Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Sherlock Holmes on the Nevada Primary debate

In the 2009 remake of Star Trek, Spock, in keeping with his flawless logic, quotes Sherlock Holmes, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” The debates Tuesday in Las Vegas revealed quite a number of truths. The most important and obvious truth is that Ron Paul is the only candidate that can stand a chance of being elected against Obama in 2012. If Nevada's debate proved anything, it is that every other hopeful has so much baggage that he or she is an open target for the liberal press. Following is an analysis of how each candidate stacks up.

Romney and Perry Posturing
Chris Carlson/AP

Mitt Romney: Tuesday's debate could have easily been dubbed The Rick & Mitt Show. Much of the debate time was spent by Romney and Perry going back and forth on who has the strongest ties to the federal government and more illegal immigrants on staff. The fact is that Romney is Obama. They have virtually the same take on health care, the same financial supporters, the same corporate ties and the same political agenda. Why go through all that swearing in and cabinet selection just to get the same old policies? Mitt offers nothing to independent voters or to the disenfranchised Obama supporters.

Rick Perry: Perry made one truthful statement in the debate, which was that he is definitely not Barack Obama. No, Perry is George Bush! Been there, done that, sorry Rick. During brief moments of lucidity, Perry spends most of his time talking about ways to spend more money in order to fix a broken economy. Instead of building a billion dollar fence across Texas, he advocates utilizing sophisticated drones and more troops or border patrol agents. Doesn't seem to be very cost effective either way.

Herman Cain: Cain's ties to the Koch brothers and the Federal Reserve promise more of the same failed economic policies. While his success in the market place certainly is impressive it appears to have been done with lots of elbow work, both grease and rubbing. Cain does not appear to have the level of sophistication required to handle the tough economic and foreign policy issues that will confront him immediately should he take office. His ignorance of foreign policy, as revealed in his statement that the Iraq war was beneficial, as well as his staunch conservative beliefs, will kill him in the presidential runoff. While Cain may have the Koch end of the Tea Party in hand, Paulians and fiscal conservatives who see the bigger picture will not support him. He certainly won't garner the support of independents and disgruntled Democrats either. With American (and global) sentiment running high against corporatism and war profiteering, and the grassroots now being so divided, Cain is in no position to defeat a more liberal contender.

Michele Bachmann: Bachmann cannot beat Obama, period. One of the issues she shares in common with most of the other contenders is her strict support of Israel. This is one of the sacred cows of this particular party. Make no mistake, much of this is superstitious and fanatical, as if Israel were some sort of good luck charm. One interesting point in the debate was when the recent exchange of Palestenian terrorists for Israeli prisoners was referenced. Nearly all of the nominees stated that they would have a "no negotiating with terrorists" policy which went directly against Israel's latest decision. Ron Paul was the only one who pointed out that Reagan had once made a similar exchange, which appeared to support Netanyahu's course of action. Paul also stated that if all foreign aid were to stop, Israel would benefit the most since America gives more military aid to her enemies than to Israel herself. Paul also contends that America's aid compromises Israel's sovereignty and independence. In fact, on several occasions, Paul has advocated for Israel to be able to do what she needs in order to defend her best interests in opposition to other political voices. In Paul's view, the relationship with Israel is one between two sovereign, friendly entities and not paternalistic in nature. The one way to recognize this as political rhetoric is to realize that the voices who declare Israel needs protection are silent when it comes to countries like Zimbabwe, Darfur and other "insignificant" nations. Ron Paul's non-interventionist policy allows for private, humanitarian aid with fewer government regulations whenever and wherever necessary.

Newt Gingrich: Talk about baggage...

Rick Santorum: Ibid Bachmann.

Ron Paul: Despite his full media blackout, Dr. Paul continues to gain momentum, especially on the internet. He is the only presidential candidate, bar none, who has a full understanding of the complex issues facing our nation and the world as seen in the attached video. His views are the most Christian, the most humane and the most practical of any other presidential hopeful. Although he may sound like a broken record with his "end the Fed" rhetoric, he is fully aware of the corporatist/political connection now driving America over the brink. His understanding of this threat goes beyond that of many liberals who call for more government regulations on businesses when this works directly in favor of major corporations who can afford to comply (or defy), thereby forcing out competition. Paul also understands that one of America's largest industries and employers today is government. This is especially problematic since the government produces no commodity and generates no real "revenue". This, combined with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people and entities receiving some type of government assistance, creates an economic "black hole". It is this level of understanding, along with a grasp of the principles of Natural Law, Freedom and free market economics that are required if America is to survive. When it comes to a basic understanding of these principles, Ron Paul has the doctorate.


Report this ad