Why The Hysteria Over Syria?

If you are new to this story, understand, what is happening in Syria has nothing to do with chemical weapons.

It also has nothing to do with dead civilians.

In recent years, your lawless federal government, US Inc., has killed thousands of innocent civilians with missile strikes, paid mercenaries and drone attacks. Obama authorizes these attacks regularly. You can be certain, collateral damage is not the issue.

And it also has nothing to do with a Syrian “civil war”.

What is happening in Syria is not a civil war. It is paid mercenaries (the rebels) trying to topple the Assad government. And it is US Inc. that is funding the “rebels”. Google it and see for yourself.

Here’s a couple of articles to get you started (Article I, Article II).

Does US Inc. running guns in support of mercenaries trying to topple governments surprise you? If it does, you need to spend a lot more time here and a lot less time in front of the television. Remember, there is a reason it is called the “boob-tube”.

By the way, this gun-running fact sheds a little light on the attack in Benghazi and the killings of four Americans. True, it doesn’t explain who did it. But now you can begin to understand why the supreme ruler and Central Planning blamed it on an amateur video.

After all, who in their right mind would come clean and confess the reason a covert intelligence agent—I’m sorry, an Ambassador—and his security team were killed was because they were running guns to mercenary misfits trying to topple governments in the Middle East. No, it is much easier to lay the blame on an amateur “B” movie that was apparently so bad it drove peaceful protestors insane enough to reach for their RPGs rather than their signs.

Ask yourself this: if China or Russia or some other “villainous” country was running guns here in America trying to topple your state or local government, how would you feel? Would you take action? Don’t these folks, watching US Inc. trying to topple government after government in the Middle East, have a right to be angry? Don’t they have the right to take action?

But let’s jump back to Syria.

If it isn’t the people rising up in a civil war against their government, and it is rather, US Inc. paying and supplying mercenaries to try to topple a government, then the next question to address is why it is happening, what has Syria done?

Remember when Israel and US Inc. went public with the sales pitch that Iran was building nuclear weapons? There were calls for an attack. Well, an attack didn’t happen but sanctions were imposed against Iran and the economy in that country has been hurt.

But last month, Iran, Iraq and Syria signed a deal to build a pipeline to give Iran direct access to Mediterranean ports, thereby allowing it easier access to Euro-asian markets. Increased access to markets means increased sales.

But why does US Inc., and its controller, Israel, care whether Iran can increase gas/oil sales?

Because in March of last year, Iran announced it was going to start side-stepping the petrodollar system and start doing oil deals in currency other than federal reserve notes (US dollars).

Well, for the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and other NWO elites, who reap trillions by controlling the petrodollar system, this was way too much to handle. So Iran got put on the hit list.

Israel, the criminal capital for the NWO, and US Inc., the enforcement arm, work together. The relationship is just like Republicans and Democrats. It is the “good cop, bad cop” routine played out on the world stage.

In this case, Israel calls for blood—an attack on Iran because it will soon have nukes. The excuse has to be nukes, of course, because how can you justify pummeling Iran into the stone age just for selling its oil to China for yuan or Russia for rubles or Japan for yen? You can’t. So Iran has to become a nuclear villain.

Then, at the very next press conference, US Inc. takes the stage and announces its concern and calls for sanctions. These sanctions are put in place to punish Iran and hopefully, force it back into the petrodollar system.

But, let’s face it, if you are part of the NWO cabal, you know you have a long-term problem. Sanctions alone won’t do the trick. Iran is a big country. It sells a lot of oil. And selling oil outside the petrodollar system cuts into your profits. It cramps your life-style. It is unacceptable.

In fact, you have already showed the world this is unacceptable behavior. You whacked Saddam in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya for the same offense–stepping outside the petrodollar system.

Obviously, these messages went unheard, as apparently these mud-blood leaders in other countries just don’t get it. So, rather than an individual assassination, perhaps it is time to take down a country and send an unmistakable message to leaders around the world—fuck with our cash and not only will we whack you and your family, but we’ll destroy your country, too. Syria has been targeted because it gets the NWO cabal on the door-step of Iran.

