Republicans: Worst Debate So Far

How ad was it? The Republican candidaes received a basically softball question based on the CNN idea that people actaully appprove of the "occupy Wall Street" collection of homeless people, angry (white) young people, and leftist kooks. The Republicans who got a chance at the question--evidently going on the theory tat you don't want to offend even ONE voter--failed utterly to either attack Obama and the Dmocrats OR to attack the obvious hypocirsy of the mainstream media in its coverage. You did not even hear a Republican--especailly Ropmney, who could have done h;imself some good--CONTRAST the "occupy lWall Street" people and coverage UNFAORABLY wtih the Tea Party people (still around). How bad was this? BEFORE this debate I talked by phone to my older daughter, Kenda--a lawyer in Boston who voted for Obama. No, I was NOT talking about the debate to come, or even mainly politics. It was a FAMILY call. But Kenda basically VOLUNTEERED that she was beginning to think that Obama just would not make it again (and did not deserve to). She further voluunteered that she really did not think much of the "occupy Wall Street crwod". It was Kenda who said that half of the crowd seemed to be homeless people. The subject came up because "occupy Wall Street" has evidently reached Boston, and Kenda did not thin much of them. If nact, she agreed with me that there was NO WAY that Democrats and the media were going to convince people that the "occupy Wall Street" crowd will help Barack Obama and the Democrats. It is astounding to me that Kenda and I inadvertently anticipated the debate question, AND that Kenda had a BETTER answer than EVERY debate Republican who addressed the question . Sad. Really sad. Suicide inducting sad (just kidding).


Then there was Herman Cain. I thought he did reasonably well overall--defending himself reasonably well against UNFAIR attacks (partially unfair) on his 9-9-9 plan. Bachmann and Santorum FALSELY said that Cain was proposing a value added tax. Not ture. Romney FALSELY suggested that there was something wrong with adding a ssales tax to the state sales taxes, because somehow lpaying TWO sales taxes (state and Federal) discredits Cain's plan. Abusrud. CNN ridiculed Cain's explanation of apples and oranges, but it is absolutely correct. Cain is proposing a complete reform of the FEDERAL tax system. That has NOTHING--zilch, nada, zero--to do with state sales taxes. The sate sales taxes are something Cain has nothing to do with, and will stay the same no matter what a President Cain does. Cain is proposing to REPLACE the entire Federal tax code, and Romney was DELIBERATELY confusing the issue. IF all Romney was doing was saying that the American people could be demagogued by OBAMA on the "extra" sales tax, then Romeny is indeed the HYPOCRITE that Perry (falsely) accused him of being on immigration. That is because Romney deliberately set out to confuse people, and attakc Cain's plan based on a total red herring. CNN thought that the fact that EVERY Repubican on the stage severly attacked Cain's plan shows that it cannot stand the light of day. Hogwash. That just means that EVERY Republican on that stage--except maybe Gingrich--put in a TERRIBLE debate performance. Gingrich won on substance. Romney--espite a pretty bad performance--could be said to have "won" as the "default" candidate. Rick Perry had his WORST debate (falsely described by some of the incompetents at CNN as his best). That is because Perry came in with an obviously preconceived idea to tear down Romney at all costs, including bringing up the FALSE media charge from 2008 that Romney "hired" illegal immigrants because his lawn service hired illegal immigrants. This blog disposed of that absurdity back in 2008. I say that as someone who lites Romney less and less every time I hear him. His only "good" moment tonight was when he actually put foorward SPECIFICS on how to reduce the deficit NOW-something apparently beyond tghe Republican TRAITORS in Congress (including many supposed Tea Party people).


The reason that this was the worst Repulican debate was that they ALL--except maybe Gingrich, who seems to know he will not be Preisdent--came into the debate to TEAR DOWN other Republicans (especailly Cain and Romney, since everyone seems to have finally realized that they could leave Perry to Romney). The INCOMPETENTS at CNN still believe that this race is between Perry and Romney. After tonight, I question whether Perry can stay in the race--no matter how much money he has. You may remember Howard Dean's primal scream in Iowa in 2004, and his meltdown. Dean had a lot of money--the first "internet" candidate. It idd not keep him in the race. Perry MAY have succeeded in tearing Romney down some tonight--although Romney counterpunched effectively, while still managing to not sound much like a committed conservative. But Perry looked ridiculous, and succeeded in tearing himself down more than he could possibly have succeeded with Romney. I know. CNN, and SOME voters, may say this was Perry's BEST debate, because Perry was so much more animated. That is NOT enough. Perry needed to show that he could take on Barack Obama--not that he had the energy to tear down Mitt Romney. It is my opinion that Perry totally failed to do that. The BEST that Perry can hope for is to be in a THREE WAY race with Cain and Romney. I no longer think Perry can win the nomination. I am not yet convicned of that with Cain.


But Cain should read this blog. Al of the attention was on his 9-9-9 plan, and he handled that reasonably well. What Cain handled BADLY was the quetion he had to expect: the question on the "electirfied fence". This blog hd TWO articles on that subject today, and I TOLD Cain how to handle the question. Too bad he evidently does not read this blog. He muffed it. And Cain rightly has a reputation for CANDOR. WhileCain pretty much stayed clear of the pety bickering represent3ed by the vicous attacks on him, the petty attacks between Perry and Romney, and the mostly petty attacks on Romney, Cain is not helping hi sreputation for candor is some respects. There was that muffed, non-answer to the question on the "electirfied fence" on the Mexican border. But Cain is being disingenous on one central aspect of his 9-9-9 plan. It is OBVIOUS--I mean really obvious----that the 9-0-9 plan SHIFTS the amount of total taxes paid twoard the poor and the middle clas. In other words, the poor and middle class will pay MORE of the total taxes collected than they now pay . How could it possibly be otherwise? Right now, you have the OBAMA/BUFFFETT LIE that the "rich" pay only a 15% tax reate. Indeependent analysis has shown that the "rich" (high income people--millionaires) pay about a 29% tax rate (on average). Okay, the rich will pay much MORE in sales taxes at Cain's 9% rate, because they buy and sell more stuff. That makes the decrease in the income tax rate MISLEADING for the rich, for the middle calss and for the poor. Remember, Cain is correctly saying that the "wroking poor" are paying the present 15% "payroll tax" (including the "employer's part"), and they will not longer have to pay it. But the major source of revenue is tCain's proposed 9% sales tax. The calculatons are actually very comlex, as the "sales tax" is NOT the same as an income tax, and the 9% income tax is almost irrelevant (except in raising enough revenue to make the Cain plan "revenue neutral"). However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that the 9% sales tax, along with paying the same percentage income tax as the "rich", will not SHIFT the tax burden somewhat toward the middle calss and poor.



What Cain SHJOULD be arguing is that whatever relatively small shift there is will be OUTWEIGHED by the FAIRNESS and SIMPLICITY of his plan, AND by the EXPLOSIVE GROWTH that his plan will produce. For example, the "Center for Tax Policy" says that 84% of the people will pay MORe taxces under Cain's plan (counting or not counting the 15% payroll tax that Cain corrrectly says is now a boruden on workers?), and the people who will pay less taxes are the "rich". However, the "rich" are now the peole who take advantage of every tax DoDGE, deducton and credit. Will not the fairness and simplicity of Cain's plan outweigh the possibility that SOME of the "rich" may not pay a much in taes, and that the tax burden wil be shared more broadly than it now is? Certainly, the JOBLESS poor will pay MORE under Cain's plan, but they RECEIVE all kinds benefits frm teh Federal Government offsetting any extra "taxes" they may pay. And it is the "middle class" that stands to benefit MOST from teh EXPLOSIVE growth in the economy that Cain's plan promises to produce. Still, Cain is NOT being "candid" about the complexities here, and the almost IMPOSSIBILITY that his plan can be "revenue neutral" and sill keep the DISTRIBUTION of the tax burden exactly the same. This COMPLEXITY in actually devising a "fair tax", or "flat tax", is why I have always supported a REAGAN-TYPE SIMPLE TAX SYSTEM, with no more than two rates (25% and 15%, or maybe 13%--while keeping the capital gains rate at the lower rate). But I am open to Cain's idea. It would be much better than our present tax system, and ROMNEY'S approach of PANDERING to the "middle class" like Obama.


Oh. It is a FALSE "criticism" of Cain's plan to say that the tax rates may rise. It is michele Bachmann--not to mention all of the rest--who is being a hypocrite here. Remember that Bachmann, and bascially all Repubicans, supported a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT because they don't believe Congress can stay "disciplined" under ANY system. Cain has not made the EASY response to this "criticism" of his lplan: that a Dmocratic Congress will add to the taxes. All Cain has to say is that he will insist upon a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that the government cannot collect more than, say, 19$ of GDP in taxes. It is EASIER to accurately enforce this provison, and avoid games, with Cain's "simple" tax system (where it really is relatively simple to calculate how much money will be raised). What is really different about Bahmnn's method of dealing with a possible Democrat control of government and Cain's (IF Cain just makes this simple answer)? NOTHING. Cain really needs to read this blog.


Michelle Bachmann continues to make MASSIVE mistakes: the main one being to take it upon herself to attack otehr Republican candidates. She shoudl have ALWAYS left that to Romney, Perry and any others who wanted to engatge in this self-destructive tactic. Bachmann's challenge has been to prove that SHE could effectively take on Obama. She had her chance, and blew it, both by refusing to be bold and specific and by trying to prove more that she can take on the other Republicans. Nope. It was a mistake of judgment on the part of Bachmann that she needed to worry about people going after "her" voters. She oculd have SAFELY left that to Romney--especailly with regard to Perry, but even with regard to Cain. The "bickering", and lack of CREDIBLE attacks on Obama, have hurt Bachmann more than anyone else. Almost ALL of the Republican candidates, excpet maybe Gingrich and Cain, were hurt by the endless bickering in tonight's debate. Think of how much of a GAIN any candidate would have achieved by making OBAMA his or her target, EFFECTIVELY. See the first paragraph above, where I noted that the Republican candidates did MUCH WORSE on the "occupy Wall Street" questin than my OBAMA_VOTING DAUGHTER in Boston. I can't tell you how sad that is. Oh, my daughter is probably smarter than these peole, despite being a woman, but I did not think she was that much smarter (consider that she voted for Obama).


Why did Gingrich "win" the debate on substance? Again, he had the best lines, and he mainly (desptite an attack on RomneyCare) stayed out of the "bickering" that he was smart enough to condemn. Plus, Gingrich was smart enough to note that Regan admitted that it was a MISTAKE to engage in an "arms for hostages" deal with Iran (another questin on which Cain was less than impressive). Gingrich continues to be the ONLY Republican to point out that the "super committee" created by the "debt ceiling deal' is MONUMENTALLY STUPID, and Gingrich tells you why better than I could. Does Gingrch know that he is calling the Republican leeadershiop in Congress MONUMENTALLY STUPID? I think he does. But I don't think Gingrch thinks he has anything to lose. However, what do Bachmann and Santorum have to lose? NOT IMPRESSIVE for either Santorum or Bachmann tonight.


Ron Paul was Ron Paul. He has a following, and Gingrich is constantly incrasing his following, if gradually, even though I contine to say he has NO chance to be President. That is why I say that IF Perry can stay in the race (which I, personally, don't think he can past the first few states), then we could have a DEADLOCK. These vicious attacks on Romney may have the effect of tearing down Romney, and conservatives don't think that highly of Romney anyway. Both Gingrich and Paul might get 10% to 15% of the vote, and I don't think either will drop out until he absolutely has to (Gingrich before Paul, if Gingrich does not make major gains). IF Cain Perry and Romney are in a THREE-WAY race, then you can see how easy it would be for a dEADLOCK to occur. Not too likely. But entirely possible. And if Gingrich continues to gain, what would happen if HE reached 20%? There may be almost no reason for ANYONE to get out, in hopes of a miracle.


