Talk about a GAFFE. As I have previously told you, FOOTBALL is SERIIOUIS.--not just a game.
If I am right, Newt Gingrich BLEW HIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN tonight. In one of those typical "humanizing" last questions, ABC asked--in tonight's GOP debate--what the candidates would be doing this Saturday night if they weren't at that New Hampshire debate. Gingrich said he would be home watchign the COLLEGE FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. lI hate to break it to you, Newt, but that game is MONDAY NIGHT. Tonight was tehe NFL playoff game between the Saints and the Lions. TheSACRIFICE I make for you readers of this blog who expectg debatge analysis. The Sainsts easily won the football game, but football is IMPORTANT. Thus, even though the Sainsts were pretty clearly gonig to be the winner by late tin the thrid quarter, I would normally have pretty much watched the entire game. As it was, I only checkded in on the football game, and watched ALMOST ALL of the debate. I still don't even belive it myself, but it was a prretty interesting debate (see previious article). I would say that the GOP candidates--except for Ron Paul--are getting BETTER every single debate (ALL of thhem--even Joh Huntsman, although he remains totally uninspiring and uninteresting).
What is worse is that the other candidates, or at least SOME of them, appeared to AGREE with Gingrich about the college championshiip game. But one or more merely said 'football", and you can excuse others by Gingrich having MISLED them into error (happens to me all of the time on things I consider unimportant, as these people HAVE to consider football at this time--fools that they are). Again, Alabama-LSU is MONDAY NIGHT. I will be watching (the whole thing, absent a truly huge blowout--even if my eyesight does make it hard for me to see the ball--this is FOOTBALL). Sylvia, my only female friend, even had the nerve to say that it is totally unimportant for me to watch these football games. You can see--aside from my general attitude toward women--why I am not romanticlally involved with Sylvia (as if Sylvia would be romantically involved with ME). I digress.
Santorum, Gingrich and Romney all did REALLY WEELL (although Romney, as usual, came across mainly as a very slick, "politics as usual" politician). Santorum, closer than usual to Ron Paul on the stage, got in some really good "digs" at Paul. Paul had a BAD debate. He went off on his libertarian crlusade against the drug laws, and even used the LEFTIST line that our drug laws (and crmiminal justice system) "discriminate" against minorities--as well as our WARS. This was his non-answer to a question about that 20 year old (a little less old than that) "newsletter" under Ron Paul's name. Paul seemed especailly cantankerous and irascible tonight, and all he can hope for is that no one was listening (and that the media will not REPLAY his really bad answers, because they correctly figure that this was juts "Ron Paul being Ron Paul". Sill, Paul was the big LOSER tonight. Huntsman is ALWAYS a loser. Perry was all right, but shunted off into the Santorum position, and he jsut did nto have much opportunity. He seemed almost an afterthought on state. Both he and Gingrich were especially good o the ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY of the mainstream media (Gingrich), and Obama's War on Religion (Perry).
My problem with Romney is that he really doesn't say much. He SOUNDS like he is, but he isn't. However, I thought he said "not much" about as well tonight as he ever has. He even made a "visioin" speech that sounded like it was written for Brack Obama. No, Romney's "vision" was for the OPPOSITE of a "Euroean welfare state", but--so help me-Obama hads made similar teleprompter speeches, without refrenecing the European welfare state. It sounded good (as do Obama's speeches about how we have to "learn to live within our menas"). As this blog has told you, Obama even usines--although not tonight--the Obama line about gong through the "budget line by line" to cut out spenidng that is not really needed.
Gingrich again got off some great, pithy, Twitter-type lines. But Gingrich did not give you the feeling, as usual, that he really has a consistent "philosophy of government". Gingrich always gives the impression that he "makes up" his ideas as he goews along, and may change them tomorrow (as he often has). Nevertheless, a good performance.
Santorum was good all of the way around. Romney--see, again, the previous article--got the ridiculous {contracepton" queston, and knocked it out of the partk with ridicule). I thought it was Romney's best moment, because teh lines did not seem to be lines he had said hundreds of times beforfe. A goo dnight for Romney, althoguh--for my taste--not quite as good as Santorum, or even Gingrich. Why not declare Santorum a clear winner? Easy. I know my own BIAS here toward conservatism, and against "politics as usual', and I have to overcome that to listen to Romney objectively.
There is one parituclar queston where I think Santorum got it exactly right--as if he ha been reading this blog. He was aseked about why he thinks he is a better candidate than Romney, as ABC fished for a PERSONAL ATTACK. They did ot get a personal attack, but they got a REALLY GOOD ANSER. Santourm said that he did not like the way that Romney constantly uses the term" middle class", divinding this coutnry up into "classes" engaging in class warfare rhetoric. I could not have said it better myself, and this blog has told you the same ting serveral times. All Santourm left out was that Romney uses the SAME figures for the "middle class' that Obama uses. To me, this was enough to say that Santorum WON the debate. His other answers were good too, and he pretty much deflated Ron Paul.