Most of the world’s countries have turned against the NWO banksters (research BRICS for more information). Russia, as an example, paid them in full a few years back and Putin has been a thorn in their side ever since. And just a week or so ago, Hungary threw them out. The world has come to see them as the lying, cheating thieves and mass murderers that they are. It is only in NWO controlled countries, like America, where the masses still regularly fall for the ruse.

Now these countries can’t match the military might of US Inc., so a fight is out of the question. But the flow of money, on the other hand, can be altered, manipulated or shut off. And a major step to shutting off the cash flow to the NWO cabal is doing oil deals outside the petrodollar system.

This, crusaders, is what the Syria situation is all about.

The world is trying to use currency other than dollars to drive the NWO criminals into bankruptcy and submission. At the same time, the NWO inbreds are trying to force the world to keep using their money—to ensure profits forever—and will kill people and destroy countries to get their way.

Iran is the true target. Syria provides very convenient access.

Here at home, Secretary of Hate John Kerry, representing the cabal and showing off his sub-par facelift in HD for the world to see, gave a poor speech late last week and toured the propaganda press shows over the weekend to try to sell the sheeple on more US Inc. violence.

Unable to provide specific reasons why dead civilians in Syria pose a “national security threat” to Americans, Kerry relied on name-calling (Assad is a “thug and murderer”), and emotionally charged phrases (it was an “indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons) in his sales pitch. He provided no proof that it was Syrian government forces that passed the gas, none, just claims and accusations.

Perhaps it is just me, but the claim that “Syria has gassed its own citizens” sounds a lot like the claim that “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” or “Iran is minutes away from deploying a nuclear missile”. To me, claims and accusations carry much more weight when there is evidence to back them up. How about you?

What about the pictures of the victims?

Well, as it turns out, in an attempt to support the Secretary of Hate, the government goons within Central Planning circulated fake photos to reference the chemical carnage. Check that–the pictures are not fake–the photos are real–they just document the dead of Iraq in 2003, not gas victims in Syria.

But, hey—you say “to-may-to”, I say “to-mah-to”—dead people are dead people, right? Who cares that they are different victims from a different country that died from different events a decade ago.

Is this an intentional act by US Inc. to deceive the American public or just bumbling bureaucrats?

I’ll let you decide.

But it does remind me of when the propaganda press showed the innocent victim in Palestine that, after the camera man got his video shot, got up off the stretcher and walked away (LINK) or when the propaganda press used a different school to document Sandy Hook events (LINK) or when the BBC announced that Building 7 had collapsed during the 9/11 attack — almost 30 minutes before it actually did (LINK).

Using fake pictures to support a fake claim makes sense to me.

And why would the Syrian government, known for months to be pushing the paid mercenaries back, resort to chemical warfare? Why violate the supreme ruler’s “red line” and risk drawing more US Inc. resources into the fight? Assad and his merry men are winning. It is a well documented fact that they have hammered the “rebels” in cities like Aleppo, Qussair, Homs and elsewhere. Why invite more foreign intervention? This move makes no sense.

But what does make sense, especially if you are trying to topple a government and you are getting your ass kicked, is to run a false-flag operation, gas some mud-bloods, blame the other guys and then turn to the American sheeple and try to bilk them out of billions so you can step up the conflict.

You have to escalate it. The guys you are illegally funding aren’t getting the job done and it’s been a couple of years now. The longer this takes the more likely the American public will find out it is US Inc. behind this “civil war”.

It’s clear machine guns, rifles and grenades aren’t going to take down the Assad government. Obviously, larger weaponry (missiles) is needed. But, since you already sold the public on the idea that this is a Syrian “civil war”, you need an excuse to introduce the larger weapons. Even sheeple know you can’t just stick your nose into another country’s civil war. Thus, the chemical attack and cover story.

There are plenty of reports that indicate it was the “rebels” that actually used the gas. Of course, they aren’t carried by the propaganda press but if you dig deeper than Fox or CNN or CBS, you’ll find them. Indeed, Veterans Today, as well as some other online news sites, has run a series of articles drawing attention to this.

