Who Watched the Republican Debate Last Night?

I really, really like Cain. As a matter of fact I made my first contribution ever to a Presidential campaign to him, planning to do another one.

 

Prefencing my remarks with the statement IMO the only differance in politicians is their rhetoric. With this in mind based on what I heard I think the three that enhanced their position most were Romney, Huntsman and Gingrich, Based on most polls Gov Perry is the front runner. Of course Gingrich has too much baggage to be considered a viable candidate. The three that IMO lost ground were M. Bachmann, R. Paul and R. Santorum

 

Here's my take --

3 Winners:
Romney - Looked and sounded presidential. Knew the subject matter. Answered the questions. Didn't come out swinging, but hit back when necessary. Decided not pile on Perry when he had the chance regarding HPV vaccinations. This performance may bring him back to the top.

Gingrich - Continues to be the elder statesman and refuses to let the media create arguments within the candidates. Totally unelectable with too much baggage. Always interesting to listen to though and this performance probably keeps him in the race for a while longer.

Huntsman - By far, the most moderate of the group. I too appreciate his pledge to make any pledges. Came across as thoughtful and experienced. Last night, he came across as the electable alternative to Romney and Perry.

3 Ties:
Perry - Attack, attack, attack, then attack some more. And then say crazy things. Scares me to death. IMHO, unelectable.

Cain - Good ideas, but wonder how long he can stay in the race.

Santorum - Once again, makes strong points when he answers but relegated to too few questions.

2 Losers:
Bachmann - Looking more and more like a gadfly. Her answers were so far off, she sounded like she didn't even hear the questions.

Paul - Continues to be the crazy uncle in the room -the Dennis Kucinich of the Republicans. The best that can happen is that he is ignored - pretty much understood by everyone but Perry.

 

Ron Paul, hands down.

He actually answered questions, instead of just hitting his talking points like all the other candidates. It is amazing that the public is so brainwashed, that when a person just speaks normally, instead of using the standard robotic drone of politics, people think they are "crazy."

The idea that we need government to regulate medication (when the drug companies are already writing the regulations...a point made by Paul that is conveniently overlooked by everyone), is nuts. The FDA is the most mixed up, backwards organization in the history of the US. It has resulted in the deaths of untold millions of people, delaying life saving medication, approving "alternate" medication because of politics and lobbying, etc. I am insulted by the fact that the government thinks I am so incompetent, that I cannot make my own choices on medication, car purchases, etc. What is even more insane, is that this liberty looks so "whacky" to so many...

"WHAT?! We won't have the government to coddle us, and hold us, and tell us everything will be o.k.? I need the government to make sure I am wearing a seatbelt, and that I have enough fluoride in my toothpaste, and that I wear a coat when its too chilly...I could NEVER make it on my own..."

This kind of weak willed, anti-liberty sentiment is EXACTLY what has led us to the socialist, semi-fascist ridiculousness that we have today. I hope all of you knocking Ron Paul vote for Rick Perry. I really do. You deserve each other... :tonofbricks:

 

I live on the coast, and know a fairly well off gentleman that did precisely that. FEMA (and Texas' own governmental agency), are the only insurance possible for people in my zone. And I know a BUNCH of very cautious retirees at church that would have located elsewhere, had they not had the ability to get insurance. Again, Paul is spot-on.

 

FYI:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...n-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library

 

When my daughter has a reaction to a medication that came from who knows where, I'm supposed to be ok with that?

 

No sir. Your supposed to trust your doctor, who prescribed it, who has devoted a huge portion of his life to know what medications are and do...instead of bureaucrats who have absolutely no clue, and are just trying to ram things through for monetary reasons. Your also supposed to take personal responsibility, look at the companies research, and so forth.

Do you think the FDA stops dangerous medications? Cause if you do, you are crazy. How many medications in the last few years have been shown to be dangerous, where it was later shown that the development research had SHOWN that it was dangerous, had FDA and bureaucratic cover ups, rammed it through by lobbying, etc. etc.

The FDA is a FALSE SENSE of security.

 

The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), veterinary products, and cosmetics.

The FDA also enforces other laws, notably Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and associated regulations, many of which are not directly related to food or drugs. These include sanitation requirements on interstate travel and control of disease on products ranging from certain household pets to sperm donation for assisted reproduction.
-Wikipedia.

Do you really think we'd be better off with deregulation of such things?

 

YES. Imagine that; I think that medical care can best be controlled by the people trained in it, rather than bureaucrats who are out to make a buck, and get wined and dined by lobbyists.

 

And do you think doctors are not in the profession for the paycheck? Do you think the drug companies would not wine and dine the docs more than they do now?

 

Slightly O/T: The multi-client call center I work for takes First Notice of Loss for the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association and the Texas FAIR Plan Association, along with 5 other insurance companies. We don't get many calls from them, so I'm one of only eight people who answers for them. However, in the event of a catastrophe, we temporally put all agents on those clients.

 

Doctors are more easily held accountable, personally. Bureaucrats just have their company sued, and forced to give a small percent of their enormous profits back...

 

Doctors are way too busy treating patients, keeping up with billing, insurance and continuing education to go out and research all the various drugs and their interactions. I don't think the average patient has the knowledge or resources to evaluate the thousands of medications that are out there.

Can you also build your own nuclear plant?

 

Really? Because the doctors I have spoken to about it love the idea. Are you a doctor? The BUREAUCRATS and lobbyists who make these decisions are no more qualified than I.


Besides, as Paul noted, private organizations would develop (think in terms of the Better Business Bureau, or the various other consumer organizations such as the American Medical Association), which are far better at gauging these drugs, and would not have the power to hold up life saving medications.

 

You do know that the Food and Drug Administration employs doctors, right?

 

You know that the few doctors it employs, are actually paid by the Pharmaceutical companies that are trying to get drugs approved, right?

Do you know how ridiculous it is that there is a government regulatory board, that KEEPS supposedly "free" individuals from life saving medicine? The government has no business saying "You can't have that life saving medicine. We haven't decided to allow it yet."

If the FDA was nothing more than an informatory commission, it might not be quite as objectionable. But in its current form, it is nothing more than an affront to life and Liberty. What I do with my life is my business...not the governments. If I want to spend money on a long shot experimental drug (when I am dying anyway), thats my business, not some bureaucrat's whose job it is to make sure the pharmaceutical company keeps its monopoly and high prices.