Obligatory post-debate political post
Last night was the last debate of this Republican primary season, which I did not watch. But I read about it, and the consensus is that Newt did fairly well but it won’t matter, Santorum did rather poorly (especially on his defense of earmarks), Ron Paul did the way he always does (foreign policy madman), and Mitt did quite well but it won’t convince those who don’t like him and who distrust him to feel any differently.
So there we have it. In the next two weeks or so, after Super Tuesday (March 6 this year), things will almost certainly become clearer and perhaps we’ll have a real frontrunner.
I’ve written so much about this primary race that most of you know that I favor Romney, and why. So I won’t belabor the point any more, except to add a few observations:
Here’s one of the reasons it’s important to defeat Obama in his bid for a second term.
Sometimes I wonder about this sort of thing, too, at least on the part of some. It seems to me that there’s a significant minority of conservatives who don’t want to win the election if it means someone they consider less than a very strong conservative will be in charge. And they don’t even mind losing Congress in the process, because they think the whole thing will constitute a sort of purging fire for the country. Needless to say, I disagree strongly.
Romney mentioned a bunch of stuff he did as governor that was conservative. But again, I don’t think it will convince the unconvinced. Just the fact that he was governor of a very liberal state, and had to compromise in order to get things done, is considered evidence that in your heart, you know he’s not a conservative, and everything he says to the contrary is considered evidence that he’s a liar as well.
This new “Rubio-was-a-Mormon-from-age-8-to-age-13″ story makes me remember how disinterested the MSM was in Obama’s similar story about being a Muslim in Indonesia as a child. It also reminds me of the peculiar fact that, except for JFK, all our presidents have been Protestants. We elected a black president before we elected a second Catholic. Of the major GOP candidates this year, one’s a Mormon and two are Catholics, although Gingrich is a convert. Ron Paul’s the only Protestant in the bunch, but he’s not really a major candidate, IMHO.
Neoneocon,
Your wrote: “It seems to me that there’s a significant minority of conservatives who don’t want to win the election if it means someone they consider less than a very strong conservative.”
You think this is a mistake and I agree with you. Conservatives of this ilk are totally disregarding the fact that an Obama second term will give him the opportunity to nominate 2 (perhaps 3) Supreme Court judges who will influence this country for the next 30 years. The term “bonecrushingly stupid” comes to mind.
Regardless of the Republican nominee, the health and future of this country insists on ABO.
(BTW, on the Supreme Court, 6 are Catholics two are Jewish and one is Protestant [Episcopalian, i.e. Catholic lite, I think].
Neo – you should take consensus evaluations with a grain (or more) of salt. I was unable to be near a television but watched the entire debate on youtube.
Newt definitely had a good night. Stayed positive and for the most part went after Obama’s record.
Santorum did very well. The notion that Romney did better is based on a couple of sound bite moments not the overall performance of both men.
Santorum “owned” Romney on the earmarks question. He actually had to explain to Romney how the earmark process worked and that the process that Romney was advocating as its replacement was in fact the current earmarking process. Then Newt sealed deal making a sound case for using earmarks to eliminate executive discretion under appropriate circumstances.
Santorum also landed a number of good shots on RomneyCare and other parts of Romney’s record.
The crowd was involved in the debate, but it is important to know the Romney campaign had done a very good job of loading the crowd with his supporters, as did Paul. That had much more to do with the booing in many cases than what was said on the stage.
Newt was the clear winner. Santorum helped himself, especially with any Michigan voters that watched. Romney helped himself as well, but I think not as much as Santorum. Paul’s simplistic view of complex issues was on full display.
I wrote an e-mail to a friend in 2000, defending voting for Bush over voting for Gore and that was the single most important reason I stated, even though I wasn’t a big fan of Bush’s, and in retrospect, I was correct. Even the aftermath of 9/11 and Iraq’s constant flouting of the U.N. would not have been as momentous under Al Gore’s watch as his nomination of whatever non-constructionist, non-American-ideals, non-democratic radicals he most assuredly would have chosen (and the Republicans would have rubber-stamped) to the Supreme Court, in my opinion.
I also copied my Dad on the e-mail because I knew he would appreciate it and I found out later that he had forwarded it and showed to many friends and family, which made me quite proud. Yes, I blog on occasion, but given the existence of Neo-neocon and many others, I don’t think I qualify for much more accomplishment in the blogosphere than an occasional “stating of the obvious”.
Anyhow, as much damage as we know Obama is capable of doing in the next 4 years, and there will be much, I don’t think anyone can argue that the most lasting effect he could possibly have, short of indirectly causing a nuclear war, won’t be that he will be appointing one or more judges that will strongly influence the Supreme Court and the interpretation (or re-interpretation, misinterpretation, or recreation from whole cloth) of our Constitution for as long as generation henceforth.
Without Axelrod propping him up Paul would’ve already faded into the back-round.
0bama has to love that loose cannon rolling around on the Republican deck.
@blert – Wait, are you talking about Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich?
I have not read the assessments from the MSM evaluating this debate, and I do not intend to. The debates are simply not relevant. They do not matter, except to handicappers and the legions of amateur ‘political scientists” who almost uniformly lack vision. Soundbite generation is of no value to those of us who are not glued to the tube.
Bottom line remains ABO.
I’m waiting for you to comment on how much better things are in Iraq since the war you supported was launched. The Sunni-Shiite violence the Neocons said wouldn’t happen just hit a new level:
http://original.antiwar.com/updates/2012/02/23/iraq-slaughter-97-killed-348-wounded/
And on the home front, we have a central government that claims the power to arrest Americans without charge, or even to assassinate at will:
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/23/obama-lawyer-no-court-can-challenge-extrajudicial-execution-at-presidents-whim/
Both are the direct result of the Neocon Wars. Comments?
Old Rebel,
You seem to know for sure what Saddam would have done when sanctions were lifted and he had the support of his oil-for-food cronies in France, Russia, and the UN. I am in awe of your omniscience.
“The Sunni-Shiite violence the Neocons said wouldn’t happen just hit a new level”
and coincidentally, thanks to Barack Obama, American troops are gone. But the absence of American troops would have nothing to do with the rise of Sunni-Shiite violence. Oh Nooo! They’re totally independent and unrelated events.
“we have a central government that claims the power to arrest Americans without charge”
Funny, no one was claiming that before January 20th 2009. I wonder what changed?
Old Rebel: Read all my posts on Iraq and why we got into it, including my discussions of the Duelfer Report and its findings. And read all my posts with the word “neocon” in them. And that’ll be your answer, as well as what T and expat said, above.
re: the Rubio religion flap… I maintain that religious prejudice is one of the last socially acceptable ways to be a bigot and not be called on it. This tangential anti-Mormon swipe is only the beginning if Romney gets the nod.
Tesh,
You may be correct about the anti-Mormon swipe, but don’t you think that this will be just another case of the liberal mask slipping to reveal the putresence beneath?
I hope that progressives pile on so strongly that the American voting public becomes absolutely disgusted with their in-your-face-beyond-the-pale intolerance and hypocrisy.
T Says,
None of which would have happened if W the Conqueror had not invaded.
expat,
Saddam had no ability to harm us. What we do know is that we have a tyranny at home and mayhem in Iraq – mayhem we paid for with our tax dollars.
neoneocon,
Glad to see you have no regrets. Do you really trust Obama with that kind of power?
Old Rebel,
I will not get involved in an extended discussion with you because it’s already apparent, in just one post and two responses, that you speak from a pre-conceived narrative. To paraphrase Lincoln, when faced with one who denies that 2 + 2 = 4, any argument is meaningless from the outset.
Be happy in your bilious myopia. You are shrouded.
Here’s why we need to get rid of Obama and support any GOP candidate: Mountains of Debt. More importantly, we need to get control of the Senate, retain control of the House, and continue moving the GOP towards Tea Party Patriot principles.
T,
While I’ll readily agree that the typical liberal/socialist mindset is very antagonistic to religion in general, we’re also seeing anti-Mormon sentiment among the R ranks. Huckabee was pretty nasty about it last cycle, and Santorum has flirted with it, too. This is one I can’t chalk up to liberalism alone.
The Presidental race is toast. We need to start looking at what’s going on down ticket.
