Repubican Debate

View 691 Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Sable went to the groomers for a bath and combing today. Huskies grow underfur when the days are getting shorter, and shed it when the weather is hot, so there was a lot of combing needed. My Explorer displays external temperature, and it was 102 F. It was also muggy. I don’t work very well in hot weather.

We wanted to watch the Republican debates, but we couldn’t find them live. MSNBC broadcast an “analysis” for an hour and a half. They did a repeat of the debate at 9 PM PDT, and I’ve just watched that. If there was an earlier broadcast I never saw it. And I certainly had no desire to watch an MSNBC analysis.

The Republican Presidential Candidate Debates

In my judgment, the clear winner, and by quite a lot, was Newt Gingrich. He was focused, decisive, on point, laconic, and very much on point . He was efficient with the time given him, and he wasted none attacking the other candidates. He reminded me of the Newt Gingrich I knew when he was Minority Whip and then Speaker.

The Washington Post makes him a loser, saying:

* Newt Gingrich: Bashing the media for trying to get Republicans to disagree with one another is a sure applause line in front of a GOP crowd. But, in a debate the whole point is for the candidates to, well, debate their positions on issues. Elections are about choices so the best way to inform people about their options is to probe the candidates on where they differ with one another. Right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-reagan-library-republican-debate-winners-and-losers/2011/09/07/gIQA2XfpAK_blog.html

Newt well understood the hostility of the two “moderators” (inquisitors would be a better word) and their objective which was to induce the Republican candidates to attack and damage each other. When he told them flat out that he understood what they were doing, the inquisitors were taken aback.

I was favorably impressed by Michelle Bachman. The last time I watched her in a debate she seemed shrill and more interested in fighting the other candidates, This time she displayed the gravitas of a leader, and showed some understanding of the magnitude of the problem. Once again the Washington Post has a different view, placing her among the losers:

* Michele Bachmann: The Minnesota Congresswoman was a total non-entity in the debate. At one point, she didn’t say a single word for more than 20 minutes. Bachmann supporters will almost certainly blame the moderators for freezing her out but she needed to find ways to inject herself into the various fights between the likes of Perry, Romney and Huntsman. Bachmann seemed to get the message towards the end of the debate but it was already too late. It felt like she was irrelevant to the conversation tonight — and that’s a bad place for her to be.

I thought she did well with the time they gave her. The inquisitors were condescending to her which was to be expected. She demonstrated the necessary gravitas, which was less obvious in earlier debates.

Continuing my record, I was not at all impressed with Perry’s first hour. I thought he spent too much time bickering with Romney. Of course the Post gave him a win for his first hour:

* First 45 minutes Rick Perry: With all eyes on him, the Texas governor started out strong — delivering a solid answer on jobs and showing a willingness to mix it up with Romney. He was confident without being brash and seemed well versed — or at least well rehearsed — on the issues of the day. If the debate ended after 45 minutes, we might be talking about how Perry had dispelled all doubts about his readiness for the national glare of a presidential race and all it entails.

On the other hand, I thought Perry came off very well toward the end. The Post again has a different view, putting him among the losers:

* Last Hour Rick Perry: After a strong start, Perry seemed to lose focus — meandering on his answer on Social Security and badly fumbling on climate change. Some of Perry’s struggles in the middle portion of the debate had to do with the fact that he was getting tough questions and having to weather a steady attack from his opponents — he joked at one point that he had become a “pinata” — but that’s what you get when you’re the frontrunner. Perry salvaged the second half of the debate with a very strong answer on the death penalty. But his uneven performance will likely keep the conversation about whether he is a clear frontrunner alive, which is not what the Perry forces wanted.

Of course what the Post dislikes is what Perry said about global warming: that the science isn’t settled and we have no business betting the US economy on the theory in its present state. What the Post likes is that Perry was willing to wound Romney. They would have swooned in ecstasy had one of the candidates physically attacked the other.

The Post doesn’t mention Cain, but I thought he came off extremely well. He had decisiveness, gravitas, and focus. As for example given a chance to speak on jobs:

CAIN: Let’s cut to the chase, this is what business people do and politicians don’t do. Here’s how I would fix this economy, first, eliminate the current tax code. It is a drain on entrepreneurs, it is the biggest barrier that’s holding this economy back, and what I would do is to propose a bold plan, which I have already released.

I call it my 9-9-9 economic growth plan. Throw out the current tax code, a 9 percent tax on corporate income, our 9 percent tax on personal income and a 9 percent national sales tax. If 10 percent is good enough for God, 9 percent ought to be good enough for the federal government. This will replace all federal income taxes. It’ll replace all federal income taxes.

It will also replace the payroll tax, so everybody gets some skin in the game. And it replaces the capital gains tax.

He made it clear that he would return a great portion of federal activities to the states. He looked very Presidential. Whoever wins this should keep him in mind for the Cabinet.

My general conclusion: as Newt said at one point, anyone on that platform would be a better President than the one we have; and like Newt I was angered by Brian Williams and the Politico hack. They didn’t even try to conceal their contempt for the participants, and they openly tried to set the candidates at each others’ throats. Of course the Washington Post listed among the Winners:

* NBC/Politico: In politics, it’s just as important to be lucky as it is to be good. NBC and Politico were both with a well-timed debate that gave America a chance to take an extended look at Perry, and a series of quality questions that forced the candidates to sometimes go beyond their talking points. The first 45 minutes of the debate were, without question, the highlight of the race so far. Kudos.

Not surprising, of course.

It’s late and bed time. And it’s a long way to the next but one November. I find it interesting that none of the candidates wanted to be seen as the “establishment Republican” candidate. Some worked a bit at looking “moderate” but not excessively so. No one wanted to wrap himself in a Bush legacy. In 1996 the Republicans ran the only man in America that Clinton could beat. After all, it was Bob Dole’s turn, and even though Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America had taken the House and Senate in 1994, the Republican establishment saw to it that the nomination went to Bob Dole. Dole was a genuine war hero, but that had been a long time before. This debate indicates that things will be different in 2012. I doubt any of these candidates will be appearing in advertisements for ameliorating their erectile dysfunction.