I had a very busy Wednesday and Thursday and I was certain this was going to place me in some kind of a dilemma.  What would my priorities be between the Presidential Debate between the GOP contenders on Wednesday and the President's speech at a Joint Session of Congress on Thursday?  What would my priorities be when I finally reached a point in my schedule where I could provide an analysis of either the debate or the President's speech?  Thankfully, the President's speech lacked content and credibility.  Therefore, I will delay my comments on that until I have taken another step to analyze who his successor should be in 2013.  

Presidential Debate

I was somewhat shocked by the venue.  MSNBC was hosting a debate from the Reagan Library.  Regardless I did not have too much problem with the questions the candidates were asked but there was no doubt a leftist slant in the questions.  When Brian Williams asked Governor Romney whether he could sleep at night given the large number of executions in Texas, I thought Williams sophomoric.  The reaction of the conservative audience was to applaud the Governor's record in Texas.  I am sure this caught both Brian Williams and Harris by surprise.  I join the audience in their applause.

There was no clear winner in this debate, at least not from my point of view.  I would regard any of the candidates on that stage as superior in intellect and ideology to sit in the Oval Office than its current occupant.  There were a few good moments however; perhaps the best moment was when Newt Gingrich refused to arbitrate a difference in record and position between Romney and Perry.  However, there was also a sleight of hand attempted by MSNBC when they brought someone on stage named Jose Gilla.  His obvious Hispanic accent was in my mind to intimidate candidates on the issue of illegal immigration.  He began by only half stating the Ronald Reagan position on immigration.  Was this an attempt to distract from the views on that stage?  Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to seven or eight million persons here illegally.  Amnesty was a part of a compromise with the Congress that was to include securing the border.  That never happened and Reagan regarded his lesson among the biggest mistakes he made as president.   

Newt Gingrich: 

Newt began by correcting Jose Gilla's misstatement concerning the Reagan history.  Gingrich elaborated on his position regarding immigration by saying he believed all legal immigrants should become students of American History.  He favors this for American students as well.  

Gingrich later discussed his support for parental choice and charter schools.  He believes the public school system is beyond reform.  

Later while responding to the bureaucracy that was created by the advent of the Department of Homeland Security Gingrich proudly said he had helped develop the model.  He emphasized the importance to this country of having an agency that was capable of responding to massive events but his best moment was when the moderator attempted to get him to select a winner and loser between Romney and Perry on an item related to their records.  

Gingrich informed Williams that he had no interest in playing this game that was intent on getting the candidates to fight amongst themselves.  He repudiated all efforts by the news media to split Republicans as a strategy to help Obama keep his job.  He emphasized that everyone on that stage was committed to removing Barack Obama from the presidency.  If there was a winner of the evening this put Gingrich in contention.   

When asked whether he would keep Ben Bernanke on as Federal Reserve Chairman Gingrich told us he would fire him tomorrow if he could.  He called for an audit.  Too much was done in secrecy and this is antithetical to a free society.

Jon Huntsman:

Huntsman did quite well for himself through most of the debate but he then made a statement at the end that prevents me from ever supporting him in a primary election.  He declared Global Warming and Evolution as proven science and declared those who do not agree with him to be anti-science.  I had never realized that Jon Huntsman's opinion was all that was required as scientific proof.  

Otherwise, Huntsman acquitted himself well.  He refused to make any pledges on tax policy and I do not really have a problem with that.  He agreed with the others on the stage regarding their positions on illegal immigration stating that our legal system is broken.  With regard to the challenge by the moderators to Michele Bachmann's guarantee of $2 gasoline prices again, Huntsman would only say that he would not make such a promise.  Beyond that, we learned that Utah was the number one job creating state while he was governor and that somehow it would be an advantage to me for him to be president because he spoke fluent Chinese.  

Rick Perry:

I laughed with everyone else when Brian Williams asked Perry about his presiding over so many executions in the State of Texas.  Williams phrased his question in a manner that seemed intent on casting a moral cloud over the issue.  The audience responded, as did I, with applause for Texans who take care of business when someone kills a child, a law enforcement officer, or a citizen in the commission of another crime.  No, Perry said he does not lose sleep over night and he should not lose sleep. 

With regard to the emphasis on Climate Change as proclaimed by Jon Huntsman, Perry said, "You don't put the nation's future at risk based on an unproven theory."  I agree with him.  This position is not anti-science.  It recognizes that theories are simply certain people's hypothesis and should not be the cause for making drastic changes in the economy.  

The moderator asked Perry to identify his position on tax increases.  He was asked the question that all other candidates on the stage were asked at the last debate.  If given a compromise that included a ratio of 10:1 of spending cuts to tax increase would he approve the tax increase?  Perry joined the others in their opposition as stated during the last debate - no.  He favors a balanced budget amendment, as this would cut off the head of the snake.

Perry was emphatic that finally we have proven that Keynesian Theory is invalid and in his words, dead.  He declared that Obama's spending would not create jobs. 

With regard to illegal immigration, Perry said we need boots on the ground to secure our borders.  The moderator challenged Perry on his performance as Texas governor because he had cut the education budget.  He identified these as "thoughtful cuts" but I do wish that he had extended his statement to tell the audience that the problem faced by education in this country is not one of not having enough money.  He did state that graduation rates were up and he cited the issues created by Texas border with Mexico to have an impact on education costs in Texas.  Perry would not answer the question of amnesty or any question on illegal immigration beyond securing our border.  This issue concerns me about Perry.  I would like to know if he would favor the deportation of persons found here illegally.  

Where Perry took it on the chin was in relation to his program that by Executive Order forced 12-year-old girls to have immunizations to protect them against sexually transmitted diseases.  He responded that the Executive Order did have an opt-out clause in it that would allow a parent to say no but this may hang around Perry's neck as we proceed toward the primaries.  He did admit that he could have done a better job on this issue.   

Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and called the program a monstrous lie.  I agree.  I am concerned that this provocative language will be the source of many a sound bite whether now or in the General Election.  

Michele Bachmann:

I did not have many notes for Representative Bachmann.  She did not have the opportunities.  This was a fault of the moderators, not the candidate.  

Among her comments was the recognition that the EPA has devastated our economy.  She supported parental rights for both school immunizations and education itself.  She offered a defense but she did not have sufficient time to defend her guarantee that gasoline prices could again and would under her administration return to less than $2 per gallon.  Why not?  Gasoline prices historically fluctuate.  We must remove the stranglehold this administration has placed on the energy industry.  Then we can develop our own resources.  Why should we not expect the price of gasoline to drop below the level it was before the worst of those regulations?

As always, Michele emphasized her vow to repeal Obamacare and I like this.  I do not want any of these candidates to forget that among the greatest reasons for our dedication toward refusing Obama a second term is the tyranny of the Obamacare approval process.  I want this to be everyone's first order of business.

Mitt Romney:

What has become a traditional question in these debates is the need for Romney to defend his healthcare bill in Massachusetts.  Once again, he indicated that Massachusetts is a state and that its Constitution allows the state this power including the power to declare individual mandates.  I would very much like to see this issue put to rest.  I would not like my state to provide a healthcare mandate.  However, why should I care if the people in Massachusetts want it?  If their Constitution allows it and if the people want it then why do we continue to belabor the point except to create good television and allow us to hear the other candidates go on the record opposing mandates?      

I completely agreed with Romney when he indicated that everyone should be a part of the tax base.  He emphasized and I agree that the middle class has been the most hurt by Barack Obama.  He declared QE2 to have been a failure and he said he would not hire Ben Bernanke.  

Romney was asked whether he was a member of the Tea Party.  He did not identify himself to be a member but he did recognize us as a positive force for good in the political debate.  I appreciated this answer. 

I also appreciated his answer regarding illegal immigration.  In New England, he is further from the Mexican Border than almost everyone but he did demonstrate sensitivity to this issue when he raised his three key points to control the border:  1) Build a fence, 2) Add agents to patrol and enforce the fence, and 3) eliminate the magnet that draws these people to our country.   

On the issue of Social Security, Romney would not join Perry in calling the program a Ponzi scheme but he did say he was committed to saving Social Security and that he did not believe it was a failure.  

He spoke of the energy crisis as one that would improve if government would unleash its forces to develop resources.  He agreed with everyone on that stage and in my living room that Barack Obama is strangling the energy industry and that he represents an absence of leadership.  He is in over his head.

Romney impressed me more this evening when he was offered the opportunity to discuss that Perry Executive Order that required immunizations of girls.  He said Perry's head was in the right place and that Perry would probably do it better a second time.  This is the statement of an adversary with a great amount of class.  I appreciated him for this. 

On another occasion when the moderators were intent on drawing parallels of who had the better economic record as governor, Romney defended himself when he told us that in Texas, Perry had some advantages the he didn't have.  Romney had to deal with a Democrat legislature.  He also did not have the vast amount of natural resources contained in Texas.  He was straight to the point when he told us that Perry did not create those advantages that make Texas strong.  I gave a plus to Romney on this exchange.  

