Last night’s debate: yikes!
Bill Kristol writes that the Weekly Standard’s reaction to last night’s Republican debate, and the mail he’s received about it, is “Yikes!”
And that’s not a good “yikes,” it’s a dismayed “yikes”. As a commenter on another blog wrote, Sarah Palin won last night’s debate. It would be almost funny if it weren’t so sad.
I didn’t watch the debate. I’ve gone on record before as saying I think debates are a bad way to evaluate candidates, and what’s more I think that debates with so many candidates are absurd and do nothing more than provide an opportunity for the candidates to look foolish.
But so far I also have been underwhelmed by these candidates themselves. The people I would like to see there—Ryan and Christie and Rubio—all have their own (probably good) reasons for not having thrown hats into the ring this time. But Kristol is right: this field is weak.
I agree that these debates, especially with nine candidates are probably the worst way to evaluate a candidate, and really provide no value. I really think we should look at the past performance, and accomplishments of the candidates, and evaluate them based on that. I’ve not watched the debates for that reason. What kind of debater a politician is really has no bearing on how they’ll perform in office.
I, for one, have been dismayed to see Romney improve and Perry decline. And worse, it seems there are real objections to Perry including crony capitalism and naivete or worse regarding Islam’s secret jihad against the U.S. However, if Palin does announce, all the above will make her look better.
Maybe part of the problem is that we must go into an election with the voters we have and not we the ones we wish we had. I am personally discouraged that so many conservatives have been willing to jump on the bandwagon of the persons they hope will be the next messiah and then throw them off when they exhibit even one flaw. For instance, I like Christie, but I don’t think he has the international experience right now. I don’t want him chewed up because he takes a “wrong” position on an issue that is not a high priority right now. I want him to continue to be part of a good, strong Reublican team. Why can’t we say what we like about a person and reserve final judgement until we know more. I’d love to hear more about Perry’s tort law reform. If we could take elements from several campaigns and put them into a coherent platform, we might have a chance to turn this country around. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a candidate on a particular issue, but we really need to talk about the issues in ways that increase the understanding of the electorate. We have to stop the gottcha games and act like thinking adults. Maybe I’m getting a skewed picture from reading blog comments, but there seems to be a lot of hotheads out there who may ultimately hurt our cause.
Meh–
1. Iirc a 2008 Kristol editorial thanked Obama for ejecting the Clintons from politics.
2. The Singularity is Near as we prosper in the Anglosphere at the End of History. Huzzah!
3. Pundits can be thought-provoking, but they don’t merit being taken anywhere near as seriously as they want to be.
4. This applies in spades to the polymaths of the blogosphere. (Lest I be misunderstood: Neo’s posts are worthwhile both for content and for intellectual honesty.)
*********************
5. As a commenter on another blog wrote, Sarah Palin won last night’s debate.
a. This is part of her strategy, IMO: to position herself in a completely different category from the declared candidates.
b. Perry might have won in absentia if he weren’t, you know, running.
6. The people I would like to see there–Ryan and Christie and Rubin–all have their own (probably good) reasons for not having thrown hats into the ring this time.
Wow! Maybe Neo really remains an NYC liberal at heart and wants to see Bob Rubin run the country. 😉
Or maybe she meant ‘Rubio’.
7. But Kristol is right: this field is weak.
From a certain point of view and without the benefit of hindsight, the 1980 choice between Reagan and G.H.W. Bush didn’t seem promising either.
If one of these guys displaces Obama, the demands of the office will make him grow. Or diminish.
8. With the benefit of hindsight, I would take Romney, Peryy, or Johnson (at least) over Bush, Gore, or Kerry.
9. Romney has become the clear frontrunner on Intrade. His implied chances of getting the nomination are approaching 50%
gs: yes indeed, I meant “Rubio.” I guess my typo turned him into a Jew :-). I’ll correct the error now.
And don’t get me wrong. I plan to vote for the GOP nominee, even if I have to hold my nose to do it. I’ve been holding my nose while voting for most of my voting life.
I’m not going to go light here, so if you’re averse to extreme pessimism, stop reading. Otherwise… well – “abandon all hope” and so forth.
I am in the extremely negative camp. “Yikes” doesn’t even begin to describe my attitude. “Prepare for Obama, term two” is where I’m at.
Conservative politicians are pathetic cowards, and if they aren’t willing to step up and run to save this country, then frankly we deserve to lose. We will get what we deserve.
The Democrats come with their A-team. We come with a few front-runners on bended knee, begging Obama to put conservatism out of its misery. Nietzsche wrote in Twilight of the Idols that institutions cannot last when the spirit that builds institutions is dead – well, it is dead in conservatism. The Founders’ spirit for Constitutional institutions drove them to pledge their sacred honor to the country. Our conservatives’ spirit won’t pledge anything that requires any extreme sacrifice. No, like Nietzsche’s last men, our conservatives (who might be able to win and effect real change) just want to languor around in pot-bellied equanimity, trimming the thorns and pitchforking slugs in their gardens. We don’t WANT power; that is all these debates are revealing, all the lack of courage on behalf of conservative “rock stars” demonstrates. We don’t trust ourselves, our principles, our best spokesmen, and the latter don’t trust themselves.
Romney is the only one who wants to win enough to fight for it. That should have every conservative politician who could have entered this race and changed the dynamic, every one of us who fought for conservative gumption, spitting with fury.
If we can’t REPRESENT ourselves well, then we’re simply not serious about governing and gaining the power to do so. Ryan. Christie. Daniels. Whoever. At least Romney and Perry have the balls to get some skin in the game, whatever their motives.
Nonetheless, Romney is a lying, fraudulent sack of miasma. Anyone notice that he refuses to actually SAY he will REPEAL Obamacare? Yeah, that’s no accident. He’s a con artist, just like Bambi. Better than Bambi? Marginally. And that’s horrific. He has no guts. No principles. No scruples. He represents the complete failure and repudiation of everything the Tea Party has fought for the past three years. He is the death of conservatism in propria persona.
Perry… In short, I cannot support him in a primary. I believe if he is nominated he will lose, badly. He cannot defend himself. He cannot advance a vision for the country. He can barely articulate what he’s been doing in Texas for the past decade without biting his own head off. It is that bad. It is worse than that bad.
Bottom line: he is not smart or savvy enough to deal with the Democratic slime machine. Obama will eat him for all three meals and then sprinkle his dessert with what’s left of conservatives’ dreams.
A barely sentient teenager on quaaludes could promote himself at these debates better than Perry. His lack of preparation and inability to execute whatever he does prepare is a big bright flashing red light, to say the least. I have lost all confidence in him.
I return to my theme: We are not serious about winning. The only victories possible with this lot are Pyrrhic. And I don’t blame us the voters for this, nor the candidates themselves. I blame the cowards who chose to tend their gardens.
Cowards. I’ll repeat it a thousand times. I would give anything to be able to do the good for my country that the conservative non-runners could contribute to achieving. Anything. I can’t do it, and they can. And they willingly make themselves about as relevant as I am. Pathetic. Absolutely, unqualifiedly pathetic. THESE are guys you want with you in a foxhole, right?
Yeah, right.
Good luck with that budget during Obama’s second term, Mr. Ryan (or, for that matter, good luck with it when Mitt Romney is President).
Good luck in the private sector after Corey Booker crushes you, Mr. Christie.
Good luck, Mr. Daniels, with your family while the country flies apart at the seams and begins its Titanic-like slump into the abyss.
Conservatism cannot win if powerful conservatives are cowards before power. There is a long way to go on our dolorous road.
P.S. – I don’t want to get all concern-troll-ish, so I’m not going to post more stuff like this until I find something good to say.
I’ll leave the field to brighter souls.
kolnai: I take it you’re with Vanderleun on this.
looks like they are going to throw the game again
My first thought, too, was that Palin won that debate. The righties need her principles conveyed with Cain’s delivery.
The panel last night showed some good Cabinet prospects. Paul at Treasury, Cain at Commerce, Gingrich as chief of staff. I enjoy Bachmann, but there may not be a job for her in my fantasy administration.
I need a Sec’y of State. Huntsman has the resume, but he projects none of the strong character I want in that role. He’s a perfect diplomat, which makes him a weak advocate.
I wouldn’t hire Perry or Romney to wash my car. There were some other bodies up there. Can you remember who they were…?
Neo, Just to clear that up since the link had one character to many in it:
“Republicans, Dead, Thirst for More Death”
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/driveby/inspiring_republicans.php
neo – I think the link is malfunctioning, but if vanderleun believes this field is a catastrophe and that those who absented themselves from it are selfish cowards, then I’m with him all the way.
If these conservatives didn’t want responsibility for the polity, then they shouldn’t have ASKED for it by getting into politics, and by BLEATING constantly about “our national disaster” this and “dysfunctional Washington” that. Christie has WILLINGLY played along in courting national attention, giving speeches on NATIONAL policy at AEI and Heritage. Ryan has done the same. Only Daniels can maybe get a pass on this, since he genuinely seems to have skirted the spotlight.
Anyway, you don’t fire up the troops to go to war and then fly home as soon as the battle starts.
You don’t speak to your troops like a leader, asking them to believe in you, to listen to you, to follow your vision, and then tell them in the midst of an artillery barrage,
“Oh, I was just saying I wanted to lead you in training exercises back at camp – I didn’t know we’d actually have to face live rounds!”
They make me sick. Never would a Democrat/leftist with a chance to win bow out without fighting first.
At least we know which side wants it enough to take the trophy. That side is the left. We are, it is abundantly clear, too afraid of Obama to fight him.
Now I’m actually finished.
kolnai,
The next president can’t repeal Obamacare. That has to come from Congress. Romney has said he would grant waivers to every state, which should leave the law in such a disastrous state that even Dems would vote for repeal. Similarly, people who want a balanced budget amendment have to realize that this is a long-term process and won’t do a thing to help the economy today. While certain goals may be laudable, pursuing them can cause us to neglect steps we should be taking now. I hope our candidate is capable of acting now and planning for the future.
kolnai and vanderleun: link fixed.
One Palin follower thinks Palin did more than just win the debate. He suggests she is deliberately shaping the battlefield to her advantage. After suggesting that Palin manoeuvred into the race (after all, her endorsement helped Perry beat the Bushies’ favored candidate), the follower writes:
Her Iowa speech put another Palinism into the political lexicon: “crony capitalism” joins “drill, baby, drill”, “death panels” and “hopey-changey”. Look how well they play against Obama and the Democrats.
expat – I am aware the bills originate in Congress.
No, the waiver program will not leave the law in tatters. It will leave, at best, the ENFORCEMENT of the law in tatters, at least if enough states can muster the votes to opt out
And how exactly is this supposed to work anyway? If you opt out, do you have to pay taxes to support the other states? If you don’t, can you just raise taxes arbitrarily on states that don’t opt out? What about the insurance companies who are regulated by the law? How do they opt out? What if they opt out of your state because they no longer have the sweet, sweet mandate to fill their coffers?
This is a classic weasel move by Romney, and it’s exactly what I’m talking about. If it was such an awesome idea, why does no other candidate propose it? Answer: Because it’s an evasion.
Again, what if only two or three states opt out? Law’s still on the books. Must be enforced. You think Romney is going to back a full repeal bill in that case? Should we have to even worry about contingencies? NO – our President must be fully, 100% committed to going down in flames if that’s what repeal requires. Romney had a chance to commit to this in the spinroom last night, before red meat Sean Hannity.
What did he say?
He said he’d propose a bill that preserves pre-existing conditions provisions.
Period.
I stress: No Presidential backing for full repeal, then no repeal.
Period.
I’m fit to spit, too, but temper the volume and velocity of the hockers due to the fact that the craven and cowardly politicians are a reflection of the substance of, wait for it, wait for it, wait, hold steady ……..US. Romney and Perry spent their political lives without the tea party and from necessity are what they are. So, we work with what we have.
I see Christie may be getting in. I kind of hope not because I think Palin may be running and Christie would destroy her chances.
I love it when a plan comes together. 8)
Commenter Pat Dooley re Palin:
Her Iowa speech put another Palinism into the political lexicon: “crony capitalism” joins “drill, baby, drill”, “death panels” and “hopey-changey”.
I regularly read and used the term before Palin’s September 3 speech. It has over eight million Google links through August 2011 and a Wikipedia entry.
Yes, “crony capitalism” is not a new phrase. I wish people would just call it “cronyism”. Capitalism has a bad enough reputation already (undeservedly).
The proper term for crony capitalism is “fascism”, but that word has also been debased through misuse and overuse.
I haven’t watched any of the debates so far. I think they are a joke. The candidates just trade talking points and soundbites while trying to avoid “gotcha” questions from MSM reporters. Both Lincoln and Douglas are spinning in their graves.
A proper debate would have fewer participants, longer time limits for answers, and the candidates would discuss at length their philosophy of government.
I’m also very troubled by the fact that the Republican candidates are spending more time attacking each other rather than concentrating on Obama’s disastrous policies.
I posted some other thoughts here.
Netanyahu: good example of a principled man dealing with the exigencies of politics. See him make his UN speech:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/mr-netanyahu-goes-to-new-york.php
Palin’s shelf life expired a while ago, and she is starting to spoil.
rickl: Yup, fascism is the accurate pre-postmodern term. But that word can no longer communicate the idea to the audience that needs persuading.
“Crony capitalism” might be useful as it sets up an idea that there is some kind of plain capitalism. The message would be that a modifier-free kind of capitalism might be worth trying. And one can still work cronies in the Bureau of Central Planning.
These are primary debates, and not even all the primary audience is paying attention yet. There’s no need to persuade righty stalwarts that Obama sux. We attack Barry starting at the Republican convention.
Or whichever convention nominates Palin. Yes, she loves when a plan comes together. Misunderestimation is a signature failing of leftoid/establishment hubris.
I think most of y’all are being way too negative and frankly, kinda’ uppity.
I think any of those Republican debaters would be a MUCH better president than Obama or any other leading Democrat I can think of.
I think even the debates are somewhat important. It’s important for a president to sell his ideas to the public and being articulate helps that a lot.
Your expectations are too high for the debates. Do you REALLY think deep, well thought out policies can be explained in 1 minute answers? You’ll never get much detail in that kind of format. And realistically, that’s all the TV channels can afford to give us. If you want deep thinking, read the candidates’ books and go to their web sites.
So far, I think Perry and Romney are still leading the pack. Perry is faring very badly in the debates but elections are more than just debates. Romney is still growing on me. Yeah, yeah, he’s not a pure conservative. But he HAS promised to at least neuter Obamacare, he is fiscally conservative, has a proven business and executive track record, and sounds like he will handle foreign affairs with firmness and pride in America.
C’mon guys and gals….let’s be PRACTICAL.
@Foxmarks: the difference is that Palin defined “crony capitalism” in the context of today’s DC politics. The NYT took notice:
Newt Gingrinch noticed, too. He said:
Yasshur, I shurrr gree wif Tex: uppity. Dman og nuppity.
But maybe not uppity as impatient. It’s hard waiting.
Bless you, Pat Dooley, brother to Tom. No need for us to hang down our heads. Palin is the only one that nails it again and again: the elite ruling class. I really don’t like them.
texexec Says:
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:08 pm
No, and that’s why I think the debates are worthless.
Im waiting for the big announcement of Gov. Palin. Run sarah run!
She is the most qualified among the gop contenders. I will support and vote for her.
This is a weak field? What, none of them have any capabilities or conservative ideas? Let’s take a look back at 2008’s candidates:
John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas
Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas
Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee
Duncan Hunter, U.S. Representative from California
Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City
Alan Keyes, former U.S. ECOSOC Ambassador from Maryland
Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative from Colorado
John H. Cox, Businessman from Illinois
Ray McKinney, Mechanical services manager from Georgia
Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator from Kansas
Tommy Thompson, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services from Wisconsin
Jim Gilmore, former Governor of Virginia
Looks like about the same quality field to me. It’s true, there is no one in the present field who is perfect. I submit that Christie or Palin, who are both mentioned in longing terms by some, are not perfect either. Folks get over it. We are not going to get the perfect candidate. Everyone of them has strengths and drawbacks. We need to work to get more conservative in the Senate. Even a perfect conservative President would find it difficult to accomplish much with the present Senate.
The math works against candidates who are too deeply conservative because about 30% of the populace are comitted democrats and around 25% are comitted conservatives. That leaves the 45% that I call apathetic. (Pathetic, if you think about theiroutsize influence on elections.) These are people who are into their families, jobs, and various entertainments. They detest all things political. Yet they will elect the next president. There are two things the next candidate for the Repubs must be to get their votes:
1. Look like a President. (That’s a bit different in each person’s mind, but like porn, they know it when they see it.)
2. Have simple to understand ideas to restore this country’s economy. so people can gop back to work. (This is a toughy because the apathetic don’t know much about economics or why the government can derail economic activity.)
