My brother reminded me that I acctually said, in print, that you did ot have to watch the last NBC/MSNBC debate, because I would watch it for you and tell you all you need to know. Actaully, I DID tell you all you need to know about that Rebpuclian debate, but I think my brother is right that I never really gave you my take on the previous debate--with another one llike TONIGHT already. Hard to keep up.
What was my takje on the GOP debate caarried on NBC/MSNBC. Firsst, I was again proven right that Republicans should NOT go on these PARTISAN network. NBC and MSNBC are as far left as people get, and as unfair as people get, and I believe t hat a Republican candidate would have MADE POINTS by not atttending the debate (and saying why), or at least WALING OUT when that really stupid, EVIL queson was asked about how Rick Perry sleeps well at night when Texas executes so many lpeople. To those of us who live in Texas, of course, this is merely evidence that Texas is SANE (as diitinguished from NBC, MSNBC, Brian Williams, CNN, and so many other states like New York and California).
But what about the actual debate? I did not eport on it, even though I followed through on my assignment and watched it. The reason I did not report on the debate is that not much happened. There is much too much being made about Rick Perry and Social Security, even though this blog has talked about that deliberate overreaction by the PROPAGANDISTS of the mainstream media. No, this does not mean that all of the Repubican candidates did badly. On the contgrary, I thought all of the candidates did reasonably WELL--including Perry. Problem: None of them did anything outstanding. They really pretty much merged into one another (another consequence of having NBC/MSNBC/Politico (all left wing as they come) conduct a Republican debate.
Who won? I think Newt Gingrich won again, on points, although Newt will NOT be President of the United States. Nor did Newt win by much. But he was the ONLY candidate who I thought really said anything approaching outstanding: telling the people aksking the questions taht they are only interested in PICKING A FIGHT among Republicans, and not getting actul INFORMATION to voters. NOpe, "picking a fight" does NOT get actual information to voters. It does the exact opposite. Gingrich actually put his finger on one of the main problems with the debate. NBC was so interested in making "news" with some kind of really vicious infighting among Republicans, or with some vicous question, that the candidates had no real chance to say much .
What COULD they have said, although it would have probably meant ignoring a question? Well, they COULD hae done what this blog did, IN FORESIGHT, and talk about the disastrous Obama "jobs biLL'.. By the way, the "narrative" (mainstream media and Obama) is that the jobs bill is all about REPUBLICAN "tax cuts". As this blog has prven over the past several weeks, that is an Orwellian Big Lie. A "payroll tax cut" is an ATTACKK on the very concept of Social Security by Obama (not Rick Perry), and a FRAUDULENT WELFARE PAYMENT that will ot "add" a single job. The other "taax cuts" are NOT "tax cuts" at all. They are ALL WELFARE PAYMENTS of one sort or another: BRIBES. They actually make REAL "tax reform" much harder, annd complicate the tax code with GIMICKS rather than simplifying it. I have already told you that I walk away from the Rebpulican Party, and almsot EVERY Republican politician, if they buy into this FRAUD of treating "central planning" BRIBES as "tax cuts". It is like the Bush/Democrat FAILED $600 payment in 2008. Bush wanted to call that a "tax cut", and may have even done so. It was simply a CASH PAYMENT to people favored by the Federal Government, which is exactly the same thing that is true of EVERY one of Obama's supposed "tax cuts". These temporary payments by means of going through the tax code accomplish NOTHING. In fact, they do very much harm. All Obama knows is to throw Federal money at a problem, no matter how many tiems it fails. the problem is that I think that is also all most Republicans (Big Government guys and gals under the rehtoric) know as welll.
You should get the point, NO "candidate" got up there and really TOOK IT TO OBAMA. Sure, they called Obama a failulre in "talking pont" ways that even sounded pretty good. But NO candidate took on the "gang of 12" deal that Romney said he was against (along with Bachmann and probably others). Only Gingrich actually ATTACKED a question. You might say Perry attacked that stupid death penalty question, but that was a setup for Perry (whether NBC knew it or not). No candidate simply refused to appear on MSNBC (which DEMOCRATS routinely do with the unfair and unbalanced netwokr). The most "news" that came out of the debate is that I think Perry held his own, although hardly showing himself a"great" debater (as we in Texas already knew)
Michele Bachmann? My brother is already vastly DISAPPOINTED in Michele Bachmann, even before I give my definitive rulijng (which is coming, if I get around to it). What has gone wrong with Michele Bachmann? She seems to be running SCARED (afraid of making a gaffe, or of saying anything beyond canned answers. I will expalin all of this in that future planned article. Michele Bachmann needs to be TAKING ON the Repubican leadership (not even so much Perry and Romney), as well as Obama--not in an "hysterical" way (where you may regard this blog as an oject lesson in how not to do it), but in a STRONG way that sends notice to the Repubican establishment that Michele Bachmnn is going to take names and take no prisoners. Instead, Bachmann simply says she was "againt" the debt ceiling increase; "against" ObamaCare; against this and against that. Bachmann should be AGAINST tose things. But she is not saying anything different than the other Republicans, and is NOT really going out after the "establishment" that is mkaing deals. Where was Bachmann criticizing BOEHNER for thesell out "deals" Boehner made all of the way back to the "lame duck" Congress (although that may have been mainly Repubican Senators--Boener, however, being responsible for the fraudulent BUDGET DEAL for this year's spending and the fraudulent "Gang of 12" "debt ceiling deal". Bachmann seems to think that she is a "frontrunner", and that all she has to do is mildly say that she is "against" this stuff without CALLING OUT Boehner and the Republican establishment. Bachmann is sadly mistaken, and has me on the verge of CHANGING my endorsement for the republican nomination to RON PAUL. Rick Santorum always does well, but without enough distinction. Ron Paul is CRAZY (in a policy way), but I have gotten to the point that I believe we NEED a crazy man in the White House. See where you "establishment" people have driven me? And now Michele Bachmann is driving me to the same choice. Yes, I would still vote for Bachmann, Cain, Santorum and Paul, even if I disown the Repubican Party . But Bachmann has severely disappointed my brother and myself, and we LIKE her. that shows how really badly she has done, wiout even saing anything stupid.
Bottoom line, despite the amount of words above: There really was not much to the Repubican debate, and it really was all about "talking points" (even if delivered reasonably well). Will Repubican candidates actually STOP the really absurd Obam a"jobs bil", which will INCREASE the dEBT CELING requirment MORe than Repubicans have actually "cut" that requirment? Stay tuned. I will let you know, alghouh how soon depends on wether anyone actually says something. Romney , by the way, never does, even when he appears to be doing s with "strong" language. The most important thing to come out of the last debate was Perry on Social Security--it being left up to future debates to see how Perry really handles a broad range of issues.
I will try to report more promptly on the next debate, although I am more worried about the COURAGE of Republican politicians in general, and their real PRINCIPLES, than I am in who the candidate will be.
No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Marc (my brother), this article is jsut for you.