Where are GOP Moderate Activists? Please Step Forward!

When I first started this blog, I used to wake up in the morning trying to decide how I could annoy a liberal that day.  That is no longer the case -- the progressives make more sense then the hard right of the GOP in today's world.  The GOP has totally left me with their social issues being their #1 priority along with giving the Defense Department everything they want while at the same time wanting to cut the social safety net for seniors and victims of disaster.

Over the years always read the Media Research Center reports until I discovered they were not exactly telling the truth while researching what they had said before using it on here.  They were repeating the Fox News/Rush/Hannity Talking Points.   Started going to Media Matters and realized they were telling the truth as everything I wanted to use checked out.  One thing led to another and realized that the conservative media was feeding crap to listeners/viewers in order to suit their narrative that all Democrats are bad especially President Obama.  The conservative media was part of a scam on the American people IMHO just like conservative groups/think tanks have been lying and scamming to get people to donate to their cause when what they are saying is not factual.

My research day in and day out  has been enlightening to discover the so-called conservatives I once supported were dead wrong on the President.  They are still at it today this time on gun control comparing him to Hitler which disgusts me to no end.  Their lack of honesty and integrity is duly noted.  Chances of trusting them again are slim to none.  Some of the pundits/websites have zero ethics and will lie about President Obama never giving it a second thought.  I kept asking myself if they are that racist and unfortunately, I had to admit they were.  The sad part is that I think they would be treating a woman President exactly the same with their continual war on women as we are still seeing today.  A lot of today's conservatives seem to believe only in a white male dominated Country.

Guess you could say I took my blinders off discovering there is little if anything I support or respect out of the hard right GOP.   I consider myself a center right person who believes the economy would be much further on the way to recovery if it wasn't for the obstructionist House Republicans who refuse to work with the President unless absolutely forced by circumstances like the recent cliff negotiations.

I am a fiscal conservative who believes in a strong defense but not going overboard like Republicans have been doing since 2000.  Buying two new fighters, F-22 and F-35, was a huge waste of taxpayer dollars but made Lockheed-Martin and the subs very happy.  Even when Lockheed was behind schedule and over budget, the Chair of Lockheed received a $2M raise last year on top of his $25M+ annual salary.  Why are heads of defense companies paid such obscene salaries and get raises for failing?

Any GOP member of Congress who says you cannot cut Defense is lying.  There is so much waste in the DoD that it would make your head swim if you knew the facts.  That is my primary reason for supporting former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense -- he knows where the bodies are buried and how much can be saved by DoD.  Defense contractors through their GOP Senator mouthpieces are in an all out war to defeat Hagel.  Maybe they are afraid he will actually ask for accountability from Defense contractors and stop the sole source contracts to the big aerospace companies.  I have heard some dumb statements about Chuck Hagel coming from former friends like McCain and Lindsey Graham who are putting Party over Country once again.  Why is what I would like to know.  Who is pulling their strings?

Yesterday when I wrote my blog post asking Can the Republican Party be Saved was left with the sickening feeling that the GOP had gone so far right that there was no hope in bringing it back.  Lo and behold today, Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast has some good ideas in his article about using moderates to take the GOP back to center right.  He understands in order to make DC work you have to have two viable parties not just one.  One Party system doesn't work as whoever is in charge becomes very arrogant starting to believe they answer to no one.

The problem is with this group of Republicans in Congress is that they won't face reality the Republican Party lost big on November 6th as they are still behaving like they won everything.  That mentality leaves me stunned.

The question of the day is if there are moderates who are willing to work to bring the GOP back to the center along with big dollars for a campaign to start running more moderate Republicans who are fiscal conservatives and could care less about social issues.

Prefer no social issues even enter the discussion after learning the former VP candidate and current Rep Paul Ryan is co-sponsoring another Personhood Bill.  Economy is in the tank and social issues become front and center again along with Michelle Bachmann introduced as one of the first bills of the new House another bill to end Obamacare.  Still haven't recovered from her being named to the Intelligence Committee.  Boehner and leadership are idiots for putting her on Intelligence Committee who loves to grandstand as we saw in the Presidential debates.  Facts don't matter to Bachmann -- it is the narrative.  If I was the CIA, I would be extremely careful what I said in her presence.  Do I think she would run out to a microphone -- absolutely just like the GOP Senators have been doing on Benghazi.

