On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest and best score, here is how The Liberty Sphere rates John McCain and Barack Obama on the real issues at stake in tonight's debate--9/26/08.
Solving the present financial crisis:
McCain--10
Obama--0
Explanation--McCain's thrust is with more government accountability, reduced government spending, and therefore reduced government interference in private enterprise. Obama has sided with the Democrats in Congress, and George Bush, in spending 700 billion of taxpayers' money for a bailout of a mess created by federal government meddling in business affairs.
Size and scope of government:
McCain--10
Obama--0
Explanation--McCain wants to reign in government spending, which he describes as 'raging out of control.' This means fewer programs and smaller government. Obama has proposed 800 billion dollars' worth of new programs, requiring an unprecedented expansion of the size and scope of government.
Taxes:
McCain--10
Obama--4
Explanation--McCain has stated he wants to cut the capital gains tax which will pump billions of dollars into a slumping banking and mortgage economy. He also opposes raising taxes on small businesses. McCain supports extending the Bush tax cuts well beyond 2010 when they are set to expire. Obama, on the other hand, wants to raise taxes significantly on small businesses and their owners because his definition of 'rich' includes small business owners whose businesses make over $250,000 per year. This will hurt these people who employ 80% of American workers, forcing them out of business. Obama also opposes reducing the capital gains tax. The one bright spot in the Obama economic plan is his tax cut for 95% of Americans. For that he gets a rating of '4,' but the fact that he does not couple this with necessary spending reductions prevents his tax cuts from benefiting anyone in the long term.
Energy policy:
McCain--8
Obama--5
Explanation--McCain supports drill here, drill now on the outer continental shelf. Obama has repeatedly stated he opposes it, though he claimed tonight he is for it. McCain also supports not only more oil drilling, but development of wind, solar, nuclear, coal, hydrogen fuel cell, and natural gas--an 'all of the above' approach. Obama, on the other hand, has repeatedly nixed not only offshore oil drilling, but coal, nuclear, and natural gas, although tonight he claimed he is for all of these. We do give him points, however, on his support for wind, solar, and hydrogen fuel cell. Both McCain and Obama lose points on refusing to allow oil drilling in a very small part of ANWR.
Environmental policy:
McCain--5
Obama--0
Explanation--McCain has a penchant for siding with environmentalist extremists on issues that we find deplorable. However, his stance on this is nowhere near the dangerous and socialistic notions of Obama, who essentially has bought into the 'man is to blame for climate change, period' point of view, failing to consider natural phenomena which have nothing to do with human activity.
The War in Iraq:
McCain--10
Obama--0
Explanation--McCain supported the mission but not how it was conducted. When McCain's views on how the war should be conducted were implemented, we began to win outright in Iraq. Obama still says he would have opposed the troop surge, which is responsible for the dramatic turnaround. No one with common sense could oppose something that is helping America to win.
U.S. foreign policy:
McCain--10
Obama--0
Explanation--McCain has been to war, knows the issues involved, knows foreign leaders personally, and understands the meaning of the term 'leadership.' Obama knows nothing. He would sit down with thugs, dictators, and Commies, thus legitimizing their views on various things such as annihilating Israel, terrorism, and aggression. Frankly, I am frightened of the possibility that this nation could elect to public office a complete novice such as Obama when the world grows more dangerous by the day.
Total score on the first debate:
McCain--63 out of a possible 70
Obama--9 out of a possible 70
Notice we did not consider such peripheral issues such as 'how the candidate looked on TV,' 'did they ever stutter or stammer a bit?' or 'how often they frowned or smiled or wiped their nose,' or even worse, 'did they appear angry, frustrated, or giddy?' Hell, why not assess whether or not we think they need to go to the bathroom!
These things are petty, juvenile, and should not be part of a serious discussion.
Frankly, we hate TV debates for that very reason. They tend to lend themselves to an emphasis on ALL of the wrong things rather than the real issues--a casualty of television 'journalism.'
Showing posts with label ratings of Presidential candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ratings of Presidential candidates. Show all posts
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Did You Notice in the Ratings of Candidates....
In The Liberty Sphere's final ratings of both Republican and Democratic candidates for President, did you notice that no Democrat rated above a 4 on the 1-10 scale?
And did you notice that no Republican rated below a 6 on that same scale?
This means, of course, that on the 8 key issues impacting human liberty, ANY of the Republicans are to be preferred over ANY of the Democrats.
And yes, my friends, this means that Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and even Mike Huckabee rate much higher on the issues impacting freedom than ANY of the Democratic candidates.
Rudy, Mitt, and Mike have their problems, no doubt--problems that cause us concern. But those difficulties pale in comparison to the baggage carried by the Hildabeast, Obama, Edwards, or any of the other Socialists seeking the Democratic nomination.
Not that I expect all of you to agree, but still, when you look at the basic facts and the record, any of the GOP candidates can be counted on to attempt to preserve human liberty while ALL of the Democrats promote issues that squelch that liberty.
And did you notice that no Republican rated below a 6 on that same scale?
This means, of course, that on the 8 key issues impacting human liberty, ANY of the Republicans are to be preferred over ANY of the Democrats.
And yes, my friends, this means that Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and even Mike Huckabee rate much higher on the issues impacting freedom than ANY of the Democratic candidates.
Rudy, Mitt, and Mike have their problems, no doubt--problems that cause us concern. But those difficulties pale in comparison to the baggage carried by the Hildabeast, Obama, Edwards, or any of the other Socialists seeking the Democratic nomination.
Not that I expect all of you to agree, but still, when you look at the basic facts and the record, any of the GOP candidates can be counted on to attempt to preserve human liberty while ALL of the Democrats promote issues that squelch that liberty.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Ratings on ALL of the Candidates
With only two weeks to go until the Iowa Caucuses, which will officially open the U.S. Presidential primary season, the Liberty Sphere will issue our final ratings on ALL of the candidates, both Republican and Democrat.
Periodically as the candidates have participated in debates around the country, The Liberty Sphere has rated the candidates on the views expressed during the those debates using our exclusive 'Liberty Scale.'
The Scale is based upon eight key issues that we deem to be key to human liberty: low taxes, secure borders (and enforcement of immigration laws), gun rights, abortion, national defense, U.S. foreign policy, the war on terror, and healthcare (specifically keeping our healthcare system private and the best in the world).
We then rate the candidates on a scale of 1 to 10 based upon these 8 key issues that impact liberty, with 10 being the highest score.
As you will note below, GOP candidates came out very well comparatively speaking on human liberty issues. The Democrats did not fare so well.
No Democrat, for example, except for Billy Richardson has definitively voiced support for gun rights. But Billy has mammoth problems in just about every other area. His policy statements call for big government solutions for every problem, the price tag of which will run into the billions of dollars. Thus, his views in essence mirror those of European-styled Socialists such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.
In addition, we have stated repeatedly that we do not feel that Richardson has the intellect or the ability to be President. The job is simply way over his head.
On the flip side, every single GOP candidate supports a strong defense, low taxes, private healthcare (although some would mandate insurance through private companies), and American capitalism. The rub comes in on the issues of gun rights, foreign policy, the war on terror, and illegal immigration.
All of the GOP candidates give assent to believing in gun rights, securing our borders, and a strong defense. The issue becomes who is most believable given their past record.
In addition, U.S. foreign policy and the War on Terror are key issues in a dangerous world in which the U.S. is in the unavoidable position of being the world's only superpower. Is this the time to retreat into a cocoon and usher in an era of isolationism when there are upwards of 80 million Jihadists around the world who want to kill us and the rest of the world?
Some of the readers of the Liberty Sphere clearly will not like our final analysis of the candidates. But we will be as honest and candid in our assessment and ratings as possible. But remember, this is merely 'as we see it.' Clearly there are other points of view, and we acknowledge those.
Thus, based upon a careful observation of the Republican and Democratic candidates, here is our final list of ratings as we stand on the brink of the primary season.
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES
FRED THOMPSON is our choice as the best candidate for the office of President. He is an entirely consistent conservative and federalist, an advocate for gun rights, low taxes, private healthcare, a strong defense, a pragmatic U.S. foreign policy, the War on Terror, the sanctity of human life, and secure borders with policies that discourage illegal aliens from entering the country. He gets a perfect score of 10.
DUNCAN HUNTER is our second choice, but he has failed to get the traction and recognition it takes to win primaries, which is a shame. On the issues he is as reliably conservative as Fred Thompson, but we do not feel that he is a viable candidate, unfortunately. He also gets a perfect score of 10.
MIKE HUCKABEE has been a major disappointment as his views have come into focus only recently. While the candidate is strong on gun rights, abortion, foreign policy, the war on terror, national defense, and healthcare, he is highly suspect on taxes and illegal aliens. Because the issues of taxes and immigration are so important, his score on the Liberty Scale has suffered. He gets no higher than a 7.
RON PAUL is a mixed bag. While we fully embrace his views on gun rights, taxes, abortion, healthcare, national defense, and immigration, we find his views on U.S. foreign policy and the war on terror to be highly troublesome. For this reason we give Dr. Paul a final rating of 7.
JOHN MCCAIN has come on strong since he got his wrists slapped on the immigration debacle. He has also acknowledged that McCain-Feingold had some unintended consequences that were troublesome and needed to be corrected. On the issues of guns, abortion, taxes, healthcare, national defense, the war on terror, and foreign policy, the candidate is fairly strong. The fact that McCain is a genuine war hero takes him a long way in our book. Thus, his final rating is 7.
MITT ROMNEY is problematic because of the inconsistencies. How do we know for sure where he stands? Yet the candidate is no Socialist and supports American free enterprise and our capitalistic system. He gets a rating of 6.
RUDY GIULIANI was clearly the right man at the right time for NYC when the Twin Towers were attacked. No doubt he is a strong leader who can stand strong for America's interests around the world. We also know he is not a Socialist and expressed privately his grave concern over Hillary Clinton's socialistic policies. We give him a final rating of 6.
TOM TANCREDO, we hear, will announce today that he is dropping out of the race. He has been a great voice for immigration reform and stopping the flow of illegal aliens into the country. We saw his debate performances improve dramatically over the months, and we hate to see him go.
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES
Unfortunately no Democrat rates above a 4. Almost without fail, the stance of the Democratic candidates on the issues are the diametric opposite of all The Liberty Sphere finds to be imperative.
BILL RICHARDSON--4. His only redeeming quality is his stance on gun rights.
JOE BIDEN--4. A liberal, no doubt, but a pragmatic one. He knows plenty about foreign policy and would place America first in an international squabble. This is his only redeeming quality.
MIKE GRAVEL--3. I gave him a 10 for NOT showing up for one of the debates. Once again, he is a liberal, but a 1960s-styled liberal who has at least a little common sense.
CHRIS DODD--2. Socialist. He gets a 2 because he has more common sense and tons more experience than the four listed below.
HILLARY CLINTON--1. Socialist.
BARACK OBAMA--1. Socialist.
JOHN EDWARDS--1. Socialist.
DENNIS KUCINICH--0. Sorry, but we can find absolutely no rational reason to give him any points on any of our key issues.
Periodically as the candidates have participated in debates around the country, The Liberty Sphere has rated the candidates on the views expressed during the those debates using our exclusive 'Liberty Scale.'
The Scale is based upon eight key issues that we deem to be key to human liberty: low taxes, secure borders (and enforcement of immigration laws), gun rights, abortion, national defense, U.S. foreign policy, the war on terror, and healthcare (specifically keeping our healthcare system private and the best in the world).
We then rate the candidates on a scale of 1 to 10 based upon these 8 key issues that impact liberty, with 10 being the highest score.
As you will note below, GOP candidates came out very well comparatively speaking on human liberty issues. The Democrats did not fare so well.
No Democrat, for example, except for Billy Richardson has definitively voiced support for gun rights. But Billy has mammoth problems in just about every other area. His policy statements call for big government solutions for every problem, the price tag of which will run into the billions of dollars. Thus, his views in essence mirror those of European-styled Socialists such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.
In addition, we have stated repeatedly that we do not feel that Richardson has the intellect or the ability to be President. The job is simply way over his head.
On the flip side, every single GOP candidate supports a strong defense, low taxes, private healthcare (although some would mandate insurance through private companies), and American capitalism. The rub comes in on the issues of gun rights, foreign policy, the war on terror, and illegal immigration.
