Yet Another Debate Wrap Up

Last night saw yet another fascinating Republican debate. Most of the attacks were on Cain or Romney. Perry attacked Romney as did Bachmann. Paul and Santorum attacked Cain. Huntsman focused on Perry. Gingrich focused on the Fed. Romney focused on Obama. Cain focused on his own plans. And the moderators attacked Romney, Cain and Perry. In the end, I think Cain was a huge winner, even though that may not be immediately apparent, and the race is now between Romney and Cain.

● Cain: Cain needed to show he could take the pressure of being number two. He did. At no point did he fall flat on his face or lack for answers. His two worst moments came:

● When a moderator asked why he told the unemployed it was their own fault they didn't have jobs. This mischaracterized Cain’s comment, which was aimed at the idiots squatting on Wall Street, but it still sounded bad and his explanation wasn’t particularly strong.

● When Ron Paul attacked him for being on the Kansas City Fed, Cain gave an ok (not great) answer that the Fed didn’t act then like it does now. That won’t satisfy Fed-deniers.

Cain defended other attacks quite nicely, such as:

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for raising only $2 trillion in revenues instead of the $2.2 trillion claimed, Cain shot back with one of the best lines of the night: “The problem with that analysis is that it’s incorrect.”

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being “regressive” and making “food and milk and beer” more expensive, Cain made the solid point that eliminating the payroll tax would more than offset that. I like that he didn't apologize for imposing a “regressive” tax.

● When Romney attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too simple and claiming simple is not good, Cain turned this on Romney by asking him if he knows all 59 points in his own plan. Romney didn’t and instead came up with the “7 pillars” of his plan and thereby proved that simple is better.

● Several of the underlings jumped on the idea Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would give Congress a new source of revenue by creating a national sale tax, but this only emphasized how deeply entrenched in the system their mindsets are. Following their logic, we shouldn't try anything.

Cain had a brilliant line too: “The capital gains tax is a wall that stands between people with ideas and people with money.”

Cain didn’t blow anybody away, but he did show solid skills and he proved he won't trip himself up. He also did such a masterful job of selling his 9-9-9 plan that every other candidate talked about it constantly, as did the moderators, and it even came up in questions that didn’t involve him. He made his 9-9-9 plan THE take away from this debate and that will prove to be a huge win, even if it isn’t immediately obvious.

● Romney: Romney just needed to be smooth and for the most part he succeeded. BUT the problem with Romney was on full display again last night. He would say something great and then he would keep talking until he backtracked out of it. He also imploded during the TARP question because he danced so long around whether he would do another Wall Street bailout that it became clear not only that he would do another bailout, but it was also clear he was trying to lie to us.

Newt also had a solid hit on Romney by pointing out that “on page 47” of his plan (a slap at Romney’s inability to describe his 59 point plan) Romney plays into Obama’s class warfare argument by promising capital gains tax cuts “to people who don’t have capital gains.” Romney missed Newt’s point and tried to defend this by saying he favors the middle class because the rich can take care of themselves. . . conceding Obama's case.

In the plus category, Perry took a shot at Romney over RomneyCare being like ObamaCare, but Romney’s defense was even better this time than last: (1) we didn’t raise taxes like Obama does, (2) we only insured poor people, we didn’t try to force everyone onto it, (3) this is a state issue, and (4) Massholes like the system 3-1. Whether those are true points or not, they remained un-refuted and made this a dead issue.

Romney also had a great shot at Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman when he said, “I would not be in this race if I had spent my whole life in government.” He then detailed some of the companies he founded.

● Perry: Perry really needed to shine to stop his nosedive. He failed. He barely spoke last night and when he did it was all generic. In particular, he mishandled his pending economic plan. He didn’t seem to know what’s in it and he just kept promising that he would release it soon as if he didn’t want to spoil the surprise. When it was pointed out that he should be able to tell us what’s in it, he responded with a very bad answer, claiming he’d only had eight weeks to work on it, whereas Romney’s had six years. Frankly a candidate who understands what they believe can detail an economic plan off the top of their head.

The moderators also smacked Perry by saying that the way Texas develops business is similar to Solyndra. Perry’s response was basically “everybody’s doin’ it,” which will only add more fire to the cronyism charge.

● Paul: Ron Paul had another bad debate. He had little to say as Newt stole his thunder. When he spoke, he made good points, but they weren’t memorable.

● Gingrich: Newt was the most interesting last night. He repeatedly tried to win over Paul supporters with angry broadside attacks on Ben Bernanke and the Fed, and he tried to win over Palin supporters by defending her even though no one else had mentioned her. Neither group are traditionally Newt people, so he’s clearly trying to branch out. Paul seemed a little stunned by this.

