No, I am not supporting Newt Gingrich for President. I have said--and mean it--that I would not even supotrt Newt against Barack Obama (although I reserve the right to change my mind). Thus, you can be assured that when I say Gingrich won tonight's GOP debate, Gingrrich won tonigh'ts GOP debate. Now his bad moments wre at the beginnigng, when he was taking the exact opposite position from the position he originallly took: that people have a "right' to be told about the record of an opposing candidate, even if it is in a negative way. Ginbrich would have been better off simply to give the obvious answer: hthat he was getting KILLED with negative ads, and simply could not afford to "unilaterally disarm". Gingrich actually said that at the start, but then tried (unsuccessfullly) to argue that what he is now doing is "right". But that was the last foot Gingrich set wrong. He got a STANDING OVATION in his defense of WORKand the need to encourage the work ethic. His answer to killing our enemies, quoting a 13 year old Anldreew Jackson ("Old Hickory"--the hero of the battle of New Orleans and really the first "outsider"-"Western-type" President) was a classic. Time after time Gingrich came up with the RIHGT LINE--without it apearing to be merely a political device.I have quoted Maxwell Smart before: "If only he had used his talents for good instead of evil"." No, I am not saying that Gingriuch was using his talents for evil tonight, but too often he has (including his decision to attack Mitt Romney on Bain Capital).
Rick Perry was again surprisingly good. He gave a good answer on te border, and even better answers on what President Obama is doing to this country (including the Obama war on religoin). However, it ws Rick Santorum who again hshowed that he really understood "family values", and their value to MINORITIES especially. Santorum was solid overall, and even did pretty well in his give and take with Romney. As for Perry, it is a matter of what might have been. Perry will not win, and lyou get the feeling he knows it. However, he has IMROVED basically every debatge. If he had been this good all along, we would probably be talking about President Perry in November. Perry even properly stood up for those marienes who evidently urinated on ENEMY people they had killed (ont in the debate, as far as I heard, but in public over the past few days). Of course, I donn't want to make the mistake of SPORTSCASTERS (basically ALL of them---turly The Stupidest People Who Have Ever Lived, within the "journalistic" group which shares that designation with Wall Street people). This mistake is to assume that everything else would have remained the same if one thing (Perry's debate performances) had changed. If Perry had been more comfortable debating at the beginning, would he have avoided other mistakes under pressure.? Impossible to really know. But he had a window of opportunity to win the nomination, and his recent debate performances show taht he COULD have taken advantae of teh opportunity if he had somehow PREPARED himself better for the race (perhaps by making an earlier decisioin to rlun? Or skipping early debates right after he announced?--see what I mean about not knowing how the CHANGED race would have gone?).
Ron Paul lost just be being Ron Paul. Sure, he was hhonest, as he always is. But 0% taxes? As I have said, Ron Paul is the ONLY person I have ever heard of who would dismantel MORe of the Federal Government than I would. No laws againt cocaine and heoin? Pull back from ALL of the world? Pay attention to "international law" with regard to Iran and Pakistan? I just can't see Ron Paul as President of the United States, even if he is one of the few GOP candidates I wouuuld vote for against Obama (basically him and Santorum--with widely different reservations about each of them). Paul could be a "spoiler" IF several candidates STAY in the race to the bitter end, since he can win delegaes. Paul simplly cannot be the nominee, even if he did give a somewhat CORRECT (again showing the "jurnalist" to be STUPID) explanation of how we can CUT defense spending without cutting bases and defense IN THE UNITED STATES. Paul's lproblem is that he wants to WITHDRAW from the rewt of the world--a policy discredited at Pearl Harbor. Paul's problem is NOT that he wantsto "cut" the military power of the United States. Anyway, I continue to believe that Paul LOSES debates where his really "out there" positoins (like eliminating the income tax, and not replacing it with any other taxes) get exposed.