All of the GOP candidates give assent to believing in gun rights, securing our borders, and a strong defense. The issue becomes who is most believable given their past record.
In addition, U.S. foreign policy and the War on Terror are key issues in a dangerous world in which the U.S. is in the unavoidable position of being the world's only superpower. Is this the time to retreat into a cocoon and usher in an era of isolationism when there are upwards of 80 million Jihadists around the world who want to kill us and the rest of the world?
Some of the readers of the Liberty Sphere clearly will not like our final analysis of the candidates. But we will be as honest and candid in our assessment and ratings as possible. But remember, this is merely 'as we see it.' Clearly there are other points of view, and we acknowledge those.
Thus, based upon a careful observation of the Republican and Democratic candidates, here is our final list of ratings as we stand on the brink of the primary season.
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES
FRED THOMPSON is our choice as the best candidate for the office of President. He is an entirely consistent conservative and federalist, an advocate for gun rights, low taxes, private healthcare, a strong defense, a pragmatic U.S. foreign policy, the War on Terror, the sanctity of human life, and secure borders with policies that discourage illegal aliens from entering the country. He gets a perfect score of 10.
DUNCAN HUNTER is our second choice, but he has failed to get the traction and recognition it takes to win primaries, which is a shame. On the issues he is as reliably conservative as Fred Thompson, but we do not feel that he is a viable candidate, unfortunately. He also gets a perfect score of 10.
MIKE HUCKABEE has been a major disappointment as his views have come into focus only recently. While the candidate is strong on gun rights, abortion, foreign policy, the war on terror, national defense, and healthcare, he is highly suspect on taxes and illegal aliens. Because the issues of taxes and immigration are so important, his score on the Liberty Scale has suffered. He gets no higher than a 7.
RON PAUL is a mixed bag. While we fully embrace his views on gun rights, taxes, abortion, healthcare, national defense, and immigration, we find his views on U.S. foreign policy and the war on terror to be highly troublesome. For this reason we give Dr. Paul a final rating of 7.
JOHN MCCAIN has come on strong since he got his wrists slapped on the immigration debacle. He has also acknowledged that McCain-Feingold had some unintended consequences that were troublesome and needed to be corrected. On the issues of guns, abortion, taxes, healthcare, national defense, the war on terror, and foreign policy, the candidate is fairly strong. The fact that McCain is a genuine war hero takes him a long way in our book. Thus, his final rating is 7.
MITT ROMNEY is problematic because of the inconsistencies. How do we know for sure where he stands? Yet the candidate is no Socialist and supports American free enterprise and our capitalistic system. He gets a rating of 6.
RUDY GIULIANI was clearly the right man at the right time for NYC when the Twin Towers were attacked. No doubt he is a strong leader who can stand strong for America's interests around the world. We also know he is not a Socialist and expressed privately his grave concern over Hillary Clinton's socialistic policies. We give him a final rating of 6.
TOM TANCREDO, we hear, will announce today that he is dropping out of the race. He has been a great voice for immigration reform and stopping the flow of illegal aliens into the country. We saw his debate performances improve dramatically over the months, and we hate to see him go.
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES
Unfortunately no Democrat rates above a 4. Almost without fail, the stance of the Democratic candidates on the issues are the diametric opposite of all The Liberty Sphere finds to be imperative.
BILL RICHARDSON--4. His only redeeming quality is his stance on gun rights.
JOE BIDEN--4. A liberal, no doubt, but a pragmatic one. He knows plenty about foreign policy and would place America first in an international squabble. This is his only redeeming quality.
MIKE GRAVEL--3. I gave him a 10 for NOT showing up for one of the debates. Once again, he is a liberal, but a 1960s-styled liberal who has at least a little common sense.
CHRIS DODD--2. Socialist. He gets a 2 because he has more common sense and tons more experience than the four listed below.
HILLARY CLINTON--1. Socialist.
BARACK OBAMA--1. Socialist.
JOHN EDWARDS--1. Socialist.
DENNIS KUCINICH--0. Sorry, but we can find absolutely no rational reason to give him any points on any of our key issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)