I don’t have all the answers but I offer these points for your consideration regarding Syria and why the supreme ruler and Secretary of Hate have recently started to pound their chests. Is it really about dead civilians? Is it really about a chemical attack? Or is the back story just a wee-bit more complex?

Think about these points and come to your own conclusion. Sniff around a bit. Follow your nose.

But for the record, when I inhale deeply, I smell bullshit.

GET FREE WEEKLY HEADLINE LINKS‚ÄĒSUBSCRIBE NOW
Advertisements

Obama’s Red Badge of Courage

From listening to the tale retold, you would think that not only was Obama on Seal Team 6, but that the choice to pull the trigger was as a more difficult decision then say giving military the order to shoot down civilian planes, as one President did ten and a half years ago.

Don’t get me wrong. ¬†Obama deserves as much credit for giving the kill order as Bush does for letting the CIA waterboard the terrorists who eventually gave Bin Laden up through actionable intelligence. ¬† ¬†In fact, the one thing the Bin Laden¬†anniversary¬†should do is bring the country together. ¬†Instead, Obama has made a political blunder by seeking to use the Bin Laden killing for divisive political gain.

Obama has released an ad suggesting that the decision he made to allow Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden is a decision Mitt Romney would not have made.

The only word I could think of to describe this crazy political ¬†attack is disgusting. ¬†The next word that comes to mind is ridiculously unbelievable, which is a reputation that Obama cannot afford. ¬†Obama won 2008 based on a fraudulent image of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin which was promulgated by an overzealous media and semi-unbelievable overselling of hope and change. ¬†Now that 2012 is here and Obama’s hope and change have not materialized, he is in desperate need of credibility. ¬†This idea that he is the hero of the Bin Laden raid and Romney would have flinched destroys Obama’s credibility even with the most ardent leftists.

But this blunder also highlights a bit of Obama¬†hypocrisy¬†that can only hurt his chances in 2012. ¬†When things go bad, Obama finds a scape goat. ¬†Three and a half years later, he is still blaming the last eight years. ¬†When things go good, even if he simply gave the go on a plan that started with an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, included waterboarding, and was only possible because of the intelligence community and strong military who he has sought to minimize and defund, Obama suddenly is riding a metaphorical victory chariot in full military garb through the cities. ¬†Ironically, Obama campaigned on shutting down Gitmo and ending the wars. ¬†I’m sure those are two promises Obama is pretty happy he failed to keep.

The two days of the Obama administration that we haven’t felt the full contempt of the left towards the military were the day Obama gave the order to take out Bin Laden, and the one year anniversary. ¬†In fact, the Democrats used the military as a pawn in budget talks when Obama had spent us out of house and home.

Whether they approve or disapprove of military spending or war,  I would have to think that at some point news outlets would have their own reputations to think about.  Obama has skipped through this Presidency like a comic character in a movie, surrounded by straightmen who clean up after him.  The media has happily turned their heads as though the only reality is the one they report.  But moves like this that display unbelievability and hypocrisy will change American minds.

For those who continue to either blindly follow Obama, or put up with his gaffes for the “greater good”, I hope they at least pause for a moment and think: It would have been nice if the President used today to unite the country. ¬†It would have been nice if he allowed liberals and conservatives to raise their glasses together and toast the death of one of the most infamous war criminals in American history. ¬†Instead, Obama tried to make today all about his re-election.

Santorum Shines, Paul Respected

The only thing worse than endless political ads is political ads being tossed back and forth in a debate format with no fact checker.  Well, almost no fact checker.  Romney himself got caught when he tried to famously disavow any political negativity coming from his side only to discover that he had indeed approved an attack ad against Gingrich.

What was lost in the mix was serious debate.¬† The average listener might think that Romney and Gingrich’s stance on immigration actually differed.¬† What we discovered instead is that they really are basically the same, making their attacks on each others immigration policy pretty funny.¬† In fact, they all seemed to have the same view on illegal immigration except for Ron Paul who seemed to be saying that the problem is we have a bad economy and if we had a good economy we would all want illegal immigrants to come here and take the jobs Americans won’t.