It is time for EVERY Republican candidate to realize that the one who shoes he or she can effectively take on OBAMA is ging to be the nominee. Showing he or she can take on the other candidates is NOT going to materially help, except in PASSING shots and mild mannered responses to unfair attacks. Sure, it is okay tobe ANGRY, if there is an OBVIIUS reaons to be angry (as, frankly, Romney had with Perry tonight, although Perry had some reason to be angry with Romney as well). But these ceaseless, vicious attacks on each other are diminishing all who participate in them. It is almost getting to the pint that I wil need to reevaluate Gingrich, even though I know in my heart that he is simply acting like a candidate with nothing to lose (although a SMART man with nothing to lose).


No endorsement from this blog for Herman Cin, even though I continue to like him. No endoresement for Rick Santorum, who I liked considerably less after tonight. Too much "politics as usual", without saying anythng bold and improtant. There never will be an endorsement for Romney or Perry. I don't even worry about Perry any longer. He will not be President. No endorsement for Gingrich, although he is doing so well every debatge that I ALMOST feel a little ashamed of totally rejecting him. I will never endorse Ron Paul, and I have withdrawn my endorsement of Michele Bachmann. I will never endorse Jon Huntsman. And then there were none (title of Agatha Christie novel).


That is, of course, not quite true. Every Republican said a fEW good things. But, overall, the debate was terrible. I still would vote for Cain, Bachmann, Santorum and Paul IF nany of those were to get the nomination. No chance, except for Cain. I can't see voting for Perry, but I will never have to face that horrible choice. I have long said that I would not vote for Gingrich, even in the gneral electin, but we shall see. Still don't see it. Romney? That totally depends on the Republican PARTY, and how they react to the MOUNUMENTAL STUPIDITY of that debt ceiling deal (and the present Obama "jobs bil). I expect a betrayal, as Gingrich is predicting (between the lines, along with saying the deal was a betrayal, whre he is correct). IN that case, I will NOT vote for Romney. I MAY not vote for Romney anyway, if the bad things he says strat really outweighing the odd things (which he does say).


You can see how much of a cynic and a pessimist I am. I am telling you that my present evaluation is that there is a better than 50% cchance that I will NOT support the Republican nominee for President, and will abandon the Republican Party FOREVER. Tonight's debate pushed me further down that pessimistic/cynical road.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I wish I had bad hearing, so that I did not have to hear tonight's debate. Is there a way,m by the way, to stop this TACTIC by the media of PICKING FIGHTS between candidates (a tactic that Gingrich has correctly identified)? Yes, there is. Just don't let them do it. "Mr. Romney ,you have said that Rick Perry is "oft on illegal immigration. Why?" Answer: "Look, the Obama Administration is refusing to even enforce our immigration laws, and their policy on illegal immigration is hopeless. Rick Perry is much better than Obama on illegal immigrationHe is not out there telling you that it is not a problem or pushing the DECEPTION of a 'comprehensive plan' that reduces to simple amnesty. Rick Perry is not failing to secure our borders. Rick Perry is not SUING states to prevent them form helping the Federal Government to do something about illegal immigration. I take Rick Perry at his word that he really wants to solve the problem, and has been dong his best. What I have said is that Rick Perry is wrong on some of the details of his policies, such as this rather disgraceful preference for illegal immigrants on in-state tuition. Barack Obama is terrible, and sihonest, on the whole issue. Rick Perry is merely wrong on some of the detials, because he is creating an incentive for illegal immigrants to come to this country. I think that is wrong, but it is not nearly as bad aws what APresident Obama is doing, and not doing. I agree with Rick Perry that Obama, adn the Federal Government, are making it HARD for a governor like him to handle the problem of illegal immigration, and that Obama is compounding the problem by preventing the states from doing anything effetive themselves. So we agree more than we disagree. But people choosing between us have the right to know where we do disagree."


You may not like my answer on this particular question. But I think you have to agree it is BETTER than almost all of the answers you heard tonight, and some variation of this approach is what shoud be done to ALL of these media questions designed to"pick a fight". The problem, of course, is that the candidates tonight did not even need the disgraceful media. They were ready to pick their own fights, and that is truly sad and stupid. Show you can take on OBAMA, and you have a chance of winning the nomination. Fail to do that, an d even if you get the nomination, it may be wrothless to you.