The big question hanging over all this is: Are there even enough moderate Republicans around in America anymore? It depends on what you mean by moderate. I mean someone who is fiscally conservative and socially moderate, but more than that, who has enough of a civic-republican streak to want this warfare to end. I have to believe that there are millions of such people out there. They just have no one to report to, no place to go. If someone builds this, they will come.

Must admit I would hope that Tomasky is correct about the number of moderates but not holding my breath.  I come from a total Red State so hope of a moderate being elected is slim to none but why not try.  The OK legislature is so hard right in the OK House that even our Supreme Court routinely knocks down their bills including the one on Personhood informing the hard right that Abortion is the law of the land and they are infringing.  That sent shock waves through the hard right here but they will try again and put that Personhood bill over education or infrastructure.  I would be glad to sign up for a center-right campaign to elect more moderates but where are they?  You have to have a backbone and nerves of steel to oppose the hard right.

I agree with Tomasky's ideas:

You may roll your eyes, and yes, I readily confess that this is a big and very long-term job. But making the party as right wing as it is was a big and long-term job, too, and someone did it. Moderate Republicans, and even mainstream conservative Republicans who want to see Washington function again, should get together to form and fund a network of organizations that will pursue four goals: 

First, just make moderate Republicanism visible again. Launch a public awareness campaign. Get a television show. Or at least get a stable of people to go on the other shows. Let Americans know that the viewpoint even exists. 

Second, start an organization to recruit young people, activists of all ages, and potential candidates. Start college campus clubs and newspapers or magazines. Host big conferences in Washington and elsewhere. Give people a sense of an extant community. 

Third, start running some primaries against some hard-right people in districts where victory is possible. Admittedly, there are many states and districts where there’s no chance in blazes that a moderate could beat a conservative. Many state parties have been captured lock, stock, and barrel by the tea party, even in liberal states (Maine). But there are some places where moderates could win. And the tea party may be fading. 

Fourth, set up a big think tank in Washington to advance more moderate policy ideas and, just as importantly, to urge moderation in tactics as well—that is, more civility, such that every single vote isn’t a matter of warfare. 

Will Tomasky's ideas work?  IMHO, it is worth a try.

Wanted: Moderate GOP Activists 

by Michael Tomasky 

Jan 10, 2013 4:45 AM EST 

Nothing would do more to fix American politics than if wealthy Republicans bankrolled a network of moderate GOP organizations, says Michael Tomasky. I see that Brent Bozell, who never runs out of ways to spend rich conservatives’ money, now has an outfit called For America, which is mounting a pressure campaign against Mitch McConnell over his role in the fiscal cliff deal. The online ad buy will be targeted to Kentucky and will ask, “Mitch McConnell, which side are you on?”—that of socialism or that of Kentuckyism? What struck me when I read this was: How come there isn’t a group that is taking out ads against Rand Paul, McConnell’s junior colleague, one of just five GOP senators who voted against the bill, asking him which side he’s on—the side of bare-minimum fiscal sanity or the side of ruining the economy for the sake of making an ideological point? Of course there isn’t. But there must be. In fact there is nothing—nothing—our political system needs more than a strong and well-financed moderate-Republican pressure organization. 

Think about it. Why is our politics so stuck right now? Because one of our parties has gone bonkers. Oh, sure, the Democrats aren’t altar boys. Fine. But High Broderism is blessedly dying as more and more establishment types come to see that it’s basically the GOP that’s throwing the wrench in the works. 

Read More at The Daily Beast

Looks like Brent Bozell of Media Research fame has a new group who is now threatening Republicans they are going to be primaried like the threats coming from Club for Growth and the Koch's Americans for Prosperity.  These group along with the religious right and social conservatives have taken the GOP very hard right.  They are not about to give it up without a fight that will destroy what is left of the Republican Party IMHO.

Now to find some more moderate donors who would be willing to fund this effort.  Short of that a lot of us will be supporting more moderate Dems in 2014 to kick out the obstructionist Republicans from leading the House or taking the Senate who are adverse to the word 'democracy' with their House Hastert Rule and Senate Filibuster rules.  How many people in the Country understand how dictatorial today's GOP has become in the House with the Hastert Rule and in the Senate with the filibuster which goes far beyond what was intended?

In the House, the filibuster equivalent has been the Hastert rule, an informal Republican principle under which the speaker permits to the floor for a vote only bills that have majority support of the majority party. This has empowered the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. Speaker John Boehner ignored the Hastert rule in permitting the legislation that overcame the “fiscal cliff” to get to the floor. The bill passed with only 85 Republican votes, drawing most of its support from the Democratic side of the aisle. Boehner was then barely re-elected as speaker.

There are new rules to change the filibuster in the Senate but not holding my breath on that either.  Will the 113th Congress be as unproductive as the 112th?  Sure hope not.  My wish is that some common sense returns to Republicans in Congress but frankly I wouldn't place my bet on that either.  I think today's Republicans have the common sense of a gnat as their dealing with the loss on November 6th, 2012, was to push back more becoming more obnoxious especially on gun control.  Little hope for the Republican Party to see the light.  More likely a new centrist party will form as the Democrats sure don't want all of us center right people voting in their elections.

Stay tuned as the hard right gets even loonier and more obstructionist then last year the way they are starting out in the 113th Congress.

MRC: Matt Lauer Urges Bachmann to Bash Perry; NBC Debate Coverage Promotes GOP Infighting

Is Michelle Bachmann so self absorbed in wanting to score points that she allows herself to be used by the Obama media?  Sure looks like it from her interview that was sent out by the Media Research Center (MRC).  The "Today" Show has never been a friend to Republicans and it is worse now than in the past which says a lot.  Her appearance on Today after other appearances shows she is an opportunist who thinks being against the frontrunner on "Today" and other shows is going to buy her votes even though she stretches the truth and outright lies.  With candidates like Bachmann, no Democrat needs to do any research.

We have also noticed that Bachmann and Palin have the same talking point papers.  Did you know that AK while Palin was Governor took money for Gardasil vaccinations and no one heard a peep or that it is mandatory in VA with an Opt Out?  That seems missing from the discussion.  It is only Texas where it never took affect that gets the laser beam, narrow mindedness of Bachmann and then Palin piled on with Greta along with her crony capitalism against Perry.  What have those two women ever done that stands out above the rest of the candidates except try to make sure they are center stage and if not, they attack?   

When I think of Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), I think of intelligence, class, and articulate.  When I think of Bachmann and Palin, first word comes to mind is grandstanding and second is selfish.  Neither one of them could have attended the summit on healthcare with Obama and came out ahead like Blackburn.  The two usually  have their own list of reporters they will talk to or be interviewed.  When Bachmann went away from her list, she allowed herself to be used by the Obama media.  Yet both of them with pretty skinny resumes think they become President when Bachmann cannot even handle an interview without getting played and Palin only grants interviews to her list.  Why isn't Marsha Blackburn in the discussion -- is it because she doesn't fit the Obama media profile for people to be interviewed because you don't play Marsha Blackburn like Lauer just did Bachmann and others have done Palin?

Anyone who knows me knows that this is not just about Perry as I have thought these two women were pretty clueless long before he decided to run.  Went after Palin a long time ago and never cared for Bachmann who has one of the thinnest resumes ever in Congress.  Bachmann has always been too temperamental and too far right for me.  How can a candidate like Bachmann go to Concord, NH, and tell people she is in the town of the 'shot fired round the world' not once but twice.  Bachmann is late to events including the Fox debate and the stunt she pulled in Iowa sitting in the bus and lying she was at a reunion should tell people all they need to know about her.  

The excuses people have made for Palin are legendary with the gotcha questions.  If a guy said what these two women have said, they would be called all kinds of names starting with the word 'idiot' but for someone reason some Republican men give them a pass which speaks volumes.  Anyone with a brain can see both are clueless in a lot of areas and when outed make all kinds of excuses that it is always someone else's fault.  This has been ongoing for months for Bachmann and for years for Palin.   Ask John Bolton about Sarah Palin and see what he has to say.    

Wonder who distributed the Talking Point papers before the debate and before the guess appearances on TV shows?  Make an educated guess and you are probably right.  When candidates use the same buzz words, you know there are using talking points that have been circulated.  Why is a Republican consultant using the Democrat playbook but then he has supported a Democrat candidate before against a Republican so it shouldn't be a shock?   There are actually two choices as negative campaigning is loved by two National Republican consultants/advisers.

Read the full article on MRC and all I could think of was Bachmann was so clueless that she was led around by Lauer who had to be secretly laughing.  When she finally go to the jobs agenda, it was the same old talking point paper with no real plan.

Matt Lauer Urges Bachmann to Bash Perry; NBC Debate Coverage Promotes GOP Infighting
By: Kyle Drennen
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:40 PM EDT

In an interview with Michele Bachmann on Tuesday's NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer actually delayed discussion of job creation as he pushed her to attack Texas Governor Rick Perry: 

"We'll talk about jobs in a second, but I do want to stick on this controversy over...Perry mandating vaccinations for HPV." 

Bachmann had attempted to begin on the subject of President Obama's jobs plan, but Lauer quickly steered her toward Republican infighting: "You not only question the policy [of mandating the HPV vaccine], but you questioned the motivation behind it, suggesting rather strongly that this could have been an attempt to appease a big drug company, Merck, because they contributed to his campaign. So I want you to lay this out for me. Is that what you are asserting?" 

Bachmann maintained her criticism of Perry on the issue and Lauer continued to promote the division: "Do you feel he placed the health and safety of young girls in the state of Texas behind or below the need for campaign funds?...Do you think that you're going to continue to hammer away on this subject? Do you think there's traction to be found here?" 

When Lauer finally asked Bachmann about her plan to create jobs, he skeptically wondered: "Part of your solution is to cut corporate taxes, cut spending, kill certain regulations, and repeal health care reform and Wall Street reform....there was high unemployment before health care reform and Wall Street reform were ever voted on. So why do you think that's so important? Where are the jobs there?" 

Prior to Lauer's interview with Bachmann, chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd offered a report on Monday's Republican debate that focused solely on their attacks on each other, without a single mention of the numerous criticisms leveled against the Obama administration. 

Todd noted Perry being the new front-runner in the race and declared: "...the Tea Party debate turned into a Texas bashfest." The headline on screen throughout the segment read: "Rick Perry on the Defensive at Tea Party Debate." 

Excerpt:  Read More at Media Research Center

Very tired of some Republican women giving the rest of us a bad name because a lot of us can think.  I had one recent graduate tell me that when it comes to politics 1) I react like someone in their 30's, 2) I have a tendency to support common sense candidates no matter their gender, 3) that I think more like young people on social issues and 4) realize that this election is about jobs, the economy, and national security.

Just because someone is a woman means nothing to me if they cannot stand the heat in a race and give back instead of wanting to be treated differently and whine about being picked on.  Cannot stand wimpy candidates no matter the gender or party.  Obama falls in that 'wimpy' category for me.

President Reagan was trashed in 1980 and then trashed some more because he believed that America's best days were ahead, believed in a strong military, and he had a plan.  That was one nasty primary and general election since in the primary they gave a lot of ammo to the Democrats and Carter.  Reliving history again but have to admit the guys who ran back then would have a hard time matching Bachmann for her nasty attacks first on Pawlenty and then on Perry.  If you attack back, you are attacking a woman and that is a no-no to some Republicans.  We should have been prepared for it because she does not get along very well with most members of Congress and she had the same problems in the MN legislature.

Her Tea Party (TP) Caucus she established has held only one meeting since March in early June, they did not take a stand on the debt ceiling, and people off the record are now saying that she formed the TP Caucus only because she was running for President.

The gloves were taken off at the debate in Tampa Monday night so all is fair game for bloggers as if it wasn't before.  I do have a question for the people who schedule these debates.  Why would you ever schedule a debate when there is Monday Night Football?  Football wins hands down in this part of the Country because you can always DVR the debate but love to watch football live.

Gary Johnson Calls Family Leader Pledge “Offensive and Unrepublican”

UPDATE:   The wording on slavery was in the Preamble not buried somewhere in the document which confirms that Bachmann and Santorum will sign anything if they think it will get them support, and they both need to drop out of the race for not telling this group to shove it.  This isn't some gaffe but a document they both signed with this in the preamble:

As Politico pointed out, the preamble of the pledge contains this phrase: 

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

How can any thinking person sign a document that includes those words in the Preamble is beyond me and hard to believe they are a Republican.  The former candidate for Iowa Governor Bob Vander Plaats should be banned from participating in any official event held by Iowa GOP and if they don't ban him then the RNC needs to take action to have Iowa removed as the first in the nation caucus after this fiasco.  The Republican Party is not big enough for such a bigoted group of people who would even write something like this and the rest of us.  It is a total insult to blacks and even then this values group couldn't even get their history straight.  I am embarrassed that this group is even part of the Republican party for their bigoted pledge.  

This issue is growing legs and shows that neither candidate should be running when you cannot read a pledge before you sign it.  This was one of those that they only had to read the Preamble to know it shouldn't be signed, but they saw the title and signed.  We have had enough of pass something so you can know what it is in the bill and this is on the same level.

Sick and tired of these people and their pledges they want signed or they threaten not to support the candidates that don't sign their pledges  It is time for the candidates to call their bluff and sign no more pledges and if these people don't like it -- tough!   It is also time for the Chair of the RNC to ask the candidates to sign no more pledges.  An elected official  takes an oath to uphold the laws of the United States and some of the wording in the pledges go against the law of the land.


*****

It is our opinion that Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is 100% correct in his analysis of the Family Leader Pledge -- we applaud him for his stance.  Former candidate for Iowa Governor Bob Vander Plaats and his group are behind this offensive pledge that if you don't meet their idea of perfection and sign the pledge, they will not support you.  What candidate would want that type of support or would agree to put their John Hancock on that pledge?  We were shocked to discover that Bachmann and Santorum signed the pledge and obviously gave no thought to it would be offensive to most Republicans which tells us they will sign anything if they think it will get them support.

This pledge is offensive and intolerant and reeks of a Nanny State for conservatives which many of us have fought against the Democrats wanting to run our lives.  For those who talk about State Rights, this flies in the face of that.  As far as I am concerned Bachmann and Santorum took themselves out of the running after signing this pledge no matter how some conservatives are spinning it.  All it took was a little reading comprehension and any person would understand that this pledge should never have seen the light of day.

Now the group wants to back off on the slavery language in the pledge.  It is too little, too late as it never should have been included and in fact, it is one big intolerant pledge that no Republican candidate for President should ever want to be associated with.  We agree with Huntsman on his no pledge signing as the pledges are getting out of hand with different people/groups demanding you sign their pledge or they are not supporting you.  

Gary Johnson Calls Family Leader Pledge “Offensive and Unrepublican” 

July 9, 2011, Las Vegas, Nevada – Presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson charged today in a formal statement through his campaign that the Family Leader “pledge” Republican candidates for President are being asked to sign is “offensive to the principles of liberty and freedom on which this country was founded”. Governor Johnson also plans to further state his position against the Family Leader pledge this afternoon in Las Vegas, NV at a speech he will deliver at the Conservative Leadership Conference.  

Johnson went on to state that “the so-called ‘Marriage Vow” pledge that FAMILY LEADER is asking Republican candidates for President to sign attacks minority segments of our population and attempts to prevent and eliminate personal freedom. This type of rhetoric is what gives Republicans a bad name. 

“Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives. The freedoms that our forefathers fought for in this country are sacred and must be preserved. The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded. We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the “public’s pocket book”. 

“This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’. 

While the Family Leader pledge covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting. 

The Republican Party cannot afford to have a Presidential candidate who condones intolerance, bigotry and the denial of liberty to the citizens of this country. If we nominate such a candidate, we will never capture the White House in 2012. If candidates who sign this pledge somehow think they are scoring some points with some core constituency of the Republican Party, they are doing so at the peril of writing off the vast majority of Americans who want no part of this ‘pledge’ and its offensive language.

Johnson is right that tolerance is missing.  This is one group of the far right who want the Federal Government to step in and tell the states what to do.  I believe that Roe v Wade was overstepping on the part of the Federal Government and likewise I think that a blanket no abortion by the Federal Government would be the same or a Federal Marriage amendment.  Social issues belong in my state and my home not at the Federal level including a Marriage amendment which I oppose as it steps on the rights of states.  I live in a conservative state and would never consider ever living in New England again (once was more than enough).  There is not enough money to make me live in Vermont and I am sure they feel likewise about Oklahoma.

This gem from Kevin Williamson at National Review sums up Governor Perry's stance on social issues and the 10th Amendment and would be a good stance for Republican candidates for President:

Governor Perry really is serious about this Tenth Amendment stuff: He is a social conservative, no doubt, but he’s a federalist first. He’s not crazy about gay marriage or medical marijuana, but his view is that if California wants to go that route, that’s California’s business. Don’t like it? “Don’t move to California,” he says. Kicking hard decisions down to the states isn’t the answer to everything — look at Michigan or Illinois — but more federalism and more competition between the states would be on balance a very fine thing for the country.

Will never support a candidate who doesn't believe in state's rights and wants the Federal Government to tell us how to live.  I will live in a state where I am most comfortable which is Oklahoma or Texas because they are independent thinkers who believe the Federal Government has way overreached into what should be State business.

GOP debate winners: Romney, Bachmann and Rick Perry

Interesting headline this morning. Even though Klein uses Rick Perry's name as he says for a stand-in for someone who might get in the race late, most of us know that Rick Perry would go to the lead 'if' he gets in the race following the special session of the Texas legislature which ends on 30 June 2011.

There is no "WOW" factor with any of these candidates. We have a candidate with executive experience but no government experience, two former Governors, a former Speaker of the House, two House Members, and a former Senator. If anyone can find a "WOW" factor with this group, then the bar is pretty low for a GOP candidate. It is not to say they are not nice people but in today's climate, a lot of voters are affected by that "WOW" factor. Ask yourself if Obama would be afraid to go up against any of this group?

Republicans have gone after Obama for his lack of executive experience so experience in the eyes of the Democrats is very low on the list. I would like to think that Republicans are better than that and value executive experience as a key factor in electing a candidate to oppose Obama. Also believe that experience as a Governor is much higher on the list then that of a member of Congress. Let's look at the candidates currently in the race.

Mitt Romney was a one term Governor of Massachusetts who helped bring in universal healthcare to MA and caused a lot of doctors to leave. He ran the Olympics with the help of the Mormon Church putting pressure on an OK Congressman to take light rail and road money and move it from Oklahoma to Utah for the Olympics. Romney is too liberal for most of us. Most of us have no desire to have our nominee be from liberal Massachusetts where he got along just fine with the legislature which is overwhelmingly Democrat. There is a reason friends in MA do not support him for President and in 2008 went to NH to work for McCain. He is being pushed by the media as the best chance to beat Obama -- might want to think twice when the Obama media is pushing a candidate.

Tim Pawlenty, the two term Governor of Minnesota, was able to accomplish more in Minnesota than most of us thought possible as we was up against a heavily Democrat legislature. He was reelected and has the credentials to be President based on his record but there is something lacking in his presentation and needs to do a better job in debates. The "WOW" factor was missing in last night's debate according to what we have been reading, but he has the credentials and has some really good ideas on how to jumpstart the economy.

Herman Cain is the one person in the race with executive experience and no government experience. He has some great ideas but is lacking in knowledge of how government works like saying he would only sign a bill that is three pages or less. For starters Budget/Appropriation bills that go the President for signature have to be huge bills because of all the data they contain on how money is to be spent. After the last few years we need someone who can hit the ground running as President and not have on the job training.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and policy wonk, should not be running after his debacle during the impeachment of Bill Clinton when he left the House in disgrace. After leaving the House, Newt and Hillary got together on healthcare and Newt and Nancy Pelosi got to together on climate change and he wants to be the Republican nominee?

Ron Paul, member of the House, running again to get out his message that probably 95% or more of the Country could care less as some of his ideas are out of the mainstream of conservatives especially on the military.

Michelle Bachmann, member of the House, presents herself well but has a lack of depth when it comes to experience. Kind of odd to see her portray herself as this big conservative on the budget when she stands with a lot of others wanting pork and earmarks. She also could not get many members of Congress to support her in the House for the Conference Chair. If the people who work with you, won't support you, then it makes a person wonder. She wasn't elected to the House until 2006 so there is not even that much Federal experience. The past year she formed the Tea Party Caucus in the House. Frankly, we are part of the group who believe the Tea Party should have remained in local control and no politician should be involved as heading any part of the Tea Party.