All we can do is vote for whoever gets the nod. The demise is too far along to stop it and turn it around. All we can do is slow it down, and hope our children and grand children can prosper and retain enough of their lives to live as comfortably as possible, and hope they don’t have any children of their own.
Tesh,
I don’t disagree, but I do have a difficult time believing that Repubs won’t rally around the candidate to defeat Obama. My anecdotal evidence (although admittedly limited) is telling me that ABO runs much much deeper than most people realize.
Tesh,
As an example (just an example, mind you) see this link. Now, granted, it’s written by a Tea PArty activist (full disclosure) but assess the information it contains and reach your own conclusion.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_has_already_lost_and_he_doesnt_even_know_it.html
T,
I think you’re right about ABO being more powerful. At least, I really hope you’re right. 🙂
Tesh,
From Neonecon’s blog to God’s ears!
Tesh,
I jus tnow saw this. You may want to check it out:
“I’m voting because I make two gallons of gas an hour.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/24/videos-obamas-2008-campaign-fueled-by-rising-gas-prices/
T,
Hah, that’s awesome. He really needs to be called on it. It’s the economy, people! (Sure, the social/extralegal shenanigans are Bad News, but the economy is blatantly obvious.)
@Old Rebel – First off, the civil rights erosion that you are referring to is a result of 9/11, not the second invasion of Iraq, and I think we can all agree that 9/11 almost certainly would have happened regardless of who was President in 2001.
Furthermore, that rights erosion, which is attributed to the DHS, the Patriot Act including things like having the government track your library books, video rentals, etc., companies like AT&T being forced to turn over customer information, and a lot of similar things, were supported by a lot of Democrats and not reversed by them, including Senator Obama. I hope you aren’t deluding yourself into thinking this would have been much different under a President Gore. TSA was created under Bush, but it got a lot uglier towards citizens under Obama. These measures were largely supported by Democrats, and even in those cases where they claimed to be against them, they didn’t do anything to stop them and they had every opportunity since 2009 to do so.
You might have a case with respect to Guantanamo and our treatment of non-citizens and enemy combatants, except Obama and the Democrats’ hypocrisy here was even more blatant. Obama himself promised boldly to close Gitmo within a year of taking office, and given that he had a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, I find it a little far-fetched to claim he hasn’t been completely complicit in pretty much continuing Bush’s policies unchanged… and the only difference now in 2012 was that Obama telegraphed the troop withdrawal way ahead of time, the Bush administration had every intention of doing basically the same thing.
Yes, I think it’s fair to say Gore probably wouldn’t have invaded Iraq, but at that point given that Saddam was definitely interested in acquiring WMDs (something no one was debating before 2003), whether he had any clue as to the real state of his weapons development and acquisition, and given the fact that Saddam was more than happy to finance terrorism against Israel, and given the fact that the Food-for-Oil scandal almost completely undermined the sanctions, not that they did anything more than keeping a bunch of Iraqis hungry and sick, I find it hard to accept as given that the situation would not have come to a head one way or another under a President Gore, and possibly in the long run, in ways much worse than what really did happen.
The stability in the Middle East after the First Gulf War was broad but shallow, and regardless of the USA’s culpability in the general geopolitical situation at the time, it would be foolish to think everything would have been peachy under President Gore. I mean President Obama has done everything short of kowtowing to Muslim leaders, oh wait, he actually did that, but it hasn’t helped our standing in the Middle East. There is no reason to believe that Gore would have deviated significantly from Clinton (who was, IMO, much, much smarter) in terms of the Middle East and we know that Clinton pretty much repeatedly let the attacks escalate with no (meaningful) repercussions until there were 3000 dead in New York, almost a hundred in Pennsylvania and several hundred in Virginia on September 11, 2001.
ConceptJunkie: Nice work, but ’twill be lost on Old Reb. I speculate he was once a Young Rebel, back in the ’60s, and has likely suffered permanent cognitive dysfunction secondarily.
Regarding the policy concerns raised by Old Rebel, the best candidate for neocons is Obama. Everyone is all in a twist because of Barry’s apologetic and submissive style. That’s pride getting in the way of analysis. Obama has proven to be ruthless with the use of force.
I am currently taking Constitution 101 from Hillsdale College. The assertion about gov’t by fiat from NRO is silly. Romney believes in government by experts just as much as Obama does. Newt and Rick, too, subscribe to the Progressive frame, that “just the right set of policies” can correct any flaws in the people.
The difference is not one of kind by one of style. Just like the foreign policy. Obama is more outspoken and grandiose about the fiat he intends to exercise. The other “legit” GOP candidates are merely masking their lust with patriotic balloon juice.
Y’all tend to call people who sound like me “bonecrushingly stupid”. I do not think y’all are stupid. But I wonder why, as experienced adults, you still believe the promises of politicians. Smart people see through rhetoric, unless they don’t want to.
foxmarks: your characteristization of neocons in general is an MSM-driven caricature. Read some of my essays here on neocons.
foxmarks,
Just for the record and for clarity here, if you re-read my post, the “bonecrushingly stupid” remark was directed at conservatives who are willing to give Obama, a president they thoroughly dislike and disagree with, a second term because a Republican nominee was not conservative “enough.” The aphorism used to be “don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.” I submit that such is bonecrushingly stupid to this day.
foxamrks.
Furthermore you write that “Obama has proven to be ruthless with the use of force.”
To what end? Force only makes sense as a last resort and if its use can resolve an otherwise unresolvable conflict. Ruthless use of force with no discernable results sounds like Idi Amin and Bashar Assad. I hardly consider that evidence of Obama’s effectiveness.
neo: Is Ace of Spades part of the MSM? Or is NRO? Pam Geller? I choose to expose myself to an unusual variety of sources.
Any label is a caricature. I have read most of your neocon material and appreciate that you don’t think the label fits your views perfectly. But nation-building has its roots in Progressive thought.
T: What you point out about the understanding the ends and pursuing them properly is I why I accepted Bush’s invasion of Iraq. (actually I say it was just a continuation/conclusion of the 1991 war) Turns out, though, that Bush was wrong because Saddam was a masterful liar. Now the neocon faction appears to be arguing itself into a belief that some new war is a “last resort”. Whether it is one of the GOPers or Obama, they will get willingly sucked into another war.
And it seems again that the caricature of “conservative” is inadequate. I am not “willing to give” Obama a second term. But seeing no Constitutional option among the “legit” candidates, I am inclined to let the open Prog crash the government instead of pretend a closet Progressive will perform a miracle.
foxmarks,
You say that Romney believes in experts as much as Obama. I would argue that Romney has much greater personal experience that allows him to judge the advice experts give. I personally think it is wise to listen to what experts on all sides of an issue say and then to weigh it against personal experience.
foxmarks,
and here is where we diametrically disagree. You write “I am inclined to let the open Prog crash the government.” I suggest that you really do not understand what that truly means for our country. Beyond the hardship that would create, it will also bring us to a brink from whichj we never recover–then, only a real miracle would solve the problem, and those are, historically, in short supply.
Furthermore, I offer that we did not ge to this point in a single administration, I don’t expect anyone to produce a “miracle” and get us out of this in a single administration. I do think that any of the three (Santorum the least likely) have the ability to begin the process especially if armed with a more conservative congress than they, themselves, are.
foxmarks: I’m not sure why you ask that question about NRO, ace, and Gellar. Are you saying they agree with your definition of neocon? Or are you saying they are examples of your definition of neocon?
If the latter, of course there are examples that fit that definition. But it’s not the predominant point of view among neocons, and it is a caricature and misconception driven by the MSM and especially the left.
To be explicit: neocons are not “ruthless about the use of force.” I’m sure a few are, but force is not what the neocon philosophy is about, and it is a caricature to say otherwise. Plus, Obama has not for the most part made any attempt (with force or without it) to encourage certain outcomes in the countries in which he has advocated the overthrow of dictators—the desired outcomes of neocons being democracies that preserve human rights and liberty, as well as governments favorable to the US.
Willingness to ‘rebuild’ from a Prog crash is nuts.
We are at a crux in our personal and national history. We have only one chance to manually shift from Reverse to Forward, and if that shift is not timely made, the transmission will be broken, stuck in Reverse, while the national car in which we all ride is pointed uphill.
expat: The very notion that a central bureaucratic office can manage the peoples’ affairs is anti-Constitutional. Romney’s resume suggests he will have just as much confidence in the power of “management” as Obama or any other leading candidate. Romney offers merely better/different management, when the root problem is reliance on any kind of management.
T: The crash is inevitable. Again, you demean my intellect by suggesting I “do not understand” what Obama represents. Romney represents the same thing, and makes a genuine Constitutional future very much less likely.
neo: Ah, I didn’t understand it was the “use of force” rhetoric that you objected to. My examples were voices commonly considered neocon that I hear regularly, and who are not MSM caricatures, but independent agents.
That one can, by use of force, create foreign democratic governments which abide by US preferences about human rights is the central neocon philosophic failure. It is purely Progressive in nature (and I love it when other factions call neocons “Trotskyites”. Our revolution is the noble revolution!). In Iraq and Afghanistan, the neocon faction just wants more troops, for a longer time, to get things right. It is no different than listening to democrats talking about the Great Society. Our only failure is a lack of commitment!
I’m not sure we can say Barry hasn’t encouraged certain outcomes. He has killed key people. He has tried to put on a different submissive public face, but do you really believe the CIA is not engaged in all kinds of nonsense across the globe?
If it isn’t already in your idea stack, the definition of “neocon” could use some adjustment after ten years attempted nation-building.
foxmarks,
First off, I’m sorry that you see my criticism as demeaning your intelligence. I can only draw my inferences from what your post here; that was certainly not intended.
Second, “The Crash” is not inevitable. People always see trend lines growing from current circumstances. If times are good they’ll continue getting better; it times are bad they’ll continue to get worse. It’s just lthe way ads for buying gold prolifierate just as the price/oz reaches historic highs.
Again, I fundamentally disagree with you. The cataclysm that you seem willing to suffer is frought with dangers that you don’t even realize that you’re unaware of. We might both agree that we are at the edge of a precipice. You seem willing to make the jump; I am not. The idea might be that we’re jumping into water, not ground, but water at 50 mph is very very hard–even if it doesn’t look like it is, and one only finds that out as one hits, not as one approaches.
Make no mistake about it, Obama will bankrupt this country, and he will cause personal bankruptcies for you and me. Take the current energy problems. Obama, himself, has admitted that energy prices will skyrocket under his direction, and he has refused to act in any way to bring gasoline prices down. This does two things; first, as we pay more for each gallon of gas, we have less money for other purposes. Second, since everything we need is transported by gasoline and diesel, the prices of necessities will rise exponentially. You will have less money in your pocket and also be forced to pay more for your necessities. Many more people will lose their jobs as the economy slows, and as more of us wind up on the dole, ther will be less private industry to pay the bill. This is a death spiral; its happening now but it’s still containable; Obama will accelerate this past the point of no return. This is what you seem willing to accept.
Bill O’Reilly is oftentimes a big blowhard, but his latest mantra is spot on; if Obama wins reelection, you will not recognize this country in four years. That is because a Republican congress aside, he will continue to exercise an end-run around legislation with regulatory tomfoolery just has he has demonstrated now.
Subsequently, a tipping point will be reached (that precipice I mentioned) our opportunities for recovering our exceptionalism will be somewhere between slim and none because the the road back will be very very difficult for a very very long time, if possible at all. I am in the final third of my own life, and I have no intention of spending my remaining years paying for Obama’s narcissim, ingnorance and mistakes.
IMO that difficulty is still manageable, but even if a Republican administration fails, the result will be no worse than a second Obama term—so what do we have to lose?
T: The insult to my intelligence may not be direct, but a product of the rhetoric. Yet, you do it again, by insisting that I have not considered the unknown/unknowable perils that come with state collapse. I don’t take it too personally, but it is a problem for all to be aware of, as it is common now to skip the step of “you’re wrong for the following reasons” and go directly to “you’re stupid”.
You do go for the preferred listing of reasons when you repeat we have a fundamental disagreement. I say the country is already bankrupt. Accounting tricks have delayed the reckoning, but our governments’ Acid Test Ratio stinks. Either the FedGov will have to sell assets, or steal them via inflation. Obama’s particular policies are not the core problem and correcting them are not the solution. The value of everything needs adjustment, and there will be many losers in the Great Repricing.
I might say our fundamental disagreement is about timing, whether we are over the precipice. But I wonder if it goes deeper. People who talk about American exceptionalism these days are all from the same generation. I hold that generation is the one which destroyed American exceptionalism by replacing personal autonomy and limited government with industrial success and military prowess. Are we exceptional because the nation was conceived in equality of liberty, or because we can kick everybody’s ass?
Foxmarks,
Let me respond first to your final point. If you haven’t yet, I suggest reading Walter Russell Mead’s series on the failure of the Blue Social model. He makes a very convincing case for the Blue Social model as a large govt/regulatory format whose time has passed. To be in a transition, even the difficult and disruptive transition that we are now in, is not necessarily the same as the “end of time” (this hearkens back to my point about people reading a present circumstance as a linear trend).
Second, regarding “accounting tricks” we are not already bankrupt. First let me qualify what I say by pointing out that we MUST begin paying down our debt. That is an indisputable part of our return to financial health. Having said that, our economy is in a position where, like a watch spring, it has been wound as tightly as it can be wound. It is waiting, and I might add chomping at the bit, to break loose. When that happens we will see a burgeoning economy like none we could ever imagine. With regard to the natl debt, look at it this way; if someone makes $50k per year and has $50k in consumer debt, then they are hurting. If, however, they could overnight make that income jump to say $150k or $200k, then that $50k debt plays a lesser role. We are in the former circumstance ($50k income w/ $50k debt) because our economy is hobbled. When it breaks loose, just watch out. Even $14T in debt will pale against the potential size of our healthy GDP, but that will not happen so long as Obama is at the reins. Businesses know he’s a liar. They don’t trust him, and Obama’s administration has done everything it can to hobble the very economy that is the cure to our current problem. You are willing to allow him a second term to continue doing exactly that, to break bank; a second Obama term does nothing but GUARANTEE our loss.
I, OTH, want to see him defeated because that at least creates the POSSIBILITY that we can begin to return to some semblence of fiscal sanity and health. I repeat, even if you are correct and a President Romney or Gingrich does no better than Obama, we have nohing to lose, but if they do, outperform Obama then we have everything to gain. And keep in mind that Obama has set the performance bar very very low.
Finally, you choose to take as an insult my comment about unknown unknowns. IMO you do this because your assumption seems to be “T thinks he knows what these unknown unknowns are and he chides Foxmarks for not knowing herself/himself.” This is not the case. I refute your position not just because of the consequences I see arising from it, but because I fear even more those consequences that neither you nor I can conceive of. A change in administrations creates the possibility of avoiding the worst of them, whatever they may be. No slight or isnult was or is intended, but if you choose to take personal umbrage then there’s just not much I can do to change that.
T: We differ on perceived risk and risk tolerance. I don’t suggest that you are ignorant, but you insist that I am. As I wrote, I wasn’t taking it too personally. But I ain’t votin’ for R-money.
We agree that paying down debt is essential. R-money and the other two GOPers do not have a credible to plan to even begin doing so.
It sounds like you think that the 90s boom was normal. That a few factors being corrected, the US economy could grow like that forever. I say that is an unfounded belief.
All the growth that you hold is pent up like a watchspring presumes easy access to underpriced credit-money. The last 30 years of GDP growth was all debt. There is no watchspring. The basic GDP equation (C+I+G+[x-m]) holds that shifting expenditures between C or I or G doesn’t change the sum of the three. Extinguishing debt explicitly requires the sum to shrink.
By GDP measure, the economy must get smaller. And while GDP mandatorily shrinks, the debt leveraged against it does not. The Acid Test Ratio gets worse until debt cannot be rolled over and/or FedRes currency is no longer functional as money. There is no way out that doesn’t include a Great Repricing.
On “the end of time”, perhaps we are talking past each other. The upcoming Period of Violent Upheaval is part of a cycle. Simultaneously, more things will be open for rapid change than have been for a few generations. Society will endure. The question is of its form and the nature of its government. We either restore a pre-Blue Model system or jump to a different paradigm (open tyranny?).
Tens of millions are dependent on the Blue Model. To them it will feel like the end of times. I want them to Remember Obama, LBJ and FDR as they starve to death in the midst of history’s wealthiest economy.