Final Republican Debate Sioux City

Source

The Final Republican Debate

The Presidential Election is the Republicans to lose. The quickest way for the Republicans to lose this election is to cling to the Evangelical base and to verbally abuse each other. Actually the dirtier the Republicans play the worse their prospects. How can Christians refuse to redistribute wealth through taxes? For that matter how Christian is it to attack anyone?

Michelle Bachmann has had a very favorable recollection of her time in Congress. She has failed to remember her part in the down grade of America’s credit. With her numbers I am amazed she even showed up for the debate but running for the GOP nomination pays exceptionally well.

Rick Santorum was very good when he stated that American needed a president that believes in the American people.

Rick Perry hit Obama with the failure of the super committee.

Romney also mentioned his ability to work with both sides of the aisle. But Newt came back and trumped Romney’s experience.

The real question is who can actually beat Barack Obama. The answer is of course only Mitt Romney.

The complaints about bring the troops home comes across as poor losers. Barack Obama changed his mind about the war so it is not a stretch that the Republicans would do the exact same thing if they were President. A president leads by finding a path were there is none. They don’t have a terrible amount of choices and options that is what makes the job of the president so difficult.

Amazing Newt complained about Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae since Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae paid for Michelle Bachmann’s house. And yet Michelle Bachmann is so negative towards Newt. Ron Paul called the country, when referring to Newt, as fascism which is excessive from Ron Paul. Bachmann also was so negative when she accused Newt as an influence peddler when cashing his paychecks from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae when those very institutions paid for her home. How Christian is Michelle Bachmann to be so mean to Newt?

Iran….

Michelle Bachmann sits on intelligence and parades around as if she has absolutely no clue about anything going in Iran.

I love Israel as well but Iran is not a threat to Israel. I think it is kind of cruel of the Republicans to scare the Israelis.

But threatening to go to war with Iran is a threat to every single Americans' well being as it only translates into high oil prices globally. So enough with Iran we don't want to pay anymore for gasoline.

Government shut down…

Ron Paul was hopeful when he said he didn’t want to run the world.

I think Romney ran well and it will be a race between Mitt and Newt in which I believe Mitt will win.

Rick Perry had a bright moment when he came down on Congress who only worked five months last year and they never work on Fridays.

Subpoena/Impeaching Judges


Newt referred to the Federalists papers. Michelle Bachmann keeps referring to the Constitution which she so clearly hasn’t read.

It is kind of ridiculous to have either party with powers to impeach each others judges. It is just mor eof a power grab by the executive branch.

Summary


I think it was a pretty fair race with Romney coming out ahead. Romney seems to be able to appeal to Democrats. This debate was obviously geared towards Iowa. But I think that is a mistake since Iowa doesn’t determine the fate of the GOP nomination. If the GOP seeks to beat Obama they will have Romney as the candidate. If they are not they will have someone like Michelle Bachmann.

Thank goodness these debates are over. Now we will have to wait to see who wins the nomination.

Winner

Who do you think won the GOP nomination?

  • Mitt Romney
  • Newt Gringrich
See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 12 comments

tylermj23 profile image

tylermj23 4 years ago from Roanoke, VA

Before you write an article and attempt to get people to value what you write, try to get the city right that the debate was held in. That would be Sioux City, Iowa not Sioux Falls, South Dakota


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 4 years ago from Florida Author

Well Tylermj23,

Besides your editoral on geography do you have anything of interest to add to this hub or just criticism?

Forgive me. I am actually Lakota so when I hear the word Sioux, which means cut throat in French, I always think of my native land. But it was a very appropriate place given the nature of these debates for the last one.

I already have people that value what I write. I have over 400 hubs. I will check you stats and see how much you have published and verifiy your accolades. But thanks for letting me know I made the change consistent with your criticism. The debate could have been on the moon I doubt the location error would have effected the substantive arguments made in the hub.

Thanks for reading and so politely commenting. You are a gem.

JT


tylermj23 profile image

tylermj23 4 years ago from Roanoke, VA

I apologize my criticism was rude.


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 4 years ago from Florida Author

Tylermj23,

Thanks but I would really like to hear your opinion. Who do you like in this Republican debate? You are a smart double major. Which one of these candidates is going to heal the economy, make certain you have a job after working so hard in college and not take this country to war with Iran?

Do you really believe that a constitutionalist should profess their Christianity everytime they open their mouth? Don't you believe in seperation of chruch and state? How could we be assured there was a seperation between church and state if in fact we have an evangelical in the White House?

I would prefer your ideas to your apologies but thank you for the latter.

All My Best,

JT


tylermj23 profile image

tylermj23 4 years ago from Roanoke, VA

My favorite candidate is Rick Santorum because he is an evangelical and he stands for what I believe in, that being Christianity and more importantly Jesus Christ. I realize he doesn't have a very good chance of winning based on current support for Romney and Gingerich. Your last comments seem to suggest that you are against a candidate like Rick because of the very reasons that I support him. I believe that he would uphold separation of church and state because he doesn't force anyone to accept his beliefs. The founding fathers wrote a constitution and established our nations principles on God, so if there was a little less separation between church and state, then the founding fathers would see this a change in the right direction.


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 4 years ago from Florida Author

Hi tylermj23,

Actually I find Rick Santorum to be an okay candidate as he hasn't pushed the evangelical movement too far.

Are you aware that much of the History you are being taught is propoganda and that it is impossible to determine the Founding Father's intentions? Do you know how many Declaration of Independences there are? 14 You can check with Smithsonian Institution. My point is these documents are framing documents. There are many drafts of all those Founding Father's documents.

But I respect your beliefs. I appreciate your response. I do like Rick Santorum but I agree he will probably not receive the nomintaion. I value your participation and thank you for answering my question.

I believe spirituality is very important but I also believe in strick adherence to seperation of church and state in our country. I believe Rick Santorum is Catholic and not an evangelical but please check behind me as I am not positive. I haven't covered anyone of the candidates faith because I so strongly believe in seperation in Church and States. Founding Father's were very clear on the speration between those two entities and anything beyond complete seperation is a departure from Founding Father's intentions.

Again thank you for responding.

All My Best,

JT


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Hi, JT, the GOP is going to turn people off with a Billy Graham type of sermon. I resent Perry implying that people of faith are being put upon. Of course being Democrat, none of them are acceptable. The only one I could live with is Huntsman. Both he and Paul have been the most consistent and honorable thus far.

As for your friend Ty, what does he mean that less seperation between the state and religion is a desirable thing? I really want to understand the conservative mindset, I would like him to read this article and give me his opinion....

http://hubpages.com/politics/One-Progressives-View...

Well, we dems want the GOP to right ahead an put on its NewtSuit. We want Newt to win the nomination, for obvious reasons.

Best wishes Cred2


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 4 years ago from Florida Author

Cred2,

I think Tyler means is refering to the motto in God We Trust which is on our seal. But it has no bearing on the constitution nor the Founding Fathers. For me it is like I am being torn in two by the none sense of the right wing and then extreme progressivism. I want a president that doesn't care about yesterday or tomorrow but can deal with our problems today.

Yes, as a Republican if Newt if Newt is nomintaed I may have to vote the other way. Romney is the only viable candidate against Obama.

That is if we don't end up in a world war before the next election.

Tyler is an idealistic Republican and we are proud to have young idealistic Republicans. But I don't undertsand why he would think that the constitution would have any other intention but the seperation of church and state.

Nice young man though. Perhaps he will clarifiy his view if he sees this. I would appreciate his perspective.

Aloha,

JT


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Jt, I don't know my leader will have to, in order to chart a better course, consider the past and examples learned from previous mistakes so as not to repeat them. I also want a person that is prepared to provide more than band-aid solutions but is looking into the future using present and past experience to chart the most likely successful course even as no one knows what tomorrow will bring. Using the wisdom and tools that you already have will help in attempting to do this. Again this is a great article, thanks for the stimulus.


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 4 years ago from Florida Author

Cred2,

You gave me an answer from a historian perspective which I respect. I would argue that all we do is recycle old bad policies with a different bow and call it leadership. Originality is something missing in DC for the last 70 years.

Always enjoy hearing from you and I value your perspecitive.

All My Best,

JT


tylermj23 profile image

tylermj23 4 years ago from Roanoke, VA

First, let me say that my original wording of the founding fathers desiring less separation of church and state was incorrect and was not the proper way to say what I meant. I meant that the founding fathers would desire a government to be based on the belief in one God while still holding to the principle of separation of church and state. However, today many American values have leaned towards secular humanism or the idea that humanity is capable of morality without the need for a belief in God. A look back at why the Europeans came to the Americas explains why they placed such importance on the separation of church and state, but still held a firm belief in establishing the government on the belief in one God. In Europe, the Catholic Church had gained too much power in both government and religious affairs, and Christians were forced to follow the rules of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Europeans that came to the New World sought out religious freedom and vowed to never let a religious system control them or their government. However, the key to this idea of separation of church and state that the founding fathers valued so highly was still based in a generally accepted belief in one sovereign God. At this time when America was being established, it was widely accepted that the governmental leaders established their morality from God's principles. However, today this traditional foundation on one God no longer exists widely because many people believe morality is determined by themselves and there is no necessity for God. Ultimately, the founding fathers desired more than anything else that our nation find common ground in God, and that we argue tough controversial issues in terms of the morality that God has given us not by our own opinions of what is or isn't moral.


JT Walters profile image

JT Walters 4 years ago from Florida Author

Hello Tyler,

Your GPA just showed up to the party. I agree with you on many points but more that a monotheist country we were to be a united country, "One nation under God.". Do you have any references to the Founding Fathers' preference for a monotheistic country for God's morality. As a Scientist, I would think it would be impossible to define God's morality. How could you ever determine if a politician was working under God's morality or his/her own? Without a definition of God's morality it would be impossible to tell.

I am Catholic and my family worked for a bunch of presidents so my recollection of history is a bit different especially when it comes to the Catholic Churches relationship to the USA.

But we are all entitled to our beliefs.

Thank you for the qualifications. You have made some excellent clarifications. I appreciate your contributions to this article.

All My Best,

JT

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working