First, I thought this was Rick Perry’s best debate performance. He seemed much more relaxed and confident last night — like a man who is actually relaxed and confident, not simply trying to appear that way on a national debate stage. I hope his performance — which to my mind was his only really good one thus far — keeps him viable. At the very least, it’s bought him some time with me, for whatever that’s worth.
Second, Romney, it seems to me, is becoming more and more “conservative” with each debate. Like a student who wants to please, Romney seems to be absorbing the conservative message and has shown an ability to parrot it efficiently. The problem is, I simply don’t believe him: he’s always governed as a big government technocrat, and his feigned ignorance over the way his Super Pacs are behaving — are we to believe he had no idea what was being said on his behalf about Rick Santorum, eg? — both insulted my intelligence and revealed who Romney really is when the cameras are turned away and he isn’t putting on his debate facade: he’s a guy who will do anything to win even as he strains to keep his hands clean. There’s a phoniness to that I simply can’t abide. And worse, there’s a phoniness to his inevitability and pronouncements on his performance that I simply detest.
Santorum, again, impressed me, both with his honesty — he voted for certain signature legislation of the Bush presidency that he admits were mistakes (ironically, to be then caricatured years later as a big government phony conservative by, among others, the Bush people themselves, who at the time pressed hard for the votes, yet who now are supporting Romney!) — and with his willingness to take on Romney directly on his record. While it’s been Romney who has profited from ill-conceived anti-capitalist attacks by both Perry and Gingrich on Bain Capital (undeservedly, given Romney’s line of defense, in which he painted himself not as a capitalist but as an altruist out to create jobs rather than make money), the real beneficiary should have been Santorum, who refused to go along with those attacks, recognizing in them the faux-populism and anti-free market sentiments that underpin them. Like Gingrich, Santorum is willing to show his work — that is, his thinking on subjects is evident, enabling to us to see how he’s reached a certain position — and that differentiates him from, say, Romney, who after holding one position will suddenly arrive at its inverse, should the new stance strike him as required to appeal to a particular targeted constituency.
Gingrich, too, performed well last evening — particularly in his pointed rebuke to Juan Williams, who attempted to insinuate whispers of racism into the debate. Still, his attacks on Romney over private equity work were ill-conceived and Gingrich knows better; meaning that he was looking for a way to hurt Romney that he thought might resonate in the current political zeitgeist. Which only aids Obama.
As for Ron Paul? Well, yeah. Leave him on the stage long enough, and it’s only a matter of time before he slips into the Raimondo realm of 911 speculation, and from there, it’s on to the powerful Jewish lobby, and so on. Sorry — I know many of you like him — but I simply don’t trust him, and he’s surrounded himself with a number of (to me) unsavory attendants.
So. Your turn. Have at it.
Gingrich could possibly turn me if he begins referring to Obama as “Foodstamp” and nothing else.
Suggested uses:
“Foodstamp says what?”
“Nice try Foodstamp.”
“You still got a little Soros on your chin there Foodstamp.”
heh, how about “a lot of little Soroses”, alp?
Foodstamp’s retort?
“Just sharing the gospel of love of the common-good, Newt.”
That is a very good summary. Unfortunately it is probably too late to Perry (had he debated like this earlier we would have a very different race right now). I like Santorum too. I like him a lot better than I ever liked him in the past.
Mitt is too careful by half and there is wiff of insincerity with him (on everything). But while his debate performance was not great, I do not see Newt’s performance turning things around. Newt is damaged goods. http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/se-cupps-newt-gingrich-natural-woman.html I can only hope Newt leaves an opening for a Santorum or Perry to get an opportunity to rise to.
And while we do have to deal with Ron Paul and hopefully keep him from having a third party run, I can never seriously accept him as a real contender for the reasons you stated Jeff.
Ron Paul thinks we’re still in Iraq. Someone should brief him now and then.
I didn’t see the debate, so I don’t have much to add. But if it seems that Romney is a phoney, it’s probably because he is.
Fascinating debate. I could have watched more.
It’s too bad that Gingrich is such a petty man; when he’s on point, he’s Joe DiMaggio. What I would not give to see him debate Obama. It would be like a master class for sushi chefs. He would leave Obama naked, twitching, gasping for air.
Damascus while I share your enthusiasm for that spectacle, it’s never going to happen, or maybe once, at a college town hall with opening and closing tele-promptered remarks, and Stephanopopoupopp-whatever and Jon Stewart moderating. The Champ’s got a glass jaw and the only thing between him and defeat in 2012 is TOTUS and the MBM.
