GOP Debate at the Reagan Library

Tonight I watched the second GOP debate held at the Reagan Library.  Compared to the first Republican debate, this seemed cordial and productive, which still isn't saying much.  Thankfully, there was less Obama-bashing (...although he was still treated like a pinata), and less bickering between the candidates.  A big part of that should be attributed to the fact it was broadcast on MSNBC rather than FOX.  Still, this group of GOP candidates has set such a low bar in terms of insightful and logical thought, my compliments are a stretch.  There is a lot I could comment on, but I wanted to document my general feelings toward each candidate.  A big part of my reaction was based on how directly they answered questions, and if they used a 'safety net' of Obama/candidate-bashing when they didn't know how to respond.  Here are my general thoughts on the candidates:

Mitt Romney:  I believe it when people say he has grown leaps and bounds as a Presidential candidate over the past four years.  I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but for the most part he was direct, confident and well thought-out with his answers.  I cringe each time he has to defend his implementation of universal healthcare in Massachusetts, but that's where things are at.  I still believe he will outlast the rest of this field to contest Obama.

Rick Perry:  Frankly, I think his candidacy is a joke.  He repeats the same thing over and over:  Jobs, Economy, Texas, Jobs, America.  He prides himself on being a job-creating mastermind in Texas, which is misleading in so many ways.  Even if that were true, his IQ on all other issues is frighteningly poor.  I get that the economy is the big issue in the 2012 debate, but that doesn't mean a candidate who knows jack s*&$ about everything else should be able to run.  On the topics of climate change, social security, immigration, and foreign policy he had nothing insightful to offer.  He was noticeably rattled with questions toward the end of the debate and...minor detail...call Social Security a Ponzi scheme.  How can we think of electing somebody who disregards science, as it pertains to climate change, as "unsettled."  This isn't only a joke, its scary.  Simply put, he makes Mitt Romney look like Abraham Lincoln.

Jon Huntsman:  I believe Huntsman is the most credible, impressive candidate on the Republican side.  He comes across as balanced and compassionate compared to the others.  I believe he is much more moderate than he will get credit for, being alongside these other Tea Partyers.  Its refreshing to hear his thoughts on climate change, immigration, and foreign policy with China.  He was the only individual to state that he would not make hasty pledges regarding taxes because it compromises your ability to think critically and lead in the future.  What a novel concept.  If the other GOP candidates thought like Huntsman seems to think, I wouldn't be so worried.

Bachmann:  She seemed much more reserved and logical than her first debate.  Unfortunately for her, this probably means she will continue to lose ground to Romney and Perry.  I hate to say it, but I feel like she is a better candidate than Rick Perry.  For the most part tonight her responses were well thought-out, but in the GOP that doesn't equal more support.

Ron Paul:  I respect the guy a lot, and I enjoy listening to his views because I feel they are free from bias and bullshit.  He is genuine and intelligent, but that won't be enough it seems.  While he may be permanently stuck in the 2nd tier of Republican candidates, its worth listening to his platform so we can see what it looks like when a conservative politician isn't corrupted by conflicts of interest, or sheer ignorance.

Newt:  Why was he invited?

Cain:  See Newt comment.  Stick with pizza dude.

Santorum:  Seems smart enough, but he's fighting a losing battle at this point.

Let me know your thoughts!!!!!!!

QB Conundrum 2011

Greetings All,

I've taken a mini-hiatus from blogging, but am back with a subject matter I would appreciate some feedback on.  Currently in the world of sports there are countless, serious issues I could be addressing.  There is the NBA Lockout, The Georgetown Brawl, and NCAA scandals galore.  I'm going to take a step back from these controversial and polarizing issues to write about something much more trivial, but debate-igniting all the same:  The hierarchy of current NFL quarterbacks.   


First, a bit of background on how this blog post came to be.  My roommates and I were having a laid-back Sunday night during Labor Day Weekend, when the topic of NFL quarterbacks arose.  Many of you have probably engaged in this same conversation with your buddies, sitting around with some brews in hand, testing one-another's sports IQ.  Our first quarterback debate was surrounding the simple question:  If you were a GM starting a franchise tomorrow, what current NFL quarterback would you select, and what would your rankings look like overall?  To me, this argument speaks to making an investment, looking long-term, while still being cognizant of a veteran quarterbacks track-record and accomplishments (aka Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees).  My lists looks something like this:


1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Philip Rivers
3. (t) Matt Ryan; Michael Vick
5. Tom Brady
6. Matt Stafford, Joe Flacco, Sam Bradford, Josh Freeman


Some of you may be surprised to not find Peyton Manning or Drew Brees on this list, maybe even Ben Roethlisberger.  In my opinion, Manning and Brees both have two strong years left and then we will start to see a significant drop off in production.  I can easily see Bradford, Stafford and Matt Ryan taking their place in the upper-echelon of NFL signal-callers by 2013.  Tom Brady and Michael Vick are high on my list, but there is some skepticism due to injuries and normal wear & tear.  Tom Brady, who one can argue is a Top-5 all-time QB, hasn't won the big game in 6 years, and hasn't been to the Super Bowl in 4.  Michael Vick (don't get me wrong readers...I'm a Michael Vick fan and I think he's turned into a genuinely good person, not to mention a GREAT quarterback), with all the hype and hoopla surrounding him, is still an unproven post-season QB.  Furthermore, he is more of an injury liability as a scrambling QB than someone like Aaron Rodgers or Matt Ryan.  


Again, I want to be clear about the main debate my roommates and I were having:  Who would you select as your quarterback if you were starting a franchise today.  This is not the same question as 'Who is the best current quarterback?', or 'Who is the most accomplished QB?', and certainly not 'Who is the best fantasy QB?'.  Those are different arguments, and one's which, frankly, I feel are more straight-forward.  


I can't find many flaws with Rodgers at the moment.  You could argue that he's only had one significant playoff run, but it was one of the greatest postseason performances by a QB in NFL history.  At this point you know he isn't some flash in the pan:  He is entering his 6th NFL season, 3rd as the undisputed starter.  As a starting quarterback since 2008, he has averaged over 4,000 yds a season, while throwing 87 TDs compared to only 32 INTs.  This all seems like a safe bet to me.  If nothing catastrophic happens with injuries, I think we're looking at 6-7 more GREAT years.  


I would love to hear any/all comments...let me know who would be in your Top 5 if you were starting a franchise tomorrow.