GOP Debates: Round 5-Florida

Yes, I know. I missed round 4. Actually, I didn’t. I just haven’t blogged on it.

As always, the videos are at the end.

I’m going to approach things a bit differently this time.

First I want to congratulate CNN and Wolf Blitzer. This was by far the best designed and moderated debate so far. I was worried at the beginning with their opening montage and introductions, but once they got to the meat, it was enjoyable to experience. My only significant gripe is that I don’t think former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) and Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) should be next to each other. CNN put them there and quite often went to a camera shot that had both of them on screen while one was talking. Made it often look like they were the only two there.

For the first hour I was generally happy and amazed. Every single candidate, even former Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT) and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) impressed me at some point. For the first time I really felt that we have a great group of candidates here. Some people had problems with former Romney going after Perry on Social Security, but I didn’t. As I keep saying, the frontrunner(s) will remain the frontrunner(s) unless you go after him (them). Romney made some good points, too, although I think in the end he lost on the exchange, because Perry was prepared with a great one-liner about Romney’s book.

Perry seems to be following the President Reagan (R-USA) playbook. He has lots of good zingers and one liners. I don’t think he has quite the delivery of Reagan, but he’s not bad. But he needs to be better on substance. When he gets away from his strong suits, and from his one liners, he stumbles a bit. This will come in time. I’m sure he’s been in a few debates as Governor of Texas, but he’s not faced the caliber of candidates or the level of intensity of the scrutiny that he’s facing now.

Unfortunately, the second hour we returned to earth. Huntsman and Paul lost me completely. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I really don’t want to see Ron Paul at any more debates. He makes the entire GOP look bad. Also, Perry and Romney hit some issues that weren’t their bread & butter ones and they also stumbled.

But Romney and Perry were the two frontrunners going in, and they’re still the two frontrunners. No one made any significant movement in their direction. I’m not sure if they really changed much amongst themselves either. I think they both made some good points, and both occasionally struggled. I’m hearing on my Twitter feed that Romney looked awful, and that he had the best performance, which leads me to believe that I’m right, that nothing really changed between them last night.

Now to the rankings. I’m going to start at the bottom and work up this time.

Ron Paul: Titanic level disaster. Vote him off the island. Now.

Jon Huntsman: He’s just way too far to the left. He has some good ideas about some things, but he’s a traditional politician. A twentieth century one. You’ve heard me rip on twentieth century politics before.

These two were so far below everyone else that they deserve special mention. Everyone else did at least a passable job, just not spectacular.

Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA): I’m going to say he’s next. I’ve mentioned every single time that Santorum is either great or awful during debates. It’s because he’s combative and thin skinned. I think he’s been working hard on fighting his tendencies here, and I give him credit for that. Unfortunately, that means that he’s coming across much more subdued. He had a passable performance, but completely non-memorable.

Herman Cain (R-GP): Cain has been steadily improving at the debates. He’s obviously been putting in quite a bit of work. If he’d been as good in the first debate as he’s been in the last two, he may have made some noise. Perhaps he still will. I was very impressed with Cain last night. The only reason he’s down so low on the list is that others have raised their games as well.

Rick Perry: I really don’t have much of a problem with the Gardasil issue. He admits it was wrongly handled, which puts him miles above Romney who still thinks RomneyCare is a good idea. However, I also don’t have any problems with anyone attacking him on it, as long as they stick to facts. He’s absolutely perfect on Social Security, but he’s definitely left himself open for attack here and we’re going to see more scenes like what we saw last night with him and Romney. However, I’ve said before that he’s weak on illegal immigration, and it’s true. He’s very weak here and his answers on this issue were not reassuring. At all. I had him first earlier in the night, but he dropped to fourth in the second hour. And illegal immigration is a big part of why.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA-06): Frankly, Newt should be first or second, and it’s not his fault he’s not. While CNN overall did a good job last night, they still had a problem with letting candidates disappear for large parts of the night. That’s got to be hard to avoid with so many people up on stage. It certainly happened to Newt. He disappeared for long periods. But when he was on screen, I liked what he was saying and I liked his delivery. Probably one of the most impressive nights he’s ever had, when he was visible, and I’m on record as saying he’s the candidate I would least want to debate.

Mitt Romney: There’s really not much difference between any of the top 4. I put Romney above Newt because he didn’t disappear and above Perry because I thought he was a bit less uneven in his performance. His highs weren’t as high as either Perry or Newt, but his lows weren’t as low either. However his attempted attack on Perry and the Texas economy fell completely flat. He knows he needs to attack Perry on something, and fiscal issues are his best bet, but he’s going to have to come up with a better plan than “Four Aces”. Probably Romney’s worst moment in any of the debates so far.

And the Oscar goes to…

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06): She’s up here because she treated last night like a marathon. Unlike others who went for some quick hits early and then fell flat, she stayed in focus the whole evening. She’s obviously found an attack point on Perry that she likes in Gardasil. While I don’t agree with her position on it, she shows quite a bit of passion and is believable. And there are a lot of people out there who share her viewpoint. But she was good to very good in every single answer she gave last night, if I recall correctly, and unlike the rest, actually improved as the night went on. Her one fault is that she’s very talking point oriented, and sometimes goes to the talking point instead of actually answering the question. I’ve noticed this every single debate. That’s not altogether surprising. Most politicians do this. It’s surprising that in this field she’s the only one who does it consistently. Having said all of that, this was the Michele Bachmann we saw earlier this year, who has all but disappeared since then. I’d love to see more performances like this. She still almost certainly won’t get my vote, but last night performance is what I’ve always hoped to see from her.

 

GOP Debates: Round 3-Iowa

As always, the video of the entire debate is at the end.

Most of the GOP hopefuls squared off in Ames, IA last night for our third Presidential Primary debate. Like last time, the good news for many of these candidates is that very few people were likely watching. Because there wasn’t much good news in this debate other than that.

If you’re interested, you can find my thoughts on the first and second debates by following the links.

Last time I said that former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) was the “winner” but didn’t have the best performance. As the perceived front runner, he just has to look Presidential and not screw up. This time he was both the winner and had the best performance. His first three answers were fantastic, easily the best of the candidates. I felt that he started slipping a bit when asked about his record on taxes. Sometimes Romney reminds me of a used car salesman, and this inner voice in my head starts saying “I don’t believe what you’re saying”. That happened on that answer. And I think that answer was the tipping point for him. He was considerably less impressive after that, including flailing as usual on defending RomneyCare. And later in the debate he seemed to become the invisible man. Still, that’s a win for him. If he’s invisible it’s because no one is going after him. And if no one is going after him, he’s still going to be the front runner.

Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) had his best debate by far, and at times really shone. I’ve said this now many times and it’s still true. When Santorum is good, he’s great. And when he’s not good, he’s terrible. As usual, we saw a little bit of both last night. The good news for Santorum is that for once we saw more of the good side than the bad side. I admire him for standing firm on his pro life credentials, but his no exceptions at all stance is not going to win him many votes. Still, if he’d been like this in the first two debates, the race might be a bit different. Now, though, it seems like too little too late. My big peeve with the Senator is that I believe he’s too thin skinned. And he allowed that to cause him to lose his patience with Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) and Fox News’ Chris Wallace last night.

Now, it gets tricky. Other than those two, I don’t think anyone did a very good job last night. Herman Cain (R-Godfather’s Pizza) was probably the next best, but still stumbled on foreign policy, particularly Afghanistan. Wallace went after him on Cain’s statements on Muslims, and I don’t think Cain helped himself any with his answers. He clearly showed that he’s not Presidential material. I should copy-paste that last sentence. I may use it often from here on out in this post.

I guess I’d have to go with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA-06) for the next best performance, but he bickered far too much with Chris Wallace, claiming that the debate questions were “gotcha” questions. I think they were questions these candidates are going to be asked many times over the next 15 months, and they better have good answers for them. His bit on calling Congress back to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, ObamaCare, Frank-Dodd, the Super Committee,  and a few others fell completely flat for me. And he mentioned it twice. The second time it more than fell flat, it annoyed me. Good ideas, but we need to be honest in these debates. Most of those proposals would struggle to exceed 40 votes in the Senate right now. You can forget about 60. I’ve said this before about Newt as well. He’s a great idea man. He’s the guy you want in your company to sit around and come up with new directions for the company. But you don’t want him running it. You need someone else to say “Good idea, Newt, but…no.”

Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) probably comes next, but his performance, especially the first hour, was dismal. In fact, he lost my support. I was very impressed with him after the first debate, not so much after the second, and he’s fallen off the map now. He and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) went after each other with ferocity and bitterness. It wasn’t pretty on either side. People had differing impressions of who pulled down whom, but both came out of it looking awful. Not saying he couldn’t change my mind again, but right now, I’m in search of a candidate. And I’m not looking towards MN to find one. When he wasn’t bickering with Bachmann he looked ok, but not the guy I remember from the first debate. His best moments last night were like the guy he was in the second debate. Not good.

Next, former Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT). All it says by having him sixth is that the other two below him were completely terrible. There’s nothing that Huntsman says that endears him to me or makes me want to vote for him. I’m sure he was a decent governor for Utah, but there’s no doubt that he’s a big government Republican, and I don’t think he’s ready for a larger stage. Not Presidential material.

I guess I’d put Ron Paul in seventh, but again, only because he wasn’t quite as bad as Bachmann. His foreign policy ideas are frankly scary. He’s a big L libertarian, and an isolationist. And last night he was even less solid than usual on domestic policy. I think when he expresses his ideas on a national stage it hurts the entire party. He either makes us look foolish, or he hands talking points to the left. Sometimes both. I’d honestly prefer it if he were not at any future debates.

Apparently winning these debates is not a good thing. I thought Pawlenty won the first, and looked bad in the second. I thought Bachmann was the clear winner of the second and looked horrible last night. In fact, I’d go as far to say that it was one of the worst debate performances I’ve ever seen. Her bickering and sniping with Pawlenty was not useful, and really her best moment was when answering an absolutely ridiculous question by Byron York on whether she’d submit to her husband as President. The question obviously caught her off guard (as I think it did to us all), but she kept her cool, responded, made some nice key points about love, marriage, family, and children, and generally made York look like a doofus for even asking it. Bachmann has been polling well, but I believe it’s more because the “anybody but Romney” crowd has jumped on her bandwagon, not because she has much strong support. I think when Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) enters the race, and if former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) enters, she disappears.

I’ve said both of the last two times that I thought Palin, assuming she runs, was hurt by not being there. Last night was the opposite. For both her and Perry, it was good to not be there last night. They didn’t get pulled down into the mud, and will get the stage to themselves for a while this weekend.

I think in general the candidates all made two significant mistakes. None of them really went after Romney. I keep hammering on this. He is the perceived front runner. If you don’t go after the front runner, he will remain the front runner. Second, there was almost no mention of President Barack Obama (D-USA). Obama needs to be center stage at all of these debates. In fact, they should add an extra empty podium just for him. He’s the person all of these people are running against. They need to show his faults and make clear distinctions between what he’s done and what they would do.

The bottom line? The only candidate that was there last night that can win the GOP nomination was Mitt Romney. The others are wasting their time and ours. Our GOP nominee will be one of Romney, Perry, or Palin, and you can bet the farm on that.

The Obligatory ‘Huntsman Is In’ Post

So, former Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT) officially announced his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States today. The MSM likes to pump him up, but I suspect that the reaction of most voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will be the same as mine was when I first heard he was considering a run.

“Who?”

Yeah. Anyway, here’s the vid.

The GOP Candidates-The Bad

As promised, now the bad.

(No, I’m not going to do an Ugly, but if you look at this list, I’m sure you can find some ugly)

• Mitt Romney – Wow, where to begin. He’s the left most person in the field. He’s got RomneyCare hanging around his neck, supports ethanol subsidies and believes in anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
• Newt Gingrich – I think he learned too much from President Bill Clinton (D-USA). He’s too much into this whole “national conversation” thing, and seems like he’s always triangulating lately. He also believes in AGW, and to be blunt, his campaign so far has been a disaster. As I have said previously, he’s a 20th century politician. I really don’t feel that he understands the Tea Party and the angst there.
• Tim Pawlenty – Definitely has some green roots and supported cap & trade while governor. He says he’s learned from that, but there are some other things he needs to have learned from as well. He hasn’t always been a small government politician. Right now he appears to be saying the right things, but is he just saying them to get elected, or because that’s what he feels? Call me cynical, but I worry.
• Herman Cain – His outsider status is going to be a problem in the general election. He clearly has issues with foreign policy as well. Also, I fear that the MSM will use his race in a subtle fashion to attack him and the GOP. I can just imagine someone saying, “Look, the GOP is trying to show they have a black man too. But there are so few in the GOP they couldn’t find one with actual political experience to run.” If you don’t think Chris Matthews is capable of saying something like this, you haven’t been paying attention. I really hope I’m wrong on that, but I fear I’m not.
• Michelle Bachman – I don’t believe in legislators as Presidents. I never have, and our current President sure hasn’t changed my mind. Also, she’s a firebrand. I think that works for her in the House, but not sure it’s a winning feature in the White House. Let her run for Governor of MN, learn to be a Chief Executive, and then I’m solidly behind her in 2016 or 2020, depending on 2012 outcome.
• Ron Paul – Well, he’s Ron Paul. He’s an isolationist, and he’s out there on a lot of things.
• Rick Perry – As I said on the good page, I just don’t know that much about him. I do remember in those articles over the last few years that I scanned, that I wasn’t always happy. I can’t name any specifics though. I’m not the best even keeping up with local politics even in my own state, much less someone else’s. Yes, I realize that sounds odd for someone who is so much for Federalism. I’d love to pay more attention to local politics, but our top heavy federal government doesn’t allow me to do so.
• Gary Johnson – His performance in the first debate was absolutely dismal. He didn’t give a single answer that I liked. So, I’m pretty much down on him on every single issue.
• Sarah Palin – As a candidate she has a lot to overcome. Also, while I admire her desire to run an unconventional campaign, I doubt the ability of such a campaign to succeed on a national level. She has an image that has been created by the MSM, and it is the image that most people see in their minds when they think of her. And, fair or unfair, the “quitter” label is going to be stuck with her for the rest of her life. Also, I think her adamant stand on the debt ceiling issue would come back to haunt her as a President. It has all the makings of a “Read my lips” moment.
• Jon Huntsman – I missed him on the Good, so I’ll have to go back and add something. But he’s well liked by the MSM, which is all conservatives should need to know about him. He’s a big government politician and pro choice.

