Husband, the staunch Republican that he is, insisted upon watching the debate last night. I love a good debate for debate’s sake, so I stayed up for the whole thing. Thank goodness for DVR so that we could rewind every time I felt the need to insert my own opinion on why everyone was wrong. But I found myself appreciating the party a bit more after the debate (they really lost me last election, but I’m willing to be woo’d back). I’ve garnered some opinion on several candidates…

Mitt – I like the idea of a businessman at the helm of creating jobs. His snippity comment about a president having to have had a job in order to create them stuck with me. He’s also quite aware of the realities of business, ie, some businesses fail, that’s just part of a free economy. But I’m just not sure I like the idea of a CEOish person also serving as the Commander and Chief of our troops. He may know tax law, but we’re in the middle of a war. He scored a few points saying he’d listen to our generals and take their advice, but I’m still squeemish. Perhaps a good VP with a lot of domestic job responsibilities?
Ron Paul – I likey. He’s wicked smart, probably a bit too brilliant for a chunk of our country to really appreciate. I don’t go to his extremes on some issues (is he a bit on the libertarian border? I’m not familiar with those ideals, but he seemed quite different from the rest of the panel), but what I really appreciated was his honesty and that he wasn’t trying to say what people wanted to hear. He wants to pull troops from the middle east ASAP, and much of the party doesn’t necessarily agree… but he minced no words about his opinion. I like a leader that doesn’t care if he’s liked all the time, because some hard decisions aren’t going to be popular, but that doesn’t make them less right. 
Newt – I was prepared to dislike him, but he did a nice job of putting the media in their place with all their sliced and diced quotes. He doesn’t want to play the political race games (specifically media wars), but he is all about politics. I need to hear more specifics from him, but he’s no longer in the basement for me, even with his extracurricular girlfriend issues. 
Santorum – the guy simply reminds me too much of mega-preacher Joel Osteen. I can’t vote for that. And whoever is getting him ready for these events left the teeth-whitener on too long. 
Pawlenty – a$$. Stop criticizing everyone else and put up some real “this is what I would do” arguments. 
Cain – If I’m going to vote a businessman, I’ll probably go with Mitt. He got a bit shaken on a few early questions, but I really appreciated some of his later responses. There was one specific that I liked, but I can’t seem to find it on my recall.  
Huntsman – He looks like the grinch. Perhaps that’s not a reason to vote a certain way, but I can’t seem to back a man that stole Christmas. I did like his stance on same-sex unions, admitting that as a country we have a ways to go in terms of equity. 
Bachmann – neither here nor there on her. I like some of what she had to say, but nothing really made my fist pump. However, by 5:30 this AM I was stewing over the attempt to make her choose between her biblical hermeneutic of what it means to “submit to your husband” and the insinuation that a woman can’t be faithful to her beliefs about marriage roles and a strong leader at the same time. There’s probably going to be a post on that later. Maybe even today if the babe naps well. 
Highlights of the evening in our living room included discussion about Israel and foreign policy based upon religious beliefs (perhaps we’re favoring a bit much the younger sister when she says, “he hit me first!”??), legislating social issues vs. the Church as the voice and vehicle (civil unions, abortion), and a constant looking at one another, eyebrows raised incredulously over just about anything that Santorum said. After 5 years of marriage, Husband and I are able to talk about money without raised voices or crossed arms. I think we’re on the right track to do the same about politics… 
Visit me elsewhere: