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.

GOP response to SOTU 2012

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels delivered the Republican Party response to the president's Syaye of the Union speech Tuesday evening. He mirrored Obama's opening, saluting him for taking down Osama bin Ladden and other Al-Qaeda officers and talked about other political things before denying the positive messages of Obama's speech. Daniels said Obama was not responsible for the economic problems the US has faced, but he did allege that Obama has done nothing that improved economic conditions durring his three years in office. Daniels also announced opposition to the growing gap between the top and bottom of the income ladder before saying the US was likely to follow the economic path of Greece and Spain if no new action is taken.

A notable political point Daniels made regarding helping his state: "First, make money. Be successful. If you make a profit, you'll have something left to hire someone else, and some to donate to the good causes we love."

Daniels talked about opposition to "extremism" regarding energy policies and called for greater private sector activity to create jobs and a simplied tax code to minimize loophole abuse and be less favorable to the rich. He called for Medicare and Social Security reform. He also blamed the Democrats of the Senate for all the gridlock in Congress and said that the Republicans were responsible for anything Congress managed to accomplish.

He ended his speech saying that Republicans can restore America from the damage done and make "our 'city on a hill' shine once again."

I was bothered that there were no details regarding Social Security and Medicare reform. I also feel that he was too extreme in saying the US could follow in the footsteps of Greece and Spain. Both this spreech and Obama's seriously bothered me as they both projected American exceptionalism.
So AP Gov folks, what do you think of the GOP response?

Mitt vs. Mitt

During the recent Republican debates it seems that Republican candidate Mitt Romney has had different opinions on contradicting issues such as Pro-choice and Anti-choice. As a result, many voters have noticed and questioned his views, but more importantly, Democrats have noticed as well. For example, according to the The New York Times article "Democrats Take Aim at Romney in New Ad" (click on Link), Romney makes a complaint against "Obamacare" claiming that it is, "mainly focused on its mandate that individuals buy coverage, not on the exchanges." However, Romney is in no position to put down "Obamacare" when, "He has been on both sides of the individual mandate issue, too."

On the other hand, Andrea Saul, Romney's Spokesperson, says “Instead of focusing on the economy and creating jobs, President Obama and Democrats are focused on tearing down Mitt Romney.”

Well, then what? Is it the Democrats who are at fault for focusing to much on tearing down Romney? Or should Romney be targeted for his contradicting views?

(If the video doesn't work you can see it if you click on the link)

Republican Flip-Flopping

Here's a picture, courtesy of Talking Points Memo, that illustrates how Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's staff is reacting to the Democrat's proposal to sell Medicare insurance to people that are 55-64 years of age.

I'm Voting Republican

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqczNpLg9b8

ok so this video is a little outddated but I accidentally stumbled upon it during a break from supplement writing so I thought you'd all enjoy watching it. Yes, it is incredibly biased and satirical but hey, it's still funny!

Now that that crazy old flu thing is fading, we can start worrying about some other things!

No, I'm not being weird, I was just trying to make a sarcastic title about that thing that Zach Agoff mentioned. Anyway, we've got lots more to deal with. Who will replace Souter on the supreme court? According to Obama "a pragmatist, not a radical", well that's not too revealing so let's move on. How about... this! This is pretty great

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/04/palin-joins-old-pal-mccain-to-rescue-gop-from-extinction/

Palin is coming back into our lives. I know I missed her. While I guess it would be pretty cruel to keep her out, I still think it's pretty crazy to have the old dynamic duo back to try and clean up a mess that they definitely helped make. And now Palin has joined the "panel of experts". I would be very interested to have a good interview with some of these GOP guys and ask them some questions. Isn't bringing Palin back into the mix just gonna remind people of the embarrasing interviews and Tina Fey-enacted satires? I'll be surprised if this new Council really does anything at all. To me, it seems like the time to join up with the government and try to make some changes, not make more organizations to complicate the climate.