, I do admire that Cain takes an aggressive stance to balance the federal budget.
    Rick Perry claimed that he could get 1.2 million Americans working in the energy industry. His economic plan is built around extracting fossil fuels domestically instead of importing it. This is good because we wouldn’t have to worry about OPEC raising prices and throwing off our economy even more. It is bad because drilling for oil locally means destroying local ecosystems.
    Mitt Romney asks us to put a lot of faith in him as a “leader” who can bring people together, taking ideas from “both sides of the aisle.” It is true that he is experienced as a former governor, but he seemed vague about tangible ideas to jumpstart the economy. Americans do need a good leader to rally behind, but they need one with more ideas than charisma. Nevertheless, I think he presented himself well and the debate was successful for him.
    It bothered me that Michelle Bachman defended the Wall Street and bank executives who share some of the responsibility for the financial meltdown. I believe that she oversimplified the issue by saying that it was entirely the government’s fault. While millions of Americans have paid the price for these mistakes, it was insensitive to support wealthy executives who give themselves huge bonuses.
    Newt Gingrich pointed fingers a lot, aggressively blaming individuals in the federal reserve who he sees as being “the heart of the disease that is weakening this country” (sort of a weird double metaphor. That was the line that stood out for me.)
    Ron Paul seemed likable enough coming right after Gingrich; he cracked jokes instead of yelling. He didn’t see such a problem with the federal reserve, but thinks the cause of the country’s financial problems is the boom-bust business cycle. What I would like to know is how to temper this cycle if it is so volatile.
    Rick Santorum is very naïve to think that the manufacturing jobs can come back to America if the “proper climate” is established. Those jobs have been shipped overseas because no business owner wants to pay 25 dollars an hour to an American worker if they can pay 50 cents an hour to an East Asian worker. It’s good that he wants to make America more business-friendly, but it’s doubtful that American manufacturers with overseas factories will pull up those factories and bring them here, where employees must have medical leave and pension.
    John Huntsman says that he seeks advice from people who know how to build something “from the ground up,” the typical American spirit. I think that he was asked strange questions that had little substance, which is unfortunate because he is already the underdog in this primary election.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with Christopher’s comment that Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be unlikely to pass—it would be hard to get Congress to completely toss the current tax system in favor of a new one. It may be unwise for him to base so much of his campaign on such an unsteady platform. Even if Congress did agree to it, the moderator’s question about raising the price so dramatically on grocery-list items voiced the concerns of many Americans. I believe that if sales tax in America was so high, people living near Canada might find it more cost-effective to do their shopping there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan really put me off from the beginning. Though I believe in taxing more equally, I don’t think that his plan to have an additional tax of 9% is going to help the economy. I thought Rick Perry’s plan for getting more Americans working in the energy industry was well thought out. His idea of a more localized energy system was good despite the environmental destruction it would cause, but would overall help the economy. Mitt Romney did well in explaining his idea of bringing in a leader who can connect the people again. Michelle Bachman accused the national government for all of the economic problems we face today while also defending the wall street workers and banks who should share the blame. Newt Gingrich brought up the fact that many of the politicians as well as the ones mentioned by Bachman are to blame for the economic crisis, and seemed to blame many in the federal government for all of the problems we face today, while there are many other factors. I was surprised by how many people seemed to support his blaming in the debate. Ron Paul brings up the idea that you can’t fix the problem of recession without knowing and understanding the cause of it, and that the cause is the booms and there need to be coalitions to fix this. Rick Santorum was asked what he would do to help the job situation and his response was that we need to be more competitive. His solution of eliminating the tax seems ridiculous to me and also the fact that our minimum wage is much higher which was the cause of the issue not our lack of competitiveness. John Huntsman said that “we need to regain our industrial base” and goes on to say we need to maintain a strong commitment to innovation which allows our country to invent. This provides so many more jobs in the manufacturing company because of these inventions.

    I really liked what Mitt Romney had to say throughout the debate, specifically about picking a leader who is willing to compromise with both Democrats and Republicans. He believes that the leader should still stand by his own principles, but the only way this country is going to get out of debt is if both sides of the aisle work together towards that common goal. Personally, I also liked that he brought up the fact that we as a country elected a president who didn’t have leadership experience and has yet to be able to bring the people together towards the goal of decreasing national debt and getting people jobs. I didn’t really agree with what Congresswoman Bachman had to say in response about Wall Street workers and there pivotal roles in crashing the economy. To me, I think much of the problems our country is facing right now has to do with banks and large companies, not just the federal government. I think that the federal government should be held partially responsible, but it was not the entire cause of our economic situation.

    I thought that Mitt Romney did very well in the debate. He was able to make many clear and concise arguments in his favor as well as defend his side in the arguments. I thought that Cain didn’t do as well in the debate. First, he brought up his 9-9-9 plan in almost every response and his inexperience really showed in his arguments and the arguments of other candidates.

    The moment that stood out to me in the debate was when John Huntsman brought up the “trade war” and how that disadvantages our small businesses, exporters, and agricultural producers. In the end, we need to get together with leaders of other countries to solve this problem.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with what Natalie said about Rick Perry's plan for getting Americans working in the energy industry. I also thought that his plan to extract fuels in the United States would drastically improve our economy. As she said, the OPEC would not be raising prices for fossil fuels, but it would be detrimental to our environments in the United States. As it is now, his plan seems to have a few faults that should be dealt with in order to improve the economy while also keeping our fragile environmental conditions in tact.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think Christopher’s method of doing each candidate one by one is the most effective way to answer all of the questions, so I’ll do that as well. While most, if not all, of the candidates agreed that our country needs a balanced budget and to cut spending, many other issues were contentious.

    Santorum-Totally unimpressed. He didn’t have as much time as other candidates, and in my opinion he wasted the time he did have. I don’t think his idea of eliminating outsourcing would be possible at all. Getting rid of all business regulations and then adding some back later also seems like an unrealistic scorched-earth method. Santorum has almost no chance of being the nominee, and he didn’t help himself in this debate.

    Gingrich-Mildly impressed. I liked his strong opinions on issues, and I agreed with him when he tore into Bernanke and the politicians at the heart of our financial problems. Sometimes I felt like he was cutting in too much, and was too worried about not speaking enough. However, I respected him for being 100% behind his opinions and telling it as he sees it.

    Paul-Impressed. He didn’t seem to have a whole lot of talking time, and came off as very grandfatherly, but I still liked what he had to say. Auditing the Fed was clearly a good move, and while I’m not huge on his extreme libertarianism, he did make some good points.

    Romney-Most impressed. I think Romney is the best chance the Republicans have at unseating Obama. While I don’t think that a trade war with China could be beneficial, I do respect him taking a hard line on them. I also respect Romney having a career in the private sector. Romney seemed to articulate his points well, and I do have faith in his ability to “reach across the aisle”. He had the most talking time (along with Cain) and used it well. Based on this debate, Romney would be my choice for nominee.

    Cain-Impressed. While I realize that Cain has very little chance of succeeding, I think his ideas sparked some interesting debates. His 9/9/9 plan was probably the main focus of the debate, and he did a good job of keeping the discussion about him and his plan. The saying goes “any news is good news”. In this case, I think any discussion was really good discussion for Cain. The way for Huntsman, Santorum and Bachmann to separate themselves from the bottom feeders is to make bold moves like Cain. I think Cain’s inexperience will prevent him from being a serious contender, but he did dominate this debate.

    Perry-Unimpressed. For one of the leading candidates, he didn’t seem to have much to say. He kept talking about his internal energy plan, and how many jobs it would create. Maybe I was misinterpreting it, but it seemed like he was mostly talking about drilling oil. I don’t think anyone really sees that as a long term energy solution. I do respect that he balanced the budget six times in Texas, but balancing the budget of America is a whole different situation. Romney outclassed him in this debate.

    Bachmann-Mildly unimpressed. She seemed to be on board with what everyone else was saying, how terrible Obama care is, how the Fed is the problem, etc. However, she didn’t really seem to stand out in any way. I also disagreed with her completely blaming the economic crisis on the Fed, when it’s clear that there were also problems with wall street management. She’ll need to make some bigger moves if she wants to be a real contender.

    Huntsman-Mildly unimpressed. I think Huntsman is actually a pretty intelligent guy, but he did nothing to stand out in this debate. He mentioned a “marketplace for innovation” and how he wanted economic advisors who had experience in the private sectors, but failed to resonate with me. It’s going to take an enormous effort for Huntsman to become relevant in this election.

    The line/moment that stuck out the most was definitely Cain’s 9/9/9 plan. It was one of the most central topics of the debate, and provided some of the most interesting discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Natalie was spot on about how flimsy Santorum's plan for improving the domestic economy is. No company likes to profit less, even if it means more Americans have jobs. Companies aren't likely to give up outsourcing to put Americans back to work. It's a sad truth, but companies exist primarily to make money.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I would like to begin by saying that I do not really follow politics and because of this, it was difficult for me to always follow the debate and make educated decisions. Of course, I did the best I could but I feel like I could answer these questions much more thoroughly had I previously researched the actions of other politicians alluded to. With that being said, overall I think most of the candidates blended together for me. I felt like Cain was slightly too simple, and he didn't really seem to get the complexity of the problem. He just kept saying "Nine, nine, nine!" over and over again, but he failed to convince me why changing taxes would fix the problem. I would say he came off as ignorant and aggressive. Also, he said he was different from the others because he "wasn't a politician." This line was something that confused me because the people who are running for president are all politicians, and I don't see how he could survive the vicious world of politics without acting as politicians do. Romney, for me, had a bit of a rough start and i thought he was a little rude. He was so confident in his own abilities and went on and on about leadership. I agree that leadership in a president is a great quality, but he just said it over and over again rather than showing us that he has those leadership qualities. But as the debate went on he grew on me and by the end I thought he was a decent candidate. He knew what he wanted to do, and whether or not I agreed with it, at least he had something planned. Michelle Bachmann was quiet for a lot of the debate, but when she did speak she sounded sincere and educated. However, I almost felt as though she was talking to me like I was an idiot. She talked about herself, and she was flaunting her experiences in Congress. Gingrich was so aggressive- and honestly that just annoyed me! I felt like he was yelling the whole time. It got to the point where I was tuning him out, which is obviously a bad thing. On the same note, Santorum seemed ready to go to war a little too fast for me. His comment regarding China was all it took for me to decide that my vote wouldn't go to him (if I was 18). He said he was prepared to go to war with them, and none of the other candidates took that approach in responding to the question. It seemed unnecessary to me. Of all of them, I would say Perry was the best. He remained calm throughout the entire debate and was respectful when the others were talking. When he was forced to answer Bachmann's question, he answered it with statistics that proved convincing to me (about Texas being the 2nd state with the lowest national debt and how that was originally 6th). He was prepared and had stood behind his energy idea. Although he definitely said some things I didn't agree with, I think he is the type of person who would do well as President. When they showed the clip of Reagan, the way the two of them spoke seemed very similar to me. I also thought he found a good balance between not really answering to question and just repeating his basic answer/idea over and over again.

    The one line that stood out to me the most was Cain's "nine, nine, nine!" He repeated this multiple times throughout the debate, and it, of course, refers to his plan to fix the national debt. It almost seemed like he was advertising a commercial product and if he said it enough times then suddenly everyone would buy it. Personally, by the end of the debate I was just annoyed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What Christopher said about Cain was pretty accurate. I agree that the pizza comments really tore down his image, and I think he makes a good point that this plan would never pass in Congress. The idea that this would be a complete solution to this problem just seems almost ludicrous to me. It might be part of the solution, but if it was that simple why didn't Obama figure it out? Also, he should have talked about the different parts that we could fix, rather than solely addressing taxes. This was where I thought Romney took a clear lead in the debate. His plan appears to much more well thought out than Cain's.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This Republican debate in New Hampshire was interesting to watch. It was surprising to see how all of the Republican presidential candidates spent a majority of their "air time" pointing fingers and blaming other people. For example, Newt Gingrich spent his "air time" blaming Ben Bernanke and other politicians for the economic crisis, which made it seem like he was more interested in speaking negatively about others rather than proactively attempting to improve our country's economic condition. Bachmann also seemed to enjoy playing the blame game, which made her unappealing as a Republican presidential candidate as well. Overall, it would have been much more beneficial to the American public if each of the candidates had spent that time speaking about their plans to solve the problems that Americans face currently.
    On a more positive note, I liked how Mitt Romney touched on the fact that compromise is necessary in our government. In order for America to progress as a nation, the Democrats and the Republicans need to learn to work together, and in order for this to occur, we need a leader who is willing to compromise. Since Romney brought up this vital point, he became one of my favorite Republican presidential candidates. Furthermore, his experience as the Governor of Massachusetts gives confidence in his ability to lead the nation.
    Herman Cain's lack of experience in politics worries me. While Romney and Perry have experience in the government as governors, Cain has only been the CEO of Godfather's Pizza. While leading a business is very respectable, it is much different than leading a nation, so i do not think that he is qualified for the presidential slot. Furthermore, I doubt that his 9-9-9 plan can be implemented successfully because that much of a change to the tax system will be nearly impossible to pass in Congress.
    Lastly, while Ron Paul's joking and relaxed countenence regarding our country's financial problems was a relief during the debate, America needs a more serious leader during this time.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I agree with Nick's opinions regarding Rick Perry. Rick Perry seemed to only speak about his budget accomplishments in Texas, and he never gave a very comprehensible and well-rounded plan regarding energy. Furthermore, I believe that his energy plan would only benefit the state of Texas and maybe a few other states, but not the entire country. Since Perry was considered to be one of the Republican presidential candidates that would advance to the actual election against Obama, I expected much more from him. Instead, he fell flat, and most of the other Republican presidential candidates stood out much more than he did.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I found the candidates generally interesting, as they all seemed to find fault with the current government and were quite confident about their individual plans and strategies. Many candidates had complete certainty in the fact that their plans would be passed immediately and indefinitely in Congress, although each plan was individually different. I also found the backgrounds of the candidates very interesting, from a former Governor of Texas to the CEO of Godfather's Pizza, with levels of experience and political knowledge ranging widely. I personally liked Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, because he seemed very experienced and very genuinely confident in his plans to help America. I disliked Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum because they seemed disingenuous and were very quick to point fingers and blame others for the problems currently plaguing America. Mitt Romney stood out the most and did very well in the debate because his confidence in his plans and opinions allowed him to form strong arguments and defend his plan more effectively than other candidates. A comment that stood out to me was Mitt Romney's (who is obviously my favorite) comment about America not being able to make progress if it didn't have a president that was a leader. I find this comment both true and necessary because it reminds the American people that although they may like a "candidate", if he or she lacks the ability to lead well and lacks the qualities of a true leader, he or she may not be an effective or beneficial president, especially in a time of crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree with Natalie's view of Cain's 9-9-9 plan and how the plan neglects to acknowledge the fact that the range of incomes in America is very broad and that taxing the poor with the same taxes that are placed upon the wealthy is a bad decision in general. For these reasons and others, Cain's plan is unlikely to gain much support and has a low chance of being put in to action.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The debate was very interesting and I noticed a few things during the debate.

    1. Rick Santorum needs to drop out. He isn’t going to win and he sounded like a whining little school girl every time he talked. I was far from impressed with him.
    2. Romney did very well. He has the largest appeal to the independent voters out of all the candidates. He didn’t attack anyone either, which was smart. He will cream all the other candidates in every open primary, but the closed primaries will offer a tighter race. He is the best chance the Republicans have at defeating Obama.
    3. Huntsman was alright. I liked that he tried to be funny, because its good to have some relief. But I don’t think he really has a chance of winning…so…yeah
    4. I do not like the 9-9-9 plan at all. I do not want a 9 percent sales tax increase added to my very high state sales tax. And should poor people pay as much taxes as the rich?…NO. But I’m proud of Cain for at least presenting something specific, which every other candidate failed to do. I liked what Bachman said about the devil being in the details. It was a cheap shot…and it was pretty funny. But in most legislative documents there are devils lurking between the pages.
    5. Perry did a pretty good job too. But his problem is that he only has regional appeal. He is a stereotypical Texas-conservative and I think that may scare off independents. If he wants to appeal to the independents, he should tone it down a bit…
    Also: Running a state is so much easier than running a country (duh). I don’t know how to compare them, yet we keep favoring candidates who have been governors. But I think that’s because it’s the closest comparison to being the president. Perry succeeds in Texas because it is more homogenous in comparison to the rest of the country…Which Romney appeals too more easily.
    6. The rest of the candidates didn’t make too much of an impression on me. All they talked about was how much government sucked. Personally, I think they might be giving Obama too much credit. Obama doesn’t control the global economy. He isn’t creating legislation; that’s congress’s job…

    IF I had to pick one of these people who were seated at the “round table”, I’d go with Romney because he is the most moderate. It is never wise to use more extreme schools of thought in reaction to something that someone doesn’t like….Moderation is better.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I liked what Chris said about 9-9-9 not being able to pass congress. There is no way congress will throw out the current tax code if they can't even push anything through to Obama's desk. Furthermore, even if congress WAS being complacent, they would not throw out the tax code. Why would they if they can just revise it?

    Also, what natalie said about 9-9-9 not really taking into account how economically diverse America is....is absolutely true. The plan was written by the type of person who would benefit the most from it passing....

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The first three candidates had the most impact in my opinion. I liked how Perry brought up putting Americans in jobs working on energy conservation and energy production. I just hope that his plan, if he got elected, actually goes into effect and isn't just a selling point in his debate. I also liked how Cain was serious about actually getting the country out of debt. His 999 plan is simple to understand and has the potential to be truly effective. In uniting tax payers, it will be more fair to people from state to state. The national debt has gotten out of control and its refreshing to know someone has a plan to actually try to eliminate it. For Romney, I didn't like how he immediately went after the leadership of Obama instead of supporting his own. I don't understand how he had to insult right away instead of just talking about himself. That being said, I agree with how he said Democrats and Republicans need to work together and compromise. I think the country would work a lot smoother if the people in charge worked more on the issue than who's taking care of it. I also like how Hutsman talked about American innovation. He was right in saying Americans have the sense of innovation that is incomparable to anyone around the world. We need to use that to get back on track in the marketplace. Of all these people, I'd like either Romney or Cain to win the ballot because they seem to have the most appeal out of all the candidates. Cain is refreshing while Romney is more moderate. My favorite line was when Hunstman compared Cain's 999 program to a pizza plan, because that's exactly what I thought when the plan was brought up.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I like how Paige talked about how America really needs a leader. When something goes wrong in any situation, the whole country turns to one person, the President. This person needs to truly display confidence and some of these candidates did not. That being said, some of these candidates might be a little hard-headed, and the true leader of the country needs to know the needs of all the citizens and keep everyone's well being in mind at all times.

    ReplyDelete
  26. My overall thoughts about this debate was that no one has any idea what they are doing. All these politicians have all these plans but they all contradict what there main goal is, which is to reduce the deficit and gain back economic confidence in America. Throughout the whole debate I heard comments such as this bill will pass, this plan will help and this new tax will give relief. But the one thing that I lacked to hear was how much all these plans and all these ideas would cost. No one seemed to mention the price tag on these brilliantly thought out tax plans and job bills.
    Most of the debate was spent bickering and making sly jabs to their opponents, their was not one candidate which i really liked. I just saw pure politics, not anyone who had the American people in mind. But only people who were power hungry for the white house. Comments were perpetually repeated such as "9 9 9" and no one was listening to others.
    The overall conclusion from this debate was that the American people are going to be more frustrated with the Republican party then they were before. They need to work together to get anything done and this debate just showed how stubborn everyone is even people throughout the same party.
    I thought this debate showed a bad light on all the candidates, especially Cain and even those who were more reserved. We need someone who is going to stop spending and start coming up with new ways to get things done not reminiscing on the past.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cain-I felt that his 9-9-9 plan was the most discussed topic throughout the debate. It seemed to me that there was generally negative air in the room when 9-9-9 came into the debate. Cain behaved most defensively when the plan was brought into question or criticized, which I found off-putting, although understandable. I felt that he did a good job defending his 9-9-9 plan, although it seemed that the other candidates could still find several flaws in it.