Still chuckling alp.
I graded the debate much as Jeff did, and was amused to see “Unhappy” Doug Mataconis, EW Erickson and others try to spin it as a Romney victory.
Most interesting to me in the Romney-Santorum exchanges were the different views on restoring voting rights to some felons. I find it most interesting because illegal immigrants to the US are by definition guilty of felony crime.
As with so many things, Mitt’s become a hard-liner about immigration after saying some time ago that it was not feasible to deport the millions of undocumented aliens among us.
Newly hard-line Mitt is naturally opposed to the DREAM Act, which specifically would exclude illegal aliens from participation in the health insurance exchanges. How awful for them. But in Massachusetts there were no such restrictions in RomneyCare, which made it a magnet for such sweet people as Obama’s Auntie Z and Druncle.
Newt was a bull in
a China shopan Asian-American ceramics store. Even more so than usual. He donkey-punched Williams into next week. But he’s still Newt. I’d take him over Romney in a heartbeat, but, well, that’s setting the bar pretty low.Perry had a great night, too bad this fella didn’t show up a few months ago. I still think he’s our best option, but I seem to be in the decided minority. Which is too bad, because I really think he’d govern more conservatively than anyone else on that stage. If he doesn’t have decent showing in SC, I guess I’m going to have to pull the lever for Newt in FL. Not real happy about that.
Santorum- I don’t care how he performs. I’m willing to forgive a whole lot in a politician, but a 19-point defeat in his last ain’t one of them. These aren’t our friends, they are vehicles for policy. And policy only matters if you can win.
Which brings me to Romney. I voted for him last time, but only because his name isn’t McCain or Huckabee. He’s got a proven record of losing elections, and really isn’t conservative to boot. What’s not to love?
Rather than score their performances as a straightforward debate between candidates, I chose to view each of them on how their performance would translate if they were speaking as the President – trying to garner support for some action or convince the American people of some necessity.
On that basis I’d rank Gingrich the winner, with Perry a somewhat close second. Gingrich was able to speak clearly about the issue, sound like he was speaking his own mind, and also close with a take home thought that encapsulates the issue in a manner easily understood and not easily spun by the MSM – e.g. the Associate’s degree quip.
Santorum was a bit of a wash, although I agree with much of where he stands I didn’t see him coming across either forcefully or strongly credible. Not that I doubt he was speaking honestly – just that he lacks that strong power of persuasion. He gets kudos for setting up Romney and then lowering the boom – if only as a demonstration of just how badly Romney would get played by the Obama crew/MSM in the general election.
Ron Paul was a roller coaster of decent highs and loony lows.
Romney was slick and greasy. Particularly on the super PAC issue where he clearly wanted to have his cake and eat it too – saying others needed to condemn their PACs actions while he’d “look into” his. Does he not see how his own evasions – now on tape for all the world to parse – will be used against him when the pro Obama PACs unleash their torrent of slime and refuse to correct the outright lies against him?
On every other substantive issue his answers were equally canned, too safe, and clearly unconvincing (an indication to me that he’s not even convinced of what he was saying.) I agree that he’d grown to parrot much of the conservative line, particularly as it becomes ever more clear that he simply cannot play keep away any longer. He’s weak and growing weaker. Last night’s debate was just further evidence of how poorly Romney would fare against the Obama/MSM onslaught.
They’d turn him into the second coming of Joe Isuzu.
I’m sorry vermontaigne, did you just reference Doug “Those darned Republicans” Mataconis? Is it safe to assume OTB remains the most misnamed blog in the ‘verse?
Yes, a man who lost because he stayed true to his conservatism at a time when we were being told the era of Reagan is over and we need to move left left left is a liability, naturally. And we know he can’t win going forward because he can’t get votes, precisely because you won’t vote for a guy who can’t get votes.
Is that about it?
Delicious.
I wonder if Santorum would have lost by fewer point or by more if he had supported Toomey in the ’04 primary. I think probably fewer if Toomey had defeated Specter and then gone on to win the general. On the other hand, had Specter prevailed in the primary, or Toomey lost the general, it’s not hard to imagine him losing by more.
Newt looked Juan Williams dead in the eye and set fire to his race card on national television. For that, I will love Newt forever.
I’ve got a great idea — let’s throw over a guy who couldn’t get re-elected in Pennsylvania in favor of a guy who couldn’t get re-elected in Massachusetts!
Oh noes…more math.
See, this is why I’m not an engineer. I suck at calculus.
Alrighty, Burkeans, here ya go :
[snip]
Leigh —
What Santorum says is that he made the decision to back his constituents in that instance, not that he blindly followed them.
That is, it was a political calculation he made from a position of leadership.
Which is something politicians do all the time. Whether he’d do so on abortion has no is a red herring: if he had to choose an unpopular decision, this isn’t the one he wanted to make at the time.
And the fact remains, Santorum didn’t support TARP, and he doesn’t support state-mandated health care. Too, he also stated that he’d support right-to-work from DC.
Did you watch the debate? Did the Daily Caller columnist?
Think about that. Bristol might be a parochial interest. Pennsylvania is not. Pennsylvania is a state. A state with powers. All powers, in fact, not laid out in the Constitution.
Most simply put, Burke’s government was fundamentally different than our government. Therefore, this is not a serious argument.
The other point, that of a representative being a leader, is different and more worth dwelling upon. Let us think on it though: does a leader lead by acting against his constituents desires or does he lead by changing his constituents desires?
Obamacare is not a legislative affront under the former notion and is under the latter.
Is this what Lewis would really like to argue?
Possessive apostrophe missing on “constituents”.
Did you watch the debate? Did the Daily Caller columnist?
Yes, I watched the debate; I don’t know about the writer at the Daily Caller. I don’t agree with his calculus either, Jeff, the writer’s, I mean. I was interested in your opinion of his opinion.
Personally, I find the Daily Caller to be an empty vessel most times.
The calculus as I see it, leigh, is that the Romney and Paul campaigns, both of which aren’t representative of conservatism, are busy trying to re-write conservatism to serve their purposes.
It would certainly seem that way, Jeff. I’m rather distressed by the support that Dr. Paul seems to enjoy with our military.
I’m not buying it. He claims he’s gotten more donations from active duty military than all the rest combined, and he’s been saying that all along. But he’s got a grand total of $65K.
Hmm, then it sounds like he’s exaggerating, doesn’t it? I see a lot of posts around the interwebs by people purporting to be military, active and retired, who are all in for Paul. Of course, that could all be boilerplate. The husband is a retired military officer and he’s all in for Newt. I’ve given up trying to explain that this is a bad idea.
There’s a lot of posts around the interwebs from military people who are all in with OWS. Paul supporters in particular tend to go viral.
Smoking a lot of weed makes one single minded, I’ve heard.
I suspected Lewis of severe ad hoc reasoning here so I searched for “election” and “mandate” in his previous writings.
Take a look at this from a piece titled, “Debt deal shows importance of winning arguments — not just elections”:
What’s with this idea of the public granting mandates or them buying solutions from politicians? Isn’t this what he was just denigrating as an un-Burkean delegate model of representation?
Why yes, bh, yes it was. He should make a concordance of his opinions so he can keep them straight.
I really need help with the calculus of voting. If I vote for the guy I want, it’s a mathematical fact that the guy I don’t want gets my vote. If I don’t vote at all, Obama gets my vote.
I don’t know what to do. Maybe if I try voting for the guy I don’t want, the guy I want will get two votes, including the vote Obama would have got if I didn’t vote at all.
I wonder why the change of heart on right to work by Santorum. When he voted against the right to work while in the Senate my guess is he thought that type of legislation was best served by the state.
Now he thinks that right to work legislation is a federal obligation?
I think he was right the first time.
Private sector unions have their place.Which I am sure Rick S. heard on his grandfathers knee.
Having said that I don’t know the details of the legislation Rick voted against in the Senate nor do I know what the details of the legislation that he would now be in favor of if he were President.
The bigger problem nowadays is the public sector unions that are holding states, counties and municipalities hostage.
If i have it wrong, and everything i have said is based on snippets and soundbites, my bad.
Here, BT:
Wow. A United States Senator who thinks he’s in the Senate to represent his State instead of the voters therein.
How quaint
OK. So some federal legislation was passed that says a state has to declare whether they are a right to work state or not?
Once they do, are they allowed to change their minds later or once a union state always a union state?
Seems like there is more to the legislation than just a soundbite.
Seems like there is more to the legislation than just a soundbite.
There is and it’s all very boring and demagogued to death at regular intervals in PA. When I lived there 10 years ago, they were still Union. Having lived on both sides of the state in major cities for over eight years, I think I am safe in saying they will stay Union.
OT: Newt is getting a hell of a lot of play out of the spanking he gave Juan Williams last night.