That’s the bad. And, sadly, there’s a lot of it. I can probably support any of these people should they win the nomination, but it will be extremely difficult for me to pull the lever for Romney, Johnson, or Huntsman. I’ve previously said I’ll never do it for Romney, but our current President is slowly making me reconsider that position. I’m pretty worried about the future of our country should President Barack Obama (D-USA) be re-elected, so despite my significant misgivings about Romney, and what he means to the future of the USA and the GOP, I’ll probably have to support him.

The GOP Candidates-The Good

My Twitter timeline is full of statements good and bad about various GOPers these days, and I keep finding myself wanting to retweet with comment. Unfortunately, most of my comments would be 1) negative, and 2) comparative to former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). I’m really trying not to be an “all Palin, all the time” sort of person, so I’ve been mostly resistant to tweeting.

However, my fingers are still twitchy, so I’m going to write a couple blog posts about what I like and dislike about the various mainstream candidates and speculative candidates.

All comments are based upon what I know of these people right now, and are my opinion only. Remember, this post is only about the good things. The bad things are coming later.

• Mitt Romney – He’s probably more capable of winning the independent vote than any other candidate. And he understands economics better than just about anyone else in the field
• Newt Gingrich – An absolutely brilliant individual, capable of thinking outside the box, and a genuine font of knowledge when it concerns U.S. history, and the implications of the future. Also understands the need for getting the public on your side, having learned this the hard way from President Bill Clinton (D-USA)
• Tim Pawlenty – Showing some real strength so far in the campaign season, definitely trying to court the Tea Party movement.
• Herman Cain – Smart outsider who understands businesses and what makes them grow. He supports the FairTax and also is not afraid of calling out the President where he’s wrong.
• Michelle Bachmann – Definitely has staked out the Tea Party movement as her core constituency. Taking a principled stand where taxes and the size of government is concerned.
• Ron Paul – I like some of his libertarian views, particularly where he stands on marriage. I’m in total agreement with him. We need to get government out of the marriage business. Yes, I realize that’s not as easy as it sounds, but it’s the right solution. Oh, and I’m with him on the Federal Reserve. That would be the best thing about a Paul presidency, seeing him demanding the Fed turn over their books.
• Rick Perry – To be honest, I don’t know the Texas governor all that well. I remember glancing through several stories over the last few years with his name on them and being mostly pleased with what I saw, but I don’t remember any specifics. Will have to do more research if his candidacy appears more likely.
• Gary Johnson – Give me a minute. I’ll think of something. Oh yeah, I read that he supports the FairTax.
• Sarah Palin – Since her emergence in 2008, she has been on the right side of every issue, and she has an opinion on all of them and has voiced them loudly and clearly to anyone who’s bothered to listen. What I like most about Sarah Palin is that she recognizes the MSM as the enemy and treats them as such, going around them to get her message out, rather than through them. She also has been willing to attack President Barack Obama (D-USA) on his stances much more than any other political figure.
• Jon Huntsman – He has some nice foreign policy credentials as Ambassador to China, and he’s a strong proponent of real tax reform, something that’s a big issue to me personally, in case you haven’t noticed.

There are other candidates and speculated candidates listed here, but I honestly don’t believe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI-01) or Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) are running. As for the others, I think only John Bolton has a chance of making any noise at all, and even his noisemaking potential appears minimal.

UPDATED: Added the bit about Ron Paul and the Fed.

UPDATE 2: Forgot Jon Huntsman. Added.