ABC, of course, declared Romney the winner, which is what ou can also expect from the unfair and unbalanced network (which I did nto even surf, and don't know whether they even analyzed the debate tonight). ABC, of coure, decleared Romney the winner because no one "laid a love on hiim". They actually said that the other candidates needed to tear Romney down. That is absurd, and shows how STUPID these people ("journalists") really are. Santorum cannot gain by ATTACKNG Romney directly. Santourum has to convince peole that SANTOURUM is a serious, credible candidate agasint Obama. I actually agree with Mary Matalin (who I usually don't think is worth hearing),. She said that what matters is whether conservatives can JON together behind someone other than Romney. That is Santorum's real "mission". He needs to QUICKLY establish himself as the ONLY credible alternative to Romney, and one who can beat Barack Obama. Mary Matalin and I agrree thant Santorum went a long way toward that tonight, as he deflated Ron Paul (along with Ron Paul deflating Ron Paul),, and pretty much left Gingrich and Perry in the dust (Perry more than Gingrich, but Gingrich is taknig ut after Romney, and that will not ultimately help Gingrich, as it would not help Santorum).
Still, there is a sense in which Romney "won". No, it is NOT the ABC sense. Santorum can NEVER win "going after" Romney tooth and nail. He needs to let Gingrich do that. The way in which Romney "won" is that it is becoming more and more clear that it is really hard now to RUFFLE ROMNEY. He, of course, is NOT facing the "meida scrutiny" he will get if his opponent is Obama, because the media wants to defeat all "consevatives' FIRST. STill, NO ONE seems to be able to "lay a glove" on Romney, as far as FORCING HIM INTO ERROR. He jsut won't be baited. He leaves that to paid negative ads, where he can "out-compete" the whole field. In short, Romney is showing thqat he CAN defeat Barack Obama, at least in terms of the media communications game. For me, that is not enough. I want a candidate who will not just keep us gong down the same road, although managed a little better. Santourm tried to make thqat criticism tonight, but Ropmney pretty well sidesteepeed it with that 'vision" , Obama-type speech (short speech).
Why do I think Santourm mmay still be a BETTER candidate against Obama, and why do I think Romney could yet turn out to be a disaster? It all goes back to what my older daughter (living in Boston) told me abut Romney wayback in 2007 or so. She said the Romney was RIDICULED in Boston (consider the source here, but in thic case I think it has merit) because Romney decided to try to show "confidence" in the safety of the Boston subway system (the "T") by RIDING the "T". Unfortunately, according to my daughter,, Romney made it clear that he had NEVER RIDDEN THE "T". In ohter, words, he came acrooss as a person OUT OF TOUCH with the ordinary American. To a degree, I thnk this is a true picture of Romney. No, I dont think that "disqualifies" him from my vote. I supported him in 2008, DESPITE agreeing with my older daughter on tis flaw. But I don't thik Romney really CONNECTS with people. That may not matter. NIXON did not connect with people, and own 60% of the vote in 1972. The "electable' case for Eomney is that he REASSURES PEOPOLE. He LOOKS Presidential, and he SOUNDS Presidential (to a fault). They KNOW he is an "elitist rich guy", who almost seems incapble of showing real human emotion (or connecting with theirs). But if they beleive, as I think they will, that this country cannot AFFORD four more years of Obama (my brothers' position), then Romney appears to be SAFE. As this blog has told you, I consider Romney MORE DANGEROUS than Ron Paul. But most people don't think like me.
In short, Romney is NEVER going to be "inspiring". But we will have had four yearsof the Messiah by November of 2012. People may be READY for Romney. I don't delude myself on that. Santorum, in THIS sense, is more risky agaisnt Obama than Romneyh. It justs eems unlikey that Romney will make major mistakes, unless the "out of touch" "charge" bvegins to stick. I guarantee ou it will be MORE the attack than the "flip-flopper" charge. Obama is gong to try to portray Romney as an "out of touch Wall Street guy who does not care about the common man, or understand him.". It MAY work (although I don't think so)., Santorum is not subject tto this "charge", but he is much more likely to MAKE MISTAKES, such that he can be marginalized as one of those crazy conservatives. That has nothing to do witht eh debate tonight. Santorum could do noting about that in the debate, and he did about as well as he can do (pretty good, but maybe not good enough, even if better than Romney).
The message against Obama as hurting jobs and wanting to turn us into a European welfare state was MORE CONSISTANT than it has been, and really pretty effective. It does appear to me that the GOP is getting it togethr on this messsage, no matter who the nominee is (most likely Romney, and I see o alternative to Romney except Santorum, absent a new entrant). For those of ou out thre like my brothers, and so many others (who don't think this country can afford anoterh Obama term, but do think we can afford a Romney term), this should be encouraging. For the mainstream meida, it should be REALLY DISCOURAING.
P.S No proofreaidng or spell checking (bad eyesight). As usual, the above is the DEFINITIVE debate analysis,. You do not need to listen to any other "analysis". I have told you everything you need to know. Oh, and I would STILL vote for Ron Paul agasint Obama, and agaisnt Romney if the race were to somehow come down to Romne vs. Paul. But Paul is NOT going to win the nomination. The most he could do is create a deadlock (if Santorum, Gingrich and Perry mount enough of a challenge to Romney to deny him a majority of delegates, when combined with Ron Paul delegates). Santorum SHOULD finish second in New Hampshire, although Paul may manage to hold on to that sot. I just don't see Gingrich having a big impact, except tearing down Romney, but Gingrich has been about the ONLY candidate to really surprise me this election cycle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment