It just seemed odd that MSNBC would host a Republican debate in the Ronald Reagan Library. But that was the scene Wednesday night as the candidates took to the stage to discuss. Going into this debate, Texas Governor Rick Perry was the leading candidate in my book. But that wasn't because I thought he was great. I just wasn't impressed with anyone yet. No candidate had really impressed me. It was going to be interesting to see how things would play out in this debate. I figured I’d break down what I saw each candidate.
Rick Perry
With Governor Perry as my front runner, I was keeping an eye on him to see if he would step up and be the candidate that I was hoping to get in this debate. Perry seemed a little off until he got a question about the death penalty. Perry then answered the question with authority and conviction, standing behind the death penalty in Texas. And this was despite the moderators setting the question up as if the death penalty was a bad thing.
While this was impressive, it was also kind of depressing because Perry didn’t answer many other questions with the same kind of authority. So it gave the impression that he’s solid and passionate about the death penalty but not so much on other issues. I agree with Governor Perry on the death penalty.
There was one issue where Perry stood out from the crowd and that was regarding Social Security. He called it what it is: A Ponzi scheme. If you don’t believe it is, consider these nuggets of information. Those collecting Social Security today get their money from the people who are currently paying into the system. The hope is that there will be a new generation to pay into Social Security to support Generations X, and Y in their retirement years. Well here’s the thing. A problem with Social Security is that people are living longer, meaning they’re pulling from the system longer. To compound the problem for future retirees, birth rates in the nation are on the decline. So just like a Ponzi scheme, there won’t be enough new investors to cover the investment of older investors. Kudos to Perry for understanding this and calling it like he sees it. The other candidates seemed afraid to call it that because of concerns for losing the votes of the older people in the audience.
On the down side, Perry has me a bit worried given how he handled the HPV issue. It’s not just the policy but more the fact that it was an executive order. While Perry suggested that if he had a mulligan he would have done it differently, it’s a pretty big mistake. The candidates need to make them look as different from Obama as possible and an executive order of that magnitude just has him looking like Obama.
Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich has always been a bit of a wild card in this campaign. After spending so much time in Washington, he just reeks of Beltway. I could smell it three time zones away. But then in the last debate, he was very assertive and wasn’t putting up with any crap from the moderators. Given the possibility that the next president may have to deal with a decent number of Democrats in Congress if not a majority, one key factor that he or she will need is that they can shut down any typical DC BS.
Gingrich has been impressive the last debate and this one as well. He seemed to unite the Republicans in encouraging them all to limit their attacks against each other and focus on Obama. He called out the press for being on the side of Obama. These were gutsy moves for Gingrich and I applaud him for such things.
Newt also stood solid when it comes to education. He promoted school choice so parents can make their own decision.
Gingrich moved up on my chart. He’s gone from not even being in consideration for my vote next year in the primary to having a bit of a chance at it.
Ron Paul
What can anyone say about Ron Paul? I think of Ron Paul as the crazy uncle everyone loves but never wants around their friends because you just don’t know what he’s going to say next.
Ron Paul has always earned points in my mind by being dedicated to standing by the Constitution and following it as it’s written. When I first heard him speak at a rally in Ann Arbor, MI leading into the 2008 election, I thought that this guy knows what’s up.
But then he opens his mouth about foreign policy and it all just falls apart. In this particular debate, he suggested that we take away air conditioners from our troops. He then later went on to imply that this would encourage them to come home. Is this guy nuts? Suggesting we take away a fairly basic comfort from our troops won’t win him points with a single Republican. Then to suggest that taking away their AC will get them back home sooner implies that they’ll reject their orders, say “Later” to their commanding officer, and hop on a plane back here. I know a number of people who have served and are currently serving and that’s not how they behave.
Paul shows his lack of filter when he answers questions like this. While I appreciate Paul’s ability to be frank with us on what he thinks, he crosses the line all too often. It’s foolish to bash to troops in the first place. It’s down right stupid to bash the troops when speaking to Republicans.
Paul’s comments and stances on foreign policy are the reason I’ll never vote for him. He’s just beyond recovery. I fear if he was elected he might do something incredibly stupid when meeting with a foreign head of state. Let’s be honest. If there’s one candidate that was up there tonight who it wouldn’t be surprising if they had a conversation about bowel movements with the Queen of England, it’s Paul.
Michelle Bachmann
When Michelle Bachmann first announced her campaign, I had high hopes. She has received decent backing from the Tea Party and looked like she could be a quality candidate. She started to slide during the first debate when she was all to quick to break out the whole Obama being a “One term President.”
Since then, I’ve found the way her campaign is run to be just annoying. Throughout the debate tonight, her campaign Twitter account (@teambachmann) was just blowing up. It seemed like a new Tweet was coming out of that camp every 30 seconds patting Bachmann on the back for what she said. It got so annoying that I stopped following the account half way through the debate.
I’m sure the objective was to keep positive Bachmann posts up on the hashtag #ReaganDebate. But anyone with even a halfway decent eye would see that their coming from the Bachmann team and take that into consideration. As someone who was following the account, it was too much. One may call me shallow for thinking this, but Bachmann didn’t really offer much that was impressive to me. I didn’t see or hear anything that would move her up the ranks. So even if we negate the Twitter spamming, she’s still where she was before the evening started. I guess on the flip side, she didn’t really say anything that rubbed me wrong so perhaps that is a positive.
Jon Huntsman
Wow! Was Jon Huntsman… orange. As soon as I saw him on screen I was just hoping he didn’t overpay for the spray tan. I don’t know if he was trying to look red to conjure up thoughts of Red States, but I hard a hard time listening to him at the beginning because I was wondering if the TV was broken. The orange war paint wasn’t the only thing bringing Huntsman down.
The big snafu came when talking about science. Huntsman proved to be ignorant and clueless on this one. He came out very much in support of man-made global warming and suggested that any candidate that is thinking otherwise is opposed to science since the majority of scientists believe in it. Huntsman proved to be clueless about science. As the late author Michael Crichton so wisely pointed out a number of years ago, science is not a consensus. There is no consensus in gravity because it’s proven that things fall. Everyone agrees.
Huntsman also proved that he’s not even aware of the latest scientific studies and discoveries happening in the field of climate change. First off, the climate data is saying that there hasn’t been any warming in the past 15 years. To top that off, new research is suggesting that it’s actually the sun and not man that’s been causing the earth to get warmer.
Offering nothing of value, I can’t help but wonder if someone would show Huntsman the door. And be sure to give him a towel to wipe the spray tan off his face. I don’t see him mounting much of a charge.
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney has been the surprise of the evening. Going into this entire campaign, I have had concerns with him because of policies like RomneyCare. It’s not exactly from a Red State either. When I think bastion of conservatism, I don’t think of any state anywhere near New England. But then in Romney’s defense, when I think bastion of conservatism, I don’t think California and that state gave us Ronald Reagan.
During this debate, Romney along with a lot of the others reminded me that I have to prioritize things. The perfect candidate for the job isn’t up on the stage. I was hoping to see Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, or even Sarah Palin in the race. So I had to start thinking about what are my top four issues. These ended up being the economy, repealing ObamaCare, state rights, and border security.
Romney has in the past few hours impressed me on both jobs and border security. Romney hit a homerun by stating that we need to discourage illegal immigrants from entering our country by taking away the incentives. He was the best candidate up there on that issue.
He seems sound on the economy and has both the experience and plan that show promise. Romney also has presented himself as a candidate who will support state rights. I have the impression that he’ll let states start making their own decisions on a number of issues.
Where Romney gets me worried is in health care. He’s stated that he’ll repeal ObamaCare but I’m just worried he’ll replace it with something that’s not quite as bad, but still pretty lousy.
Romney also said he wouldn’t dismantle Social Security, a move that felt like he was concerned about the votes of those getting mail from the AARP.
Right now Romney would be a solid #1 right now if it wasn’t for one simple thing. Let’s say things go as I fear with him. He gets in the White House, fixes the economy, secures our borders, lets state have the freedom they deserve under the 10th Amendment, and replaces ObamaCare with something I don’t really like. He’s not going to get any sort of challenge in the 2016 primary. So I essentially would have to wait until 2020 for a candidate who will make solid health care reform. Because of my concern, Romney sits at a very unsecure #1 after the debate.
Herman Cain
I’ve had a hard time putting much thought in Herman Cain. The main reason is that he has no experience in government at all. While I appreciate that he’s not a Washington insiders, it helps to have a little experience in government, preferably in an executive branch position. Forgive me if our recent experiences with a President with almost no real government experience has put a bad taste in my mouth.
So Herman Cain already is starting from the back. But it’s not impossible to come back from that. The problem with Cain is that he doesn’t have much to set himself apart from the pack. On top of that, he doesn’t have a political record to consider. He doesn’t have much to back up his talks. All he can do is run against the records of others. During the debate he mentioned that he’s running against RomneyCare. That’s great Herman, but so is everyone else up there.
I’m sure some would like to point out Michigan Governor Rick Snyder. He’s a businessman with no real political experience and he’s been doing great things for the state. The problem with that is that that’s just one example. That’s also a state that doesn’t have to deal with the same issues as the federal government.
Cain really needs to offer up something that makes him unique. Until then, he’s just going to blend into the background.
Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum is still in the race? Why? His only memorable moment was when he referred to himself in the 3rd person. I was always taught to never trust anyone who refers to themselves in the 3rd person. Right now, he’s just good for the occasional entertainment.
The Conclusion
As of now, there’s no clear winner. Nobody really wowed me. Romney looks good. Newt Gingrich has been impressive with his no BS approach to these debates. That sets him at the #2 spot so far. Perry needs to start hitting a few out of the park and he’ll easily be back in the game. If there’s one thing that’s clear, it’s that the next Reagan was not on stage tonight.
We also have to consider the Palin Factor. If Sarah Palin does jump into the race, this whole thing practically starts over. I hope that she does if for no other reason than it’ll bring a new voice to the discussion.
Bonus: The Presentation, the Twitters, and all that jazz
The offensive award of the evening goes to MSNBC. To ask questions about border security, they brought in a correspondent from Telemundo. Really? Didn’t anyone at MSNBC think that that might be a wee bit offensive? This whole thing lead to the Tweet of the Night by @Doc_0 who said “Telemundo guy asks immigration question. Maybe they'll bring in an unemployed guy to ask about Obamanomics.”
So MSNBC hosted this debate and I figured out why right as the broadcasts ended. First off, MSNBC needs ratings. This may have been the first time they had better ratings than Fox News during Prime Time. But here’s the kicker. Right as the debate ended MSNBC threw Rachel Maddow and friends up who did nothing but bash the Republicans for what little time I could tolerate. I think that was 2 minutes at best. It just appeared to be a very cheesy setup to hook a bunch of conservatives with a Republican debate so you can bash them and their views for as long as they’ll stick around. Very classy, MSNBC!
No comments:
Post a Comment