reagan library debate showcases romney, perry fight

Simi Valley, CA – Former First Lady Nancy Reagan and The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library played host to eight GOP Presidential candidates Wednesday night in Simi Valley, California. It was Texas Governor Rick Perry’s first debate after announcing he would run for President and many Republican activists were eager to see how he would perform. The early debate centered on Mitt Romney and Rick Perry who jabbed at each other’s records as Governors. Perry, who leads in national polls, tried to criticize Romney for implementing Romneycare, the Massachusetts healthcare insurance reform law that many conservatives think is too similar to Obama’s healthcare reform initiative. But Romney forcefully defended his record and turned the conversation to jobs and his private sector experience to turn the economy around.

Perry went after Romney’s accomplishments on creating jobs. “He (Romney) had one of the lowest job creation rates in the country,” Perry said. “As a matter of fact, we created more jobs in the last three months in Texas than he created in four years in Massachusetts.” Romney quickly shot back noting that Texas has no state income tax, a Republican supreme court and a Republican legislature. “George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, Governor,” Romney said.

While Rick Perry didn’t make any gaffes, he didn’t impressive the hundreds of Republican activists who came to watch either. Perry survived.

“I was really waiting for Perry,” said one long time Republican fundraiser who flew in from New York. “He came in very confident, kind of cocky, and finished deflated. I think he is realizing this is going to be a long and hard road to the nomination.”

Jon Huntsman, Jr. out-performed himself from the last debate and gave his campaign a much needed boost. Huntsman, whose previous debate performance was roundly criticized as weak, surprised many activists by displaying never before seen confidence. Huntsman easily spoke of economic issues and the American spirit and seemed comfortable this time. But Michelle Bachmann struggled to get noticed. Fresh off the announcement that campaign guru Ed Rollins would be stepping down from running the Bachmann campaign’s day to day operations, Bachmann surprised the crowd when she criticized President Obama for supporting NATO’s Libya mission.

“Bachmann started to sound more like Ron Paul,” one California Republican said. The question and answer on Libya was one of the only foreign policy questions and answers of the night.

NBC News, which co-hosted the debate with POLITICO, was roundly criticized by bloggers and pundits for the moment in the debate where they invited a Telemundo reporter onto the stage to ask a question about immigration. Mary Katherine Ham of the Daily Caller tweeted, “NBC: “Thank you, Anchor w Hispanic Surname. We are now finished with the immigration portion of this debate. You may leave.” And Matthew Hurt of Arlington, Virginia tweeted, “Connie Chung will be on later to ask a question about China. #reagandebate #subtleracism”

Newt Gingrich demonstrated why he was elected Speaker of the House in 1994 by uniting the Republican presidential candidates against a common enemy – President Obama. Gingrich also got the applause line of the night from those in the debate hall when he proclaimed that English should be the official language of the United States. Gingrich also went after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke saying, “I think he’s been the most inflationary, dangerous and power-centered chairman of the Fed in the history of the Fed.”

But at the end of the evening it was clear that the Republican nomination for President is between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Unless someone else enters the race.

bill clinton must be furious with obama’s nobel win

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-grenell/what-peace-did-he-achieve_b_386972.html

What Peace Did He Achieve?

Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Barack Obama have all been given Nobel Peace Prizes. Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher have not.

Since 1901, the Nobel Committee has awarded the annual Prize to an entity, group or individual who works for peace in a significant way. Well, technically there have been 19 times that the Committee felt as if no one deserved the Prize and chose not to name a winner. The last time no winner was named was 1972.

Nancy Reagan must surely be disappointed that her husband helped bring Communism to its knees and yet President Reagan didn’t get the Prize, Mikhail Gorbachev did in 1990. Although maybe there is still hope for Reagan since Dag Hammarskjold won the prize in 1961 after he was dead. And Jimmy Carter was first ignored in 1978 after bringing Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat together to forge a peace deal between Egypt and Israel. Begin and Sadat won that year instead and Carter won a make-up award in 2002. Gore didn’t win as a sitting U.S. Vice President – he also got a make-up win later in 2007. Although Charles Dawes was a sitting U.S. Vice President in 1925 when he won for the Allied Reparation Commission.

Although you don’t have to be Mother Teresa to win one (she won in 1979), Bill Clinton still hasn’t been awarded the Prize and I am sure he must be furious. All that work on the Dayton Peace Accords and handshakes on Middle East peace at Camp David weren’t enough to get President Clinton the nod. Although other sitting Presidents have won – Woodrow Wilson in 1919 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1906.

While some people talk about Obama’s win as an award for the HOPE of peace, last week’s escalation of war in Afghanistan with the announcement of an additional 30,000 American troops certainly is awkward timing.

And if the criteria to win the Prize is about HOPE, then why not John Danforth in 2004 for bringing the Northern and Southern Sudanese leaders together to sign an agreement in front of the United Nations Security Council whom he brought to Kenya, Africa in a special session? Or George Mitchell could have been this year’s make-up win, like Carter was, for the plethora of issues he has worked on or is currently working on. At least HOPING for Mitchell is based on past performances.

The United Nations seems to win without the Committee looking at its performance record. And UN Secretary-Generals are a shoe-in to win the Prize just by getting their title. Kofi won in 2001, the UN peacekeepers in 1988, UNHCR in 1981. And although UNICEF hasn’t won since 1965, they are currently led by a Republican so we all understand why they aren’t currently eligible.

The Nobel Prize Committee has damaged its credibility by giving the 2009 Prize to Barack Obama. It should have chosen a make-up award from past credible peace makers or it could have made this the 20th time it hasn’t named a winner.