Rick Santorum, former Senator, was defeated in 2006 when Republicans lost a lot of good Senators. He was defeated by a Democrat who was just as pro-life as Santorum or at least said he was. Santorum is considered part of the religious and social conservative part of the GOP. Since losing his Senate seat, Santorum has given speeches and worked at a conservative think tank and as a cable news channel commentator.

There you have our current crop of candidates and to be honest, we would support the Republican for President but don't believe this group has the ability to unite Republicans in a way to take on Obama and the Democrats and make our candidate have long coattails. That is why so many people are asking Rick Perry to get in the race -- he has the "WOW" factor when he speaks and he has already taking on Obama several times as Governor of Texas.

Last year at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) his speech made you wish he would announce right then that he was running for President. Only two people gave really good speeches at the SRLC last year -- Perry and Mike Pence who is now running for Indiana Governor.

After reading about last night's debate, no doubt in my mind that Republicans and this Country need Rick Perry in the race to enthuse the Republicans across the board. This time the Republican grassroots are going to bring along the establishment Republicans in DC and other places. Anyone who says that Rick Perry is an establishment candidate doesn't know Texas politics.

We have been wondering who would run as the VP candidate with Rick Perry or any of our candidates. Marsha Blackburn, House Member from Tennessee, was the first name that popped in my head. She has been in our state to speak but when I really noticed her was during the Obamacare Summit. That's when we also learned to know Paul Ryan. Blackburn held her own against Obama and the Democrats and came across as very knowledgeable on healthcare. Since 2007, Blackburn has not made a special spending request in federal budget earmarks. She is conservative on both economic and social issues. Blackburn is currently the Vice Chair on the Commerce Subcommittee for Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. Since a lot of people would like to see a Republican woman candidate on the ticket, why not look at Marsha Blackburn?

GOP debate winners: Romney, Bachmann and Rick Perry

By: Philip Klein 06/13/11 10:37 PM
Senior editorial writer Follow Him @Philipaklein

Mitt Romney has tremendous vulnerabilities as a presidential candidate, but those weaknesses won’t matter unless one of his rivals tries to exploit them. Tonight, he skated past questions on the health care law he signed as governor and on his record of flip-flopping on abortion, because none of his opponents were willing to challenge him.

This made for an especially weak showing by Tim Pawlenty, who talked tough in a television appearance on Fox News Sunday when he used the term “Obamneycare” to describe the Obama/Romney approach to health care. But when given a chance, repeatedly, to elaborate, Pawlenty wimped out. In addition to letting Romney get away with his flawed explanations for his disastrous health care legislation in Massachusetts, Pawlenty came off looking weak – like the guy who criticizes you behind your back and cowers in front of your face. It was sort of like Ronald Reagan’s “I am paying for this microphone” moment in New Hampshire, only in reverse.

During the 2008 campaign, one of the biggest problems Romney had was that he built up resentment among his rivals by not only reversing himself on a host of issues, but then attacking all his opponents for being insufficiently conservative on the issues he had just converted on. This came back to haunt him down the stretch, particularly as Mike Huckabee and John McCain effectively teamed up against Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire. But tonight, Romney was affable, and complimentary to all of his rivals, and specifically to Pawlenty. This had a disarming effect, and it also allowed him to concentrate his fire on the real opponent, President Obama.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who announced during the debate that she would be running for president, also had a strong showing. Though she’s portrayed in the media as a lightweight, she came across polished, knowledgeable and quite comfortable during the debate. The only thing that had me a bit confused was when she said that she wouldn’t interfere with a state that wanted to legalize gay marriage, but yet she’d support a federal marriage amendment. The 2004 version of that amendment read, “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” If Bachmann catches fire, it could be particularly damaging to Pawlenty, who needs a strong showing in Iowa have a chance against Romney.

None of the other candidates on stage: Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Herman Cain particularly distinguished themselves.

In my headline, I named Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who didn’t participate, as another winner in the debate. And by mentioning Perry, I use him as a stand-in for any other Republican candidate who may be contemplating a late entry in the race. Romney may have established himself as the frontrunner tonight, but he remains incredibly vulnerable. So there’s still a huge opening for another candidate.
.
Read more at the : Washington Examiner