He was on those committees but absentee. He was in the senate 143 days before declaring, and he was campaigning for those 143.  He had 0 experience, and it shows.

Cain does not have foreign experience, but he has something that puts him a lap up on Obama should he win - he knows how to delegate and take advice.

Wise words!  I have looked at the majors (Newt, Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Paul and Cain).  I like Bachmann because of her minimal experience, plus lack of a lot (see previous comments).  I like Cain mostly for his ideas (very similar to Bachmann) and the fact he is not afraid to lay it all out for all to see.  Perry is too fragile, Romney too saddled with baggage, and Newt mainstream.

But when the dust settles, I can easily support any of them over Obama.

That does not factor into my decisions at this time.  Both in 92 and 08, the democrat candidate did not have a prayer at this stage of the game.  Yet they both won.  A year from now, all else being equal with the economy - any of these can beat Obama.  Regardless of what the polls say today.

Romney has the problem that he had to run campaigns in Mass., most recently for Gov. The people there are fairly liberal on some social issues so at that time he had to assure them he wouldn't go against the popular opinion of the residents of that state on certain issues. Polls suggest that he has the best chance to get the centrist vote in the general election. I tend to agree. I personally like Jon Huntsman. He doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to win the primary but he has business, governing, and diplomatic experience. He lacks money, media exposure, and is a moderate to start with so I don't think he had a chance from the get-go.

Hard to say there. Usually depends on swing voter sentiment. This isn't the normal sort of recession cycle so I don't know that prior election sentiments would apply. IMHO neither side is addressing the jobs issue. The construction sector will start to grow only as the housing market bottoms and the manufacturing sector is screwed because China keeps pinching down on rare earth exports. Those are the two sectors that need to be fixed to get the unemployment numbers down. Then there is the Greece issue. That could cause everything to start to unravel.

Hard to say. He's had campaign staff quit because they said he wouldn't listen to them. He looks hard-headed to me.

Ideas? Most have been the same old crap the pundits throw out on a daily basis. I would consider his tax plan an idea however I think by next fall the tax issue will be whether or not to extend the Bush Era tax cuts again.

Newt is going to debate Cain tonight on CNN at 8pm EST. 

I disagree that neither side is addressing the issue. The Chamber of Commerce has already stated what is needed, and most of the republicans have jumped on board.  Eliminate red tape.  Obama just cannot seem to do it.  He is too in love with the power it brings.  Even with China surging, until this year, America was still the #1 manufacturer in the world.  I think if you take the shackles off of Business, they will take care of the recovery.  And I see all the Republicans doing that.

Perhaps some have paid lip service to Cain's ideas, but Cain knows what it takes to get Businesses going.  His tax plan is not perfect, but it is a PLAN.  Which is more than we have gotten from anyone else.  For the past 20 years, we have had politicians running the country - and not doing it very well.  I would like to see a successful business man give it a shot.  At least he knows how to run one, which is something the current president has no clue on.

Tommorow CNBC is going to host the next GOP debate. 8PM EST. It will focus on Economics and jobs. The candidate's business ideas should get a good vetting. 

The Chamber of Commerce is a lobby group, its OPINIONS are very one sided. They represent only one side of the story. There are certainly areas where regulation is hindering certain businesses however this does not fix the job problem. There is a lack of demand. That is the crux of the problem. Big business is sitting on record amounts of capital and are not investing it because there is a lack of demand. History has shown it can take a decade or more to recover from a major financial crises.  All the good economists have stated this over and over and yet so many people in this country still think the panderers are offering them real solutions.

There is still no demand. China is playing unfairly so we end up creating jobs in China to serve their populations demand. Not all bad it does create profits for US companies however the problem is creating jobs domestically and none of the candidates are addressing the issue to the public honestly. 

Wednesday night eight GOP candidates faced-off for the CNBC-hosted debate at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. With questions focused exclusively on economic issues, the debate drew more media attention with the recent sexual harassment allegations against businessman Herman Cain.

To a throng of boos from the audience for the question being asked, Cain responded to "why the American people should elect a president who has character issues?"
 
After stating that he values his character and integrity "more than anything else," Cain said: "Over the last nine days, the voters have voted with their dollars -- and they are saying they don't care about the character assassination. They care about leadership and getting this economy growing and all of the other problems we face."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich got high marks when he said the current administration, the media, and the Occupy Wall Street protesters are unfairly demonizing corporations that make large profits.
 
"I have yet to hear a single reporter ask a single Occupy Wall Street person a single rational question about the economy that would lead them to say, for example, Who's going to pay for the park you're occupying if there are no businesses making a profit?" commented Gingrich.
 
Carol M. Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University and author of Be the People: A Call to Reclaim America's Faith and Promise, believes Gingrich is quickly gaining the confidence of the electorate.
 
"I like Newt, and I think that he comes across as one of the most knowledgeable of the candidates," Swain tells OneNewsNow. "... He inspires confidence based on the fact that he does have experience [and he] comes across as a person also who would be able to tackle a wide range of issues confronting the nation."
 

Texas Governor Rick Perry had the worst blunder of the evening when he could not name the third agency he would want to cut as part of his overhaul of the federal government.

The Chamber of Commerce is echoing its members.  Yes, it is regulations.  If you know it is going to cost you X to hire a worker, you see if he can produce Y, and if so, you hire him.  If you do not know X, then the equation does not work. Small business does not know X because of the regulations.  Washington cannot hire workers. They can only get out of the way and let business do it.  But they are not doing that.  Interest rates are low.  There is moderate demand, but there is no certainty of the costs. hence no hiring.

No, business (not necessarily big) is like the ant.  The uncertainty is why they are not hiring.  If they spend that capital, and the cost of the capital goes up after the commitment to buy it, then they go bust.  Some do that.  You may know of some of the names - Solyndra, Enron, etc.

That is patently false.  The ones you chose to read may be saying that, but I will put up a Walter E. Williams with any you pick.  And he is not alone.  Many economists are saying exactly what I am saying.  There have been worse crises in the past.  The difference today is that government got out of their way in the past.  And it took months, not years to recover.

#1 - China is not playing unfairly.  It is playing hard ball.
#2 - I have not heard from all 8, but I do know most of the republican candidates have indeed addressed the issue honestly.  you do not like their answer, but that does not mean they have not done so.  And the answer is still - less regulation.

It's lack of demand. You need to stop listening to pundits and start listening to economists. Demand will only rise substantially when the housing market bottoms out and recovers.

Everything they say is perfectly crafted to appeal to who they think they can get to vote for them. So if you think they are actually addressing the issues honestly you are Ignorant. And if they think they are presenting the issue honestly then they are the ignorant ones.

Unfortunately most of the candidates address the issue dishonestly. Mostly what I've seen is them wanting to dismantle oversight. That won't work. There are way too many dishonest people in this country. The housing bubble is the perfect example of that.  There are certainly places where less regulation would be beneficial but there are also regulations which not only protect labor, or the air you breath and the water you drink,  but also create jobs. The issue of deregulation is not black and white. There are two sides to this issue and both extremes got it wrong.

For the most part I agree it is hardball. I would say their pirating of technology is unfair but that is all culture. Our society is based on property rights and theirs isn't so even this is really hardball as well.  The only candidate I've seen address this issue intelligently is John Huntsman.

Then name a single financial crisis worse than this one that took months to recover from?

Unfortunately Newt is all about Newt. It should be obvious by now that he will argue the side that gets him elected but what he actually does is based upon who pays him the money. He is the poster child for what is wrong with our government, he is the epitome of an influence peddler. It was his own caucus that put him up for ethics violations when he was speaker and his own caucus that dumped him because he is so corrupt. Sure he looks intelligent. It's not hard when you're debating against the likes of Cain and Perry. But are people really that blind to what Newt is really all about?

http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=39868

Tonight at 5PM EST Frank Luntz will be hosting a GOP debate in Iowa. I think it's going to be centered on social issues. At this time Romney isn't expected to be there. 

Yes. Absolutely. You've got Romney pegged. 

When he was running in Massachusetts, he was pro-abortion. In his 2008 run for President and now this one, he calls himself pro-life.  (Unlike AlGore, at least Romney changed his views in the right direction). 

Romney says he's pro traditional marriage, but his actions in Massachusetts proved he's soft on homosexuality and not going to rock the boat with his wealthy homosexual "marraige" supporters.

In the debates, Romney likes to say how he's different from Obama but if elected, he'll just continue Obama's homosexualization of the US government. 

Romney promoted the homosexual agenda as indicated in the "Romney Report" and the book, "The Romney Deception", as president he would homosexualize all schools, courts and other institutions. His lawyers would sue clergy, churches and synagogues which say that homosexual conduct is sinful and would charge them with "hate speech" and "discrimination".

Have you noticed the media has gone after all the other front runners, but not a peep about Romney?  

The pro-homosexual media is coddling him for this very reason.  

I strongly oppose Romney. 

Your bigotry and ignorance truly shine here.

He's a moderate so those on the left and in the center have fewer problems with him. He will govern more from the center than from an extreme.....just like Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan....etc.

Romney hasn't changed his views. He's simply pandering to social conservatives. He is moderate on some the social issues. He has his religious beliefs on abortion and sexuality but chooses not to impose them on others because we live in a secular society. If you don't want others to take away some of your rights you better learn to let them have theirs.

I wouldn't expect otherwise of you. Instead you will probably vote for the most dishonest, biggest influence peddler in the race.