Florida Debate

There was another candidate debate last night. This one was in Florida and thankfully NBC chose to go with a non-applause model so those of us, who are actually listening to what candidates are saying instead of gnawing on the raw meat of emotions, could see the success or failure of an argument. Candidate debates should be a spectator sport, just not a gladiator area setup where the crowd is calling for one candidate over another, or even a moderator for that matter, to be put to death.   

                One thing that stands out to me specifically about the debates are the candidate’s willingness to frame their past successes in government as what “we” did and the opposition’s failures as what “they” did. They are very good at playing the “us versus them” game. It seems to me when there is a success or failure in the realm of government there should be shared responsibility. Sure, we have majorities and minorities within government, but until there is a super majority that does not need the other side to pass and change legislation there should be some civility and recognition of the opposition and any help they gave. The end game should be what is best for all, not just what is best for us right now because we control the majority.

                I would not be so against people’s outcry of the President’s opposition to the Canadian pipeline extension if the Republicans would stop talking about sanctions against Iran. They have to see that both: a) Cause oil prices to rise.

b) Hurt job creation

and 

c) Show the cancerous disdain that the two parties have for each other and it leaves the average American in the middle like a child dismissed because mom and dad are fighting.

                Now to my favorite guy, Newton Leroy Gingrich; there is a part of me that wishes I could take a question from someone, a question that either I did not know the answer to or one I simply did not want to answer, and answer that question with a muddle of misdirection and irrelevant facts and boastings of myself that leaves the inquirer’s head spinning and the inability to remember the original question. Of course, there is a large part of me that is glad I cannot. It was truly rewarding to see Romney take the issue of Gingrich’s “lobbying” to the heart of the matter and show that it was in fact lobbying, to Gingrich’s dismay and classic look to Brian Williams, agent of the mainstream media, for hope that the questions could please move on to more pressing issues.

Newt and Marriage

I missed most of the CNN Republican Presidential Candidates Debate last night, but I did go back and watch a few of the clips that were provided of the debate. The clip that bothers me the most is the opening question, in which John King of CNN asks Newt Gingrich about statements made by his ex-wife that same day. Not because it is unfair to “attack” a candidate on past issues of their personal lives, but because of the way Newt Gingrich reacted to the question. This is a man who is running for the nomination of his party, the Republican Party, in which strong family values is a core belief they hold dear. They hold to the idea of marriage between a man and a woman and will fight any alternatives to that idea. This in and of itself is not a big deal in my view, this is America and they are entitled to their views whether they be based on religious beliefs or are simply values they personally share. For Newt to jump on the moderator, John King, the way he did was uncalled for and should be admonished, not applauded.

As I stated earlier, Newt Gingrich is one candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination for POTUS. If elected, he would try and impose on the country an ideal that “traditional” marriage is between one man and one woman, this coming from a man who is on his third marriage. Traditional marriage is so important to this man he will fight any alternative view of marriage with all the power given to him by the law of the land. In fact, he supports a Constitutional amendment that states marriage is between one man and one woman; I wonder how his history of marriage fits into that amendment. If marriage is between one man and one woman would that not void his two latest marriages? Would the amendment state that once a person says “I do”, they are forever married to that person? Will the Defense Of Marriage Act end divorce and the hurt and suffering, things Gingrich himself has said divorce causes, which thousands of people suffer every year because couples cannot work out their differences? Will Gingrich take the stand and say enough is enough with Americans treating marriage as a contract between two people, a civil union as it were, that when things get tough or when a new person comes into the picture they can just end this sacred fusion set aside for the few?

Gingrich lives in the United States of America and he has every right to marry as many women as he would like to and cheat on them with as many women as he would like to, but he should not be running as the candidate of a party whose core value is the idea of the sanctity of marriage, set aside for a chosen few, if he himself has never held those views as a sacred part of his own personal life. After last night’s complaint that it was appalling that one would question Gingrich’s integrity and past human involvement I would hope that people who support him and support the core values of the Republican Party would reject this man’s continuing effort to become leader of the free world.

Slither(IF)

Early(IF)

Equipment(IF)

Fearless(IF)

Cocoon(IF)