August 11, 2011 : Candidates Who Failed the Marriage Test in Tonight's Republican Debate

This evening, the existing slate of Republican candidates for President in 2012 gathered in Ames, Iowa, to bash Obama and peck at each other. For me, they failed the marriage test. One question asked by the moderators of both Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum was, "Do you favor a single federal marriage law, standard in all 50 states?"

Disburbingly, both of them did, claiming that leaving the rules of marriage to the states was a horrible, messy thing. People move, you know, and might end up finding themselves in a renegade state that had legalized gay marriage, or polygamy, or...whatever.

Do you know what this sounds like? It sounds exactly like President Obama and Attorney General Holder spouting off about how horrible it would be to let the states be involved in any way whatsoever in the border issues. SB 1070? Sue Arizona! No community property statute and fairly short residency requirements in Nevada before filing for a divorce? Sue Nevada!

Anyone who approves of federally mandating a marriage standard (usually between one man and one woman for these supposedly conservative folks) scares the living doo-doo out of me. While (duh!) I'll vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination to run against Obama in the ABO (Anybody But Obama) year of 2012, I truly hope I don't wind up having to vote in the primary for anyone who thinks handing control of our marriages over to the feds is a good idea.

Obamacare isn't even that stupid, and that's saying something. Remember the William Ross Wallace poem, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Rules The World. No, seriously, remember it. Then take just a moment to consider a new, updated poem titled, The Feds That Control Your Nuptials Rule YOUR World. Because they will. When it comes to pure control, turning the citizens of these United States of America into slaves (even more than we are today), Marriage Law is the big dog.

Health care isn't even in it.

And they don't get it.

Plus, on a personal level, I needed to know different states had different laws when I was out there getting those six divorces. Can you spell Nevada?

The Feds That Control Your Nuptials Rule YOUR World. Count on it.

Okay, so why do these mental giants think this is a good idea? Why can't these wizards of the campaign trail see that a Federal Mandate on Marriage wouldn't just be letting the camel's nose into the tent but would be hauling the entire freaking beast in under the canvas, stinky camel farts and all?

You got me.

There were, of course, numerous other issues and bits of byplay during the two hour Fox News presentation. Also a few interesting things noted about the setup itself. For one thing, the set put more light on the moderating panel members (Fox employees) than it did on the candidates (suckers).

This became apparent when I discovered it was impossible to use auto-focus on my camera and still take a snapshot of any moderator in which he/she wasn't totally overexposed. (Which was a mild bummer, since I've no idea where I put the manual.)

Entirely accidental and coincidental, I'm sure.

So...who won the debate? That depends, as usual, on who you ask. Fox News pundits, starting with Hannity and various guests, gave Newt Gingrich the nod for aggressively attacking the media and the debt deal super-committee concept. I can't agree. Personally, I thought he sounded ridiculous.

Then again, I'm not a good judge of Newt. I always think he sounds ridiculous. Nor did I much care for the way he ducked a question by attacking the moderator for asking it. The audience seemed to like him for it, though, so who knows? Maybe he really did come out winners overall.

The Fox "Spin Room" evaluation also felt "nobody laid a glove" on Romney. Maybe not, though it's puzzling why anyone would want to lay a glove on that guy. After Obama, it's ABR, Anybody But Romney.

Mitt also ducked more questions, answering evasively, than any other three candidates combined.

As usual, former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, was not even invited to the debate. Fox claims it's the rules. But there were others I'd much rather have seen--or rather, not seen at all.

Tim Pawlenty launched lots of snarky attacks on Michelle Bachmann, his fellow Minnesotan. His main thrust was the claim that she has "accomplished nothing legislatively" while in Congress. Which is fairly ignorant on his part. He simply doesn't recognize working to keep the Left from destroying America absolutely as "accomplishment". As in, "Pass a law or it doesn't count."

Michelle handled herself well, underscoring her record as a fighter for the People and repeatedly vowing to, "Never rest until Obamacare is repealed". My kind of girl.

Pawlenty just came off looking like a creep. Even Brett Baier, the lead moderator, had to ask, "Are you really upset with her record or just upset that she's beating you in the polls?" Which I thought was the best question of the night.

Jon Huntsman...who cares?

Ron Paul felt we're being way too tough on Iran and should knock off with the dumb sanctions, just let them people go, quit trying to tell them they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. He was also, overall, about as testy as a junkyard dog with hemorrhoids. One of the other candidates (don't remember which) told him he was as naive as Obama about Iran. Which sounds about right.

Which leaves Herman Cain--who, in my book, won this debate just as convincingly as he did the first time around. Back then, he didn't know squat on a number of issues, particularly when it came to foreign relations.

He does now.

Brett Baier did his best to trip Herman up, bascially asking if he was still as dumb (I paraphrase) as before when it came to, for example, Afghanistan. But Herman was ready for him and then some. In fact, he was well prepared for every question asked; the difference (from before) was night into day.

If Herman doesn't get the nomination, I really hope the nominee considers him for the V.P. slot. All that business experience, a quick study, great speaking voice, great presence...and Obama's worst nightmare to boot.

That's about it, except of course for the group class photo. The candidates were asked,

"If you were President and had a deal with Congress on the table that contained ten budget cuts for every one tax increase, would you still refuse to sign the Bill?"

They all raised their hands. The good news is that nearly half of them might even have been sincere about it.

Remember in November 2012.