    Romney-Romney gave off a strong sense of self-confidence every time he spoke. He seemed to possess much more experience in comparison to the other candidates. I liked his opinions on China and the topic of a trade war. As of now, I believe Romney has the most appeal to both Republicans and Moderates out of all the candidates. He definitely stood out the most out of all the candidates. I liked Romney most out of this group of candidates due to his dominating performance at this debate along with his excellent ideas to fix the economy.

    Paul-He didn't get much air time during this debate, but every time he spoke it seemed there was applause throughout the room. His comment directed toward Cain about Greenspan made me laugh. It was so brutal and unexpected. It was definitely my favorite moment throughout the entire debate. While I personally don't think Paul will win I think he did a good job at standing by his points

    Perry-I understand his stance on making America more independent from foreign energy producers, and I do believe that energy is one of the biggest issues that America has to face in the years to come. I have a problem with how it was the only thing he really stressed. He should have stressed other issues as well instead of just ignoring them.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I agree with Paige on Romney's emphasis of the need of a President that is a good leader over anything else. Having a good leader in a position where excellent leadership is a requirement would greatly improve the president's effectiveness and ability to make progress in America possible.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bachmann- I felt that she was very self-centered and diverted questions to talk about her experience and used anecdotes that I didn't always find entirely relevant. Her responses were vague to me, but I felt that she stood her ground. I like Bachmann but she would not be my first candidate choice for the Republican presidential nomination.

    Gingrich- I like that he spoke up, especially because he really didn't get a lot of air time. I don't remember any details about what he had to say, so this indicates for me that he probably won't be successful in the primary election. He was a like-able candidate, just not memorable, and so therefore, i feel unsuccessful in the debate.

    Cain- I felt bad for Cain because he was very much picked on. Nearly everyone pointed fingers and pointed out flaws in his 9-9-9 plan. His plan was a huge part of the debate. But the idea that the national government would have control of sales tax is unattractive to most people in the country and that is something that could set the plan back. I didn't feel that he was ever fully able to make a standing argument for his plan. I wouldn't say that Cain was unsuccessful, but he didn't pull too many voters from this debate either.

    Huntsman- Huntsman seems more liberal than the rest of the candidates. I thought it was healthy that he wanted to talk with China rather than go to an economic war with them. That's the most I remembered about Huntsman though. I think being more liberal makes him more relatable, but I don't think he was successful on making a lasting impression during the debate.

    Romney- I really disliked Romney. I thought that he was arrogant and conceited and pointed too many fingers. When he argued so stubbornly about a European market crash being "hypothetical", it caused unnecessary tension. His strong sense of American pride I feel will ensure a more successful race for him. I feel that he was successful in making his points and supporting his ideas.

    Perry- I liked Perry, and his idea of creating jobs via energy. I was disappointed though, that he did explain how his success in Texas with job creation and medical aid would help nationally. It was important though that he made the point of a balanced budget. I liked that Perry spoke his mind and just presented his ideas like it was a debate rather than promoting himself as a person. It made me respect him more. However, there was not a spotlight on him, and had I not known he was a front-runner for the candidacy, I never would have guessed. He was less successful than I thought he could have been.

    Santorum- I might have disliked Santorum more that Romney. He was quick to point fingers, didn't support anything about himself, and solely looked for ways to point out weaknesses in other candidates. I think that that can be an effective way to make other people lose support, but he never made a statement for himself or had a reason why he would be better than the other candidates that he pointed fingers at. When he referenced the crowd I thought it was inappropriate and inaccurate. This is the moment that stood out most to me.

    Paul- I felt that Paul was a like-able candidate. I felt though, that he seemed more like one of the people running the debate at the table instead of a candidate. He just presented thoughts, but I didn't feel that all of them were well elaborated on. He didn't have any specific plans that were discussed or any kind of impact he knew that he wanted to jump on as the president. For these reasons, I feel that Paul was unsuccessful.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I disagree with Caroline's opinion that Romney has the largest appeal to independent voters. I think his thoughts that a economic war against China would practically be in full effect if he were elected was unappealing to independents, and his big final speech about America's military being second to none was way more conservative than most of the country would prefer. I personally, really love that idea, but didn't appreciate Romney. I just don't think though, that independents would be thrilled with a chance for increased military spending. I also had the impression that Romney did attack Cain a little bit.

    ReplyDelete
  31. My overall thoughts of this debate are that some of the candidates did well, while others did extremely poorly. I thought that Perry did pretty poorly, Bachmann was trying to hard to give her two cents, Romney didn't answering the questions very well, Cain is obsessed with 9-9-9, and that Ron Paul did well. Personally, I like Romney, Perry, and Paul. I think they are all down-to-earth candidates, and have realistic goals. They are paying attention to what's best of the country, and not just the government or certain groups (the rich, the poor, etc). Bachmann is somewhat loopy in my personal opinion, a lot of the things she says leave me with a quizzical face. I did like what she said about the economic crisis and blaming Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Personally, I feel that is who to blame, although pointing fingers generally does little to no good, especially in politics. I think that Huntsman needs to go, purely because due to poll results, he isn't that popular. As for Gingrich and he was thoroughly unmemorable. Santorum said some things that I definitely agreed with, but seemed pretty on edge and quick to blame others. Those that stood out the most were Cain and Romney. Cain because he was so offended by people calling his 9-9-9 deal a pizza deal, which I thought was extremely funny. Romney, because he fought with Julianna Goldman on whether the European Debt Crisis was hypothetical or not. Neither of these standouts were positive I might add. The quote that stood out to me was from Mitt Romney. "You have to stand by your principles. At the same time, you know that good Democrats and good Republicans who love the country first will be able to find common ground from time to time and recognize we can't keep on spending like we're spending. We can't demand more from tax revenue from people, because that kills jobs and hurts working families. We have got to help the middle class in this country." I like this because he is talking about real, true leadership. A leader represents the country as a whole. A leader looks out for the country's well being. I agree that sometimes it seems leaders don't always do the right thing, and he really caught my attention with this. I thought that this really brought out what he truly believes in despite his little tiff with Julianna Goldman.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I really like what Lisa had to see. First, I completely agree with her that I have not done as much research as I would like to really make erudite responses to this debate. But nonetheless, Cain's 9-9-9 was poor. Because he was trying so hard to "solicit" it more than really explain it, it took away from the principle of it. He was name dropping and getting sassy with the other candidates. Someone who can't stay calm and respectful in a debate would be a disaster (in my personal opinion) in an actual crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'm glad we found a lot to agree on. We'll make excellent, informed voters!

    I may be mistaken, but I think that our current tax code allows the super rich to pay a smaller tax percentage than the poor and middle class. In his article "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich," Warren Buffet writes, "the mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot. " Therefore, 999 wouldn't raise the tax percentage of the poor to the level of the rich, but instead, raise the tax percentage of the rich to the level of the poor.

    I think we have to also keep in mind that the poor aren't actually paying as much as the rich because tax codes deal in percentages. For example, Buffet said he paid 17.4 percent of his taxable income to the government, which amounts to $6,938,744. The median household income in 2009 was $50,221. So 17.4 percent (probably higher than this though) of the typical American's income would only be $8738. However, 7 million may be small beans for Buffet and 9 thousand may take a huge part of a family's income.

    While there are other issues with 999, I believe all Americans should be equally taxed. It's a matter of opinion and economics whether you think the rich should pay more or less taxes. Please let me know if there's something glaringly obvious I've missed!

    ReplyDelete
  34. This debate was actually interesting, though very time consuming. There were a lot of mind provoking questions brought up. This really made me appreciated all of the research, time, and energy that goes behind creating a solution for our problems. Unfortunately, I felt like there was a lot of beating around the bush from most of the candidates.
    Herman Cain presented his form of a solution called the "9-9-9" plan. He said that we should throw out the tax code in order to bring down the national debt. I found him pleasing, and I liked that he actually presented what he planned to do. Bachman did a very good job backing up her arguments, and it was impressive that she was the only woman candidate at that table. She said that the economic downfall could be traced back to the federal government. Newt Gingrich backed up her argument by saying the the problem goes back to both Bush and Obama. Newt wasn't the very talkative sort, instead Mitt Romney sucked up a lot of the energy. I did not like Mitt. I found him to be very cocky and her never directly answered questions. When he did, his response was indeed valid and made a good point, but it was brought down by his constant bashing and pompousness. Ron Paul didn't speak very much, however with regards to stopping the economic downfall he did say that coalitions should be formed and that they shouldn't compromise their goals. Overall, he wasn't very helpful. Rick Santorum said that the solution was to create a profitable climate for jobs and to become competitive once more. Rick confused me and he didn't really state what his solution was, which frustrated me. Rick Perry was by far my most favorite. He did the minimal amount of bashing, and I felt that he was the most up front about his plan. I felt that he was looking at the issue and the solutions from different points of view, so as to appease more people. He wanted to work out a plan with both the rich and the poor. Finally, Huntsman there should be freedom in the market place to create innovation. I wasn't too fond of him, however, I did love his comment about Cain's plan, "I thought "9-9-9" was the sale price on a pizza box."

    ReplyDelete
  35. I agree with Paige, because our country is in search of a true leader and i feel that to be a true leader you have to have the ability to know when to stick to your beliefs and to compromise. During this debate i saw neither qualities portrayed sufficiently.

    ReplyDelete
  36. My first impression of Cain was confused. I wasn't sure where he was heading with his 9-9-9 and didn't instinctively find him a good candidate. I felt he went around the bush a lot with his plan. He endorsed it, and didn't fully explain. I think he was perhaps my least favorite.
    My first impression of Rick Perry was that I thought he was heading in the right direction with putting people into energy jobs.Also, his passion for a strong leader was nice. But maybe didn't need to call Obama a "job killer". Aside from that, hes a very pick yourself up by your bootstraps kind of man. I think he did well in the debate. I rank him somewhere along the middle with the rest of the candidates.
    My first impression of Bachmann was that she was good. Not the best at the table, in my opinion. But the fact that she backed up all the problems to the federal government pleased me ears.
    My first impression of Mitt Romney was that this guy is good. I like is concept of dealing with both democrats and republicans. I think that is a big issue that needs to be addressed. And that he wanted to help the middle class. I found him a standout with what he had to say. Also he stood out to me when he talked about having great schools and institutions.
    Overall, I felt they all held their own in the debate.
    And like most others i enjoyed Cains response to his 9-9-9 deal being like a pizza deal.


    My favorite line was Huntsmans "I'd like the profile of my own father, who was a great entrepreneur. And he started with nothing, and he built a great business, and my brother now runs that business.People who have been out in the world, who have actually had their hands on products and manufacturing and know something about how to build something from the ground up. That's what this country has always done, is what we need to continue to do. " That stood out to me because I think that is the foundation to our nation. Now, getting to that point of course is the tricky part. But I think that is the light at the end of the tunnel. Getting our country to pick its self up. It was rather an uplifting line.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I agreed most with Lisa comment about not following politics as much because of debates like this. They are hard to follow. And at times, actually a lot of times, I feel like there are major chunks I am missing. Because, well, I am sure there are. So when they are talking about a stimulus or certain plans there is a gap in my decision making. Since I am so close to the voting age, I will probable do a little more research to become more informed because debates like this interest me so much and I feel I would be more interested and opinionated If i understood more.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I found the debate to be interesting, but it was also difficult to understand at times. My impression of Cain has already been tainted due to my dad's opinions that he shared the night before. Although my dad seemed to think he was a strong candidate and liked his 9-9-9 plan, I thought it was confusing and still has a way to go before it would be ready to be implemented. Despite my thoughts on his economic plan, I did like Cain's approach to the debate because he stuck by his plan firmly and seemed confident in his words.
    Rick Perry came off as an effective leader in my opinion. His plan to create more jobs in the energy industry seems like it could be beneficial to our struggling economy. He promoted his ideas rather than himself personally, which I found to be refreshing, yet his debate skills are subpar and he seemed to be the weakest of the candidates that spoke up.
    Romney, the current frontrunner, impressed me the most during the debate. His ideas about pleasing both the Republicans and Democrats is something that has been overlooked, yet is important in our political world. He seems to be the most connected and appealing to more political groups than the other candidates. I can see why he is the frontrunner of the race so far.
    Ron Paul seems to be liked by the audience seeing as he received an applause whenever he spoke, which wasn't too often however. For some reason, I can't seem to take him entirely seriously because he almost comes off as sarcastic when he speaks. However, he is very firm on his opinions and that is a respectable trait to have.
    Bachmann basically agreed with what the other candidates had to say and did not stand out in any big way to me. She blamed the Federal government for basically everything, and I think she needs to consider another point of view if she wants to appeal to more people.
    The quote that stood out to me most was Romney's stance on "standing by your principles". As seen in the past, the country is harmed by those in power who promise to accomplish what they cannot actually accomplish. To have someone in power that can get things done with solid principles in mind would greatly benefit our country.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I agree with Michael's opinions on Romney. He definitely showed me that he has great confidence in his opinions and ideas about a trade war and about China. Michael expressed that he thinks Romney appeals to both Republicans and moderates which I think is a very important position to be in during this presidential election. His plans to fix the economy seem well thought out and determined to do something about our current situation. Romney seems like a qualified leader.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Paul did not have that much time to speak as others in the debate but I feel like he made the most out of his time because the viewers seemed to like what he was saying.
    Bachmann did not seem to stand out in anyway during the debate. Although I personally I am a huge fan of her I believe that she tended to repeat a lot of what was already said and did not stick out in anyway witch is important to do in a debate.
    Perry spent a lot of his time talking about his internal energy plan. Although this is a huge problem in America and it would also offer jobs to Americans I don't thing the American people want to hear anything about oil right now. I think that if there had to be a named loser of the debate it would be him.
    Cain had the 9-9-9 plan be the main topic of the whole debate. That can be a good or a bad thing depending at how you look at it. Most of the others disagreed with his plan but he did stand out from everyone else in the debate and set the tone so I think that he did a pretty nice job.
    Romney to me seemed to be the winner of the debate if you had to name one. He showed confidence by challenging the American people to try to find a better leader. He also seems to have the best goals out of all of the others and I think that he has to be the leader at least for now.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Cain- I am starting to like Herman Cain more and more, but I still think that he is inexperienced politically. He makes up for it a little with his management experience, but I still dont know if it will cover up his lack of political experience. I like his 9-9-9 plan, but I dont think that it would be approved because it is to simplistic. Overall though I like what Cain has to say and I think that he will be the main challenger towards Mitt Romney.

    Romney - Romney is probably my favorite candidate out of them all, but there are some things that I just don't like. He has change his views on topics like pro choice throughout the years and that bothers me a bit. I like he all his ideas include things that both parties will like, but I expected this out of him because he is more moderate than far right conservative.

    Perry - I haven't been a fan a Rick Perry's since the beginning and it continues. To me it seems like he is almost uninterested now that he has dropped so far in the polls. It's like he is giving up. He is much to conservative for my tastes also.

    The others- None of the other candidates stand out to me other than Ron Paul, but that is because he disagrees with almost anything anyone says.

    Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan really stood out to me cause it was something new and it fueled the pot for the debate.

    With all this being said, I think that the top to candidates are Mitt Romney and Herman Cain. If I had to guess who will win the nomination, I think it will be Romney and he will choose Cain as his running mate.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I agree with what Nick had to say about being impressed the most by Herman Cain and Mitt Romney. They both have the most confidence right now in my opinion as Perry is falling off the top. I like Nick's opinion on Romney's point on trade with China. I think that it is an important topic, but the way he went about it was unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I felt that there was great diversity within the candidates despite them supporting all of the same basic principles. Beginning with those that I thought succeeded within the debate, I thought that Rick Perry and Mitt Romney did the best, namely because they were the ones that I had actually proposed some new and original concepts. I appreciated Perry's idea of giving many Americans jobs in the domestic energy industry and putting this money back into the American economy. However, Romney was the one that impressed me most in the debate. He was the one candidate that made an attempt to appeal to both Democrats and Republicans alike due to his previous career, and has an impressive economic background in the private sector. Yes, he did have some unoriginal ideas such as putting money back into the middle class and decreasing taxing, however he seemed the most genuine about these notions, rather than just stating them to get the most amount of votes. I was rather unimpressed with Herman Cain, despite his lengthy tirades, simply because each one said the same exact thing about his 9-9-9 plan. Although it proposes great ideas of leveling these taxes, it is not so realistic due to the fact that Congress has to pass it. Also, it could easily increase to higher percentages because it states nothing about capping increases. Despite this, I was the most dissatisfied with Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich. Both spent their entire time displacing the blame from one person to the next in the federal government, rather than proposing any fresh thoughts or visions. I found it bothersome that Gingrich continually interrupted the other candidates in order to interject that the national debt and failing economy is Congress' fault. Regardless of whether or not this is true, he failed to realize that if he does become elected president his responsibilities will include fixing this problem rather than pointing fingers. I am neutral on Paul for he did not get a chance to say much, as I am with Huntsman, namely because he did not propose anything radical or unheard of.

    ReplyDelete
  45. http://www.hulu.com/watch/289402/saturday-night-live-gop-debate-ii#s-p2-st-i1

    haha...i had to post this...

    ReplyDelete
  46. I agree completely with Stephanie's comment that Cain's lack of experience is disconcerting. While he spent his entire time discussing a plan that he explicitly stated was developed by an economist (not himself), he did not interject any personal beliefs or standpoints on the current situation of things. Combining this with his CEO of a pizza company background, I did not get the impression that he would be a good fit for the presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I have never been really invested in politics so it's hard for me to think about concepts that I have heard but have never truly formed my own opinions about. I found myself more disagreeing more with the candidates who attitudes had a lot of bragging without a point and who were avoiding questions. I also noticed overall that as I watched further into the debate, the candidates got more intense, loud, passionate, and argumentative.

    For Cain I liked how more than others he answered the questions directly but I'm not sure how much I loved his 999 plan. Well first off to me it does sound like a pizza deal, but also I'm not sure how much sense it made to me. All I knew was that no other nominees seemed to like it. I liked what he said about getting serious of bringing down the national debt by making sure revenue is equal to spending.

    I didn't love how in the beginning Perry mentioned his "plan" but then said how he wasn't going to talk about it but just so we know it is a good plan. I find that annoying. It's like when someone says they have a secret but they can't tell you! Perry's energy plan seemed to have a good basis.

    Bachmann, Gingrich, and Romney were not my favorites. I was not a fan of Romney during this debate. He and a lot of other nominees kept mentioning the importance of cutting spending. I understand why he was talking about it but it was hard to hear how he was going to fix things and of his overall plans. I felt like a lot of his answers were bragging and avoiding questions. To me it does not make a good statement when you are arguing and interrupting the questionnaires.
    I found Bachmann to be doing a lot of blaming (especially of the federal government). If that is what she believes in, that is fine. I believe that it's fine for the candidates to say why they think there is a problem but only if they can back it up for how they will change it. Gingrich was asked questions about wall street over and over about how he thinks it should be changed and instead he was just saying who he thought should be fired. I found him to be a little more aggressive than the other candidates.

    I heard a couple things Paul said that I liked. One line that really stood out to me that Paul said was "You can't cure the disease if you don't know where it came from." I think that is true for a lot of things. In politics everybody needs to step back sometimes and look at where things might have gone off track and potential ways to fix it, like what Bachmann did but without ending it with blame. Paul also mentioned how he doesn't want to just "tinker" but "change" things when he is in office.

