GOP Debate: Definitive Analysis

My 89 year old mother, whose hero is FDR because she grew up in the Great Depression, favors Mitt Romney. And, at 89, she sees right through ewt Gingrich--who is so smart he outsmarts himslelf, and is unable to come up with a consistent philosophy of government that he is not willing to CHANGE tomorrow (defending the NEW poisition with just as much intelligence and knwledge as the old, exactly opposite positioin---reminding me of a SMARTER Barack Obama).


The obvius reason I mention Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich is taht they were the obvious WINNERS of tonigh'ts BOP (Grand OUtdated Party) debate. Indded, ALL of teh GOP candidates did better than Barack Oba has shown he can do, with the exception of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. Huntsman has not chance, and Ron Paul's idiosyncratic "foreign policy" was DISCREDITED at Pearl Harbor (even though it has the virtue of being principled and internally consistent). But, as usual, no one laid a glove on Romney, and Gingrich--also as usual--shbowed himself INCREDIBLY knowledgeable and teh smartest person in the room. Quoting Maxwell Smart: "If only he (Gingrich) had used al of that talent for good instead of eveil" .Now "evil" may be tooo sgrong a word, but I can assure you (as my 89 year old mother has dtermined without much input from me) that Gingrich is a man of NO real principles. That may be why he is such a good debater. He can take ANY side of a debate, and support it with intelligence and knowledge. I don't turst him at all, and can't vote for him againt anybody. Nevertheless, he keeps WINNING these debates, although Romney keeps holding hi sown.


Gingrich, however, made a major misstep, Romney was right. Allowing ANY kind of amnestry, except on suome kind of rare basis, is merely a MAGNET for further illegal immigration. What Gingrich pulled was the old debating TRICK of taking an EXTREME example, and then trying to extend it to support an entirely different positon. Gingrich talked aobut not deporting anyone who has been here 25 years, belongs to the local church, and has 10 children and 30 grandchildren (only a slight exaggeratioin as to number of children and grandchildren, otherwise an accurate description of what Gingrich sadi). ToO CLEVER BY MORE THAN HALF, AND ILLUSTRATIVE OF WHY I CANNOT SUPPORT GINGRICH. Gingrich then asserted that he had "proven" why MILLIONS (not all 11 or 12 millin, but MILLIONS) of illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay here. What is wrong with that? There are NOT millions (more like handfuls) of illegl immigrants who fit Gingrich's description, and Gingrich knows it. Did I just calll Gingrich dishonest? Of course, although this is a rather standard politician's/debater's dishonesty. But that is not even the main problem, or the main dishonesty. Gingrich brought up the Reagan amnesty, without seeming to realize that it DESTROYED his own hishonest argument.


WHY did the Reagan amnesty fail, BESIDES the fact that Reagan was misled that we would control our borders and illegal immigration thereafter? It FAILED because of the very thing Gingrich is ADVOCATING. Gingrcih was adovocating some kind of "board' to "evalaute" EACH person as to whether they "should" be allowed to "stay" in this country. That is INISANE and DISHONEST. There is no way to actually DO thatr. It is IMPOSSIBLE, It means no one gets deported, and probably everyone gets to stay. That is what happened in the Regan amnesty. As Gingrich said, Reagan expected a few hundred thousand to "qaualify", while 3 million wre granted amnesty. WHY? It was because the INS couuld NOT handle the "investigation" as to who "qualiified" (seven years in thhis coutnry, or someting like that, with a clean record) for amnesty and who did not. This fianlly resulted in basically a RUBBER STAMP, buecase the system was INCAPBLE of hadling treating ever case of illegal immigratin like it was a MURDER TRIAL, with endless appeals and vague "facts". No, I ma afraid I do not thingk this is "naive' on Gingrich's part. Gingrich KNOWS this, and is being DISHONEST. There is NOW WAY we could ever examine each illegal immigrant separately to "research" whether they sould be allowed to stay in this country> "Belong to the local church" my eye. Newt, llyou should be ASHAMED. If you actually think that this kind of CHARACTER TRIAL could be held, then there is NO WAY you should be President of the United States. Of course, you DO NOT think taht, which--unfortunaely--means that there is NO WAY you should be President of the United States. (By the way, Gingrich was right on one thing on illegal immigration, and one thing only: we should be willing to grant citizenship to illegal immigarants who COMPLET E a term of service int eh Untited States military, and should be willing to let the military determine who they are willnng to accept, with immunity from dportation so long as they are in the United Sates military.)


Herman Cain did fine, but he is unable to conceal that he is neither comfortable nor especially knowledgeable with foreign policy questions. This blog still endorses Herman Cain, because of what I ahve said. If you WANT a "non-politicina" to be President of the Untited States--as a lesson to the politicians, if nothign else, and because the politicians have made such a hash of things--then you MUST be willing to accept gaps in "knowledge" and experience. Otherwise, it will NEVER happen, and you might as well not tell pollster that you want it to happen (knowing that you will never have the COURAGE to let it happen, because you will always be too nervous about the "lack of experiecnce" of the non-politician; unless it is somebody like Barack Obama, where the MEDIA REFUSES TO VEN PRETEND "SCRUTINY"). As I have said, Cain is a longshot to get the nomination, or be President. But I remain convinced that it would be one of the BEST things that ever happened to this country for him to become President. No, I am not worried about "foreign policy". Presidents heavily rely on adivsors there anyway. And I think his general instincts are sound. But Cain did not come close to "competing" with Romney and Gingrich.


Perry was fine (for a change). Bachmann was fine. Santrum was fine. Still, Gingrich and Romney "won"--not even close. That is how you have to "judge" teh debae, AS A DEBBATE. Gingrich's problem is that he may really have LOST, because of that "too cleveer" attempt to be dishoneston illegal immigration (and have it ALL ways) I am not sure just honw many peole will see thourgh this, like my 89 year old mother, but I have a feeling Gingrich is underestimating (as usual) the number of peoile he CAN FOOL with sheer virtuosity in argument. I have said Gingrich will not be Presidetn, and I stand by tath assessment. However, I also stand by the assessment that the MEDIA has managed to make the most LIKELY nomineee either Ginrich or Romney (heavy favorite, in my view). Thos war probably the two STRONGEST candidates against Obama. Is that really what the media WANTED when they conducted tgheir SMEARS fo Cain, Bachmann and Perry? I wonder. Perry is doing better, but I still think it is to late.


Romney will NOT win Iowa (absent an imposion from EVERYNE else), because he does not DARE risk a major effort in Iowa. Romney will win New Hampshire (or else his is done), and he will. Then it comes down to whether Romney can pull away, or whether there will be enough candidaes left standing to make a DEADLOCK possible. I don't count out the possibility that Gingrich could roll over everyone, if he can actually put it all together and stop his inclination to be "too clever". But I just don't see it. But I don't see ANY other candidate, besides Gingrich, taking this away from Romney at any early state. TheBEST teh otehr candidates can hope for is to create enough of a DEADLOCK that it will become obvius taht Romney is not going to make it, with th eidea that the other cnadidates can build LATE MOMENTUM to take them to the nominatioin. Right notw, I just don'st see a path there for anyone except Romney and Gingrich, with Cain now the one with the outside chance. I continue to see teh POSSIBILITY (although not probablity) of a DEADLOCK all of teh way to the convention (especailly with the "new" proportional representation rules on apportioning delegates).


Thre you have it: the definitive analysis of where the GOP is right now, without ONCE mentioning irrelevant polls. Yep. The incompetent media STILL citing polls as if they mean something, because they are so incompetent that they have nootehr wa of "covering" an election. They do so, despite what has happened this electin (and election after election) to show polls totallyl useless (especially until the very time of the vote). This blog could never be that incompetetn. Sure, none of this article is very original, but you will get few other HONEST analyses of teh debate, or of teh status of the BOP race. I don't even think that there is any questin about most of teh above analysis being right, and yet you will rarely see it ut this diretly and honestly. Modest, aren't I?


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).