Perry and Paul tied up at 16% re Rasmussen.
Here’s the part of Matt Lewis’s piece that I have the biggest problems with:
There’s all kinds of reasons for voting for someone, but “he’s so much smarter and wiser than I am” seems to be a fetish of the Left.
Ernst, I didn’t care for that part either. “Elitist” immediately sprang to mind. Giving it thought, it occurred to me the reaction to that quote is a good litmus test for who is really a conservative.
Obviously, by the reverence placed on Obama, we can write the whole left down in the “agree” column. Where it gets troubling is half the republican party, by what they’ve said about Palin, would also seem to be in the agree column.
That may also explain why there’s more lawyers than houses in Washington DC.
Besides not knowing what the hell’s going to happen to my vote after I cast it(or don’t), this is the most depressing thing all day.
I suspect that Lewis is using “ostensible” in the sense of “apparent” or “conspicuous,” when I would more likely use it in its original sense of “pretending.”
I don’t know Squid, I cut off the second part of what Ernst quoted, it finishes: “and, as such, may sometimes have to make unpopular decisions.”
I think Lewis was shooting for “evident” when he used ostensible…
Jeff, I wrote a response- not so much disagreeing as further explaining my thoughts, and got the “database error” message and lost it. I’ll type it up again when I’m not drowning my sorrows over the impending Romney nomination.
Sigh. At least Justified comes back tonight. Thank Heaven for small favors.
Anyone have a guess for why Lewis went to Burke here?
I think Lewis’ usage is decent – he’s using the term similar to ‘presumably,’ which is an accepted synonym for ostensibly. And also a reasonable assumption for anyone deemed a ‘leader.’ At least insofar as the term is applied to the area where the leadership is exerted – eg. a divemaster is, by title, ostensibly enlightened and knowledgeable about safe and proper principles and practices of SCUBA diving. But this also leaves room for evidence to the contrary (insert allusion to Italian maritime officers here.)
I am not so egalitarian as to think that certain people cannot, through effort and innate ability, rise to a position of (formal or informal) political leadership.
I also accept that taking the heat for not just unpopular decision, but also for unpopular decisions that turn out to have been flat out wrong, may be evidence of failing the test of leadership. At least in an ostensibly representative republic.
Here’s a thesis statement for y’all: we shouldn’t embrace egalitarianism.*
There’s a bit of Burke for ya. Dig it.
* Every positive we want to express about equal treatment under the law we can express as fidelity to the rule of law. The rest? Bullshit. Men are not equal. And mobs suck.
44 wasn’t for 43.
I agree, Thomas. I think he was going for “presumably”.
And, I agree with you, bh, re egalitarianism. Phooey.
It makes sense in one way but it’s the way that no one ever, ever wants to pay attention to lately. In a better world, egalitarian thought begins and ends with Hobbes’ observation that any man can kill any other man. From that truth, we investigate we investigate a man’s natural rights.
Beyond that? False. False to everyone with sight or sense. And a great way to fuck up your politics.
This, this, is the proper form of any deeper Burkeanism.
Probably said “we investigate” twice for no reason up there. This brain lesion is gaining on me.
[…] Take Posted on January 17, 2012 7:30 pm by Bill Quick A few brief thoughts on last evening’s Fox debate DebatesPermalink ← Look! See! Beautiful […]
I thought you really wanted us to investigate it. Or you’d kill us!
You could then take two axioms and pose a question.
Axiom 1) All men aren’t equal.
Axiom 2) There are at least a hundred million of those men available to choose from at any national election.
Question) What are we doing wrong so that we’re not looking at our best options for our representatives?
(Sdferr has a tentative answer here. I’d say he has his finger on it.)
When that happens you can often hit the “back” button and return to the page with your comment still there. Then do select-copy before trying again so you have the comment saved to the clipboard.
So which is it ThomasD*, certain people cannot rise to positions of leadership, i.e., not everybody can grow up to be President, or is it that anybody, with talent, hardwork, and a little bit of luck can grow up to be President of the United States. I mean, are you that egalitarian or aren’t you?
*(just having a bit of fun with your usage)
*
When I make the strong form of my arguments and no one disagrees I’m pretty sure that I’ve earned a mandate.
Yeah.
We get the candidates we deserve.
bh, the third time’s the charm and and and: the lesion’s camouflage.