Ah. Then there is Mitt Romney. This was Romney's WORST debate. No, it was not because of Bain Capital. Romney handled Bain Capital pretty well, and other GOP candidates simply cannot get anywhere with this HYPOCRITICAL attack o capitalism. We are mainly talking aobut Gingrich and Perry here. Santorum has pretty much disavoewed that mode of attack FROM THE LEFT. Now I think it is fair to say that Romney is a WALL STREET kind of person (explaining why he supported the initial bailouts, along with Gingrich), rather than a "businessman" like Herman Cain providing a product or service. But that is not really an "attack". It is merely a correct observation that Romney is a little "elitist", wihout much contact with the ordinary person or businessman. But that hardly means you can really attack Romney for "firing people", and ou can't. So far, so god. Romney was solid on this topic at the very beginning of the debate. He was not solid again in the debate, except on illegal immigration (and maybe another flash or two attackng Presdietn Obama and getting government out of the economy).
Examples (on Romney)? Well, there is hsi BOBBING AND WEAVING on his SuperPAC. Romney keeps saying: IF any ad put out by the SuperPAC supporting me is inaccurate, I want them to take the inaccurate informatino out of the ad. Can you get any mroe DISINGENUOUS than that? I don't think os. Snatourm almsot had to pull teeth to get Romney to comment on the negative ad against Santorum, and then Romney was DISHONEST. Yep. I stand by the word. Santorum's complaint was that Romney's SuperPAC is running an ad showing a PRISONER in a PRISON JUMPSUIT alleging that Santourm wants FELONS to have the vote. What Santourm did was votre for a bill that would give REFORMED (in the sense of completely completing their entire sentence, including probation and parole) felons the vote, becaue it is such a big issue in the minority community (especailly among African-American advocates who say so many are affectged by the drug laws). Then Romney said that the ad "appears" to be "accurate" because Santourm did slupport restoring the vote to people who some would stil lconsider "felons", even if they had paid their debt to society. This, of course, ignores Santourm's real complaint: taht the ad leaves the impressoin--deliberately--that Santourm supports giving the votge to CURRENT FELONS. Romney actually had the nuerve to suggest the ad was okay, because Romney does not support giving the vote, EVER, to 'violent felons", while Santurm does uspport that once they have paid their debt to society.
Under this logic (teh Romney DISHONEST logic), the same ROMNEY SuperPAC ad could be run against ROMNEY. Yes, Santourm pointed out that Romney did not even TRY to eliminate a MORE LIBERAL Massachusetts law givng felons the right to vote. Under Romney standards, this alone would seem to make an ad saying Romney favors the vote for FELONS "accurate". But it is worse than that. Look at Roney's tlypical "weasall-worded" statemetn of his positon. Romney says he does not support giving the vote to people EVER convicted of VIOLENT FELONIES. First, I think this is STUPID,. I don't think that a distinctiion between violetn and non-violent FELONIES is workable, or makes sense. You neeed ONE LAW for all felonies (although preferably on a state level). But look at waht Romney SAID!!!!!! He actually said that he, Romney, SUPPORTS GIVING TGHE VOTE TO FELONS. In other words, the Romney ad could be used against ROPMNEY--at least using ROMNEY'S standards for "accuracy". Did not Romney say that he could support a law giving the vote to NON-VIOLENT FELONS? He did, even though no one seems to have recognized it.
This is the kind of thing Romney did all debate, except on illegal immigration (his best answer outside of the required Bain Capital defense). Look at the "issue' of income tax returns. I actually think candidates should stop being INTIMIDATED on this "issue' of providng a FISHING EXPEDITION for the mainstream media to go over tax returns with a fine tooth comb. It is a useless invaion of privacy, with NO legitimate purpose. No, I do NOT think I have a "right to know', as a voter. Texas, and probably most states, considers income tax returns to be PRIVILEGED, which are not even discoverable by litigants absent a COMPELLING issue (and then only as to the parts relevant to that issue).