● Santorum: Santorum needs to go. He kept interrupting and he bizarrely continues to paint himself as an outsider. He also did things like blast everyone at the table as insiders and then (in the same sentence) attacked Cain for his lack of experience. Huh? Also, after blasting all the horrible insiders, he bragged how his years as an insider would let him pass his plan. . . whatever that plan actually is. Then he said he wanted to go to war with China, though I think he meant he wanted to fight a trade war, which isn’t much smarter. And his economic plan seems to be to make people get married.

● Bachmann: Bachmann and Santorum came across as lifer politicians with bland platitudes and repeatedly using candidate speak, e.g. “I just spoke to a man who told me blah blah blah.” This is something annoying people do when they've been in politics too long. Bachmann also needs to stop telling us she has 5 biological kids and 24 foster kids and that she was an attorney for the I.R.S. It's become like Al Bundy talking about scoring 4 touchdowns in one game.

Bachmann's attack on Cain's plan also struck me as a negative. She said if you turn Cain’s 9-9-9 plan around, “the devil is in the details.” Ha ha ha. First, that's trite and she has no comedic timing. Secondly, how does that make sense? The beauty of Cain’s plan is the lack of hidden details, it’s the tinker-with-the-current-system advocates who are playing with details. Third, what does she know of details as her “plan” (a term I use loosely) has none -- it's pure platitude. She should join Santorum on the short bus back home.

● Huntsman: Huntsman remains a sniveling jerk. He takes hypocritical cheap shots and radiates smugness, and he continues to adopt Democratic rhetoric to attack the candidates. Last night he said Cain’s 9-9-9 plan sounded like a pizza price, which is a standard attack you’ll find in the leftist blog world.

● Speculation: Finally, there was more evidence for my theory that Cain and Romney have a deal. Cain inexplicable bailed Romney out on TARP and then while seemingly criticizing Romney in the direct question section actually gave Romney an open platform to discuss his economic plan. Romney then used his question against Bachmann, when tactically, he should have blasted Cain. My guess is Cain doesn’t think he’ll win, so he’s agreed he will eventually bow out and endorse Romney in exchange for becoming the VP.

Thanks to everyone who participated last night and thanks to T-Rav and his sockpuppets!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Tuesday Night At The Debates!!

In case you haven’t heard, there’s another Republican debate tonight -- 7:00 pm EST, on BloombergTV. So watch for periodic interruptions from Hugo Chavez Bloomberg himself as he tries to declare himself President. Tonight’s debate will be in New Hamster and could be fairly interesting. This will be Cain’s first test as the field’s punching bag. Perry needs to prove he’s not finished. Romney needs to find Waldo. And the rest need to find graceful exit strategies. Join us here for a play by play. . . join us.. In the meantime, here’s an update on recent events and some bad boxing nicknames:

● Mitt "the Rambler" Romney: Romney has been mocking Obama for creating a “Where’s Waldo economy” in which “finding a good paying job in this economy is harder than finding Waldo in one of his books.” This is of course a horrible analogy made about a book that hasn’t been culturally relevant in 15 years. Nice work Romney. . . way to show us groovy cats that you’re the bees knees.

At the Citadel, he gave a foreign policy speech in which said: “This century must be an American Century.”.... which is a mutual fund. After that it got a little confusing. He has four principles that he claims he will follow in foreign policy, but these were extremely generic. He will use American power with clarity and resolve to support our friends and promote capitalism. He intends to be a leader in multinational organizations, and he wants a strong military. You tell me what that means.

● The Herminator: Cain continues to surge in the polls. Most national polls have him in second place and climbing, though a couple had him in first place. Two separate polls released this week have him moving into second place in liberal New Hampshire: Romney 38%, Cain 20%, Paul 13%, Perry 4%. This will make Cain the candidate all the other conservative will shoot at, just as they attacked Perry before him. How he handles the heat could well determined his future. A failure tonight would likely stop his momentum dead and kill his candidacy.

Meanwhile, in establishment land, The Washington Post is trying to mock him as the “flavor of the month” and scoffs that “conservatives will tire of him at some point and once again search for the next big thing.” Thus proving that the Post is indeed clueless about conservatives. We are looking for a good candidate, we don't have ADD like liberals do.

It also scoffs that Cain can't fool the Post about his lack of foreign policy experience and it notes that candidates who don’t know foreign policy always fail. . . assuming you ignore Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama, each of whom had squat in the way of foreign policy experience when they took over.

● Texas Trainwreck Rick Perry: Most pundits are saying Perry needs to win big tonight or he’s finished. For his part, Perry is taking this debate very seriously. He has reportedly been practicing against a stand-in for Romney. . . who did indeed dress like Waldo. He also apparently intends to follow Commentarama’s advice and issue a “significant economic plan” next week. Personally, I’d release it right now, before the debate, but what do I know?

Perry went through a bit of an embarrassment last week when Perry supporter Evangelical leader Robert Jeffress decided to tell the world that Mormonism is a cult and thus, we should not vote for Romney. Perry’s campaign quickly issued a statement disavowing this comment: “The governor does not believe Mormonism is a cult,” and urged us to vote for Romney. Jeffress is now being compared to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

● St. Ron Paul: In a bit of a shocker, Ron Paul won an informal straw poll at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit. He won 37% of the vote. Cain came in second with 23%. Perry got fourth with 8% and Romney scored sixth with 4%. Paul isn’t exactly known for being a darling of the Religious Right, so how do we account for this? FRC leaders say Paul's support came from younger FRCVVS attendees. . . which doesn’t really answer the question, does it? Could Paul have more supporters than we think? Should we prepare for a Paul Presidency? Tune in November 2012 and find out!

● Jon Super-Butch Huntsman: Huntsman continues to pound his chest to prove to us that he’s not an effete liberal. He’s now promising to bomb Iran, and no, I’m not really kidding: “I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that.” To quote the late Al Davis, “just nuke ‘em baby!”

● Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and the other guys whose names I’ve forgotten, all continue to exist.

● The End Is Nigh: Finally, nothing you’ve just read matters. The Detroit Lions are 5-0, which means the world is ending. The Mayans were right. We’re screwed.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Thoughts On Yet Another Debate

You may not know this, but there was a Republican debate last night -- between plays of the Dolphins-Patriots atrocity. Seriously, who schedules a debate during Monday Night Football? Not to mention, it's only been six days since the last one. Anyway, here are some thoughts on the debate.

● Up With (these) People: This group of candidates continues to impress. They mixed it up nicely, they made great points and they defended themselves well. It was a very spirited debate, but only rarely felt negative. There was also an awful lot of conservative philosophy discussed and explained last night. This was good for conservatism all around.

● The Hermanator: Herm is on fire! He was strong, credible, and made great points about the need to fundamentally remake our government. His advocacy of fixing Social Security by copying Chile’s model is fantastic. His 9/9/9 plan (9% income tax, 9% corporate tax, and 9% sales tax) is also great. I would absolutely choose him for VP at this point (or P).

● BullsEye of Newt: Newt was on fire too. He made excellent points all night, exposed a lot of mushy liberal-like thinking, and kept the attack focused on Obama. His best point came when the governors started arguing about who created more jobs. Newt reminded everyone that the government doesn’t create jobs. . . the private sector does.

● Insane in the Membrane: Ron Paul continues to raise legitimate issues we should be considering. . . then he veers off into crazytown. For example, last night, he raised the question of whether or not our foreign policy, in particular having troops all over the world and trying to fight ground wars against Islamic terrorism, are working. Those are valid questions that need to be asked. But then he advocated total isolationism on the theory that if we bury our heads in the sand, everyone will leave us alone. Um, no. Paul also killed himself with all but his most devoted followers by saying we brought 9/11 on ourselves and suggesting we bombed civilians in Iraq. In truth, he was making a more subtle point than that -- he was pointing out what al Qaeda itself claims as a motive -- but he picked the wrong time for a subtle discussion on a very emotional issue.

● Codename: Secret Liberal: Huntsman speaks in code. Last night he advocated "bringing in more workers" without using the words "open borders" or "immigration." He also took hypocritical cheap shots at other candidates -- like suggesting that Perry’s claim that you can’t really secure the border with a fence (a valid point) was “treasonous” ... even though Huntsman himself is for open borders.

● The Wolfman: Wolf Blitzer of CNN did a surprisingly good job moderating the debate. He kept things moving along nicely, got everyone involved, and was amazingly fair -- very few “gotcha” questions. (FYI, the left is attacking CNN for working with the Tea Party... "unethical".)

● Candidate For Sale: Perry took a pounding. He generally held up well, but not always. Paul blasted him for the growth of government and taxation in Texas and Perry had no real response. Perry also started well on the Gardasil vaccine issue, but withered under the constant (unfair) attacks. Perry also continues to give unsatisfactory evasions to the crony capitalism issue. For example, his best response to the issue was: “I raised $30 million. If you think I can be bought for $5,000, then I’m insulted.” Ok, what is your price, sir?

● Blah Blah Blah: Romney is getting better at answering the RomneyCare issue by listing significant ways it varies from ObamaCare. He’s also starting to take the gloves off, though he still seems like the most tentative guy on stage and he comes across as snide when he attacks. The main problem for Romney continues to be that he’s a technocrat and while his lips move a lot, you can’t remember anything he says.

● Illegals: Perry defended granting instate tuition to illegals (good economics, fairness, blah blah) and Huntsman explained granting drivers licenses to illegals (they were special licenses that identified these people as illegals).

On these issues, let me say that I actually think giving drivers licenses makes sense. Why? To protect people. These illegals will be driving whether we like it or not, and it just makes a lot of sense to have them in the system where they can be monitored, tested, taxed and forced to buy insurance. This makes it easier for law enforcement to do its job, and will protect other drivers / pedestrians -- right now, illegals run when they have an accident and that creates real problems for the people they hit.

Granting instate tuition, on the other hand, ticks me off. If you come from another state or legally come from another country, you need to pay out-of-state rates. So why should someone who is here illegally have MORE rights than someone who is here legally?

● Got Gas: Bachmann made a point in the first debate about bringing the cost of gas down to $2 per gallon. The MSM scoffed at her claim -- even though the economics is actually on her side. Regardless, there is an ingenious aspect to her point, which is worth noting. People understand the benefits of energy independence in an abstract way, but they can’t personalize it. But everyone understands $2 a gallon gas.

● Vaccinating Stupidity: There are valid reasons to criticize Perry for the vaccine issue. Specifically, his conduct raises questions of cronyism and his willingness to overstep his authority. BUT... to turn this into an broader anti-vaccine tirade as Santorum and Bachmann are doing is lunacy. To pretend that it violates people’s rights to force them to be inoculated against communicable diseases like small pox or to inoculate their children against easily-prevented debilitating diseases like polio is unconscionable idiocy.

● Vox Tea Populi: For once, the questions from the audience were really good. I guess that’s due to this being a Tea Party crowd and not a bunch of MSM-picked whiny, mindless liberals.

Finally, thanks to everyone who participated in last night's debate play by play and the “yo’ momma so liberal” contest that broke out.

Oh, one more thing. In the name of equal time, we've agreed to let HypnoBama have a few words with you:

Vote for me puny humans!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Republican Debate Wrap Up!

The Official Commentarama Debate Wrap Up article is upon you. . . guaranteed to by 97% accurate. Who won? Who lost? Who didn’t show? Who had the best answer? All this and more awaits.

● Winner: The Republican Party. This was an excellent debate. It was substantive, friendly and yet challenging. No one shied away from attacking anyone else, but they weren’t nasty about it. The whole group came across as intelligent, unified and Presidential. If I knew nothing about the candidates going in, I would feel comfortable that almost any of them would make a solid conservative president.

● Loser: Obama. The mighty O took a beating. Each candidate not only blasted him on his record, but made it clear (1) he’s in over his head and (2) that anyone on the stage would be an improvement. Obama also can’t be happy the whole group proved to be strong debaters who will easily destroy our TOTUS-dependent president.

● Winner: The Governors. The three governors, Perry, Romney and Huntsman all came across as genuinely solid candidates. They seemed to have strong records, solid experience, command of the issues, and a leadership presence. It helped that MSNBC favored them. . .

● Loser: MSNBC. What a bunch of biased sh*ts! First, they favored the three governors. Secondly, Brian Williams spent the first ten minutes blasting each candidate with attack questions. Then they tried to get the candidates to attack each other using a question format like this: “Candidate Y has been called an idiot for their stupid belief in XYZ. Tell us why Candidate Y is an ass, Candidate X.” Fortunately, no one took the bait and Newt put an end to this, causing one of the best moments in the debate. This all unified the candidates. Moreover, Williams tried to attack Perry because Texas executes criminals. Williams acted like this was something to be ashamed of. But the audience gave a huge round of applause to Texas, showing how out of touch Williams is. Williams was visibly shaken by this.

● Winner: Newt. Newt was in fine form and gave answers that sounded smart and sensible. But his big score came when he blasted Brian Williams and the Politico Kid for trying to get the candidates to fight each other. He finished this by turning this into a blast at Obama. Heavy applause followed. His performance likely will allow him to keep going.

● Winner: Perry. Perry came across as very electable, strongly conservative and highly professional. He dropped all the Texasisms, which will make it hard to caricature him as Yosemite Sam, i.e. the image the Democrats hoped would scare the public. Moreover, no one really laid a glove on him. The candidates tried to hit him over the vaccine thing, but the issue seemed pretty obscure in a debate that centered almost entirely on economics. He was a little unsteady on Social Security, but not enough to hurt him.

