OBAMA & THE REPUBLICAN FIELD.

This blog was right in predicting that the CNN Arizona debate between the Republican Party field of presidential candidates would focus on Santorum and Romney, and that the other remaining two, Gingrich and Paul, would just be contributors.

That was exactly what viewers saw, with the two men, Santorum and Romney, wallowing in criticisms from earmarks to health care.

They had managed to throw government or having the chance to govern to the wind, and winning the debate, which would lead to winning the Arizona and Michigan primaries was foremost on their minds.

At certain points, it was only Gingrich that was referring to "...the Obama administration", just to finish his sentences. He had made some of those comments before, and so their effects on the debate were minuscule.

Paul was as jocular as usual, especially when he said that his colleague, Santorum, was a "fake". He did not mean his listeners to take him seriously, and more so it (comment) did not generate enough laughter to make any difference or add to his stature on the debate floor.

What many noticed, however, was that there were three elderly men that would represent the Republican Party; and that one of whom would or could be the party's choice to meet with President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

If that should be the case, age discrimination could become a problem for the Republicans, as only Santorum looked younger on the stage yesterday, and that he would be a fair match for Obama, in the eyes of the public, when it came to bringing age under scrutiny.

On the debate itself, Romney was trying to slug Santorum with "the bridge to nowhere," salient point; a vote that he (Santorum) had cast to give support for a shady Alaskan construction, while he was in the United States Congress, as the former Senator (Santorum) was alluding to the fact that the Salt Lake Winter Olympics program that Romney took over, could have been a failure, if it was not for an instrument or a process referred to as an "earmark".

In Congress, earmarks were, and still are, legislative provisions used to direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects; and that was what happened, when Romney was in trouble to keep the Salt Lake project from sinking. Disaster was stirring him in the face, and so he sought governmental help.

In fact, a earmark was similar to a bailout, like TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) that Wall Street banks received from both the Bush and Obama administrations, to save them from declaring "managed bankruptcy".

Not too many years after, Romney, of all people, wanted General Motors to fall under that same methodology of managed bankruptcy that he had previously refused for his Salt Lake project.

G.M. has since been profitable in spite of Romney's non-support; but that alone would give him (Romney) a bad mark for him to lose the Michigan primary, because bankruptcy was not what the car maker company in that state was looking to go through. It (GM) had made a come back through the Obama Economic Stimulus Package instead.

Again, on the age question, the four men, except perhaps Santorum, looked too pale and grumpy, to be standing next to Obama in any debate, if any of them was chosen by his party to be its presidential candidate.

Also, from now on, strength and agility would count more on the campaign trail; substances that Obama has plenty of, and it would almost be suicidal, if Paul or Gingrich or Romney, in that order, tried to overtake him (Obama). Any of the above mentioned persons running alongside him would be a perfect "mismatch", or should it be a "mishmash", politically or otherwise; and that would not be a good sight for the Republican Party.

Santorum running against Obama? Maybe. However, any of the rest of the Republican candidates comparing his stamina to that of Obama? Ridiculous.

Many doubted it, from what they saw on the CNN Arizona Republican debate, judging from how much off color Paul, Gingrich and Romney were, due, of course, to age differentiation.

P.S. This blog did not say "old" anywhere.