Republican Debate Occurs in Florida

This Thursday, 4 republican presidential candidates entered a debate in Florida in which they talked about investments, health (specifically Ron Paul's), investing in health, and moon colonies, among other things.

The debate turned out well for everyone besides Gingrich, who had been losing the momentum gained by his South Carolina win.

I'm not going to summarize the linked article and video, but here's some additional information:

In one instance, Gingrich mentioned his belief that it is critical that the US invest in a colony on the moon. In response, Romney said "I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I'd say, 'You're fired.'" Though Romney and Santorum both agreed that the private sector needs to be more explored in space, Santorum agreed with Romney that it is not a good time for the government to be paying for such an endeavor. He also called the proposal an attempt to get local votes from Florida's space-related constituency, and argued that they candidates should be focused on larger issues than arguing for local votes. Ron Paul did not believe that space exploration should be government funded for anything more than possible defense opportunities.

In response to an episode where Gingrich called Romney the most "anti-immigrant" candidate, Romney responded saying that he found the charge repulsive and that such over-the top-statements have characterized politics for too long. Santorum and Romney then agreed that blocking immigrants form jobs would get them to "self-deport," while Ron Paul though a better economy would keep out illegal immigrants (Though this seems counter-intuitive), but that we should patrol the borders more anyway.

I think that, as recent GOP debates go, this debate was more legitimate than some of the other ones, likely due to the lack of less-popular candidates. I also liked the fact that the candidates were open and willing to criticize the appeals to local votes and extreme statements that have made national political debates and campaigns less... intellectual... than they should be.

Also, I particularly liked Ron Paul's defense of his health status.

Newt Gingrich Crawls Back

Despite his poor rankings from the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, it appears candidate Newt Gingrich has pulled back to the forefront of the race following his victory in the South Carolina Primary.

Gingrich attributes his win to his performance in recent debates. Though attacked by negative ads from other candidates, in subjects including his controversial "open marriage" proposal to his ex-wife, he pulled through with cheers and applause. As he remarked, he did not need to spend sums of money in advertising to win a primary; it was his ideas that counted.

Endorsed by Rick Perry and Sarah Palin, the former Alaskan governor, Gingrich attracted votes from many conservatives and religious citizens. In addition, exit polls indicated that he was backed by those concerned with the economy: 42% who picked Gingrich to the 28% who voted for Romney. It appears economic policy is just as important as the moral and ideological values candidates wish to bring to office. This game-changing victory may well aid Gingrich in Florida, where he next prepares to embark upon a series of campaigns.

Newt Gingrich and the 2012 election

The link for this post is a pretty interesting post by FiveThirtyEight.com, one of the blogs that Mr. Silton reccommended at the beginning of the year. Most of their posts are polls and data, but this one focuses on Newt Gingrich, a possible GOP nomination for the 2012 election.

You may recognize Gingrich from the video we watched in class (I'm forgetting the name...but it was about him and Clinton) He's the former Speaker of the House and a real name in conservative politics.

When I first read the article about CPAC that I posted earlier this week, I saw Gingrich's name and thought he would be a front runner in the "straw poll" (mentioned by Sarah). However, as skewed as the results may be (by Tea Party activists or the lack of people that actually voted), Gingrich did pretty poorly.

Something interesting about Five Thirty Eight's post was how they counted Gingrich's professionalism as a weakness. Tom Schaller (author of the post) writes of Gingrich's speech at CPAC, "In little more than a half hour, Gingrich managed to reference the Judiciary Act of 1802, Camus’ The Plague, Orwell’s 1984, Hayek’s notions of centralized planning, and John Paul II. I was waiting for him to announced that copies of the speech's footnotes would be available in the lobby." Gingrich is obviously well educated, and it always suprises me how badly Americans react to this. How is that we go for the good ol' boy rather than the scholar? I mean, George W. Bush, really?

Regardless, I agree with the blog that Gingrich could present a challenge to Obama. And he certainly has the experience and track record to rival all the other potential nominees.