The thing we all need to do is support the nominee even if we have to hold our noses. Professor Larry Sabato in November of 2008 said, “”I think absolutely white Republicans did not show up. They were turned off, disillusioned. They did not turn out. Democratic voters did come out. They couldn’t wait to vote.”
Getting out the vote is what matters and a lot of conservatives stayed home in 2008 because they didn’t like McCain. Other Republicans stayed home because they didn’t like Palin. I know Palin supporters may find that shocking, but she does not appeal to many RINOS. Read the whole thing:
http://tinyurl.com/3j4csru
At this point I have no favorite, but I like Cain, Romney, Newt, Bachmann, and Perry – in that order.
When the convention is over, I will give money, work for, and support enthusiastically whoever wins the nomination. Obama must go!!
J.J.: Supporting just “the nominee” because that’s all we’ve got will not get me to vote (I always vote, but usually third party or I write in cartoon characters). If that’s my choice, I vote for another round of Barry. I want the collapse squarely on his shoulders.
If it is some squish like Romney vs. Hillary, my morals may require a symbolic vote against the Greater Evil.
I agree with most of what J.J. said. Seems like a reasonable approach to me.
I favor pretty much the same candidates as J.J. but my order is different, his order modified by my estimate of electability.
I think I’d replace Bachmann with Huntsman, because he’s more electable and has more international experience.
I want to say again that I don’t think the debates are entirely worthless. Most experts on sales presentations and public speaking say that a presenter should strive to make two or three points in a presentation at most. The debates are good enough for that. There are several things about the candidates I now know that I didn’t know before the debates.
Here’s why the Tea Party people loathe the permanent political class:
[T]he reality is we are governed by a permanent political class, until we change that. They talk endlessly about cutting government spending, and yet they keep spending more. They talk about massive unsustainable debt, and yet they keep incurring more. They spend, they print, they borrow, they spend more, and then they stick us with the bill. Then they pat their own backs, and they claim that they faced and “solved” the debt crisis that they got us in, but when we were humiliated in front of the world with our country’s first credit downgrade, they promptly went on vacation.
No, they don’t feel the same urgency that we do. But why should they? For them business is good; business is very good. Ever notice how so many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy? Well, it’s because they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money — to taxpayer dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies, and to reward campaign contributors, and to buy votes via earmarks. Of all the current candidates, only Cain is not a full-time, dues-paying member of the political class. He is making some very useful points such as high-lighting the Chilean public pension reforms. Bachmann talks the talk but her walk belies her talk. Huntsman is in the wrong party. Romney still won’t disavow Romneycare. Perry is a crony capitalist and weal on illegal immigration. Newt is smart but deeply embedded in the beltway. Santorum is getting better, but can’t break through. Ron Paul is the LaRouche of the GOP. I’m going with the contender who was smart enough to stay out of the mud-wrestling tournament, as my first choice.
Oops screwed up my blockquotes. “[T]” down to “via earmarks” is a quote.
JJ and texexec –
With respect, both of you are missing the point. I’m perfectly willing to argue my position on the merits, but to have it brushed off as “uppity” and “impractical” on the one hand and hoping for “the perfect conservative candidate” on the other shows me we still have a long way to go before we’re ready to face facts. It confirms my fears that for conservatives it is always salut par le sang.
We can debate all of that until sunrise, but the proof will be in the pudding. I am trying to stop that pudding – the pudding with the flavor “EPIC FAIL” – from being served. Ultimately, of course, I am powerless, so all I can do is play Cassandra. It is not obvious that playing Polyanna is necessarily more “practical.”
On that point, I’m not sure how anyone could read my posts and think they were anything but worries about practicalities. Romney can win (he is not likely to, but the odds are decent), yet how can anyone be sanguine about that? For crying out loud, all of us come here every day to drone on and on about how America has reached a tipping point and we need action, serious reform, serious guts, to take us back from the brink. That’s why there’s a Tea Party. And I think, on the whole, all of that is right. If you do too, tell me what happens when we, on the brink, get a “conservative” President who is more concerned with power via placating his MODERATE (not conservative) base? Does instinct or experience tell you that is going to end well?
For Perry, the worry is different. I am by no means a purist, and many of these matters that bother others such as Perry’s positions on Gardasil and immigration don’t phase me at all. I did NOT jump off Perry’s bandwagon because I suddenly discovered he’s not a perfect conservative. I never thought he was. I don’t think anyone is. That’s not the issue at all.
The point is that Perry’s ability to sustain an effective, winning campaign against a slime machine infinitely more lacerating than Mittens Romney saying “Nice try” is dubious at best. To think he can just cruise to victory on the strength of… of what?…. is what I would call wishful thinking.
But in any case, calling people who notice the obvious – namely, that nominating Perry looks at this point like running headfirst into a buzzsaw – calling that “uppity” or “purist” is a dodge. If you do not like the messenger, if I am uppity, then fine, shoot me, but for the love of God pay attention to your eyes and ears when the message is right in front of you: Perry’s liabilities are substantive, and they are merely REVEALED in debates.
JJ notes the presence of solid conservatives in the field in 2008, which is true. Also true is that none of those candidates save a few were viable. I wouldn’t be happy if Jim Demint were in the race today, again, because I AM worried about practicalities and I don’t believe Demint could win. I don’t believe Palin can win either, though I must say that at the moment she seems preferable to Perry.
With respect to “purism,” I was a Giuliani supporter in 2008. He lost, but at least he ran. My frustration stems from the fact that so many – scratch that, ALL – of our conservative and even moderate A-Team have opted to sit on the bench. Christie is in no way a conservative’s conservative, and the reason Ann Coulter and myself can support him is because he’s right on most of the big issues, can articulate his rightness in an unusually compelling way, can unite the party’s factions, and has the moxie to fight instead of stammering and backpedalling, or quivering before the Blue buzzsaw.
One would think those qualities would be de minimis for being a contender in these rather important primaries, which is to say, for being a contender in the primaries of a party that is SERIOUS about winning. If you can see the colors of victory in any contenders up on that stage during the debates, I must need Lasik.
I hope you can see, at least, given the foregoing, that I am concerned with practicalities and that I am not a purist. I can sum up my position very simply. What I want, presumably what we all want, is a candidate who is conservative ENOUGH and who can win with better than even odds. Romney can win with maybe even odds, and it is extremely doubtful that he is conservative enough. Perry is conservative enough, but his odds are terrible. Slice and dice that how you wish, but that is the issue, not whether I or anyone else pointing it out is pretentious.
If you think Romney will be just swell for the most part – not perfect, but man enough to tackle in some adequate form our pressing problems – then say so and make the argument. If you think Perry’s odds are above even, then say so and argue it. I must say, however, that seeing two responses that amount to ad hominem polemics in the face of claims to the contrary does nothing to convince me there is a good case for either argument.
(OMT – I do intend to keep my promise to not bring more gloom into these primary discussions, but the posts I’m replying to were addressed to me at least in part.)
I’m afraid I agree with kolnai, especially the 5:49 pm comment last night.
One of the biggest problems is that the Republican establishment (or as Subotai Bahadur calls it, the “Institutional Republican Party”) has made their peace with Big Government. They have no intention of scaling it back. They simply want to hold the reins of power themselves. In short, they have become like the mainstream “conservative” parties in Europe.
Romney is a textbook example of this. He is a despicable weasel with no principles whatsoever, save for the will to power. He would be only marginally preferable to Obama. Needless to say, he is the top choice of the IRP. If he is the nominee, I will probably end up voting Libertarian.
I won’t go into the pros and cons of Perry as a candidate, except to say that he seems to play the “compassion” card when challenged on his record. F*ck that. Compassion is not a legitimate function of government, and the word does not appear in the Constitution. The very last thing we need right now is another “compassionate conservative”. That phrase made me wince when Bush uttered it in 2000, although I did end up voting for him both times. I detect strong echoes of Bush in Perry, particularly in his soft-on-illegal-immigration stance and his pandering to Hispanics.
But the biggest worry I have about a Perry nomination doesn’t have to do with him, per se. It’s simply the fact that he is the governor of Texas. Recall that Obama won in 2008 largely because the majority of voters were sick and tired of “that cowboy Bush”. Nominating yet another Texas governor would seem to be the definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results. I think it would galvanize liberals and metrosexuals to pull the lever for Obama, even if they are not enthusiastic about doing so. Because they hate manly gun-totin’ Texas cowboys with a passion.
I’m not slamming Texans, cowboys, or governors in the above paragraph. I’m just saying that I think Perry would lose a sizable percentage of votes in the general election by the mere fact that he is the governor of Texas, and for no other reason.
I’m a TEA Party member. I agree with all that Sarah Palin has said about the Republican “good old boys club.” However, her electability is very much in question – ala the polls that say many Repubs don’t want her to run. I like Christie very much, but his foreign policy experience and his weak position on Muslims is a mark against him in my book. That said, I’m sorry he hasn’t been in these debates – he might be able to change my mind.
My list of favorites has nothing to do with possible electability. Just an opinion on how they are doing in the debates so far.
I look at the “apathetic” voters and realize that they get most of their news and opinions from the MSM. That is the biggest hurdle to a Republican win. Whoever is nominated needs to hire someone to head up a rapid response team to respond to all the half truths, innuendoes, and down-right lies that will be rained down on the Republican candidate. My idea would be someone like Breitbart who is a media savvy fighter.
The quality of the candidate is only about half the battle. The quality of the campaign and the commitment of Republicans, – conservatives, RINOS and libertarians – to get out and vote is very important. Please, if youare opposed to what the progressives are trying to do, don’t stay home or vote a third party candidate.
J.J.,
Your last paragraph is right on. Anyone who thinks we will be in better shape when the coal industry has been ruined, all private health insurance providers have been driven out of business, and our foreign policy has made us the laughing stock of the world needs a reality check. We won’t have a perfect Republican president, but we should not try to drive away people who could provide good advice to fill in the gaps. And we are not likely to have an idiot like Holder as AG.
Oh, ho hum. Another it is a weak field thread.
Football fans always pine for the back-up QB; politcal junkies always pine for the absent candidate. The Kristols, Noonans et all would have little to talk about if they couldn’t take pot shots at the folks in the arena, and hype those who aren’t.
There is one over riding criterion for elected office. You have to put yourself out there and take the shots that will invariably come your way. If you don’t you are irrelevant. So, what has Kristol, and like minded folks ever run for?
As far as some of the darlings of the Punditry and the blog forum warriors. Rubio? Please. He looks and sounds impressive. If he stands up under scrutiny over the next eight years, he could be a great candidate. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am not interested in once again betting the country on a guy who has yet to prove–anything.
Christie made a splash with his budget stance and his tough guy talk. He is not holding up so well over time. See the remark above.
There are some great one issue folks. P. Ryan is certainly in that category.
There are some folks with real potential. But, Mitch Daniels is too short, and too bland to be elected. Gotta have the stature and the charisma–at least you must appear to have both on TV.
I liked Romney in ’08. I still do. I wanted to like Perry, at this point I don’t.
The debates are a bit of a farce. Partly because of the format and the number of participants. In big part because of the moderation. B. Baier shamelessly over-hyped the last one–and FNC did not produce. The moderators clearly lusted for a fight between Perry and Romney and spent inordinate time and effort trying to generate one. So many of the the questions were simply embarrassing. To wit, (sic) Quick, who would your running mate be if you were the nominee? You said such and such in an interview back in xxxx that blah, blah; how do you defend that? Not enough of explain your governing philosophy at this point in your career? How well do you understand the issues of the day, and how would you address them within the framework of your philosophy?
Still, they do serve some purpose. They gave Perry the opportunity to demonstrate that he may not be what we were led to expect. They give Ron Paul a chance to say some really good stuff, then blow it by going into his crazy act. They give us a chance to see Herman Cain, and wonder what if? (Wouldn’t the Dems and the Obamaiacs have a stroke if he were the nominee?)
First, my remarks above were addressed to “most of y’all”…not any one individual.
I’m a libertarian…but I call myself a “pragmatic libertarian”. I believe in an absolute minimum of governmental involvement in my life and I believe that there should be a burden of proof on anyone suggesting that the government perform some function that assures:
1. The function is required in the first place.
2. It can be handled by the government better than some organization in the private sector.
I say I’m pragmatic because there are a few functions that meet that criteria.
I voted for the Libertarian against Reagan in Reagan’s first campaign. If I voted my principals exclusively this time around, I’d probably vote for Johnson.
But I got tired of voting for someone who pulled 1-3% of the vote and in an even worse case (Ross Perot), may have kept a reasonably good Republican from being elected.
I feel no need to defend my choice for the nomination yet because I haven’t made one. I do defend my opinion as to the process to be used.
@JJ: Palin said polls are “for strippers and cross country skiers”. Be that as it may, she is now within 5 points of Obama and leads him among independents.
I keep reading about Palin’s negs and unelectability. Those same voices are not discussing her positions and prospective initiatives. All y’all (and outside these comments) are mutually reinforcing a fear with little foundation. She doesn’t have to win any lefty votes to be elected. Embrace the polarization.
All it will require is one prominent political changer to say out loud that Palin could win after all. One Republicanoid voice to acknowledge that there is something valuable and electable in her conservative and anti-fascist platform. Then the entire eggshell of fear over “electability” shatters.
I have already seen cracks in the shell, like Gingrich’s comments on the crony capitalism speech. The consummate establishment insider candidate thinks Caribou Barbie offers substance? What…? Hmm, maybe we should listen a bit more to what she has become in the past three years. Why do we hate her again?
“I have already seen cracks in the shell, like Gingrich’s comments on the crony capitalism speech”
Maybe he’s angling for a post in the Palin administration? I would not want Gingrich as President but would like to see him as an advisor or Cabinet member.
Most people have focused on the “crony capitalism” phrase from Palin’s speech but the thing that sticks in my mind is when she said, “We WILL have entitlement reform. Either we do it or world financial markets will do it for us.” There have been overeblown comparisons between her and Reagan but they are alike in one crucial respect – they get the BIG things right.
Palin has been through the worst personal attacks ever endured by a contemporary politician. The turning point was when the slavering media got their hands on thousands of pages of her emails and came up with nothing except that she was a hard-working, competent and ethical governor. The final smear attempt has back-fired after it was found that McGinniss himself had written an email confessing he had no proof for any of his salacious accusations. For Palin, it is all up-side; the left has used up all its ammunition.
Any other GOP candidate, it is all down-side. He or she is going to be subjected to intense scrutiny, It is probably not going to be as bad as it was for Palin, because it was she, rather than McCain, who threatened Obama. But the sheen has come off the light-bringer, and the urge to go to any extremes to defend him from criticism and scrutiny has abated. Still, Perry would be hammered on immigration and his crony capitalist tendencies, and Romney would suffer for his religion, his flip-flopping and Romneycare. I don’t think anyone else has a shot at this stage. Maybe Santorum, if Perry continues to shoot himself in the foot.
I think the infusion of Tea Party blood will give us better choices in the future. I rather like Tim Scott. In an irony the racist left ignores, he won his primary against the son of Strom Thurmond in a white district. Allen West failed on a couple of votes, but has a chance to win me back. Some of the new governors may also emerge as natural leaders.
The polls are designed to make public policy, not report on it. Don’t get that reversed now.
Just a comment about electability of the candidates.
I’m a strong believer in http://www.intrade.com . It’s the only place I know of where people back their opinions with real money. In the 2004 campaign of Bush v. Kerry, Intrade betting occurred for how each state’s electoral votes would go. To the best of my memory, Intrade called every state right…even the close swing states.
Currently, Intrade says that the probability of Romney getting nominated is 44.8% (and it’s rising). The probability of Perry getting nominated is 26.6% (and it’s falling).
The Intrade probability of Obama getting reelected is 47.3% (and falling). The probability of the USA going into recession during 2012 is 43.6% (and rising).
All that tells me that, as of now, Romney has a very good chance of being our next president.
The thing I can’t understand is why our candidates keep playing the Press’s game, which is to have them at each other’s throats and to make them look stupid and mad. The person we’re looking for will seize the moment, tell the “moderators” to shut up and speak to the nation, or at least to the party. Newt made a few promising motions but having barked he went back to his cage.
@texexec: The problem with Intrade is that it is very hard to bet on it from the US. You actually have to send them a check (and wait two weeks) or do a bank transfer. That means that the majority of traders are foreigners with no local knowledge. They won’t understand the Tea Party except through lurid reports in the MSM, for example. I bought some shares on Palin being the GOP nominee. I figure I can sell some when she jumps in the race to cover my investment. She certainly isn’t trading like #3 in the polls at present.
Pat:
But still, Intrade has been very accurate. Sometimes I wonder if insiders who have knowledge the rest of us don’t have might be betting there.