    Santorum didn't seem to have a lot of questions directed at him. The main thing I got from him was the need for America to be competitive and to take money out that is being sent overseas.

    I also liked a couple things said by Huntsman. All of his answers were clear and explained what he wanted to do to move forward. I liked what he mentioned of his support of things growing from the ground up. He also gave clear situations and examples of how he wants to fix and "build up" the white house. I also liked what he said of wiping out corporate tax loopholes and deductions.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I agree with christopher and many other about how there are major problems with the 9-9-9 tax idea. Herman Cain seems to be a fervent supporter, but the simplicity of it seems like it would be out of place in modern day politics and taxes. Overall, I think that he had the least impressive set of arguments, and any strong points he did make he himself undermined with his inability to control his temper.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Lauren Fish brought up many good points. Perry's ideas of opening jobs in the American domestic energy industry brought up a good plan for giving 1.2 million people jobs. I also agree with Lauren's statement about Romney being the candidate trying to appeal with both parties due to his background. Lauren also mentioned something that I wrote in my response that I agree with. Lauren mentioned Bachmann and Gingrich just kept blaming one person to the next which really is a turn off for listeners. Just blaming others is one approach but unless you can back it up and show your plan to move forward, it doesn't do much good.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I like how Stephanie Merrill brought up the fact that a lot of the candidates were just looking to blame others and shoot down there ideas. I felt like that was going on throughout the debate but its good to hear another person agree with me because I do think that it is a big issue. To me this is a sign right away that I would not want to waste my vote on that person because if they can't step up to the challenge before they have the weight of the whole United States then they will crack very soon in office. I also understand why Cains lack of experience would worry you but even all the political experience can't prepare you for being the leader of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  53. After watching the GOP debate my overall opinions of each republican candidate varied; however there for me there were only three candidates that stood out to me and left an impression.

    For Herman Cain, I am very much drawn to his 9-9-9 plan. To me it just makes sense. He is not inexperienced in the economic sector and he has a sure plan that will help the market recover. It creates a fair economy in which everyone is taxed equally thus, there is no more a sole burden on the middle class. The wealthy will then have to pay their share.

    Congressman Huntsman was notable for his statement that there needs to be a free market economy with innovation where government regulations are lowered and businesses have the freedom to produce their ideas into products.

    Also Perry had a good plan at the beginning of the debate where he wants to create more energy domestically. Thus opening up more jobs for citizens.

    All of the other candidates did not significantly stand out from those three however. The other candidates would more often than not, not respond to the question proposed and I frankly do not want a president who does not answer questions. It shows lack of leadership and that if elected will equivocate the needs of Americans and not get anything done.

    All-in-all, Herman Cain and Huntsman were most prevalent for me in this debate. They both expressed ideas and solutions and thus, I believe, would be good candidates for the presidential race. I am still wanting to know more information about Cain's 9-9-9 plan. It was brought up quite a few times throughout this debate and I want to see what his plan is to fix the economic system.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Some of these candidates were absolutely brilliant. Some were just okay and 2 of which were just plain crazy. Those who were brilliant would have to be Herman Cain and Mitt Romney. Herman Cain was excellent at making clear statements and defending them from every criticism that he has received. He also had a humble background of being CEO of a pizza company that he saved from debt. I like the 9-9-9 plan because I think that what he meant by the rich and poor being taxed as much means that the rich would be taxed as lowly as the poor. The only real weakness he had was that people made fun of him at times for being the former CEO of godfather's pizza. Mitt Romney had real charisma whenever he spoke. He brought up a great concept of an experienced president who can bring americans together: Republicans and Democrats. The only weakness he had was that he kind of flaunted himself too much. But he's still good.
    And for the okay ones we'll start with Rick Perry. Rick seems like a charismatic leader and a nice fellow and I kind of like his independent energy idea. But he fails to recognize that leading a nation is much harder than leading the state of politically homogeneous state of Texas. Plus he says clearly too much regardless of wether or not I'm clear with him. Newt Gingrich speaks as if he is the brightest person in the room and he thinks that some politicians who were in office while the economic meltdown occurred should be jailed. Although Newt had some good ideas, he's not my first pick. Ron Paul didn't really say anything important and neither did Huntsman.
    The 2 crazy candidates had to be Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman. Mr Sentorum had no good ideas and he was quick to point fingers at people. Plus he said he wanted to go to war with China. The last thing this country needs is a war on another front. Michelle Bachman was terrible at backing herself up. When she was asked about the Wall street issue, she said that it ALL the federal government's fault. It had to be a combination and not just the government. She also brought up unnecessary detail. She was asked about the challenges of sending kids to college and she said: I have 22 kids myself, 3 are biological. Who cares? Just say: you've raised kids. And that statement makes me want to stay even farther away from her vote because she should be with her 22 kids. I think that this event was interesting overall though.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I have to say that I disagree with Stephanie's thoughts on Herman Cain. I believe he is a likely candidate for the presidential nomination. He answers questions and comes up with solutions. Although he does lack in political experience, he has been a CEO which aids in knowledge with getting us out of the recession. As he said during the debate, he has many economic advisors who have helped him devise the 9-9-9 plan in order to help the American people. I believe that he has solutions for Americas problems. He will be able to get us out of this recession and get Americans their jobs back.

    ReplyDelete
  56. If I was to decide between these candidates I feel that I would choose Romney. Unlike many of the other candidates, he utilized his time well in a sense that he was able to show that he was more qualified for the position than some of his competitors. Although, I do feel like he spent a lot of time giving those vague responses to questions but on the other hand it seems like that’s what you need to do in politics to get anywhere.

    Second to Romney in my mind was probably Paul. It’s not so much that I agree with his ideas but I like that he is more upfront and seems consistent. I also like Huntsman’s attitude of building from the ground up because it related to him being the underdog candidate and let’s face it, who doesn’t love the underdog. Gingrich, however, was probably one of my least favorite candidates mainly because of him trying to convey himself as such a skilled politician. Yes it is good that he has experience but he didn’t use it well in this debate. Though I didn’t understand many of his arguments I felt like he was overly aggressive.

    Bachmann also spent a majority of her time talking about her past terms in congress. And her defense of the Wall Street executives was rather extreme considering the situation. And after watching the debate, the only point of hers that really stuck with me was the one common point of every candidate which was getting rid of Obama’s healthcare plan.

    Santorum and Perry both obviously represented different corporations. While Santorum is more determined to repeal all the current administrative regulations, I really don’t think that it will make a drastic change in decreasing taxes. Perry was also obviously being funded by energy companies and I felt that a lot of his ideas were directed towards those companies. As for his main point, which seemed to be giving states block grants for creating health care plans, I think that a national plan would be more successful because it is unknown how different state policies will become if we give them freedom to develop something as big as a healthcare plan. As for any moment of the debate that stood out to me, there really wasn’t one.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I definitely agree with Hannah when she said that she thought you have to get to the source of a problem before you can solve it. Honestly, I think this makes a lot of sense and I don't understand how this point was not brought up earlier. Many of the candidates in the debate just talked about fixing the national debt but I don't feel that any successfully proposed a plan that would make a great difference, even the 9-9-9 plan which seems to have its holes.

    ReplyDelete
  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @moriahgrant

    I agree with you about Cain, I felt that he was pretty elusive. I personally ranked Perry a little bit higher than you did, but I said and felt the same way about him. Mitt Romney, I did not like, although he did make a lot of good points, he was way to cocky for me. I think that if he hadn't boasted so much, and bash others, that I would have liked him. I really like the quote you picked. I think that it does describe what this nation should be like/what it was founded on.

    ReplyDelete
  60. It felt like that a majority of this debate was focused around Mitt Romney and Herman Cain. This is partly due to their tied standings in the Republican Presidential Candidate election, but it still would have been nice to hear more from the other senators and congressmen and woman. The reporters did a great job on asking their questions, and did an even better job at controlling the time limit for each candidate and forcing them to clarify specific points that they made. Out of all the candidates, I feel that Rick Perry was my favorite; more because of he tended to stay on track with his plan and focused on the question given to him, instead of attacking his fellow candidates and discrediting their ideas. Mitt Romney was my least favorite, because (in my opinion) he appeared to attack Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and continuously boasted about his past achievements, particularly his past work as a CEO of Bain & Company and his time spent at Bain Capital building big businesses. Despite his aggressive nature, Mitt Romney did have a few good points when he wasn’t walking around the question. I didn’t really feel very confident in Herman Cain after his 9-9-9 plan was introduced, which appeared to cause him to stay on the defensive, always fending off attacks from other aggressive candidates, and Mitt Romney. This gave me the image the Cain isn’t as experienced as Romney or Perry, especially considering the criticism that his financial plan received. Overall, this was a fairly well done debate, and it did give me a sense of who each candidate was and what he or she stood for. On a side night, all the candidates seem to agree that ObamaCare needs to go.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Generally speaking, I get very uncomfortable whenever the economy is brought up or what needs to be done about the tax code, so I was pretty tense especially during this debate. Basically, I was waiting for specifics in each of the candidate's proposed plans, which did trickle out eventually but after turning the faucet several times to the right.
    So, I'll go in order of who spoke first starting with Herman Cain. His inexperience dictated his performance in the debate quite harshly, although he was able to maintain the focus on his "9-9-9 plan". As pointed out by several of the other candidates, this wouldn't be a good deal even if it was for pizza.
    Rick Perry- I don't know what he emphasized more, his ego or his wallet. He relied heavily on his experience as Texas Governor and his attempts to outshine some of the other candidates went undoubtedly wrong. Of course he wants to make America more independent but that to me was something that came off as insincere, because he focused a lot on energy independence, which, like what Chris Song said, doesn't actually mean what it sounds like. Also, he blamed the economic downfall on overregulation, which just made me think of him as a stereotypical corporation man.
    As for Bachman all I can remember about her is that she kept on bashing Obamacare and the Federal Government, although she did back up her claims quite well.
    Gingrich- Had articulated his strong/passionate point of view on some issues, especially Bernanke, very well although he had little airtime. However, he came off as a little too aggresive for my liking.
    Paul- also didn't speak quite often, but I noticed that he would appeal to Conservatives very much.
    Santorum- I agree with many of my classmates who have pointed out that Santorum represents corporate interests. Basically, I got a very negative and capitalist vibe from him, he just didn't seem like the type who could run our government. At one point, he was asked a question and his answer was made up of overtly grandious stalling. Unclassy.
    Huntsman- It appeared very difficult for Huntsman to have a shinning moment during this debate. He had some interesting economic principles, where he explained how freedom in the market place eventually results in innovation, which will translated into new jobs and products and how he wanted economic advisers who had experience in the private sectors, which almost everyone can agree with.

    Mitt Romney really stood out to me because he emphasized how a leader must be capable balancing both sides of the isle while being able to stand up for his own principles. He also brought up a rather controversial topic- President Obama did not have leadership experience and was not able to bring people together towards the goal of decreasing national debt and getting people jobs.

    What also stood out to me was what Congresswoman Bachman had to say in response about Wall Street workers. In my opinion, much of the national deficit has to do with banks and large companies, not just the federal government. Bachmann put the blame entirely on the Federal Government, but the only fault the federal government had was looking the other way when millions of dollars were being falsely accumulated by those who she depicted as heroes, the Wall Street investors and business owners.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I thought the debate was very interesting. It seemed like all the candidates proposed different plans but none of the plans seemed like enough to fix our economy. I thought that Herman Cain’s plan was the worse. His plan to fix the economy was based on the 9-9-9 plan. 9% Business Flat Tax, 9% Individual Flat Tax and 9% National Sales Tax. I agree with Michelle Bachman when she says that Cain’s plan is a tax plan not a job plan. I thought that Michelle Bachman’s plan really didn’t seem like enough though. At the beginning of the debate, I didn’t really like Mitt Romney. He wasn’t really proposing any plans; just ragging on President Obama because he believed that his lack of leadership hasn’t got us out of the slump. As the debate went on though, I started to like what he was saying. I agreed when he said we need to quit federal spending, and not increase taxes. I liked Rick Perry’s plan the best. In order to get out of our economic situation, we need to create more jobs. Investing more into the energy business would defiantly create more jobs. I like what Rick Santorum had to say about the trading war with China; like a competition. By making the United States more attractive to do bushiness, we could fix our economic problems. One line that really stood out for me was the fact that most of the candidates agreed that obamacare was preventing the creation of jobs because that point didn’t really seem to be the main problem.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I felt that some held an aggressive stance to their plan like Herman Cain with his 999 plan. He really wanted cut the income tax and making up for that by adding to the sales tax. I don't know if I completely agree with that. People are a little easier going with an income tax cause there isn't much they can do, they just have to deal with if they want to get paid. While the sales tax will just force people to not buy as much and use other methods of purchasing that would allow them to bypass the higher tax. I also saw that Romney really stayed in the spot lot and tried to push the idea that he had what it takes to be a leader. He mentioned that he was willing to take from both sides in order to help turn around this country which I think earned him a point. I was disappointed that Perry didn't step up more and he seemed to just fall behind Cain and Romney. He seemed to stick to his idea of going from foreign to domestic for energy which I liked because we need to get as many jobs in America and not send them overseas, but I felt that he didn't use this debate as well as he could've to get his ideas out there. I also saw that Santorum wanted to bring jobs back to the US, but he made is sound to easy thinking that companies would rather pay americans a lot more when they can save plenty of money just by paying some worker over in Asia a couple of cents to do the same job. This made me loose faith in whether or not he knew American companies very well and kinda just expected big companies to throw money away just so an American could have a job.

    ReplyDelete
  64. My overall opinions of each candidate definitely varied and evolved as the debate progressed. My opinion of Romney was that he was a central talker in the debate and appealed with his answers to a lot of independents due to his answers that appealed both to republicans and democrats. He also focused on the middle class who would considerately help his popularity in running for office and also made clear that the country needed a president that had a good amount of experience and ability to lead. He states that “the answer is to cut federal spending and to get our economy to grow”. He wants to get the economy going and “bring dollars back” and get a revival of jobs. Cain was another definite candidate in which the debate was focused on; he immediately brought up the 9-9-9 plan in order to clearly state his plan right away. He also appealed to the common public based on the fact that he is only a CEO of a pizza corporation he appealed to those seeking a common citizen however the other candidates were quick to bring attention to the fact that he has a lack of experience. I believe he was ambitious and had strong ideas however his 9-9-9 plan may upset those who make a different income than someone else yet still pay the same taxes. I overall liked him. Perry was a candidate was bragged often and was self-promoting yet did have a strong idea about energy independence being focused on to boost the economy and bring in money by having more exports than imports. Sanctorum was also interested in focusing on the economy by placing jobs that were once in the hands of Americans back into their hands once again since they had been removed and given to people in foreign countries that were willing to work for less money. I think it’s going to be rather difficult to enforce this measure because people will not want to pay more and loose more money however if this were to work it would definitely help the economy. Paul had moderate ideas and he talked often about the boom-bust cycle of the U.S. Bachmann was quick to point fingers at the federal government and seemingly supported wall street which may not appeal to people who think that those people deserve jail time. It wasn’t something that would benefit her in appealing to the common individual. When asked about Medicare she also deflected and instead of talking about her plan she said Obama never directly responded to the question and when he did said he was instituting Obama care which she said would be bad because only 15 representative would make decisions about the nation’s health. She answers were well thought it though. Gingrich was very passionate about the federal government and firing certain individuals who should be exposed for their wrong doings. He was extremely critical and opposed federal government. I didn’t like him because his ideas didn’t come across well and I personally was scared by him. He was also a person that was quick to point fingers. I felt like he was more concerned with certain individuals than mainstream issues. Huntsman’s comment on going to war with china was the only thing that stood out to me and he had limited time to speak so I wasn’t able to gather much opinion on him.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I agree with Chris when he pointed out that Bachmann poses a good idea about how it’s a bad idea for the government to put new revenue to congress that was proposed by the 9-9-9 plan. I agree that his platform does have some flaws that should be looked into and is not a guarantee that it will pass. I also agree with a blogger who said that by Perry putting the economy’s focus on energy and oil that it could lead to environmental disaster and yet another problem yet for the short term affect it could help the economy significantly.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I disagree with Nick Robles. The 9-9-9 plan seems like a horrible idea. The last thing people want to do is pay more taxes in the economic situation we are in right now. Yes, he is not inexperienced in the economic sector and he has a sure plan that will help the market recover, but there were many flaws. When he was confronted that his plan wouldn’t raise enough money to solve the economic crisis, he kind of ignored the facts and just said my plans going to work. The one thing I do agree is that Perry’s plan seems like a good idea. Creating more energy would definitely cause unemployment to decrease.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I like Nick Robles's response and agree mostly with his views on the candidates. I too agree that the 999 plan has a lot to offer and that the other candidates shouldn't just blow it off which they seemed to do. He has had experience with the economy and that is something a president in this time needs under his belt. I also agree with Huntsman's statement for a free market. That will be something that helps turn are economy around.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I agree with what Meganne Weissenfels had to say about Cain's 9-9-9 Plan, "...the idea that the national government would have control of sales tax is unattractive to most people in the country and that is something that could set the plan back." Throughout the debate, I felt unable to pinpoint a fully formed opinion on his plan, partially due to the fact that the other candidates were very successful in debasing his image.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Overall, I believe Romney’s performance was the best. Although I didn’t think he was the most courteous candidate during the debate, he had the most confidence and he offers the greatest appeal to the independent party, insuring many of their votes. He also defended himself adequately and I feel like his boldness made him come off as a dependable, well-suited candidate.
    Cain was a major contributor during the debate but mostly because he kept repeating the same line. I’m not quite sure of what he was trying to do but he was successful at avoiding most of the arguments he received by restating the same thing: “9-9-9”. With that said, though, I do think it was a decent proposal and I believe it said something that he was able to contribute something to the debate rather than nothing.
    Paul definitely added a bit of humor to the debate. He seems likeable and friendly and I believe that has some significance in relating to the voters. In short, however, he appeared to downplay the seriousness of the issues being discussed and led us to believe that he doesn’t take the position as serious as his opponents do.
    Although I do believe that Perry balanced his viewpoints quite well, I expected more out of him. Perry’s reliability however is a large contributing factor. His time as the Governor of Texas and the many accomplishments he has made gives him a considerable advantage over many of his fellow contenders. Voters like experience and furthermore the examples of success he shows give voters faith to believe he can get the job done.
    Bachmann was very well spoken and she came off as being well informed. However, she tended to remain somewhat distant during the majority of the debate. One of her biggest mistakes was accusing the national government for all of our economic distress, defending the Wall Street banks and making it nearly impossible to agree with her. Sure, the national government is greatly involved in the economic downturn we have taken but so are the banks. Because of her one-sidedness, I think she may have lost some of her support.
    Gingrich seemed confident in his views and used what little time he had to really elaborate. At the same time, he didn’t really connect with his audience in that he delivered a forgettable performance and I think it may affect his campaign.
    Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman were both pretty ineffective and dull. Santorum only appeared to identify the weaknesses of the other candidates and held little justification for himself while Huntsman utilized his time poorly and therefore had little significance overall.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I agree with Hannah Kornfeld's statement on how Newt Gingrich seems to be very aggressive in the political debate and how Michelle Bachman seems to not make herself clear on her own opinions. I would much rather hear Newt Gingrich talk about a solution to the wall street crisis rather than who should get fired. Also, I'd much rather hear Michelle Bachman make a clear reason why it's all the federal government's fault for the economic meltdown.

    ReplyDelete
  71. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Jenny Cox: Like you politics in general make me feel un easy. It seemed to me a little bit that Rick Perry seemed like a stereotypical Texas Conservative corporation man. He did seem to show off his ego too much and that makes me lose appeal to him. I also liked Mitt Romney because of his statement on how a potential leader should bring both sides of the aisle together to make America strong. Michelle Bachman lost my appeal all together when she said that the Federal government is to blame on the economic crisis and regarded the wall street company as a group of heroes. Personally I think it is a guilt we should all bear, not just one side.

    ReplyDelete
  73. 1) I usually don't keep up with politics so it was interesting to listen to the issues focused on and what the politicians think of the issues.

    2) The people I did like were Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. They both had solid responses to every question and they seemed very educated in each topic brought up. The people i didn't like were Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann. I couldn't really fallow what their main points were. Maybe it's because they didn't have as much time to speak as the others but they just didn't make very much sense to me. I was able to comprehend to their response even after replaying it. Their points just weren't made as clear as the others.

    3) Newt and Herman stood out the most. They were the two that got most motivated in their speeches and even if I didn't necessary agree with their opinions, they still seemed knowledgeable and confident in their ideas which really grabbed my attention. I thought Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum didn't do as well. Both of them put more anger into their opinions rather than valid points. I also think they took to long to throw out their true opinions or suggestions, instead they focused on making the other candidates sound bad or stupid.

    4) The part that stood out to me was when Mitt Romney was asked about the economy and what he would do to resolve the debt. I think he made a lot of smart suggestions and he didn't make it sound confusing or complex. He made simple suggestions that sounded like they would really help resolve the economy. He said that we need to cut federal spending and create a Balanced Budget. He also said we can't lose our American currency or our financial system because that is what needs to be preserved above all.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I agree with Ross. Romney was confident and prepared for the debate and he caught my attention every time he responded to a question.
    On the other hand, I don't agree that Gingrich delivered a poor performance. I was very intrigued by his responses and I feel that he was one of the candidates that was most involved in the conversations. He gave strong answers that made sense and truly answered the questions asked, unlike Herman.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Alrighty, I couldn't get the sound to work for whatever reason so I read the script for the debate. It made it a bit hard to follow, but I think I got the important stuff down.

    I feel like Romney was a bit vague but kept his answers moderate to appeal to a wider range of people.
    Cain seemed to struggle a bit in defending his position on his tax plan.
    What stood out about Perry was his talking about the idea to give states grants in order to craft their own healthcare systems as they need. I thought that was an interesting and potentially even workable system.
    To be honest, I didn't understand everything that Paul was trying to say, but what I did understand gave me the impression that he knows what's going on to some extent with the economy, which is definitely an important step in fixing it.
    Nothing much really stood out to me about Bachmann other than that she mentioned her political experience a few times. Which is great, I suppose, but I don't think there is political experience sufficient to prepare someone to be president.
    The way Gingrich spoke made it seem like he was trying to add extra emphasis or value to what he was telling us but it was hard to really form an opinion on the things he was saying.
    Huntsman felt the hardest to form an opinion on because he didn't have a whole lot of time to talk but it does seem like he's looking in the right area for economic advisors.

    Reading the text I didn't feel like I connected to any one candidate or that anyone really stood out. I think that some of the candidates have the right idea about fixing the economy, but I think they might be dealing with a beast that is more complicated than they give it credit for. And on top of that, we're facing plenty of other problems in politics. I feel that our country needs some kind of sweeping reforms that really change things for a bit but allow our political environment to resettle into a better state of being.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Paul: I think Ron Paul did a good job of sticking to his guns. The one comment I like from his was the idea that Medicare can't be made solvent. I agree with him on this because of the upcoming baby-boomergeneration that is going to be expecting the same sort of benefits that elders in the past have received. Also, the ratio of the amount of money we put into Medicare to the amount of money we take out of it is completely unbalanced.

    Cain: I am not a fan of his 9-9-9 plan because it is too simplistic, but I am impressed with the fact that he at least has a plan to work with unlike other candidates. Though he did take a lot of criticism, I don't think he handled it very well. If he plans to enter office as a president during economic hardship he is going to need to be able to take all kinds of different criticism.

    Romney: As a frontrunner in this primary I was expecting a little more from Romney. Overall, I thought he did a good job. I believe he can create a more productive Healthcare bill using his experience with the Massachusetts state healthcare plan.

    Gingrich: I also found that he pointed fingers a lot. It's that kind of attitude that will push our country farther into economic hardship. One thing he pointed out that did resinate with me was the idea that unless Congress starts to agree with each other, nothing is going to get done. It was nice to see some of the blame put on Congress and not just on Obama.

    Huntsman: I believe his experience as an ambassador to China would help the US in the future, but that is not enough for me to give him my vote. I am not a fan of a completely free market economy, though I do believe regulations may be a bit high.

    Bachmann: She is my least favorite candidate in this debate. All she did was bash the federal government and try to promote herself rather than propose ideas in order to fix the government. It sounded to me like all she wanted to do was remove all of the power from the federal government, which in my eyes is not a brilliant idea.

    Santorum: I do agree with him on the fact that we need to bring jobs back to America, but I didn't like the way he wanted to do it. I think there is a more productive way thank completely ending taxes on corporations.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I agree with Maddy when she said that Ron Paul was upfront and consistent. He did try to pretend to be something he was not. I definitely don't agree with what he was proposing. At least he said what he thought was right rather than what he thought the people would think was right.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I saw a lot of people going after Cain for his lack of experience in politics and his having experience as a CEO, so I decided to look into the guy a little more extensively. He doesn't seem so bad as people make him out to be. Running a business seems like it would provide a lot of insight into what a business needs in regards to the overall economy to thrive. I feel like that would help make his decisions a little more thought out and run things more smoothly. As far a political experience goes, it is important but I think people give it a little too much credit. President of the United States of America is a fairly unique job and brings in dynamics that no other position, political or otherwise, can prepare a candidate for. In the end, every candidate has flaws, but I feel that Cain is still a viable choice for a leading candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Cain- I thought that he was very enthusiastic about his 9-9-9 plan. He felt that it would have no problems passing since “the American people want it to pass.” I do believe that taxes should be more equal, however I feel that his plan is a little too extreme. He wants everything to have a 9% tax rate across the board. That may not be best for the economy, even though he said he worked with many economists to create this plan. Cain made it quite obvious that he did not come up with this plan, but that it was created by Rich Lowry from Cleveland and he strongly supported it. Overall, I think Cain did a good job in the debate since he made a very bold move with a very well developed plan. This debate definitely helped him gain support.
    Perry- He started off by proposing his idea to get 1.2 million people working in the energy industry. However, he spent most of his time discussing his accomplishments balancing the budget in Texas, and not proposing his energy plan. What he did say about the plan seemed like it would only benefit the people in Texas.
    Romney-He really believes that we need a leader to work with both democrats and republicans. He mentioned that Obama did not have much leadership experience before becoming President which is a major problem. I agreed with his opinion that the country will only get out of debt if the two sides can work together. However, he didn't have a very strong proposal for changing anything.
    Bachmann-I immediately did not agree with the Congresswoman. The first thing she was asked was about the state of Wall Street. She shied away from the question which inferred that she did not think the big bankers were the root of the problem in our economy. She did not think that what they were doing was wrong. She just wanted to repeal Dodd-Frank.
    Gingrich- I felt like he just wanted to fire Bernanke because he was the root of the economic problems. He also tried to interject his opinion whenever he could. Overall, I did not like him very much.
    Paul-He didn't say much during this debate, but when he did, his views seemed to be supported. I liked his point when he said that our economy is in its current state because we have no way of recovering from the booms and bubbles in the economy.
    Santorum-He wanted to completely eliminate corporate taxes from manufacturers and processors. Going from 35% to zero is an extreme difference and I think it is too conservative. He also supported the bold energy plan proposed by Perry, and wanted to repeal everything Obama had put in place. He also was quick to blame other people for problems in the economy.
    Huntsman-He believed very much in innovation and inventing new things. He thinks too many of our American jobs are going overseas. He knew that innovation is a good way to create new jobs which everyone can agree on at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I agree with Grainger's point that Rick Santorum was quick to point fingers at others. The most memorable role he played in this debate for me was complaining about how he had not gotten to speak yet, then using his time to bash Cain's 9-9-9 plain. The only thing that I have to disagree with about your post is Santorum's proposal to go with China. He was more inferring towards a trade way, not an actual war I believe/hope. As usual, I tip my hat off to you my good sir .
    ┌─┐
    ┴─┴
    ಠ_ರೃ

    ReplyDelete
  81. I think it is interesting that Ross found Romney to be one of the strongest candidates. I thought he was somewhat vague in proposing new plans. However, I agree that Romney did seem very confident in what he had done in the past and his ideas did appeal to the independent party. That is very beneficial to any political party.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Romney-I feel that Romney performed best out of the candidates for several reasons: he displayed a sense of experience; he defended his views very well, and he put out indirect but strong thoughts. “Our country needs a leader” and “Good Republicans and Good Democrats will come together for America” were two of my favorite quotes. He’s absolutely right, I believe that our country needs a strong leader in order to get anywhere. A leader that can bring the government together and get things done. He was my number one choice.
    Cain-From what I saw, Cain won’t do very well. America won’t want to change their current rates on anything especially taxes. Who wants to raise sales taxes to 9% (More than it is now)? No one. No one wants to pay more for common necessities even if there is a 6% decrease in certain other taxes. Another thing, he’s not experienced enough. He was formerly a Pizza CEO, not a politician. He isn’t qualified enough to handle our country. A company and a country are two very different things.
    Santorum-0% corporate tax so that America can become number one manufacturer in the world. Repeal all of Obama’s regulations on manufacturing. Jobs? Manufacturing jobs, it would pass easily? Let’s be realistic Santorum. There’s no way that we can create that many manufacturing jobs here in America when we can just outsource them to India or China. Business owners would rather pay much less to a foreigner than pay more for an American; it’s just the way the world works. The “proper climate” will never be established.
    Perry-Energy jobs for 1.2 million Americans? That’s just another way to say, “Oil Industry”. He’s from Texas, obviously all he wants to do is expand the oil business and honestly I don’t think that’s going to help the economy much. Sure it’ll create many new jobs, but it just won’t give the economy the jumpstart it direly needs. The only thing I like is that we wouldn’t have to rely on the Middle East for our oil, we could fix our own rates and save some money.
    Paul-He seemed like a nice enough candidate. He was very cool and calm about everything and his idea for stopping “booms” seemed like it would work, although I didn’t’ really have any idea what he was talking about. I’d rank him 2 or 3.
    Bachmann-Basically she just blamed the Government for the economic crisis. She backed Wall Street and the big banks even though they were one of the core problems. Sure the government may have bailed the banks out, but it’s not their fault the economy is in the trash, it’s major corporations. I didn’t like her, her opinions don’t match mine at all. What stood out the most to me in this debate was just how annoying she was. I liked everyone else for the most part, but she just seemed annoying.
    Gingrich-Let’s just point fingers. That’s all he did. He didn’t really propose any solution from what I saw. He just blamed the Federal Reserve and Bernanke for our country losing billions. He was in the lower bracket for my favorites on this.
    Huntsman-I liked his proposals to beat out China and India and to have a free marketplace, but I feel he’s just too “under the radar” to get anywhere. I’ve never really heard anything about him. He played a very minor role in the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  83. It seemed like everyone disliked Cain's 999 proposal. I kind of liked it. I know it would never pass in Congress, but I think it's a good idea. Sure, sales taxes might raise a percent or two, but some other major taxes would drop significantly (some down 6%). I feel it would balance out in the end and many would be pleased with the Pizza CEO's idea. Then again, what do I know about politics and all that jazz!

    ReplyDelete
  84. After watching the debate, I felt like many of the Republican nominees were focusing on tearing each other apart rather than addressing a prominent plan that could actually get us out of this recession. To begin, I felt like Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan is the absolute worst plan for this nation. Although it would lower marginal tax rates and eliminate inefficient loopholes, it would lead this country down a treacherous path. It increases the tax rates on lower-income families and because the plan does not tax any investment or capital gain, the advantage definitely lies within the 1%.
    As for the other candidates, I was pretty impressed with Romney and how he eluded self-confidence and stability in the debate. Compared to the other candidates, Romney conveyed a sense of power and urgency that is needed to uphold the presidency. As for Michele Bachman, I felt like she didn't really add anything new to the table. She just kept casting blame on Democratic Congressional Leaders for the 2008 financial crisis. She doesn't have any original proposed plan. The only plan she really has is bring back Reagan's trickled down economics (this was on FOX news), a system that rose the national debt from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion. Overall, I was not blown away by any of these candidates.
    Because it was literally the first thing discussed, I felt like Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan was the most memorable thing to take away from this debate.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Romney: Romney seemed to be a big pusher of "leadership" and working with folks on "both sides of the aisle" in this debate, consistently displaying the traits that have made him one of the more popular republican candidates with social moderates. I also thought he did a good job pushing his experience in both the business and political worlds, as well as admitting at one point that he couldn't predict the future, something many candidates are often reluctant to do. He also conceded some support to the democrat backed bailout, again showing his moderate colors.

    Perry- While I was mildly distracted by his consistent use of the word "folks", Perry managed to keep up his stereotypical big state governor image. While not dominating the floor as much as he had in previous debates, he still spoke confidently about his plan to create jobs, something he knew would generate support and applause. He did however reference his home state quite often, which I don't think will strike a positive chord with voters from across the country.

    Bachman-Bachman was definitely a background player in this debate, and when she did speak it was often not in direct answer to a question but merely an articulation of a point she obviously wanted to get across. She took pains to portray herself as someone opposite the current federal administration, using the term "the wilderness of washington" at one point in reference to D.C. She also directly blamed obamacare for people having trouble finding jobs, something that struck me as outlandish and strange. However, she did make very clear her stance on deregulation of banks.

    Huntsman-Overall, I believe he came off very calm and levelheaded. He took a cautious stance, warning against the possibility of a trade war with china and cautioning Mitt Romney on the implementation of his healthcare goals. This demeanor, while not off putting, also made him a not particularly dynamic candidate to watch.

    Cain-While his 9-9-9 plan is intriguing, and it's simplicity might appeal to voters (over Romney's 59 point plan), I felt he discredited himself somewhat through his constant arguing with the moderator. It seemed that every time he was asked a question, he first felt the need to correct the moderators phrasing or a statistic that he used. In my opinion, this made him look as if he was nitpicking over details and took away from the simplistic appeal of his tax proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I agree with Daniel's thoughts on Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan. It seemed as if he was trying to convince himself that it is a good plan, and after a while, it seemed to lose interest. But for some reason, Bachman just doesn't impress me at all. I feel like she can occasionally dodge a criticism every once in a while, but her ideology and stubbornness blinds her to be this one-sided republican that no one would really vote for.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Mitt Romney was very careful to appeal to his demographic. It was apparent to me why he was considered to be a moderate and why independents might favor him over some of the other republican candidates. However, at some points it seemed as if he was just shoving platitudes down our throats without a solid enough basis for Americans to be sure that he would follow through with his promises.
    Herman Cain’s lifeboat was basically his 9-9-9 plan. I do not think he came across as a very capable or charismatic leader, but it is a positive that he seems to have a very tangible idea of what he wants. However, I still have my doubts about the effectiveness of the plan itself or even if it would pass in Congress.
    Concerning Rick Perry, I feel as if I have an unfair biased against him. Before he even started to talk a small part of me had already decided to disagree so to be honest you should take my opinion with a grain of salt. Personally, I felt as if he spent a lot of his airtime with self-promotion his experience as the Texas Governor. However I did like his emphasis on becoming less dependent on foreign energy because it’s an extremely important issue that needs to be addressed.
    Ron Paul didn’t get very much air time, but I believe in the time that he received he came off well. He seemed relaxed and likeable. I agreed with his discussion of the economy and how discussed the need to know what caused the economic down turn, the “disease” as he referred to it.
    Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman are all very minor candidates who (in my opinion) have basically no chance of being elected. Gringich spent the majority of his time blaming other people while Huntsman for me just melded with in the background. Santorum’s ideas on how to bring back jobs seemed to me as if they wouldn’t really have that much effect on fixing the problem.
    Michelle Bachmann didn’t greatly appeal to me due to her lack of direction. She did not seem to have any real plan of her own or anything incredibly unique that she could bring to the table. However we did get a couple more, well worded, reasons why she believes that Obamacare is so awful.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I agree with Michael that Romney at the moment seems like the most appealing candidate for independents. He appeared to most sure of himself and his convictions and came off to me as the most genuine. Out of the lot, that's who I would probably end up voting for.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I agreed with Meganne in that Cain seemed to be unfairly targeted and picked on by the other candidates. I almost felt bad watching him get agitated when he was denied the time to explain away challenges to his proposal, however I believe he knew what he was signing up for. As an inexperienced candidate, leading with such a bold, strong and simplistic plan, he had to knew that objections would come flying his way. His platform relines on the fact that he is different from his competitors in that his background is in business not in politics, so to take full advantage he needs to develop a thicker skin towards the criticism he knew he would be facing. Presidents are very often unfairly scrutinized for their plans and proposals, so becoming perturbed after he was the target of unbalanced negativity didn't help his case to be our next one.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I agree with Gabi in that Mitt Romney delivered one of the best performances. Like she said, "I think he made a lot of smart suggestions and he didn't make it sound confusing or complex. He made simple suggestions that sounded like they would really help resolve the economy." I couldn't agree more. He made his ideas and proposals clear without trying to appeal to any people, in particular. His methods may have been a little extreme but sometimes it is necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Oveall I found the debate interesting. Some candidates did well and then there were some that didn't so great. I personally liked Romney, Cain, and Perry.

    My first impression of Romney wasn't a good one but as the debate progressed I found myself agreeing with a good amount of his ideas. He definitely shows a good amount of self confidence and experience. Overall I think that he did really great in this debate.

    I found Herman Cain to be a good man. I like how he stuck with his plan. He is however, lacking in political experience and his 999 tax idea seemed too simple. I think Cain's inability to control his temper during this debate has cost him to loose even more voters.

    Perry has a great idea of making jobs trough the energy industry however i feel that he need to expand to more than just that.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Overall, I thought each of the candidates had a lot of great things to say. I really liked hearing their thoughts and ideas and I think I agree with a lot of the things that were said. Although I thought I was a democrat, according to my quiz, I think I believe in the republican’s ideas relating to the economy. One of my favorite candidates was Romney. What I liked about him was that he seemed to have a lot of experience and he knew what needed to be done. He’s the guy that I saw as the leader. Also by the way he spoke; you could tell that he wasn’t afraid to say the ugly truth which caused him to receive the most attention. I also thought that he had a nice tone to his voice; it was very presidential sounding. I think Romney stood out the most to me because of these qualities. I think Cain also did a great job in the debate because of his 9-9-9. He did a good job in promoting it and also brought a lot of attention to focus on it—especially when they showed that clip of him saying 9-9-9. All the other candidates seemed to support that jobs plan which means success for Cain. Something I really liked about Bauchman is how eloquent she sounded, but also how prepared she was with what she had to say. I was amazed by how quickly they could answer all answer the questions and with rare stumbling. It almost felt like it wasn’t live, or at least they just all know what they want to say and how they want to say it because they do this stuff all the time. I think all the candidates did a great job but if I were to pick my least favorite, I would choose Paul only because when he spoke, for some reason I felt like I couldn’t understand what he was saying as much as I could with the others. I felt like I would

    Response to peer:
    I agree with Jessica when she said that Cain’s 9-9-9 plan was like his lifeboat and that he didnt seem like a very capable leader. Although he was basically the only one to bring new ideas, making him stand out, it could also bring risks because if you try to make more promises, than that makes more promisses that you have to keep. I also agree with Jessica when she said that Bauchman didnt have many new plans or ideas of her own, but I still think she’s a likeable person and still a great candidate.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.