Republican Debate: Romney Wins,, or Does He

I watched the Republican debate. It was again mostly a waster of time. As I told you in the beginning (as a person wo has lived in Texas throughout his entrie career), Rick Perry is NOT that impressive.. Yes, Perry has been a decent governorof Texas, but as a conservative "savior" he is laughable (and always has been--another case where I have been right and Rusn Limbaugh wrong). I told you previously (next month's news in tthis blog today) that Perry is NOT GOOD on illegal immmigration (from a consrvative point of view), and that was exposed last night as Perry AGAIN asserted that it is fine to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition, while denying the same "right" to citizens of the United States who happen to be citizens of otehr states. As a resident of Texas all of this time, I can telll you that Perry is NOT overall strong on illegal immigratioin. On that, and many other things, he is an ESTABLISHMENT Republican, Texas style (admittedly a LITTLE different from Northeasrt establishment Republicans).


That is why Romney "won" llast night's debate. He came across has slicker and more polished than Perry. If yuo WANT an establishment, oppotunist politician who gives you comfort because he at least knows what he is doing (so long as you don't want real principle), then does not Romney fit the bill better than Perry? I think so. And Perry is coming across as a "politics as usual" guy. As I have said, you cannot DEFEAT Perry FROM THE RIGHT. However, what yu can do is expose him as a "politics as usual" guy rathre than a guy able to go out and articulate conservative principles. If Romney can come across as more conservative and "principled" than Perry on illegal immigration, and look more POLISHED on those areas where Perry is to the right of Romney, then Romney WINS. Tht is what he did last hight, if you only conssider Romney and Perry (which is where the Repubican race now stands, meaning that the performance of the rest is pretty much irrelevant).


Yet, I did not like Romney's performance. It was establishment Republicanism 101. SAY NOTHING, except on very targeted areas. For example, dub in Obama's words and Romney's talk about "middle class tax cuts" would sound just like Obama: CLASS WARFARE, Romney style. Romney is perfectly willing to demagogue, Democrat style, on Social Security. Now Perry has made a mistake by going HARD after Romney, while Romney has been much more subtle and slick about provoking attacks on Perry. Perry would have been better off concentrating on Obama, and just taking swipes at Romney. These direct exchanges between Perry and Romney advance neither many, but especially make Perry look bad.


And that is my problem. If you go beyond style, and how slick and Presidential Romney LOOKS and sounds, Romney was NOT the "winner" last night. On substance, Ron Paul did better. Herman Cain did better, In fact, on SUBSTANCE, and especailly in the question abut his own cancer and ObamaCare, Herman Cain WON the debate. But there is still no indication he can be the nominee. Rick Santorum did better than Romney on substance, although curiously seems unable to distinguish himself with real eloquence. Gary Johnson (the former New Mexico governor and libertarian) got off one of the great lines of the night, and actually SAID something on PRESENT SPENDING (which even Michele Bachmann, in another missed oppotunity, did not reallly do). Johnson said he would present a balanced budget for 2013, and actually gave the impression that he means it. Michele Bachmann, in the debt ceiling farce of a "debate", said that she wanted OBAMA to propose a balanced budget. Too cute by mroe than half, and Bachmann can be regarded as one of the losers last night. Pretty much canned answers, when she needs to show not just that her heart is in the right place but that seh can MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Attacking Perry is not really going to help her. Still, here answers were BETTER than both Perry and Romney., on substance. What I am saying is that if you eliminate John Huntsman as the "media candidate", ALL of the Repubicans on the stage gave better answers to many questions than Romney . PERRY, in fact, had one of the great lines about combining Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain for a Vice President. Ah, Newt. Newt AGAIN had a solid debate with some great lines, although his answer on "unemployment benefits" was a Big Government joke couched as a "conservative" answer. Still, if you take at least the last 3 debates, Newt is the clear oveall WINNER on substance. He will not be President of the United States.


What does it tell you when the two "frontrunners" both lack the ability to give any indication that they can actually ARTICULATE conservative principles with conviction--as real people instead of plastic men? No, I don't think it means that this is a "weak" field. There are a lot of impressive individuals up there. In his own way, Romney is impressive-just not PRINCIPLED or able to relate very well to the common person. What it does show is that there is NO Ronald Reagan up there, able to communicate conservative principles in a way people understand.


Nope. No real attacks on the Obama "jobs bill". No attack on OBAMA for undermining Social Security by these GIMMICK short-term "cuts" in the payroll tax (the only fundin gfor Social Security). NO attacks on Boehner for failing to stand up for conservative PRINCIPLES (an opportunity Bachmann has consistently missed). ALL of these Republicans--especailly Perry and Romney--are having NO effect on the actual debate on what we should do NOW (such as defeat the entire Obama "jobs bill". You will remember how McCain was in that same positon in the financial "crisis" of 2008, where what he said seemed IRRELEVANT. Obama, in fact, wa the SAME, even though he was part of Congerss (part of the MAJORITY in Congress, in fact) at the time. This time, Republicans have the advantage of having the current economy sink the current President, where it can hardly be fatal to be irrelevant to the current debate in the country on PRESENT policy. In other words, Republicans are in the "lead from behind" positoin that Obama was in during the 2008 campaign. Still, there is not much coming ut of these Republican debates giving LEADERSHIP to the people in Congress (Republicans) on what they should be doing. What leadership there is comes from the candidates who most do not feel WILL be the leader of the Republican Party, and therefore has little or no effect. Herman Cain is not going to be able to influence what Republicans in Congress DO. Perry COULD. Romney COULD. But they are not. There was a time when even Bachmann COULD, perhaps, have challenged Boehner for EFFECTIVE leadership in the House. Shje has missed her opportunity.


Overall despite good lines, the debate was not very impressive. Perry and Romney really do need to get back to showing why each would be a better President than Obama, and articulate what they actually believe (no matter how the questons try to provotke a fight), or they are in danger of tearing each other down withoout enhancing each's own case to be theRepublican nominee. Rmney is doing better at avoiding this trap than Perry, but that is just because Romney is SLICKER. You could argue that Romney "started it", and is provoking a good part of it. Romney is just doing it better. Could still hurt him later.


There you have it: all you NEED to know about the Republican debate. Oh yes, Johnson's comment that brought down the house: "my neighbor's dogs have created more jobs than Obama's policies."


No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). And yes, if I had to GUESS (ot based on ridiculous polls but on my own judgment), I would say that Romney will be the Republican nominee in the end. Republicans tend to go with the person whose "turn" it is anyway, bad as that has been, and it is "Romney's turn". And only Perry now seems to stand in his way. It just seems unlikely to me---kiowing Perry--that Perry can suddenly become impressive enough to meet "expectations" that he was going to be the "conservative savior". By default, as the person who most are going to think gives the bet chance of beating Obama, Romney is likely to be the last man standing. Long way to go, of course, and things can change. But January is not so far away, and if Romney gains momentum as the "inevitable" nominee, he may be unstoppable. before anyone esle can gain any traction. Me? I still DOUBT if I can suppport Romeny. As I have stated, it probably depends on whether I DISOWN the Republican Party. There are these "issues' outstanding that Romney COULD influence. If he does not, or uses his influence the wrong way, then Ronmney will share the fate of the Republican Party for me: dead to me. See my previous articles on this subject. Romney just does not hae enough credit with me to overcome a BETAYAL by the Republican Party of conservatives that I still expect. The ONLY reaoson that betaya may not occur is that OBAMA is deliberately making it hard for Republicans to actually betray conservatives. So Obama may yet SAVE the Republican Party and Romney from my wrath (a terribble thing)--no credit to the Republican Party or Romney.