292. Who can choose?

Watched the Republican debate last night held at Ronald Reagan Library. MSNBC did a terrible job with the format (1 minute answers and distribution of questions); plus, it's host commentators tried "liberally" to stick barbs into the candidates as often as possible. Particularly disturbing were that the inconsequential barbs having an intention to demean not only a particular candidate, but the all the candidates. They tried every which way to disrupt the unity of the Republican party and to create chaos among the candidates. What is this world and its ignorant people in influencing positions, such as the moron news people, coming to? They then proceeded to show there ignorance by firmly trying to make its viewers believe that state governments are the SAME as the Federal government and should not vary, constantly suggesting that individual state decisions correlate to actions that would be done federally if elected. What it showed me was that neither Brian Williams nor his Politico counterpart did their homework. There are only the issues of Economy, jobs, and foreign affairs that needed to be discussed. I wanted to hear the different candidate's views completely. Little did I get. Anyway, here's all I gleamed from the debate:

While Romney and Perry started and ended scrapping like two teenagers, Ginrich acted like a father and tried to hold together the overall party image. Although some of the others showed maturity and experience as a "people" leader, Newt was the one that called out foul to the annoying MSNBC hosts and alerted the viewer of the tactics they were using to cause choas! Kudos Newt.

Let's first get Ron Paul out of the way -- doesn't seem he plans or thinks thoroughly about anything. Time he stays home and shuts up. Some of his ideas do hold merit, but I see no detail of plan behinds most of them. Give him a C-

Romney is still too much POLITICIAN. He'd rather strike st other candidates. Almost like Obama now that he is in a corner. If you don't have a totally positive record, bite out! Here again Williams set up chaos by asking others how they feel about Romney's record on Mass. health care. He has already defended it more than enough as a STATE plan and that it did accomplish to fix some of the main issues they identified when designing it. It didn't need to waste 10-15 minutes of the debate! How'd Romney do? B-

Perry gave me the image of a politician resting on his laurels. His answers we satisfactory, especially for a first debate, but I believe he could have been much better prepared. B-

Cain: FIVE questions! FIVE minutes. Come on MSNBC. Here is a guy who speaks articulately and has plans instead of mud to sling! Maybe that's why you avoided him. His 999 plan is interesting, but I do not think it can implemented in full in any short time. My previous post was sent to him as a short-term solution. He is one candidate that shows maturity and is definitely CEO material (was at Godfathers and can be as president). His focus is to PROVIDE SOLUTIONS, not fool people with speech. I commend him for that and look forward to hearing more from him. He gets an A+ for telling us the most in the 5 minutes he had.

Bachmann was also given little time. She is very poised and intelligent. Most of all, she is committed to her views and can wash out the mud being slung at her. Her Energy policy plans are rock solid -- her goal may to get gas below $2/gallon, but the content behind that is an overall energy plan to create jobs and get America's respect back! Those who cannot understand that are the ones that focus on words out of context or can't comprehend the real message behind a clever way of attracting attention to it. Another top performer and an A for her time.

Gingrich, as I mentioned, did not want to in-fight either. He saw right through MSNBC and his answers were superb. Even acknowledged Obama and the Charter program for schools. I doubt if he got more than 3-4 minutes! A+ again for leadership.

Santorum did a fine job also. Its so hard rating people when even one of your questions could not be answered in depth. He showed much more merit than he did in previous debates. A-

Huntsman I like also. Here is a guy who worked as a leader in both in private and government positions. Top State job creator. If anybody gained position on my list, he did. Again, not enough time to tell me anything in depth, but did raise my hopes. A for him.

So, it is much too early to pick anybody. However, I am looking for a LEADER. One who can win on merit, not negative tactics. One with solutions ON THE TABLE like Cain or Bachmann, or one I feel (know) have solutions but can't get them aired, like Huntsman and Romney. I want someone with BOTH foreign affairs experience like Huntsman and Gingrich. But most of all, I want somebody who can turn America around to where its again leader in the world -- this means unemployment solved, the economy turned around, consumer confidence up, and everyone again being prosperous. Who is that? ANY of the candidates can do MUCH better job than Obama. My mind is already trying to match a V.P. to a President from these candidates. Perry is a newbee -- I can't read him from one debate. Thus, I am still leaning toward Cain, Bachmann, or Huntsman -- not in any particular order. However, I would take any candidate over Obama.