Of course, with Paul sometimes it is difficult to differentiate his “this is what I would do as President” with his “this is the way things ought to be” with his “this is the way things are” rhetoric.¬† It keeps him safe with both the radical constitutionalists and the ignorant populists in his base.¬† Of course, I myself am a radical constitutionalist, but most of Paul’s constitutional rhetoric falls under the “this is the way things ought to be” column.¬† I couldn’t have any alcohol last night because of an early morning medical procedure Friday morning, but if I had a drinking game it would have been how many times Paul redirected a question by making his answer about the war, how bad the fed has made the economy, or how small a constitutional government should be.¬† The immigration question got both the war and the economy.

Paul did receive a great deal of respect from the other candidates.¬† It was the sort of respect Romney showed to Bachmann early on in the race.¬† It was that sort of “you have no shot of winning, but I would really like your supporters to like me down the road so I’ll smile and pat you on the back” respect.

Gingrich fell into a trap that I warned about a few months ago.¬† He has big ideas, but he has also become more and more of a states rights conservative.¬† Gingrich’s problem is communication in small soundbites.¬† I understood that he was speaking about encouraging private ventures to establish a moon colony, but the three candidates up there either willingly or ignorantly seemed to think he was talking about NASA doing it.

Gingrich also dropped the ball on something he has done very well at in previous debates, not taking media bait.  Blitzer played Romney and Gingrich all night long.  In fact, it was Rick Santorum who had to bring the debate back to the issues.  Unlike the early debates where Gingrich ran the show and the other candidates followed his lead, this time it was Santorum who reminded the other candidates what the debates and this whole process is all about.  Because of it, Santorum shined last night.

Mitt Romney has hired Bachmann’s former debate coach and it shows.¬† He laid down persistent attacks, mostly inaccurate, and was distracted from the issues all night.¬† Newt attempted to rebut, but his responses were too involved for the average American viewer.¬† Romney easily turned Gingrich’s responses on their head.¬† A good example was when Newt brought up Romney’s investments in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.¬† I think Newt’s point was that Romney shouldn’t be attacking him for doing consulting work for Freddie Mac when in fact Romney himself is making money on Freddie Mac stock.¬† In the end though, both sides lost that debate and viewers were left with a disgusting taste in their mouth.

I said that Jacksonville, Florida would be the most important debate of this election if one candidate could shine like Gingrich has in the past debates.  In the end, Gingrich saw his shadow and this primary will continue far beyond Florida.  And unfortunately, it will continue to get nastier.  The candidates have already said many things about each other that they will not be able to take back in the general election.  So in the end, Santorum won the debate, but the Republican party was the big loser.

 

Ron Paul finally gets airtime in the debates

Saturday night, Paul got caught.¬† Santorum flushed him out, but Perry nailed it.¬† Ron Paul was mid-attack against Santorum for adding earmarks when the subject of Paul’s own earmarks came up.¬† Paul then gleefully announced that sure he added earmarks, but he never voted yes on any of the appropriation bills.¬† Dr. Paul, that is a smoke screen.¬† You put everything you wanted in bills that you knew would pass anyway, and then voted against those bills to pad your record?¬† Sorry, not impressed.

Things got even worse when Paul attacked Gingrich again, apparently for not being eligible for the draft.  Paul referred to deferments insinuating that Gingrich received deferments in Vietnam, and Gingrich had to set the record straight that his father was in Vietnam and Newt himself was not eligible for the draft.

While continuing unfair attacks on fellow candidates, Paul once again defended his newsletter by saying he never wrote the ones he signed or read the ones he edited.  Paul did repeat a common liberal racist claim that illegal drugs  and wars adversely affect African Americans and perpetuated the stereotype that blacks are inherently poor.  His solution seemed to be to end wars and make drugs legal, but using the racism angle is a dishonest argument.

Paul made a gaffe when he talked about the US picking up Iranian seamen, which Santorum picked up on pointing out that if Paul was in charge our men wouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Paul’s answers on economics amount to vague elitism.¬† Something many of us on the TEA Party side have been hungry for in Paul’s rhetoric is the what and how of what he wants to do with the economy.¬† Yeah we get it.¬† Paul is a constitutionalist.¬† He is the doctor of democracy and champion of freedom.¬† But what does that mean?¬† Paul’s answer, liquidate debt and cut spending.¬†¬†¬† I suppose we could all just go read his website to see what exactly he wants to cut, but I’m not convinced Paul even wrote whats on his website.¬† I’m sure if something objectionable was found on there, Paul would have plausible deniability.

Fortunately, Paul did basically rule out a third party run.

 

Take the Ron Paul quiz

Ron Paul is suddenly looking like a potential runner up in Iowa.  Supporters are hoping that this is his turn to rise to the top.  Paul is a constitutionalist, he is consistent, and a lot of what he says makes sense.  But what does Ron Paul say?  What are his policy stances beyond legalizing drugs, opening the border, bringing the troops home, and eliminating the department of education?  Take the Ron Paul quiz and find out what you really know about this potential runner up in Iowa.  No cheating, no googling, no going to his website.  Here you go:

Ron Paul on taxes:

A. Fairtax, get rid of the IRS!

B. Flat Tax, replace the current system

C. Modify current system, but keep a progressive tax

D. No changes

E. Other

Ron Paul on Abortion:

A. Make all abortion illegal

B. All abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother

C. Keep abortion legal and accessable

D. Let the states decide if abortion should be legal, but keep it legal on a federal level

E. Other

Ron Paul on Gay Marriage:

A. Thinks gay marriage should be completely legal

B. Let the states decide who can get married

C. Supports DOMA, but would not take further action if the courts overturn it

D. Supports constitutional amendment to define marriage

E. Other

Ron Paul’s family history:

A. Been divorced multiple times

B. Never been married

C. Successful marriage and family

D. Troubled marriage with affairs

E. Other

Why is Ron Paul wealthy? Check all that apply:

A. Years as a doctor (also opposes Obamacare)

B. Years as a congressman (while supporting term limits)

C. Consulting for large Wall Street firms (including lobbying)

D. Large portfolio in gold and mining stocks (and supports gold standard and mining earmarks)

E. Kickbacks and bribes (especially from bailed out companies)

Ron Paul on earmarks and pork:

A. Opposes all earmarks and pork barrel spending

B. Supports earmarks as part of the process but does not use them

C. Supports earmarks and has “brought home the bacon” in his district

D. Supports only necessary earmarks to prevent committees from making those choices

E. Other

Ron Paul on Entitlements:

A. End Social Security and Medicare

B. Social Security and Medicare are government promises, leave them alone

C. Private accounts and state block grants

D. Optional private accounts, leave Medicare alone

E. Other

Ron Paul on Healthcare:

A. Status quo

B. Repeal Obamacare and let states decide, anything from Massachusetts style to any other state

C. Expand HSA accounts and allow insurance purchases across state lines

D. Individuals must buy insurance or pay for care received

E. Other

Ron Paul on Energy:

A. Drill here, drill now

B. All of the above approach

C. Pursue green energy, eliminate fossil fuels

D. Tax subsidies for green energy, eliminate the EPA

E. Other

Ok, you took the quiz.¬† Now do the research.¬† If Ron Paul becomes the next front runner, he is going to be vetted.¬† One of the reasons Newt hasn’t crashed and burned yet despite the onslaught from all sides is because he has put all his flaws on the table, admitted his stupid mistakes, explained where his ideas have changed and why, and has been open about what he believes, even when it means taking the heat.¬† The reason Romney has not crashed and burned is because he has successfully argued why he would not take the Massachusetts mandate to DC.¬† On the other hand, Cain fell flat on his face because of accusations that came out of nowhere, a flawed 999 plan, and stumbles on foreign policy.

Paul has not been vetted.  Until now, no one took him seriously.  If he is your guy and you want him to win, or you are rightfully taking a second look at him, now you know if you actually know what he stands for.

Foreign Policy Reveals Different Strengths

Whether or not you think the GOP has a strong field, one thing is for sure.  Any of these candidates would be better than Obama when it comes to foreign policy.  That came across clearly from more moderate voices like Jon Huntsman in addition to the two front runners.  Overall it was a great performance by all the candidates.  The contrast between the GOP field, including Ron Paul, and Barack Obama was clear.  So, here are the winners and losers:

Mitt Romney won the debate because of his smooth ability to introduce ambiguity on some issues to give all Conservatives a cushion of comfort.  See Newt’s performance below.  Mitt also took on Ron Paul and I think Mitt won that debate.  It seems pretty clear that Al Qaida terrorists and Timothy McVeigh do not represent the same sort of threat.  In fact, I would argue that lumping McVeigh, a disgruntled anti-American government citizen attacking the system, in with the 9/11 hijackers, foreign terrorists attacking and targeting United States civilians, is a very dangerous way of looking at foreign and domestic terrorism.  I sure hope we would treat a foreign terrorist crossing our border illegally differently than a citizen radical trying to build a bomb in their basement because the IRS just sent them another tax notice.

Jon Huntsman demonstrated his firm control of foreign policy issues.¬† I think he overcame some fears when he affirmed our strong relationship with Israel.¬† Huntsman also expressed sentiments on Afghanistan that have been felt by many Conservatives who were mislabeled as ‚Äúneo-cons‚ÄĚ over the last decade.¬† Many Conservatives supported both wars, but do not support something for nothing nation building in nations that don‚Äôt respect us and don‚Äôt appreciate the sacrifices we have made.¬† Huntsman turned again and again to the economy and the failures of Obama and Congress to solve the problem.¬† Huntsman‚Äôs point on how we leave North Korea alone because they have a nuke, but invaded Libya after they gave up their nuclear ambitions is a great diagnosis of the inconsistency in America‚Äôs position towards nuclear ambitious countries.

Newt had a great, issue free performance.  Here is the problem.  Newt comes across hawkish, and he is far too honest.  In the end, Mitt agreed with him on long-time illegal immigrants, but Mitt said it in such a way that will be taken better by anti-illegal alien Conservatives.  Newt also hurt himself by endorsing and calling for an expansion of the Patriot act.  This could help guarantee that Ron Paulites stay home and let Obama get re-elected in 2012.  What Newt should have said was that he supported the Patriot Act, but recommends examining it for things that could be eliminated or added.  I think Newt is too straight forward on a subject that honestly Americans would prefer some ambiguity on.  Same with covert operations.  His answer regarding opening our oil resources is not new, but continues to be a very strong point for him.

Ron Paul continued to solidify his base and add some fringe Conservatives who are weary enough of the wars to want to radically change America’s relationship with the world.  For these people, Paul’s angry old man persona, scoffing and reacting to opponents’ answers, and idea that if we leave terrorists alone, they will realize the error of their ways and leave us alone, will not affect his support.  Still, Paul would make a better foreign policy President than Obama.  At least his disengagement would be total, not mixed with war hawkishness like Obama’s.

Rick Perry’s substance earned him a higher spot after this debate.  I still think his idea of zero based budgeting for foreign aid resonates with Americans.  His refusal to dabble in hypotheticals about illegals who have been here more than a quarter century is going to help him as people weed out Romney and Gingrich’s immigration comments and discover the softness there.

Herman Cain did well not to hurt himself in this debate.  He has come across as unknowledgeable on foreign policy.  In this debate he showed he has a recognizable set of foreign policy principles, although he kept things pretty vague.  He didn’t hurt himself and that is a victory for him on foreign policy.

Rick Santorum comes across as a neo-con.   This debate didn’t really change that, and only a change in that perception would cause his status to change as a result of this debate.  No mistakes, but also no movement for him after this debate.  He continues to maintain that we should be paying Pakistan for friendship.