Burke, I’ve found, is tough, on account of he seems to eschew jes’ about all theory for an operating stress on the infinite possibilities inlaid in a particularity in politics, or sound practice, prudent pragmata: the ineffable, living breathing sort of stuff. Body bound, (rightly confused) we’re better off inching our way along carefully, expecting upset at any moment. Avoid generalization. Avoid universalization. (in politics, need it be said?)
Harvey Mansfield puts it:
Cowboy Curtis, for future reference, whenever I get that message, just hitting the “refresh” button on my browser will generally put the post through, finish loading the comments, etc.
Let us try for synthesis between 56 and 57.
Perhaps we might say that we get what we deserve but that we might deserve better tomorrow through our efforts and then the same for tomorrow’s tomorrow. Rejecting utopia and instead finding a more limited course of action?
Yes. Yes. I think we could. It lies in our education. Our raising of any possible lower self where we find such a thing.
We could start tomorrow if we decided upon it.
Sorry, I have to note this. “The evils of speculative politics” is evocative. Kirk spent many more words on it and never quite placed his hand on it.
My fear is we’ve reached the “‘deserves’ got nothin’ to do with it” phase and we’d better not be “cuttin’ up anymore whores” or HE’s going to come back and kill us all and burn our town down.
Maybe.
On a serious note, I can think of numerous examples of Republics failing, but I can’t think of any example of a Republic regenerating itself.
When you get to the really hard decisions, the tendency is to go with the kind of hard, “unpopular decisions” that usually involve making other people suffer. Or as Matt Lewis calls it, “enlightened, knowledgeable leadership.”
We’re liable to get that in spades, the way things are shaping up.
Ugh.
So… you guys have a standing invitation to visit in Hong Kong.
A wiser man didn’t want to clutter the comments with Mansfield’s extended thoughts. But, we should maybe give it a try:
Give it a moment. Or fall into the fucking sea.
That’s our choice now.
Ernst@61, so your saying Obama is a really poor excuse for a carpenter but a reasonably competent bully?
Honestly, I’m just riffing on the idea of “deserve” because William Munny popped into my head while reading bh’s 59. But go ahead and read whatever you want into it —maybe something interesting will effervesce.
And yeah, Obama is a reasonably competent bully. —competent enough to get other people to do his legwork.
Nevermind, read that wrong.
*
One thing I pull from that quote is a reason for the “theoretical” left to consider people as a problem, an inconvenience, whereas on the conservative side people are an asset and a solution looking for problems to solve.
I think my favorite William Munny quote was in response to the young kid who was upset over killing a man, and said that he guessed the man he killed had it coming.
“We all got it coming,” replied Munny.
#53 (sorry for the tardiness)
I am egalitarian in principle. That is, I think it a decent approach to human relations to assume the greatest degree of equality until proven otherwise. Enforced egalitarianism on the other hand is not only tyrannical but also an absurd misapplication of the principle. And in relation to this particular term Burke was simply first out the door to remind us that the French are nothing if not absurd.
So while I do think it quite likely some people simply will never overcome whatever deficits they were borne into I would never disavow their ambitions or efforts unless and until they proved self-detrimental. Respect for autonomy certainly accounts for a bit of this approach, but also enough first hand knowledge that there can be growth through failure as well.
I also hold egalitarianism quite apart from our own notion of equality, seeing this as something more akin to a minimum standard or least common denominator. It is a low bar by which we all can (and should, and must) be judged. The lowness of the bar affording the most number of peoples (excluding only the young, and the mentally defective) the opportunity to live with the greatest degree of liberty.
You took me literally when I was just teasing about grammar in a comment about someone else’s grammar:
double negative.
‘sokay though, you still woulda got the salt passed to you.
#65 goes directly to #63
refined policies that depend on the cooperation of common people will fail as a result of their confusion.
We’ve seen just about every variation on this theme, as it is a hallmark of conservative/anti-utopian thought. Even the early liberal thinkers paid homage to the concept by noting something of a KISS type principle when considering dramatic changes. Changes such as the transition to free market economies, which at the time was tremendously radical and did prove quite disruptive of the existing social order.
The real problem, such as history has taught us, is not that such refined policies may fail, it is that when the source of those refined policies also possesses a monopoly on lawful force the tendency is always towards tyranny.
Viewed in this light any “enlightened, knowledgeable leadership” that does display tendencies towards making people suffer or imposing desired outcomes are exhibiting decidedly unenlightened behavior, thereby failing the test of leadership, and should be criticized as such.
It’s not much, but until we start passing out pitchforks it is all we have.