Seven Republican presidential contenders will take the stage in Manchester, New Hampshire this evening at 8:00pm.
The debate is sponsored by the New Hampshire Union Leader, CNN and WMUR and runs tonight from 8 to 10 p.m. at St. Anselm College's Sullivan Arena.
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, businessman Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum are scheduled to participate....
Tonight's debate has some competition for viewers, as the sixth game of the Stanley Cup playoff finals between the Boston Bruins and Vancouver Canucks begins at 8 p.m., which is when the debate kicks off.
I'll be switching between channels. I wasn't that interested in the South Carolina debate, but this one is different. It's closer to home, for one thing, and for another, Mitt Romney will be there. Romney is the front runner at this point, even though it's really too early to even think about front runners. An awful lot can happen between now and November 2012, but it starts happening now.
I've never seen Michele Bachmann in a debate, but I've read that she can be very persuasive, and that she has a history of winning against long odds. I'm very much looking forward to seeing her in action.
Herman Cain is less likely to be the surprise that he was in South Carolina, but he's going to have an impact. I predict a minor gaffe by Cain tonight. He doesn't always have the ready answer. But he will do well because he has message the resonates with his approach to solving problems.
It's hard for me to imagine Newt Gingrich winning over any new support after first trashing the Ryan Medicare solution, and then watching virtually his entire campaign staff quit on him.
Ron Paul will do what Ron Paul always does. He will appeal to the libertarian crowd, and that will ultimately be the extent of his support.
Tim Pawlenty made a good showing yesterday on Fox News Sunday under some pretty tough questioning by Chris Wallace. He has an aggressive plan for attacking our fiscal problems through a combination of spending cuts, regulatory relief, and tax cuts that are designed to promote economic growth. There is no way we get the nation out of this mess without serious economic growth. I think he will do well tonight.
Romney always does well, but he has got to come up with some credible answers on the topic of RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare. The case cannot be made that RomneyCare was OK but ObamaCare is not. He's painted himself into a corner by insisting that RomneyCare was somehow the right thing for Massachusetts. I know some Massachusetts consumers who disagree.
I have never been impressed by Rick Santorum and I don't expect him to change that this evening. I've always been more of a libertarian than a conservative, and Santorum has always been a religious conservative. I prefer the candidate who can articulate the underlying economic theory to the conservative position. I'm not sure he can do that.
And finally, I expect the Boston Bruins to extend the Stanley Cup series to seven games. Go Bruins!
They banned Gary Johnson from the debate. It's unacceptable.
Posted by: Rob Sama | June 13, 2011 at 05:38 PM
more people are beginning to see how important our two camps are to each other. I only wish there were 1 or 2 more libertarians on that stage with them. With any luck Bauchman will break out some anti-fed rhetoric. No chance in hell though of getting a validating voice of support for non-interventionism.
Posted by: Online Home Inspector | June 14, 2011 at 04:18 AM
Rob, I think the key criterion for inclusion was that a candidate had to show at least one percent support in a national poll, and Johnson apparently hadn't gotten it.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 14, 2011 at 05:55 AM
I am just going with the best in a worst situation. My ultimate situation would be a Resource Based Economy, politics replaced by coming to decisions based on best scientific and engineering practices. Overall social change is needed. Thanks for telling me about those things on Ron.
Posted by: Online Home Inspector | June 14, 2011 at 10:23 AM
If the Democrats are for the poor and out to help the welfare state as the media likes to tell us then something is very wrong and does not make sense. Democrats had full control of both Houses for nearly 40 years until 1994, in that time they had JFK, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. 16 years of full Democratic control. Obama had two years of full control and one year with a super filibuster proof majority. Simply put if everyone voted party lines they could have passed any legislatio¬n they wanted. Actions speak, you can preach and say what you want but both parties are for the rich because they themselves are rich. The 1964 civil rights bill was unsuccessfully held up by two Senate Democrats, Robert Byrd who passed not long ago tied up the Senate for like 60 days trying to filibuster and block passage of the bill. They mustered enough votes to override his filibuster with 80% Republican voting to pass the bill and 61% Dem. voting to pass the House bill and 82% rep. 69% Dem. in the Senate. Hardly the party of the poor and minorities. Republican or Democrat, they are all out to help the rich, we need to take away all their perks and you will see some real progress on helping the working class and the poor instead of the rich people and coffers who give them all money so they will vote to help them get even richer.
Posted by: Great Golf Strategies | June 14, 2011 at 10:32 PM
Democrats are not for the poor, they are for the dependent, whether they're poor or not. So if a Fortune 500 company is heavily dependent upon government subsidy to stay in operation they get support from the Democrats because the Democrats are going to get campaign contributions in return. Does the name General Motors ring a bell?
The strategy of the Democrats is make everybody and everything dependent upon government and on the good will of big government Democrats. they would like you to feel that your livelihood and well being are entirely dependent upon Democrats and that you must vote for them and contribute to them. Democrats are not for people who are in any way independent.
I'll take the Republicans every time.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 15, 2011 at 05:03 PM