Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Yet Another Debate Wrap Up

Last night saw yet another fascinating Republican debate. Most of the attacks were on Cain or Romney. Perry attacked Romney as did Bachmann. Paul and Santorum attacked Cain. Huntsman focused on Perry. Gingrich focused on the Fed. Romney focused on Obama. Cain focused on his own plans. And the moderators attacked Romney, Cain and Perry. In the end, I think Cain was a huge winner, even though that may not be immediately apparent, and the race is now between Romney and Cain.

Cain: Cain needed to show he could take the pressure of being number two. He did. At no point did he fall flat on his face or lack for answers. His two worst moments came:

● When a moderator asked why he told the unemployed it was their own fault they didn't have jobs. This mischaracterized Cain’s comment, which was aimed at the idiots squatting on Wall Street, but it still sounded bad and his explanation wasn’t particularly strong.

● When Ron Paul attacked him for being on the Kansas City Fed, Cain gave an ok (not great) answer that the Fed didn’t act then like it does now. That won’t satisfy Fed-deniers.
Cain defended other attacks quite nicely, such as:
● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for raising only $2 trillion in revenues instead of the $2.2 trillion claimed, Cain shot back with one of the best lines of the night: “The problem with that analysis is that it’s incorrect.”

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being “regressive” and making “food and milk and beer” more expensive, Cain made the solid point that eliminating the payroll tax would more than offset that. I like that he didn't apologize for imposing a “regressive” tax.

● When Romney attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too simple and claiming simple is not good, Cain turned this on Romney by asking him if he knows all 59 points in his own plan. Romney didn’t and instead came up with the “7 pillars” of his plan and thereby proved that simple is better.

● Several of the underlings jumped on the idea Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would give Congress a new source of revenue by creating a national sale tax, but this only emphasized how deeply entrenched in the system their mindsets are. Following their logic, we shouldn't try anything.
Cain had a brilliant line too: “The capital gains tax is a wall that stands between people with ideas and people with money.”

Cain didn’t blow anybody away, but he did show solid skills and he proved he won't trip himself up. He also did such a masterful job of selling his 9-9-9 plan that every other candidate talked about it constantly, as did the moderators, and it even came up in questions that didn’t involve him. He made his 9-9-9 plan THE take away from this debate and that will prove to be a huge win, even if it isn’t immediately obvious.

Romney: Romney just needed to be smooth and for the most part he succeeded. BUT the problem with Romney was on full display again last night. He would say something great and then he would keep talking until he backtracked out of it. He also imploded during the TARP question because he danced so long around whether he would do another Wall Street bailout that it became clear not only that he would do another bailout, but it was also clear he was trying to lie to us.

Newt also had a solid hit on Romney by pointing out that “on page 47” of his plan (a slap at Romney’s inability to describe his 59 point plan) Romney plays into Obama’s class warfare argument by promising capital gains tax cuts “to people who don’t have capital gains.” Romney missed Newt’s point and tried to defend this by saying he favors the middle class because the rich can take care of themselves. . . conceding Obama's case.

In the plus category, Perry took a shot at Romney over RomneyCare being like ObamaCare, but Romney’s defense was even better this time than last: (1) we didn’t raise taxes like Obama does, (2) we only insured poor people, we didn’t try to force everyone onto it, (3) this is a state issue, and (4) Massholes like the system 3-1. Whether those are true points or not, they remained un-refuted and made this a dead issue.

Romney also had a great shot at Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman when he said, “I would not be in this race if I had spent my whole life in government.” He then detailed some of the companies he founded.

Perry: Perry really needed to shine to stop his nosedive. He failed. He barely spoke last night and when he did it was all generic. In particular, he mishandled his pending economic plan. He didn’t seem to know what’s in it and he just kept promising that he would release it soon as if he didn’t want to spoil the surprise. When it was pointed out that he should be able to tell us what’s in it, he responded with a very bad answer, claiming he’d only had eight weeks to work on it, whereas Romney’s had six years. Frankly a candidate who understands what they believe can detail an economic plan off the top of their head.

The moderators also smacked Perry by saying that the way Texas develops business is similar to Solyndra. Perry’s response was basically “everybody’s doin’ it,” which will only add more fire to the cronyism charge.

Paul: Ron Paul had another bad debate. He had little to say as Newt stole his thunder. When he spoke, he made good points, but they weren’t memorable.

Gingrich: Newt was the most interesting last night. He repeatedly tried to win over Paul supporters with angry broadside attacks on Ben Bernanke and the Fed, and he tried to win over Palin supporters by defending her even though no one else had mentioned her. Neither group are traditionally Newt people, so he’s clearly trying to branch out. Paul seemed a little stunned by this.

Santorum: Santorum needs to go. He kept interrupting and he bizarrely continues to paint himself as an outsider. He also did things like blast everyone at the table as insiders and then (in the same sentence) attacked Cain for his lack of experience. Huh? Also, after blasting all the horrible insiders, he bragged how his years as an insider would let him pass his plan. . . whatever that plan actually is. Then he said he wanted to go to war with China, though I think he meant he wanted to fight a trade war, which isn’t much smarter. And his economic plan seems to be to make people get married.

Bachmann: Bachmann and Santorum came across as lifer politicians with bland platitudes and repeatedly using candidate speak, e.g. “I just spoke to a man who told me blah blah blah.” This is something annoying people do when they've been in politics too long. Bachmann also needs to stop telling us she has 5 biological kids and 24 foster kids and that she was an attorney for the I.R.S. It's become like Al Bundy talking about scoring 4 touchdowns in one game.

Bachmann's attack on Cain's plan also struck me as a negative. She said if you turn Cain’s 9-9-9 plan around, “the devil is in the details.” Ha ha ha. First, that's trite and she has no comedic timing. Secondly, how does that make sense? The beauty of Cain’s plan is the lack of hidden details, it’s the tinker-with-the-current-system advocates who are playing with details. Third, what does she know of details as her “plan” (a term I use loosely) has none -- it's pure platitude. She should join Santorum on the short bus back home.

Huntsman: Huntsman remains a sniveling jerk. He takes hypocritical cheap shots and radiates smugness, and he continues to adopt Democratic rhetoric to attack the candidates. Last night he said Cain’s 9-9-9 plan sounded like a pizza price, which is a standard attack you’ll find in the leftist blog world.

Speculation: Finally, there was more evidence for my theory that Cain and Romney have a deal. Cain inexplicable bailed Romney out on TARP and then while seemingly criticizing Romney in the direct question section actually gave Romney an open platform to discuss his economic plan. Romney then used his question against Bachmann, when tactically, he should have blasted Cain. My guess is Cain doesn’t think he’ll win, so he’s agreed he will eventually bow out and endorse Romney in exchange for becoming the VP.

Thanks to everyone who participated last night and thanks to T-Rav and his sockpuppets!

59 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

got to watch on t.v. last night. I seem to be one of the few who gets this obscure news channel. Unfortunately, that puts me in a place where I couldn't participate last night but it looks like a good time was had by all!

ScottDS said...

Didn't someone also say "God is in the details," too?

I tuned in for a few minutes but it took me longer to find the channel - it was up there in the 200s!

Tennessee Jed said...

BTW, I believe the Cain Romney pact is very likely. I know that Romney is not someone conservatives get excited about, but I do think he is most likely going to be the nominee, so I am trying hard now to get to like him in my own mind. I always though Herm would be a real likely V.P. candidate.

I agree about Bachman and Santorum. Look these folks are good conservatives, but are not of presidential timbre.

Joel Farnham said...

"● Speculation: Finally, there was more evidence for my theory that Cain and Romney have a deal. Cain inexplicable bailed Romney out on TARP and then while seemingly criticizing Romney in the direct question section actually gave Romney an open platform to discuss his economic plan. Romney then used his question against Bachmann, when tactically, he should have blasted Cain. My guess is Cain doesn’t think he’ll win, so he’s agreed he will eventually bow out and endorse Romney in exchange for becoming the VP."

Interesting. That dovetails nicely. If you have the time, check out Conservatives for Palin. If what I think happened, happened, after Cain concedes to Romney that he can't win, and dives in with Romney, look for a plaintive call for Palin to reconsider. After a short time, she will have "convinced her family" and jump into the Presidential race.

BevfromNYC said...

Yes, Scott - Michelle Bachmann said something about if you turn Cain's 9-9-9 plan over you get 6-6-6 which means the "devil is in the details". Or something like that. That was an obviously to perk up the very religious End-times believers with the "Mark of the Beast" allusion...

T-Rav said...

And let me add, thanks to everyone else! We had a good crowd last night. Also, we seem to have better ideas than most of the people up there (not to mention the moderators).

Unfortunately for me, the Bloomberg site kept stopping and then jumping ahead, so I missed quite some parts of the debate. (Wonder if that could be a metaphor for his tenure as NYC mayor...) But I agree with most of your points, Andrew, particularly regarding Santorum. Whatever sympathy I might have for him as a fellow social con, he is accomplishing less than nothing as a contender and needs to go.

And I must have missed Bachmann's remark about "turn 999 upside down." Oh Lord. I think she's getting increasingly desperate as her numbers slide--which, by the way, tends to make that problem worse, not better.

CrispyRice said...

Thanks for the wrap up, Andrew!

I'm glad to hear that Cain did well. Woohoo.

I'll have serious issues if Cain agrees to play VP to Romney. I honestly don't think I can support Romney, and making Cain a nonentity on the ticket won't change that. I vowed after holding my nose and voting for McCain that I won't do that again.

Now, Cain-Romney, that I could do...

CrisD said...

Michelle Bachmann's 666 "joke" was awful! She cannot be vice-president. Perry "speechified" on how bad Obama was and it was enough off the mark to make it hollow-as if he were repeating BADLY something he was told to say. Gingrich sounded good as a conservative but did not push his own self forward enough. Paul sounded cranky. But Santorum sounded cranky and he is not even old. Cain is definitely selling his 999 plan--got that. Romney is the is easy on the eyes and ears, mostly anyhow, but we all know he would be a place holder for Rs and not a conservative.
The debate was memorable because I didn't realize how awful Charlie Rose looked. He needs and face lift. The old woman questioning was a horrible leftist and the young woman moderator seemed aghast that the candidates would talk back to her (eg. Cain-the analysts are wrong-her facial expression was hilarious).

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, We did have a good time. But I'm glad you got to see it. I'm sensing a lot of people are interested in these debates because of the importance of this election.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, Bachmann said "the devil is in the details" a horrible joke/attempt to attack Cain's 9-9-9 plan by claiming that if you turn it upside down you get a 6-6-6 plan.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, that's a good way to put it about Bachmann and Santorum -- they are conservatives and that's great and I support them... but not for this job. They are small time.

I think Cain as VP would go a long way to getting conservatives on board with Romney and would probably soften Romney's image generally with the public.

The question T-Rav asked last night was why Cain would agree. I think he would agree if he didn't think he could win. He probably entered into the deal before he became the number 2 candidate and even now he may realize he doesn't have the organization or money he needs or something like that. Apparently, he's still not winning in Iowa and he won't win New Hampshire, so he could lose a lot of momentum if he loses his first two primaries. But I'm just guessing. I'm just reporting what I see, which suggests to me some team work.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That would be a really interesting twist!

I think there are two problems with that however. First, I don't see Cain giving in until near the end. For one thing, that's what Romney thinks Huckabee did to him -- hung around frustrating him until McCain had enough votes to win. For another, the longer Cain goes, the higher his support, the more significant his endorsement and the more powerful his choice as a VP. So he should hang on until the very end, appearing to give a hard fight and then suddenly joining Romney for a "dream team."

Secondly, once the voting starts, Palin would be so far behind the curve that I think she would be setting herself up for humiliation.

ScottDS said...

Andrew - yeah, I got her "joke" but I simply found it funny that the opposite is also true. And by "someone," I didn't mean someone at the debate.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I was running out of room in the article, so let me add that I thought it was HORRIBLE statement/joke. Not only was it trite as I say above, but she ended up with her foot in her mouth when she suggested that the DC/NY earthquake was God's revenge. To essentially go back to that even sort-of-jokingly is not wise.

Moreover, I think non-Religious Right people will find themselves turned off by this because it will confirm their view that she's way out there on the fringe by thinking that trying to connect Cain's plan to Satan is meaningful in politics.

On the other hand, I expect Religious conservatives will react poorly because this is kind of a misuse of something they take very seriously. It's like using Jesus in an ad for toothpaste.

So I doubt this would play well with anyone.

AND it felt like it had been pre-written for her and it just wasn't very clever. All in all, a bad move when something substantive was called for.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, Thanks for the link. I don't think I'd ever heard the inverse? I think "the devil is in the details" have become the idiom we use. Interesting!

StanH said...

Andrew Machiavelli, your political analysis is deep brother - - as far as Cain teaming up with Romney, I’m not so sure. I believe Cain is in this to win it, and by seemingly working with Romney could just be a smart stratagem on Cain’s part, jerking on Romney’s coattails, or being disagreeable, without being disagreeable. Remember Herman is a fixer in the corporate world, he has a killer instinct…we’ll see. But your overview is spot on of the debate, the Georgia boys did well again. It still irritates the hell out of me however, that we allow, the likes of Karen Tumulty(?) Journo-list, and Charlie Rose, hardcore devout leftist who want conservatism destroyed, ask gotcha, dumb questions of our candidates.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Thanks for leading the show! And make sure you thank the sockpuppets! :)

I agree that our audience is a good deal smarter than what we're seeing out of political leaders and that should tell us something is very wrong with our political system. It also tells you we have a great audience!

That said, I do think this is a decent group of candidates and I can see voting for almost all of them... Huntsman? WTF?

I also get the feeling that a couple of them are much smarter than they come across -- Cain and Paul in particular strike me as very intelligent. But a couple of them are just pure politicians with no active brainpower except for the driving thought: "I want to get elected."

Question: speaking as a verified social conservatives, what bothered you with the 9-9-9/6-6-6 statement? I've stated what I think above, but I'm curious what your take would be on that?

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, Cain/Romney would be a fantastic ticket! I don't care for Romney either, but here are two thoughts:

1. He does manage to get deeply and strongly conservative at times. It's just that he keeps backtracking. And if we're lucky, then he will be dealing with a Republican Congress.

2. It makes a lot of sense for Cain to get his foot in the door as VP, which would set him up nicely for the Presidency in the next cycle.

3. Almost anyone would be better than Obama. I know this is standard Republican logic, but this time it's true.

LawHawkRFD said...

What's wrong with apocalyptic religion in politics? Obama is the Antichrist, isn't he?

AndrewPrice said...

CrisD, I thought that too! Wow, does Charlie Rose look bad. I haven't seen him in years and I had no idea he was melting?!

Yep, the other two moderators were angry leftists who did not like having their trick questions questioned. I especially thought the younger woman's counterattack when Romney said her question was hypothetical was inappropriate. It was a hypothetical question and her "it's not hypothetical because half the public believes it" was pure idiocy and is the sort of thing someone with a brain wouldn't say.

I agree with your summary of the candidates. I got the feeling from Paul that he didn't really care about being there. Maybe sitting isn't his style? Santorum was borderline angry last night and that NEVER plays well in politics. Perry absolutely came across like he'd been programmed. I don't know why he doesn't get this, but you have to be loose at debates and not try to spit out large blocks of pre-written text. You have to have a conversation with the audience and he isn't -- he's giving mini-speeches. I also agree that Bachmann's 6-6-6 joke was just horrible all around.

I don't think last night was nearly as interesting or as good of a debate as prior debates, but I think it did start to solidify things.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, Thanks! It drives me nuts too that they are letting these leftist punks act as moderators. Because once again, we got a series of gotcha questions and attacks on the candidates rather than a genuine debate. A moderator should ask fair and probing questions and then step aside. These leftist moderators keep wanting to inject their own views into the debates.

On Cain, I am honestly just guessing. I see evidence of some sort of coordination. To me, that likely means a deal to be on the same ticket or award each other jobs or something like that. BUT it could also just be a tag team sort of situation to eliminate the others before they go at each other? I think there is a deal, but what kind of deal I don't know yet.

You also make a good point about Cain and it's something I think comes across very well in these debates -- he's a positive man. Too many politicians are these negative jerks who think debating is about using cutting lines and slamming people with obscure facts. That's not effective. What Cain has done is really effective -- short, simple, easy to grasp and positive. People like that and I think it's serving him well.

DUQ said...

Nice breakdown Andrew! I agree completely. I think Perry's finished. He looked lost last night, like he was waiting for someone to bring the check so he could leave.

BevfromNYC said...

"AND it felt like it had been pre-written for her and it just wasn't very clever."

Andrew - I felt that too. It sounded like one of the young campaign worker was joking in a strategy meeting and then, said "Hey, that's funny, write that down. She can use it to make herself look hip and funny at the next debate".

tryanmax said...

First of all, thanks to you all for keeping up on the debates. I find that I have no patience for them, so I need someone else to pull out the highlights.

Unfortunately, most of the media, Legacy and New, is unreliable for even that. These debates are becoming what polls have been for my whole life: the media generating news instead of reporting it.

The problem I find with this constant debate campaign that the media has foisted upon us is that it prompts each of the candidates to shift their position based on how well they are doing in the debates and the polls. I don't know about any one else, but I for one am disgusted by it.

If a candidate has an unpopular platform, I don't want a bunch of pundits instructing him how to soft-peddle it, I don't want him showing up at the next event following their advice, and I sure as heck don't want those same pundits patting him on the back for it. Of course, the only thing worse is if the candidate simply changes his platform with little or no explanation. Blech!

There may be a number of us here that are in the tank for Cain (I know I am) but I think we have good reason. Most of the current Republican candidates are guilty to some degree of what I just described. Cain, on the other hand, has remained quite solid on his plans. Sure, he's polished his message, but that's not the same as changing or obscuring it. In fact, it's the opposite.

What Cain has done, in my estimation, is take a plan with marginal appeal and increased its market-share, not by changing the product, but by demonstrating the need for it. And while Cain has certainly used the debates to his advantage, I think he would have done the same without them. That by itself shows Cain is well in-touch with the American people.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, He can't be the AntiChrist because the AntiChrist is supposed to be competent. Hence, Obama is disqualified.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I felt that too. In fact, at one point it struck me that he was about to lean back and try to order a beer while the rest were talking! LOL!

I don't think he helped himself last night. I don't think he performance was horrible, but it just confirmed opinions rather than changed them.

tryanmax said...

Everyone is launching on Bachmann for her 6-6-6 comment. But what about Huntsman's pizza price comment? I mean, how out of touch is the guy? For $9.99, that pie had better come with a 2-liter and an order of bread sticks! Come on!

tryanmax said...

Disclaimer: $9.99 based on flyover country pricing. Actual cost may vary by location.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's exactly how it felt -- like something an intern said or something a bad writer came up with. And it didn't help that she said it with such bad timing that it sounded like she was trying to set up a joke and that she waited for applause. It just seemed like one of those moments where someone tells a joke that bombs.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I (and I probably shouldn't claim to speak for social conservatives at large) wasn't offended by Bachmann's "joke." Well, I wasn't offended by any possible religious bearing the statement might have, as I don't think there is one. I was more bothered that she seemed to be describing Cain's plan as satanic. I don't think she was actually suggesting that; I think she was displaying a different version of what she did with Perry on Gardasil--start out with a legitimate criticism (people talk about the devil being in the details for a reason, after all), and then take it too far/completely botch it up. But as a Christian, was I offended? No.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, You're welcome.

I agree that the format for these debates has been bad. They have journalists asking gotcha questions and trying to trip up candidates. You get the candidates themselves using trick questions, misstated facts and unfair attacks on other candidates. You have candidates who simply keep changing their message until it clicks.

Those are things that should disgust us and I think they do. When I listen to our audience talk about the candidates, they aren't fooled by slick packaging, they are asking the deeper questions and they are holding the usual tricks against people rather than for them.

I agree that part of Cain's appeal is that he's been so consistent. He has a plan that he believes in. It makes a good deal of sense. He has relentlessly and positively sold that plan. He's not playing the usual political games of trying to stab the others in the back and he's not hiding his beliefs behind code or wonk speak. That sells very well.

Now, you may not like Cain or his plan. There's certainly room to disagree with him or to worry about his lack of experience or whether his plan can pass. But there's no sense that he's hiding anything or that he's only telling us what we want to hear. And I think that fact is really postive.

I think a LOT of politicians could learn a lot from Cain. But they have grown up in a system that has taught them certain rules that have worked for people in the system and they think that's what we want.

T-Rav said...

By the way, as LawHawk points out, Obama can't be the Antichrist. The Antichrist is supposed to be competent and persuasive. Does that sound like our Teleprompter-in-Chief to you?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, LOL! Good point, we should get free breadsticks or something along with the 9-9-9 plan! ;)

Seriously though, what a brilliant bit of marketing to come up with something so memorable for Americans and so simple sounding. I'll bet there isn't a voter who won't understand his plan. Compare that to Romney's 59 points -- which no one knows. The 9-9-9 plan is truly a marketing coup!

ArmChairGeneral said...

I really hope Romney does not win. I am so sick of RINOS in office.

Individualist said...

Andrew...

I like Cain and I like the 9-9-9 plan. The only criticism that I think is relevant is that the National Sales Tax probably will require an amendment to the constitution which makes implementing it more difficult.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Thanks for the explanation. I see your point.

I got the feeling she just thought she was saying something clever, and I don't think there was any substance to her criticism. In fact, I suspect that if the moderators had said, "ok, let's move beyond clever phrases and tell me what details you don't like in his plan," that she wouldn't have been able to come up with anything except the rather stupid argument that Congress would abuse it.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, In my article at BH, someone actually very seriously said that they thought Obama is the Anti-Christ. I made the same point there about his competence and the guy ignored me. :(

AndrewPrice said...

ACG, You and me both! Romney can sound very conservative at times, but I just don't believe it because he keeps backtracking to the left every time. If he really believed in conservatism and wasn't just using it as a marketing gimmick, then he wouldn't be backtracking. It's frustrating.

ArmChairGeneral said...

Andrew he also wouldn't have invented Romneycare that has put hundreds of people in Mass into debt or left them without insurance.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Howdy! I've been thinking about you lately. I was wonder if you ever got your account fixed at the Bigs?

On Cain, I actually doubt very much Cain's plan can be implemented. It's simply too radical for the establishment to accept. They might add pieces of it to the tax code, but they won't change the current tax code. So while I love the plan, I also sadly think it can't happen.

I think the best we can do is actually to start pushing for a flat tax without deductions, and then maybe we can make other changes. But even that will trigger a deathmatch in Washington.

AndrewPrice said...

ACG, True. I pointed out in the article that his defense sounds good and went un-refuted. But the truth is rather different than he's saying. In particular, he did force everyone to get insurance or join the system, and costs in Mass are out of control.

Plus, his 59 points sound a lot to me like things various Democrats have wanted in the past like raising the minimum wage. That's not conservative (nor is it good policy).

tryanmax said...

Just so no one feels dogged on, I was just spelling out why I can't stomach the debates. I wasn't accusing anyone here of buying into them. In fact, the only places I sense there is real, honest discussion about them is on blog sites.

Regardless of political stripes, everyone seems to agree that the debates are a mess. Except lefty blogs, of course. They just like to pretend that the debates are bloodier than they are.

tryanmax said...

Sadly, I doubt most Americans can name all 50 states, let alone follow 59 points!

AndrewPrice said...

Sadly, I doubt our idiot President can name all 50 states... much less the extra 7 he thinks are out there.

59 points is too much to sell effectively to the public. He should have created a 5-7 point plan tops and then filled in the rest as details. Choosing 59 points just shows he thinks like a wonk. But even worse, I frankly think his 59 points hide a complete lack of detail by making it appear to be a detail heavy plan.

In other words, when people hear 59 points, they assume he's got ready-to-go policies within that plan, i.e. that it's a very specific plan. But if you look at it, most of it is things like "make American manufacturing competitive again". That's meaningless. It's not pure platitudes like Bachmann, but it's not at all clear what he would do either.

AndrewPrice said...

On the debates, I doubt anyone took offense. I think we all agree that the formats have been bad because the moderators are controlling the debates rather than just moderating the debates.

rlaWTX said...

I read the sockpuppet thread and then this article this morning...
I am glad that Cain did well.
My social/econ very conservative friend who was tentatively pro-Gingrich has become totally pro-Santorum and thought he did a dandy job last night.
An fb friend of hers thinks that Perry still has a chance (but he admits to being biased because he was appointed to something or another board by Perry).
There was an NRO article about Cain & Romney that made it sound like Romney has hopes for Cain joining him, but Cain's not sitting on his laurels waiting. And as a back-up plan, it's not bad. Perry would have to choose a Yankee to balance out his ticket. Santorum has been pretty hostile to Cain. Bachmann and Paul are irrelevant. So, with Romney in the front, Cain playing a little nice isn't a bad plan - as long as he doesn't give up going after the real differences, I don't have a problem with it... Esp. since Cain is going to WIN!

As for the "joke" - Bachmann is an idiot. That is a church joke, not a political debate joke. As a pre-trib, pre-mil, independent Baptist fundamentalist, I am not offended by the joke, but by the fact it is such a dumb joke in a serious conversation.

And as for the AntiChrist - perfect rebuttal to why TOTUS is NOT him... incompetence! Remember the conversation on here about TOTUS being Satan - my conclusion then was that he is a flunky not the Fallen Angel of light himself, and I think TOTUS's incompetence proves this...

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I don't know what Cain has planned, but it does make sense if he has some sort of deal for when he loses. I would assume that if he beats Romney in the first several primaries that he would not bow out at that point. I wouldn't be surprised if the deal was just a peace agreement, i.e. an agreement to target the others, or if it was some sort of mutual "you pick me, I pick you" type agreement. I don't know. But I think we will find out at some point.

But whether there is a deal or not, I can't see Cain folding if he starts to win.

I don't know what to tell you about your friend liking Santorum. I've never thought he was actually in this to win it. I think he's one of those guys who runs to raise his profile so that he's a bigger name for whatever think tank he plans to work for. And I personally think his performances in these debates have exposed him as a pretty shallow thinker who relies on dirty-tricks types attacks and smears to make his point -- not that he really has a point. But I clearly don't speak for everyone on that.

I can see why Newt may have lost some followers last night. Trying to unfurl the Palin and Paul banners so prominently is not what his fans expect. They are used to intellectual, insider Newt (with cash-grab action grip). To see him suddenly present himself as pitchfork, outsider Newt was probably pretty disconcerting.

Yeah, I think Obama's incompetence disqualifies him from being taken seriously as any sort of evil mastermind. He's more like a bumbler who is just wrecking havoc on the country.

I thought her 9-9-9 joke failed on many levels.

tryanmax said...

That's another reason why Romney leaves a sour taste in my mouth. We already have a platitudinous president, we don't need to follow-up with another one. Unfortunately, in addition to being unable to name all 50 states, I don't think most Americans even know what a plan IS!

I can't tell you how many conversations I stumbled into with people who think Obama once had an economic "plan." "So what is the plan?" I would ask. They'd prattle something they'd heard about "cutting 4.4 trillion dollars" and I would gently prompt with something like, "Yes, that's a big number, but how and when?" The response would be some muttering about his number being bigger than someone else's number. I really don't think I could take another four years of that, even if the platitudes come with an "R" beside them.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think that is a huge problem with American voters -- they don't actually think about what they hear. So for the majority of voters hearing "I plan to protect jobs" or "create jobs" or "make everyone pay a fair share" is enough to make them think there is a plan, even though it's nothing of the sort.

That's one of the reasons I was relatively harsh in my 2012 contender series -- because most of these people aren't offering actual plans, they're offering platitudes with only a suggestion of specifics. "We need to reform the tax code!" Ok, how. "I want to cut taxes!" Ok, which ones and how much? "I plan to put people back to work?" How?

Unfortunately, too many people simply fall for this and never ask the important questions seeking the details.

And that actually raises a flip-side problem. If you do include details, then people will oppose your plan the moment they hear any detail they don't like. That's just as wrong.

So we end up electing people who make only vague promises and then we get upset when their vague promises don't turn out to be exactly what we imaged they would be. That's what Obama is facing now, is that he ran a campaign of platitudes and people read into what he said. Now that he hasn't lived up to what they read into his plans, he's paying a price in failed expectations... even though those expectations were irrational.

Writer X said...

Great wrap-up, Andrew!

I wouldn't be opposed to a Romney/Cain ticket, although I still distrust Romney. Some of his answers, the ones you noted in fact, were too slick. I don't like how he's dealt with Romney care. If he had just come clean about it at the get-go, I'd have more respect for him. That said, I would vote for just about anybody, including Romney, as opposed to 4 more years of Obama and his ilk.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Writer X!

I agree completely. I can vote for Romeny/Cain though Romney is by no means my first choice because he just doesn't come across as truly conservative. He comes across as a slick package that keeps talking until he's said enough on each side of the spectrum that everyone hears something they like. So I don't really know what he truly believes and that's a problem.

I agree too that it would have been better for him to come clean on RomneyCare from the get go. I do think his answers are enough to placate most viewers, but they aren't actually satisfying.

But of course, as you say, we just can't another 4 years of Obama. He's a disaster.

T-Rav said...

Back in '08, some of my mom's friends asked me if I thought Obama might be The Omen come to life. Even back then, I didn't think so, and I gave them several biblical reasons why not.

Besides, there are plenty of other reasons to whack him besides that.

BevfromNYC said...

T-Rav: And by "whack" you mean vote out, right??


[Dear Secret Service, if you are reading this, he meant "vote out" when he wrote "whack". But if you would just check his basement for poor defenseless kittens, I would greatly appreciate it.]

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Unfortunately, there are people out there who assume the worst about anyone they don't like. In fact, there was a fascinating show on the History Channel a while back about the number of people who have been accused of being the AntiChrist by a significant portion of the population and it was an incredible list that included pretty much any name you can think of.

I just find it interesting that people would think someone so skill-free as Obama could qualify. It's not even like he won a landslide and he's got zero ability to win over people from the other side. He's just another Democratic wet-dream gone wrong.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, LOL! I like your note. :)

T-Rav said...

I wasn't even thinking about that, Bev. Thanks. Thanks a lot. Now I have to go clean out my crawlspaces and hidden rooms before the agents get here.

rlaWTX said...

meow

T-Rav said...

Here, kitty kitty...get back in this box...

Oh, it's rla. Hey, how in the world did your friend get on that Santorum train last night? Just curious.

rlaWTX said...

no - she was already on the train... jumped on after the last debate. it's a total social conservative attraction. now she's selling tickets... Santorum came to TX last week and she & her family went to see him. they had pix taken...

(and don't forget that kitties have claws!)

Post a Comment