Ron Paul:

Ron Paul has not changed since the first time I heard him speak.  He impresses me on monetary and fiscal matters.  He gave one of the best responses to a statement that mischaracterizes conservatives, that we lack compassion.  By his objecting to school lunch subsidies, he is only saying the US Constitution does not allow it.  He has no objection to a state or local government or to charities providing these kinds of programs.  I agree with him.  Score one for Ron Paul.  However, when discussing illegal immigration he proceeded to say that the nation's drug laws drive the profit for the Mexican cartels.  If eliminated, so would be the profit to engaging in these activities.  Economically I agree with this but morally I cannot.   

When questioned about FEMA Paul said there was no need for the organization.  When challenged he asked what happened prior to 1979?  He then emphasized that FEMA encouraged people to take risks and build homes in locations where they would be vulnerable to storms.  I scored another one for Paul.  

Paul was quite critical of Perry and his requirement to immunize 12-year-old Texas girls to protect them from STD's.  

On the Minimum Wage, Paul indicated his opposition as well as his similar view against Medicare or any other mandate.  Paul continued to emphasize that the market will take care of who thrives and who does not.  He cited the automobile industry as a good example of the problems caused by unreasonable regulation

Rick Santorum:

Rick Santorum is always pleased to defend the reputation of this country.  He declared appropriately that the US has always been a force for good around the world.

On a stage largely dominated by Washington outsiders Santorum defended his experience in government as valuable by emphasizing his effectiveness in the Senate.   He defended the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.  Prior to 911, the intelligence and security agencies had not been allowed to communicate with one another.  He challenged Perry on that Executive Order for immunizations by stating there should have been an opt-in, not an opt-out to the program.  

Santorum had excellent comments to make on the Welfare Reform Act.  The system was punishing people.  The legislation he authored changed the welfare system from one of permanent dependency to one of transition.

Herman Cain:

With regard to illegal immigration, Cain said that states should be empowered to enforce federal immigration laws.   

On how the federal government can provide disaster aid in this climate for the victims of Irene, Cain insisted that Congress could find money in such a large budget to enable assistance without borrowing more.

Social Security is a program worth fixing and Cain touts Personal Retirement Account options.

As to the experience that Cain brings to the campaign that other candidates do not Cain declared, "What business people do, politicians can't do."  On taxes, Cain proposed a 9% flat income tax, a 9% consumption tax and a 9% flat corporate income tax.  "If 10% is good enough for God, why isn't 9% good enough for government?"  This may have been the best line of the night and Herman Cain is accustomed to being the one to make these kinds of statements.  

On healthcare reform, Cain proposes tort reform where the loser pays both attorneys.  He favors greater use of health savings accounts.  He understands as do I that it is the federal restrictions that adversely affect costs and reduce access to healthcare.

Finally yet importantly, I have to give mention to those who commented on the candidates following the debate on MSNBC.  

Rachel Maddow:  She believed Romney did well and Huntsman did not.  I agreed with this analysis.  What I do not agree with is her statement that Bachmann was down because she did not answer as many questions.  It would seem she would need to be asked questions if she is going to be expected to answer them.   

Ed Schultz:  He sees Perry solidifying his base because he did not back down.  I have no problem with this statement.

Al Sharpton:  Did his presence on that discussion group not say enough?  Why would anyone place Al Sharpton on a panel to discuss which candidates might be best among his political adversaries?

Steve Schmidt:  He was a Republican on the group but he only joined the group for a moment to offer a few comments.  He found Perry's language as problematic to a national campaign.  Specifically Schmidt took exception to Perry's reference to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.  Schmidt managed McCain's 2008 campaign.  Why would anyone trust his judgment on an issue like this?  I continue to believe that among the reasons Obama won in 2008 was the ineptitude of the McCain campaign.  The enlightened leaders refused to unleash Sarah Palin and allow her to take the fight to the Obama campaign.  He was likely among those that hog-tied Sarah Palin.  It is easy to see why McCain was milquetoast when he needed to both fight for his positions and defend the previous administration.   

Lawrence O'Donnell - O'Donnell saw Romney as Up and Perry Down.  I had no problem with what I heard from O'Donnell.  

Eugene Robinson - Romney Up, Bachmann Down.  Again, I had no problem with what I heard from Eugene Robinson.  

Chris Mathews:  Mathews impressed me as a loud, fast-talking fool.  He joined Huntsman by calling Perry anti-science because of his stance on Global Warming.  This is such utter and complete nonsense.  This statement caused me to turn away from MSNBC and move to the Fox News Network.  There I can get analysis from both sides of the political spectrum, not just from the left to the far left.