Ron Paul is a top tier candidate, as he is the only other candidate that routinely polls in double digits (besides Romney and Perry). Having said that, I still believe if you make it to the stage (poll high enough nationally) then you deserve equal time on that stage. If you want to generate back and forth you could move to a format where there are far fewer questions (since we seem to have plenty of debates, they should be easy to spread around) and each and every candidate gets a chance to answer the same question. In fact, I think they should be in a sound proof booth so they cannot hear the other candidate/audience responses. This way, we could find out what each candidate actually believes, irrespective of which way the wind is blowing on stage.
I pretty much agree on all counts. We should be evaluating candidates on ideas, policies and competency, but instead verbal skills and style points tend to make a bigger impression. Cain was very impressive last night, but I question how realistic much of his platform is. Certainly, none of it would be passed without a filibuster-proof Senate. Of course, you could say that for just about all the proposals we heard last night. The interesting question was the one Michelle Bachmann posed. Do we want the candidate who has the best chance of winning in November or the one who best represents our values?
That probably depends on who "we" is. We the people say we want the candidate that best represents us but we routinely vote for the "lesser of two evils"; the media convinces us the candidate who actually represents us can't win and we'd be wasting our vote. Personally, I believe the only way one can truly waste their vote (other than not voting) is to vote for a candidate who the media tells you is the lesser of two evils.
One more time. Romney is their guy. Romney always has been their guy. He will be their guy. No one else has the remote chance of defeating a well spoken incumbent. U folks really overestimate the attention span of the electorate, and underestimate the loyalty of Obama's base.
Cain cannot win. The Dixiecrats are members of the GOP now, like it or not. So that is a nice chuck of the GOP base. He will not carry the AA vote as he is a "sellout". Herman Cain is Jesse Jackson circa 1984. In other words the GOP has a black guy running. Awwww, isn't that cute? It will be Mitt Romney. I have said it since January.
Don't you find it somewhat interesting that Herman Cain is a favorite of Tea Party people, who the media keep telling us are racists? Maybe they somehow didn't notice that he is AA. We have a republican primary with one of the major candidates a highly accomplished black man, and no one mentions race. It just isn't a consideration to the vast majority of voters or the media. Yet, when obama ran, it was all the democrats could talk about. Obama would not have won the nomination if he had been white and he certainly wouldn't have been elected. That's just a fact. If he were white, he would be Dennis Kuchinich, with that level of support. The lesson I draw from this is that republicans judge people on their character not their skin color, and democrats by contrast are obsessed with race. I wonder how Dr. King would react to that?
Cain mentioned a couple of times a "9 9 9 plan". Any idea what that is? Drudge has a headline right now that Christie is reconsidering running and will announce either way within days. Might be a game changer.
9 Democrats 9 Nooses 9 Hangmen Seriously though: Phase 1 of Cain's economic growth plan. Itâs called the 9-9-9 plan. A 9% business flat tax. Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses, and all dividends paid to shareholders. A 9% individual income flat tax. Gross income less charitable deductions. A 9% national sales tax. This significantly expands the tax base, which helps everyone. â¢This plan has the following advantages: â¢It is fair, revenue-neutral, transparent and efficient. â¢It puts zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits. â¢It replaces the payroll tax. â¢It will aid capital availability for small businesses. â¢It saves taxpayers $430 billion in annual compliance costs. â¢It eliminates the uncertainty holding this economy down.