Michele Bachmann is either a career politician or has issues with comprehension.  On multiple occasions she seemed to not be able to grasp her opponent’s position.  A glaring example was when she interpreted Newt’s soft approach to long-time established illegals as some sort of call for general amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens.  She played the same role in Rick Perry’s demise, but now it seems more like a desperate cry for relevance.  Rising and falling as the Social Conservative choice at this point will require superiority on the issues, not loud misunderstanding of opponents, even though that usually produces success with the general electorate.

No matter who the nominee is, what is clear from last night is that we cannot afford four more years of Obama’s foreign policy.

Thanksgiving Family Forum Review

The GOP candidates faced something Saturday night that they haven’t seen in a long time, a friendly moderator.¬† In a round table discussion without buzzers, all but one of today’s contenders shared personal stories, tears, and their faith.¬† It was a very personalizing debate where Americans got to see these candidates discuss the issues facing family values voters.¬† So here is the official review:

Newt Gingrich opened up and shared a real personal side of himself with the audience.¬† He personalized the healthcare debate in a way that would make pro-Obamacare liberals rethink centralized health planning.¬† He also was the most genuine in sharing his failures with the crowd.¬† His failure and the resolution of turning his life around through God’s help is exactly what resonates with this crowd. He presented solutions on judicial activism without betraying a sort of militant anti-homosexuality that will be a turnoff to some states rights conservatives who shy away from a marriage amendment, but in a way that should satisfy pro-amendment conservatives who see the courts stampeding over states rights on marriage.

Rick Santorum had a chance to connect with audiences and take enough time to overcome some of the perception of irrelevance that comes with mainstream media consumer based debates.  This will help him especially in Iowa where social conservatives are searching to an anti-Romney with a clean record.  Santorum helped his changes in Iowa, although even if he wins in Iowa he will probably not take any other states.

Herman Cain played to his strength: being real.¬† Although there are questions about Cain’s foreign policy know how and tax plan, one thing that has made him endearing to Republicans is his realness and his ability to connect on that personal level.¬† He may have harmed himself though when as a failure he pointed out that he spent too much time working to the top of the corporate ladder and not enough time with his family.¬† That is a regret that will not resonate with most Americans, and for those who it does it will not be seen as a good thing.

Michele Bachmann did well, but was once again forgettable.¬† Her answer on schools was good by itself, but was a shadow of answers given by other candidates.¬† She must find a way to distinguish herself if she hopes to be relevant again.¬† Perry tried to make himself relevant, but his tax plan was trumped by Gingrich’s flat tax.¬† Santorum has not been able to make himself relevant again.¬† Bachmann’s best shot recently at making herself relevant has been apparent support for a $10 surtax on all Americans to make sure everyone is paying something in.¬† That is not a defining plan that will rocket her back to relevance.

Ron Paul was able to be personal and share his faith, which is important for him among social conservatives.  However, it may also be damaging among libertarian voters.  Paul showed support for DOMA, which will hurt him with libertarians.  His advocacy for moving issues like gay marriage to the church and family are admirable, but naive like his foreign policy.  Paul does not seem to understand the militancy of some liberal homosexual groups.  Paul also hurt himself with his greatest failure, suffering sports injuries that kept him from playing football in highschool.  Honestly, if someone told me that in a job interview I would probably only continue the interview out of politeness.

Rick Perry had a typical bumbling debate performance.¬† At one point he said “We’ve all heard that saying…” and I was afraid he might forget what it was.¬† When he talked about his greatest failure, I think he was saying he impregnated his wife (possibly not his wife at the time?) and had to drop out of veterinarian school.¬† Overall, unimpressive.

The biggest loser was Mitt Romney.¬† Mitt will not win this election with just the establishment and fiscal conservatives.¬† This was a must attend debate if he hopes to win over any social conservatives of family values voters.¬† Then again, if Mitt could not stand toe to toe with these candidates on family values, perhaps it is best that he didn’t show up.

Other no shows, Gary Johnson, Fred Kargar, Buddy Roemer, and Jon Huntsman.¬† Let’s be honest, who cares.

%d bloggers like this: