My Pick for the GOP - Not a Scientific Analysis

1. Mitt Romney

Romney is one of the most important candidates because of the following reasons: First, he is a successful business man, a former governor of Massachusetts, and a humble man. Secondly, Romney is ahead on the polls, have millions of dollars in his own pockets, and the other candidates failed to bring him down.

Voters want to hear solutions and plans to accomplish them. Romney outlined seven points to roll-back the Obama failed policies, and as a business man and a former head of a state, he has the capability to do it.

He is perhaps the most competent of the whole bunch and because his record in the business sector experience - including turning around the crumbling Utah Olympic, he is walking on real solid grounds that the candidates are aware of it. Unless he did something dramatically dumb. May analysts expected those running neck-to-neck with Gov. Romney to really hit him hard on his liberal policies when he was the governor, but at the end the debate, he walked away from this debate unbeaten.

2. Rick Santorum

Senatorum is passionate about his moral beliefs and is not afraid of talking about his own record. He defended his positions well and was quite aggressive on issues he loved and championed during his time in the Senate. His rebuttal of the Iranian nuclear issue against Libertarian runner Rep. Ron Paul, was his best, in my opinion.

Conservatives are aggressive defenders of America and American interests, and the fact that Libertarians and Liberals pretending that people are out there to harm America is one of the reasons why terrorists attacked America on 9/11. The "pre-9/11" era was built on the notion that America is untouchable. Off-course, after 9/11 and the wars, many have returned to this mindset. This is a position that will hurt Rep. Paul in the GOP primary because everyone knows that USSR played fair, but Iran is indeed a different story.

3. Newt Gingridge

He is an angry man but he got the audience behind him because his message resonated with majority of American conservatives who had been let down by the Obama administration. Fox Sunday's host - Chris Wallace and Brett Biar - quoted Gingrich and asked him whether he held the same positions on certain issues or whether he had changed his mind. And he darted back criticizing the media of paying too little attention of the most important issues.

For a man full of knowledge of how the Congress operates and one that credited for the revival of the US economy in the mid 1990s when he became speaker of the House, to spend his time talking about petty issues is indeed a waste of time, and he wasn't afraid to criticize the moderators of going out to catch him instead of focusing on these issues. But American voters cannot deny the fact that it was then Speaker of the House Gingrich that revived the US economy and balanced the national budget and helped strengthened American economy in the last term of President Bill Clinton. That's in itself a tremendous experience and credential that the GOP needs if the American economic status and strength is to be revitalized.

4. Michel Bachmahn

The spur between former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and current Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann was indeed predictable, but I believe that she defended herself well. The two leaders have known each other on issues facing the nation and their state for a long time.

I also observed that Bachmann really wanted to take on President Barrack Obama and she did that. She pledged to work hard to repeal Obama care if elected president. Asked why she claimed she fought really hard but Obama's socialistic agenda went through, and she answered that she did her best but to no avail as the entire Congress was dominated by the Democrats. She also stated that she gave the DNC leadership a run for their money and that's how a fighter in my view should take on issues in Congress.

5. Time Paulenty

Former Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty, is an eloquent speaker but his strategy is indeed ineffective. He started out by talking about his experience as a governor - a very impressive career - but most of his policies have been challenged by not only conservative rivals but by a relentless democrat party and their ally, the media. To make it worst, most of his achievements have Liberals signature on them.

His worst moment came when he was challenged by Rep. Bachmann on his taxs on cigarette, and after denying everything, he later apologized for that saying that they gained a lot of money on that tax but his government didn't really need it. Conservatives probably listened to him and wondered he really is a "Tax-cut" kind of a leader. Rep. Bachmann also remarked that gov. Pawlenty's leadership was more like Obama's leadership because he wasn't hesitate to raise taxes on his people. At times, he exhibited fear and weakness which President Obama could utilize if facing the President as the GOP nomination.

6. Jon Huntsman

I admire him for standing up for his beliefs and running on his records. But I doubt he would make it to the end without a black eye.

His weakest point was when he was asked about his records. In fact, Gov. Huntsman boasted about his private sector career of job creations, but when the moderator pointed out that he created more jobs overseas than jobs in America, I thought he would lose his cool.

He, however, pointed out that the reasons why many jobs went overseas is because they can't survive back in the US. He was right that American jobs are going overseas because the government is not doing anything to create a better business environments for American jobs. States and the federal government taxed the heck out of many American companies who are now operating in foreign countries, mainly China.

He then cited his record as governor of Utah as evidence of his ability to leader and create jobs which is record that is quite tough to challenge.

He will have to answer the voters on his stance on illegal immigration and other issues, but he is an good man for running on his records, not running away from them.

7. Herman Cain

I used to like Herman Cain and I would vote for him. He has the charisma and ability as a successful businessman to leader a good government, but he obviously have serious issues in understanding major issues. His failure to demonstrate competency in the area of foreign policy, and even admitted he didn't know much about Afghanistan, Iraq and Iraq, demonstrated just how weak a president he could be if America is dragged into another international crisis. These are things you should have known before you join the race for the most powerful office in the world.

Secondly, he had made very damaging remarks about religions and directly about Romney's Mormonism faith and Islam - Muslims. He made direct statements about Islam that can be construed in different ways. Though he attempted to clarify what he was saying about Mormonism and Islam, most Americans are latched on to the implied part of his statements that he is an anti-Mormon and anti-Muslim candidate.

The irony is that he said he heard it from Christian folks in the south and he just repeated what he heard. That's dumb, if he wants to become the president of the entire nation, he should know that he would be the president of all including those who don't hold the same views as him and he needs to keep those discussions away from him as much as possible. If he knew he would be quoted, he should never let any protestant influenced his views and compromised his reputation which he just did. The last thing that the GOP needs is a nominee that would be attacked as a real BIGOT!

8. Ron Paul

Congressman Paul is an old man who served 15 terms in the House of Representative, but so detached from realities of today. His biggest applause came when he talked about ending the war and bringing home the military so the money can be spent back in America.

However, his constant denials that the key to peace and prosperity and economic strength is isolationism, makes many wondered whether he was in the wrong room and debate. He argued that terrorists hate America because we are over there.

He stunned the viewers, and myself, of his position on Iran. When was asked about a statement he made about the rights of Iran to make a Nuclear Bomb, he didn't deny it but expounded on it. He seemed to think that it is Iran's right to build Nuclear bombs because that country is surrounded by Nuclear powers including Israel and the US. And he also pointed out that USA and USSR fought each other for years and have far more greater Nuclear arsenal than Iran. He, in my view, missed many important things in the Nuclear weapons' debate and conservative voters won't vote for a passive leader if he chose the Libertarian and Liberal view that Iran has the right to a massive bomb.

Rep. Paul forgot a few things: Iran is a member to the None Proliferation Treaty which bands nations from trading or building Nuclear weapons. Iran is violating an international treaty which it signed during the cold-war era. Secondly, Iran's Nuclear program may spark capable nations in that region to pursue such programs. Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt, Syria, Turkey etc., are nations that have the ability and oil money to build their own Nuclear bomb just as did Pakistan when Indian built and launched its own Nuclear weapons. In the wake of the North Korean nuclear test, Japan threatened to also build a Nuclear weapon's program if the UNSC failed to stop the North Korean pursuit of WMD. That's something that Rep. Paul didn't address.

In addition to that, Iran is a state that not only pursuing a powerful bomb but threatened to use it. He should know that the US and USSR used their Nuclear weapons as "deterrence" and never threatened to use Nuclear weapons against each other. In fact, the two powers signed agreements as guidelines on how they would use their weapons should the need to use them arise. It is this mutual understanding that the two powers fought proxy wars without even using any of their powerful bombs.

Iran on the contrary had threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and had so-far sponsored attacks against Israel for years and the coalition in Iraq. It is this behavior that Iran had been named a "rouge state", one that would more likely to use a Nuclear weapon against its own enemies.

Thus, for Rep. Paul to mouthing off garbage about the rights of Iran without addressing the possible consequences, is indeed dangerous. This is one of the reasons why Rep. Paul never got the votes and nomination of the GOP every time he contested at the GOP primary. Everyone knows that he would be a very weak president when it comes to foreign policy and the defense of this country.

-Personal opinion, not based on any expert of scientific analysis of the debate -