But look at what Romney did!!!!! As usual. He did NOT "stand on principle". Rather, he made a very CALCULATED gamble, which he thinks he can get away with in the GOP nomination fight, but not in the general election. What Romney said tonight wastthat he has "investigated" what oterh candidates like John McCain and George W. Bush have done, and that the is inclined to folow "precedent". This means that Romney will THINK ABOUT releasing his income tax returns in APRIL. Waht is significant about APRIL? Right. Romney thinks that the GOP race will be OVER by April, and that it will not matter if South Carolina voters REGRET their choice once Romney releases his tax returns. Too cute by more than half. in itself, this is ENOUGH for you to vote AGAINST Romney. Ah, you say, but who do I vote FOR? I have chosen Santorum, but I admit it is a poser.. It is not that the field is "weak". It is much STRONGER than the Democrat field in 2008 (with the three main candidates being a community organizer, a woman who gained her real stature as a WIFE, and who was sitll counting on her husband to attract votes, and a SLEAZEBALL named John Edwards). But these candidates are all FLAWED in MAJOR ways from a CONSERVATRIVE pont of view. Romney's performance tonight emphasized his FLAWES, even though the overall quality of the debate performances (includng, at times, Romney) was HIGH. The GOP candidates really have been getting better tat this as they go alnog. And Gingrich has ALWAYS been as strong as ou can get in the DEBATES. He was also, yo remember , SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE (third in line for the Rpesidency). Rick Perryhas been governor of Texas for LONGER than any other person--our leading state (forget California). So much for a "weak" field--if only they did not all have those FLAWS.
Ah, Romney. I will give you only one more example. Romney was asked--alnog with the rest--what he regarded as the HIGHEST tax rate any individual should pay. Perry have his 20% flat tax idea, which is part of his CAMPAIGN. Gingrich gave his 15% tax plan idea, which is part of his CAMPAIGN. Santourm talked aobut his REAGAN tax rates (10 and 28 percent).--part of his campaing. Paul--God love him--came up with ZERIO, and metnioned that we did not have an income tacx before 1913 Constitutional Amendment, which I doubt we would even bother with today, if we did not already have it). What can you say about Romney? NO CORE? Trying to be all things to all people? Afarid to be bold? All of the above? What Romney said was that the CURRRENT RATE is 35%, and that people should pay that rate so lnog as it is in effect. Say what? THEN Romney went on to say that his view was that no one should pay more than 25% (also, by the way, my personal view, although I agee with Santourm that there was nothing much wrong iwth the Reagan rages), and thqat we should be working to loer taxes. What does that MEAN? It means that Romney doe NOT HAVE A REAL TAX PLAN. Romney's only "plan' is to cut the capital gainsts, interest and dividend rate ONLY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS (using the very same class warfare language as Obama, as Santourm ponted out in a debate). In other words, the other candidates gave their CAMPAING POSITIONS. Romney does nto have a real campaign position on taxes. I simply can't vote for this man. My problem is that I LISTEN to him. And every time I listen,, I get the heebie jeebies. I was willng ot live iwth RomneyCare in 2008, when I endorsed Romney. Since then, Romney has CONVINCED me I cannot vever support him.
Let me give Romney his due on one more thing. He have an "explanation" of his change of position on abortion that actually was pretty impressive-if not very convincing. Romney said that he had tried to reconcile his personal views on abortion with trying to keep government out of it, but that he had been faced with a bill in Massachusetts encouraging the discarding of embryoes, and that h, Ropmney, simply faced his own soul (my words) and could not sign it. Romney then came out and said he was "pro-life", and that he could nto kid himself any lnoger. He said he served as a pro-life governor. Why not convincing? Well, it COUYLD be ture. The problem is that Romney was pro-life, before he ran against Ted Kennedy and became pro-abortion (I never use " pro-choice"). Then he ran for governor in Massachusetts as a GOP MODERATE. Then Romney became pro-life again. A CYNIC (of whom I am notoroiously one) would say that Romney always adopted the POLITICALLY CONVIENT position--including the last time. Was Romney already pklanning to run for the GOP nominaiton in 2008 when he suddenly became "pro-life' again in Massachusetts? It seems likely to me.
Nope. Rom;ney LOST this debate, and in ways that show why he really should not be the nominee. That begs the question of who SHOULD be the nominee, but this blog can only help you so far (if you believe that Santorum can't beat Obama). But, really, Romney did more bobbing and weaving tonight than all of the other candidates COMBINED. Not mpressive at all. The income tax dodge alone should HURT him. Again, I could have supported PRINCIPLE maintained under pressure. The actual Romney dodge is disgraceful.--so disgraceful that I wonder whether he can stick by it, even in the nomination fight where the mainstream media is not yet fully pushing Obama SMEARS (sort of supporting Romney, while trying to weaken him a litttle for Obama).
No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment