I was out earlier so I just now watched the debate.
First, let me say this: many of the people on my Twitter feed almost CERTAINLY were watching a different debate than I was. I know this because their suggestions about who did well and helped themselves, and who did poorly and hurt themselves, is based on nothing that I actually saw during that debate. Rather, it seems they’ve based many of their conclusions on what they wanted to happen — and sadly, what I think many of them will try to make happen when they file their reports and write their columns, in hopes of setting the field going forward.
Now then. Here’s my take, for what it’s worth: I want to like Rick Perry. But for the most part, he was awful again. When flustered, he looked to old saws — defund the UN, drill, etc. His attack on Romney’s lawn service employees was petty and silly — particularly when Romney has so much he can legitimately be questioned on. He was good on how to secure the border, but he is undercut by some of his sops to illegals.
For his part, Romney once again did nothing to hurt himself: he artfully dodges questions he doesn’t want to answer, and he does so routinely to hide his big government side and his persistent panders. Still, he is nimble, and he is skilled enough politically to make it through this process if he isn’t met head on by conservatives.
He was also helped tremendously this evening by what seemed a very pro-Romney crowd. In that, they differ from the majority of the GOP base, who simply doesn’t trust in Romney, even as they think he has the best chance to win — an opinion they hold because that’s what GOP establishment has insisted is so.
Gingrich was good, and I’m beginning to think he might make some noise, if not as the nominee than potentially as a VP candidate. The thought of him debating Joe Biden gets me all chubby, to be honest. His baggage is his biggest problem. But were he asked about his prior positions on cap and trade and ethanol, and he owned up and repudiated old stances, he’d certainly be worth a longer look. He would leave Obama whimpering in a heap were he ever able to debate him.
People have written off Bachmann, and this has become self-fulfilling. And that is unfortunate. Because with the exception of one hokey answer in which she tried to appeal to moms (on he housing collapse), she was completely on point, reliably conservative, firm in her convictions, and correct, in my opinion, in her judgments. As a leading proponent of both repealing ObamaCare and paring back regulatory agencies to alleviate compliance cost and free up enterprise, she seems a natural fit in this climate — and she was correct to note that there is no confusing her with Obama. And I have a hard time believing that her earlier misstep — beating the Gardisil issue to death — has caused her to fall so out of favor. She performed very well tonight. Her failure to gain traction is, I suspect, due to the rise of Herman Cain, who polls well with both Tea Party types AND moderates.
Paul is Paul. His foreign policy is his problem. Beyond that, you can find his brand of constitutionalism with other candidates — though perhaps not so ably articulated. His plan to cut $1 trillion in real cuts is appropriate; but we’ll need a bridge President to prepare the grounds for such reforms — and hopefully one day his son will be able to implement them (save for the nonsense about cutting defense and cutting all foreign aid).
Santorum is bright and fiesty and is correct to note that family dynamics and the intersection of the family and the society have been given short shrift. I honestly hope he sticks around a bit longer to hold Romney’s feet to the fire.
Cain — who it’s become fashionable to bash, if you happen to be in my Twitter feed (his rise is simply too precipitous, and if so many people are taken with him, the way to distance yourself is to show that you are unimpressed) — is, both as a candidate and as a person, just plain refreshing. He says what he thinks, and he acts like a leader. I don’t expect a candidate to know everything about everything. I do expect him to have the courage of his convictions, and the capacity and curiosity to assimilate information and delegate authority, and Cain has that. I’ve been arguing for some time — and it was echoed by Gingrich tonight — that the specifics of Cain’s 9-9-9 plan don’t matter as much to me right now as does the fact that he is taking the “bold” step of running on a complete reform of the tax code. I like the flat tax idea better, but that’s really beside the point. Cain is willing to bring up reforms that, to politicians, have long been thought of as non-starters. Cain makes up in charisma what Steve Forbes lacked.
Bottom line: every candidate is an improvement over Obama, and in a debate that pits conservatism against Obama’s brand of democratic socialism, the American people will be able to chose the path going forward based on a clear demarcation. Where Romney fails — and why I desperately don’t want to see us make the mistake of nominating him — is that he is not a reformer, not a movement conservative, and he rides the political winds, saying what he anticipates people want to hear. He is, in my parlance, the losing more slowly candidate. Yes, he is far better than Obama; but he is also the kind of status quo politician who kicks the can down the road.
To me, the distinction between a Romney and a Cain or a Gingrich or a Bachmann is clear, but it needs to be made more clear. And time is running out. There’s a reason Romney’s people want these primaries and caucuses moved up. He’s bobbing and weaving, and so far he’s remained largely undinged.
But Cain’s likability and his straight talk is almost certain to keep his numbers strong — provided the savaging he’ll take from inside-the-Beltway types doesn’t have an outsized effect. I just wish so many of us weren’t so in to the horse race aspect of all this and would look at not who we think could win, but vote for who we think will best represent our interests.
There. I’ve said my piece. Have at me.
I find your use of “in which” to be terribly pretentious. Yeah, I said it.
Sorry, that’s all I got as I haven’t read the post yet.
If we’re lucky Perry personally dislikes Romney enough to burn through 20 mil in negative advertising, just to spite.
Your points about Bachmann are right on, though I think I have an alternate explanation for her decline: she’s bloody annoying.
Her diction is (for me) a large part of it (I cannot abide that upper Midwest nasal twang) but mostly she reminds me of that kid we all knew – the one who knows quite a lot, who’s right about most things… but who also seems to be asking for a knuckle sandwich every time he/she flaps his/her gums.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
Lowry: Cain gets “shelled”.
We shall see, I guess.
And apparently Rick Perry’s performance was far better than I’ve characterized it.
Here’s the thing: what I know of Rick Perry I know from Rick Perry. I was being truthful when I said I want to like the guy. And I’ve said his stance on illegals shouldn’t be a deal breaker. But the truth is, he’s going to have to debate Obama, if he wins the nomination, and he seems easily flustered and not terribly substantive on things outside energy and border security, the latter of which he’s done a few things to undercut himself on, as Romney made sure to hammer home tonight.
Think I’m more down on Bachmann than you are, Jeff.
Policy wise I keep liking what she’s saying but I can’t help but notice she’s not brought the wood to Romney. Same thing for Santorum. Did she go after Romney tonight? Did he? Nope and nope.
At some point this will start annoying me about Cain and Gingrich as well but they’re not really taking shots at any of the others. They should start, well, now.
Perry is just a disappointment. That “illegal immigrant employer” attack on Romney was half stupid and half dishonest.
Bachmann’s been going after Obama mostly. I want all of them to start hammering Romney, but we need them in a debate environment where there are actual conservatives doing the prompting as moderators. The GOP leadership clearly doesn’t want that.
Seriously. What debate was this?
Well, if Rich Lowry, William F.’s hand-picked successor, chosen to succeed the previous hand picked successor, says it’s so, then it must be.
Thank God Mitt Romney will say anything in order to make himself acceptable. Otherwise, their might be a shortage of pillows for all those thinkers in the conservative intelligentsia.
Oh. Hewitt — who wanted to boot Cain after the first two debates — is now ALSO telling us it’s a Perry-Romney race.
God help us.
Who are these people you guys are referencing?
Famous clog dancers? Cartoon characters?
Don’t see them on my rss or twitter feed.
it’s a Perry Romney race
I think I’ll add that to my list of exemplars as to why the older I get, the more monarchical my sympathies become.
Do candidates (some of them) charge against Cain’s plan that it’s “regressive” and then in their next breath say they want a flat-tax or flatter-tax? And isn’t a flat tax or flatter-tax by definition more “regressive” than the tax code we’ve got now? Or am I completely misunderstanding the way these terms are used?
[A]m I completely misunderstanding the way these terms are used?
Doesn’t that depend on what the user wants you to understand by the term?
Or put it this way maybe: is it reasonable to say that regressive counts as merely less progressive, relatively speaking, than a given progressive status quo, or is regressive only regressive to the extent that it isn’t progressive at all, but completely upends progressive ratios to cut against the poorer and for the richer?
This is an example of a product that needs a label saying that it has 100% “unnatural” ingredients.
I wished that helped Ernst, but I can’t say it does.
The only truly regressive tax is the social security tax, and then only in a qualified sense.
The rest is just demogoguery.
To the extent that you, or we, can identify the tax talk as demagoguery, do we have to believe that the candidates using the demagogic talking points themselves know or understand the non-demagogic use of these terms? Or is it sufficient that we label the talk as demagogic, yet attribute to them nothing in the way of actual knowledge or understanding about what it is they’re saying? (Which, seems a plausible possibility, but very dangerous, when looked at from the point of view of the demagogue who realizes he or she is hanging an ignorant ass out over the edge waiting to be caught with pants down).
Yes.
Seriously, it’s another example of letting the Left define the terms and set the premises. A tax is “progressive” to the extent that it soaks the rich. A tax is “regressive” to the extent that it fails to soak the rich sufficiently. What’s not asked is what is the proper purpose of a tax in the first place, to raise revenue or enact social justice?
It’s hard as heck to come up with a salable scheme to tax leftist ideology, but I’m willing to give it a go.
I agree except for Santorum and Bachmann
they’re just wasting everyone’s time
and I think we can find someone better than Newt to balance the ticket and maybe help walk back the obsessive illegal immigrant fetishism Team R’s been engaging in
I would think that a regressive tax is one *in which* the rates are higher one lower income and decrease for higher income brackets. Flat would be the same across all income brackets.
So are/did they talk of relative regressivity and progressivity in comparing taxes?
Purpose of taxes on the left is neither raising revenue nor social justice though those are outcomes that will be considered as welcome. The main purpose of taxes is to transfer power over others and over the economy to the hands of government officials. The other things as side issues since they can/will happen as no matter the tax rate or form chosen. The rate and form are chosen to maximize power. That is the purpose of taxes.
A regressive tax is one that frees people from the government teat. Can’t have that.
heh
Moonshine is a product of regressive taxation. To which, yay! regressive taxation.
Cain was criticized by Allah, Ace, VDH, etc. over his saying he would do what the Israelis just did (trading one soldier for 1000 terrorists). Cain said he made a misspoke, but it is a troubling. Cain need to bone up on this because this is where they will try to “Palin” him. I still trust Cain more than the other candidates. He seems to have good instincts. His 9-9-9 plan needs work, but it is a plan and he had the balls to come out with it. Mitt would never do something like that…and that sort of careful deliberation can be dangerous. I would like to hear Cain talk more about spending cuts. When he is closely questioned on 9-9-9, it would be good for Cain to emphasize about all the cutting he plans to do.
Lowry is in the bag for Mitt. So his analysis might as well as be a talking point for the Romney campaign. He is competing with K-Lo to be Mitt’s NRO girlfriend. A commentator at TOM noted that Romney had a claque. I did not know what that was, but it is a personal cheering section to clap for the candidate. The thing is, I bet Romney did have his staffers/supporters there to clap for him.
I will vote for Romney if he is the nominee. I fear if Romney is the nominee he will lose.
Cain would be a formidable candidate against Obama. For his policies and because I think he would take the fight to him in a way Romney never would (or effectively could).
Hewitt. God help us. He is worse than Lowry and K-Lo.
If Perry and Romney were stranded on a desert island with only a health care plan and an illegal immigrant, I’d like that.
Would Obama be the immigrant?
Hewitt’s got a great radio show but, Gawd, his Romney cheer leading is tiresome I agree. That said, what do you guys think about the Buckley Rule of voting for the most conservative electable candidate? If Romney is that guy, like it or not, would conservatives stay home?
Granted, Romney’s not Reagan, but compared to Obama, even he looks like Lincoln, politically speaking. Frankly, I’m just praying the GOP doesn’t blow this…
The same thing that I think of other shitty rules.
Here’s my brief take:
Mittens doesn’t take being challenged, and challenged repeatedly, particularly well. I saw a man who knew at least a couple of gloves had been landed on him and he had a bit of a Rick-Lazio-“menaces”-Hillary-Clinton moment with his condescending hand on Perry’s back.
Now if he would actually force spiders and badgers on the enemy and get ’em to shut up, I would change my opinion of him in an instant.
Also? $%&^ prison, I’m a party rapper. Yo mama is pudgy, face it.
[…] Cain was not defending his plan as well as he could and after reading the papers I still like Protein Wisdom’s general analysis and this in particular [bold is mine]: Cain — who it’s become fashionable to bash, if you […]
I’m so tired of the intelligentsia choosing our candidates. In 2008, it was the legacy media doing it. In 2012, it’s a food fight between our blueblood betters and the wider media they now have a toehold against. But when do WE actually get to decide?
Since Romeny isn’t a conservative, I don’t think the Buckley rule applies. Furthermore, since Obama’s prospects are so fragile, any of these guys is electable. So again, the Buckley rule doesn’t apply.
I’m still voting for Cain, as of this comment. Lowry and Hewitt can indulge themselves in Mittens voting all they want – I pay them no mind. Someone should ask them if President McCain agrees with their stance.
Ernst Schreiber, fight for the candidate you believe in. Personally I think Cain is the best of this bunch and I hope he prevails (which is why I want Santorum and Bachmann to throw their support to him so he can overcome Romney in these acellerated primaries). But if Romney ends up prevailing (which might happen) he may not be what I consider conservative but he is a hell of a lot more conservative than Obama.
Ditto. Which for me makes Newt a contender, a wishful one.
LTC John, if you remember Lowry and Hewitt hated McCain and were totally for Romney in 2008, until Romney lost and McCain prevailed. We can rehash how McCain lost to Obama, but the stars (and media) were aligned for Obama (he did manage to beat Hillary) and I do not see Romney and Huckabee beating him in 2008. With those three in the final the election against Obama was already mostly lost. The tragic part is McCain almost pulled it off with picking Palin as veep and rallying the conservative base, but then fucked it up by being betrayed by his own staff (betraying Palin) and acting like a fucking retard when the economy melted down.
But I am with you on Cain. Of all the candidates, he seems like the won who can fight tough with Obama and do it effectively (with a smile and charm) and who is in fact a conservative who gives a clear distinction for the voters.
[Romney] may not be what I consider conservative but he is a hell of a lot more conservative than Obama.
That’s like saying Miley Cyrus is way more virtuous than Madonna.
Just as the Republican Establishment projects winners and losers, their individual voices expose their fealty to something other than classical liberalism: When you realize that the entire US domestic federal government, as well as its finances and the structure those finances are built on, is faulty — faulty as in it’s all falling the hell apart and are doing nothing more than giving us short term bogus debate fodder and a pretense for Cloward-Piven end games — naturally you parse the candidates accordingly.
These guys don’t do that. These guys see something else, nearly every one of them. These guys see Socialism operated by Republicans and write accordingly.
When Paul alone proposes a paltry trillion in cuts you know we’re in trouble. Instead we’ll almost assuredly elect another tool.
You took the words right out of the mouths of about half of Ace’s commentariat. Because, you know, a fair tax is regressive.
Gingrich: Betrayed Paul Ryan, supported Scozzafava over Hoffman in NY-23 (and then Scozzafava paid him back by supporting the Democrat candidate), supported Al Gore’s vision of climate change, loves subsidized corn ethanol, his staff all quit this year when he decided to go on a cruise with Callista, etc., etc.
I worry that before he had the chance to leave Obama in a whimpering heap, Ginrich would beat the shit out of himself (like Ed Norton did in Fight Club).
Maybe in a cabinet position. I am hesitant to even suggest him as veep to Cain.
I was afraid you’d point that out…
That’s like saying Miley Cyrus is way more virtuous than Madonna.
I do not know what to say to that one, other than I am glad I am not taking acid right now.
Does 999 replace payroll taxes? I am not sure if it does or not. Isn’t social security regressive too?
Just pointing out that Romney is “a hell of a lot more conservative than Obama” only in the sense that he’s a damn sight less statist. That’s like saying the fresh young whore is less whorish than the shriveled old one.
Give them both time.
And yes, social security is “regressive,” but only in the sense that it maxes out. It’s not regressive so much as it’s capped.
We have had some debates (so to speak) and held some polls. The decision has been made. No need to wait for the primaries. The decision has been made.
Don’t sweat it Mikey, the liberals in New Hampshire have seen to it that the decision already made will be affirmed.
They’re thoughtful like that.
I agree with you… about not seeing the same debate. Everyone seems to be pulling different analysis out of this one. It was contentious.
But Romney sucked. I’ve honestly never, never seen a person turn that red. Enough to wonder for 5 seconds if CNN fucked with the RBG filter dial just to screw with him. He was pompous, arrogant, whiny, he was Romney basically.
I think Perry did OK. He stays alive. Cain was alright, but he flubbed a bit too.
I’m not sweating it Ernst. Just like I haven’t watched any of these debates.
The commentariat beats their drums for their candidates and proclaims who has won or lost before the game has started – before the teams have even gotten to the locker rooms. The point is to take the prognosticators of politics as seriously as those in sports are taken – that is, not at all.
It’s all Thursday morning quarterbacking at this point.
That I’ll make my own judgments about who is electable.
In which lovely and gracious (and delightfully hard-nosed) Sarah Palin throws a rose to Newt Gingrich.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/18/palin_newt_did_well_in_vegas_could_beat_obama_in_a_debate.html
I’m growing tired of Palin. At this point, my impression of her is that she’s an attention whore who will generally just bash all the front-running nominees to her non-candidacy more popular and attractive.
Team R throwing a party for a bunch of children while all the while – slime was under the building!
With each passing week, I grow more committed to concentrating on state and local races…
When’s your primary?
Nope. He was anointed by the Superdelegates. Bros before Hos, y’all.
How many of those superD’s were pledged to Hillary before they spurned her?
Second Reynolds link this week, and that is the key issue right now. We drove the debate from April 15 2009 through Election day 2010 (the worst massive victory ever). Then Paul Ryan did what the TEA Party is all about, and instead of standing up and winning, the Establishment Reps scurried away like the rats they are.
[…] Debate reaction: my thoughts Bottom line: every candidate is an improvement over Obama, and in a debate that pits conservatism against Obama’s brand of democratic socialism, the American people will be able to chose the path going forward based on a clear demarcation. Where Romney fails — and why I desperately don’t want to see us make the mistake of nominating him — is that he is not a reformer, not a movement conservative, and he rides the political winds, saying what he anticipates people want to hear. He is, in my parlance, the losing more slowly candidate. Yes, he is far better than Obama; but he is also the kind of status quo politician who kicks the can down the road. […]
I’m not sure how it becomes a Romney-Perry race when Perry bombed so miserably. When your response to a question about healthcare wanders off into energy production, you’re not answering the question…
I thought Perry might be a good candidate when he first entered the race and hammered President Dipstick, but he is definitely not on his game in these debates. He’s horrible, in fact.
I’m still liking Cain, and he did an adequate job of defending his 9-9-9 plan, which itself may or may not be the best answer, against the attacks. I get the feeling it would be hard to prove it’s not a VAT in 60 seconds. Of course, there’s no way Romney can explain his 69 point plan in that amount of time either.
And we can implement Ron Paul’s idea for saving a trillion dollars by eliminating worthless departments just about any time as far as I’m concerned.
“Does 999 replace payroll taxes?”
Yes, it replaces all federal taxes. Scraping the entire tax code and replacing it with the three 9s.
“I’m not sure how it becomes a Romney-Perry race when Perry bombed so miserably. ”
I tried to answer this humorously in #16. This is a RINO/MSM incantation to create a Romney-Perry race. If they can bring into being that perception then Romney wins the nomination and they get these benefits.
Obama gets a shot at re-election. Even if Romney wins the general the progressive agenda continues to ratchet leftward. The Tea-Party types get a kick in the face and can be considered ,by those who “matter”, as done and over.
Actually, there is: “The current corporate marginal tax rate is anywhere from 15% to 39%. This tax currently exists and is priced into all goods. 9-9-9 would reduce that tax to 9%. I’m surprised that a Federal Tax Attorney doesn’t understand this.”
That’s a good way to suggest that corporate taxes would be lower, overall, but I’m not sure that necessarily shows that it’s not a VAT.
If it is a VAT, we already have a VAT. But it isn’t. Each transaction along the production and delivery chain is not a taxable event, as Bachmann asserts. That would make it a VAT. Corporate profits are taxed, which is not the same thing.
The VAT objection is aimed at the sales portion of 9-9-9, not either of the income portions. It may actually be very easy to refute the VAT objection (I don’t know), but it gets a lot harder if one is talking about the wrong tax.
If the sales tax is anything other than a retail sales tax, that’s news to me.
Me not know. But I’ve never heard of VAT as anything but consumption-based rather than income-based.
The VAT objection focuses on the Business tax, not the retail sales tax, I think.
Actually, I guess VAT is production-based, rather than either. That should probably be all the refutation needed, since none of the 9s seems to be a production tax.
“I’m not sure how it becomes a Romney-Perry race when Perry bombed so miserably. ”
See my #51 and #54. The sports columnists don’t pick the winner of the Sunday game the Thursday before, the political columnists don’t pick the nominees months before the primaries. And the debates are at best just scrimmage.
I don’t get too hung up on this, I barely pay attention to it because it really doesn’t matter. Only the number of delegates matter and for that you have to know how well the candidates are orgainzing themselves in the primary states. Early polling also suffers because voters do not actually have to make a decision now, they can always change their minds.
Unfortunately the information that really matters is information that no news organization goes after because it is really boring stuff and that boring stuff is what really matters.
In that case I agree that it’s not a VAT, although Cain didn’t actually explain anything about it. Of course, it could be that he just doesn’t want to deal with idiots or something.
Although I imagine some of the horse race items they do report can be *somewhat* indicative of how well the boring stuff will get done. $14 million should get you more organized than $3 million, for example.
VOTE FOR THE GUY WHO COULDN’T BEAT THE GUY WHO COULDN’T BEAT OBAMA! ROMNEY 2012!
“$14 million should get you more organized than $3 million, for example.”
It should, all other things being equal. Only they never actually are. Money is important, but there is more to money to getting primary organization in place. For example, the candidate has to know the local organizers, the people who can get out the volunteers to do all of the footwork. This is one reason why it always seems the parties nominate the guy who is next in line. That guy is next in line because he ran last time and met a lot of people and (if smart) kept up contacts. He has a shadow organization in place before the last inauguration day occurred. That guy has a leg up that money cannot buy, that big advertising budgets cannot buy.
The primary campaigns differ from the national campaign because the people that a candidate is trying to convince are people who are already interested in politics, so interested that they are actually going to vote in a primary. Those people are less suceptible to major ad blitzes and are more susceptible to the personal retail politics. The primary voters may not have the highest level of information, but they certainly aren’t flipping a coin in the line to the voting booth.
So, I’m not too taken by any debate performance at this point and I’m not to taken by the cheerleading of different commentators from Hewitt (Romney!) to Stacy (Cain!). I doubt too many primary voters are fully made up in their minds yet and won’t be just by that. The show is just starting, after all.
Cain disqualified! Cain disqualified! Cain disqualified!
Heck, I thought the US has been in the habit of letting Gitmo detainees loose without any prisoner exchange? Otherwise, what’s all this talk about recidivism rates?
Thank God Mitt Romney knows how to navigate his way through a debate and emerge largely unscathed.
When the media wants him to.
My take on Cain is that he’s saying that if a 1/1000 hostage/prisoner exchange was the right thing to do, he could make that call and live with the consequences if he had to.
But all I have to go on is what I’m reading and maybe I’m wishfully projecting.
I don’t think Cain would do anything wacky with the Gitmo monkeys I think he might trade Justin Bieber though.
Cain gave the wrong answer to the question(right answer: I detest hypothetical false dilemmas, and the people that pose them), but it was hardly disqualifying. Especially when he further explained his point, that he wouldn’t rule out anything without considering all the facts and circumstances.
Something tells me Ace thought Cain unqualified before this.
Rabbit is prone to panic, isn’t he?
Must be why Romney keeps plenty of carrots on hand.
#77 Mikey NTH
What they are attempting to do is change perception so as to change the polling to where funding for the others drys up. With their poll numbers are down and and bills piling up they do a Pawlenty so that by the time 75 to 80% of the primaries arrive only Romney and Perry are left actively in the race. Like 2008 where they carved it down to McCain-Huckabee-Romney long before most primaries were voted.
P.S. Did you get my email from a couple days ago?
why isn’t ricky perry asked foriegn policy questions? beside taco consumers.