● Loser: Perry. Perry never quite managed to separate himself enough from Romney to run away with the nomination. Thus, Romney lives to fight another day. Perry also has a problem with many of Texas’ statistics being near the bottom. The obvious answer is “it’s hard to be near the top when 1/3 of your state snuck across the border in the last ten years,” but Perry was unwilling to raise that point in his own defense.

● Winner: Romney. Romney survived by not getting destroyed, and he showed some fight and came across as a decent leader. He still seems a tad nervous on stage, but he defended himself well and the attacks on him (e.g., RomneyCare) are losing their power.

● Winner: Huntsman. Huntsman has no support, but the moderators treated him like he was tied for first. This will elevate his stature. Also, if you don’t know anything about him, he comes across as smart, competent, a solid (dull) speaker with a solid record, and a man with a good platform. The problem is, he’s lying. Much of what he says is exactly opposite of what he did as governor. For example, his answer on immigration reform sounded very solid, but as governor he gave “driving privileges” and in-state tuition to illegals. His biggest mistake was his defense of global warming, but he lumped it in with being pro-evolution, which will play well outside the religious right.

● Winner: Herman Cain. Cain came across much better than before. Last time, he kept saying, “I’ll look into it and fix it.” This time, he told us how he would fix it, and the difference was dramatic. Cain came across as a solid leader with a thoughtful plan, who could plausibly be seen as the President of the United States. That’s a big step up for him. I would not be surprised to see people give him a second look after this. Unfortunately, it’s probably still not enough to launch him into direct competition with Romney and Perry, but I think he kept himself relevant last night.

● Loser: Bachmann. Bachmann got hurt. The moderators lumped her with the fringers, which gave the appearance that she was not to be taken seriously. She was also (more than the others) the object of ridicule questions where the moderators asked the others to attack her prior statements. They also avoided asking her the key questions about jobs and economics, which made her seem detached from the discussion. Beyond the moderator bias, she suffered from the comparison to the governors who had vastly more experience to draw upon to answer questions. Thus, whereas they could talk about specific programs and achievements they caused in their states, all she could say was “I opposed XX.”

● Loser: Ron Paul. Paul gave a poor showing by Paul standards. As usual, he made some great points, but he always sounds flustered. . . like he’s crazy. Moreover, he is crazy. Indeed, he whipped out the tinfoil hat a couple times, like when he warned us that protecting the border with Mexico was a plot to keep us and our money trapped in the US, or when he blamed 9/11 on big government. Since his support is fixed, I doubt this will hurt him, but this will only cement his “crazy” reputation with the public.

● Loser: Santorum. Santorum simply doesn’t belong on this stage. He had nothing memorable to offer and seemed out of place. Whereas the others debated philosophical questions about the scope of government and economic questions related to reshaping the government’s relationship to the economy, he gave answers that sounded like shallow slogans about issues from ten years ago.

● Loser: McCotter. McCotter didn’t show up. But before you blame him, he was excluded by the organizers who claimed they only wanted candidates with a serious chance of winning the nomination. . . like Huntsman (1% support) and Santorum (1% support). Still, he lost out.

● Missed Opportunities: There were several missed opportunities. (1) On Libya, no one pointed out that the Obama Doctrine is a doctrine of unlimited war. (2) The moderators blasted GE for not paying taxes and no one mentioned that GE’s CEO is Obama’s jobs advisor.... and is shipping jobs to China. (3) On global warming, no one mentioned the “climatologists” faking their warming date, faking their equations, putting out reports they admit were false when they put them out, continuously having the revise their Holy Bible, and the fact that they’ve gone from freezing to warming to freezing.

Conclusion

All in all, this was an excellent debate. The candidates came across as strong and unified and refused to be suckers for the MSM. Obama would have looked like a drooling idiot if he had been on stage. Based just on what we heard last night, I could easily support Perry, Romney, Cain or Newt. I would be a little concerned about Bachmann, who seemed to vanish. And I would have been fine with Huntsman until he got to global warming, where he attacked the party and started my Spidey-senses tingling. Knowing what I know about these people, I am less pleased with them than I was from the debate alone. But who knows how they’ll really turn out when their butts hit the big chair?

Now we need to see what Obama says tonight. . . before the football game. (T-Rav has kindly promised to recap it for those us who would rather not watch TOTUS spew forth.)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

GOP Establishment Keeps On Disappointing

There are three problems with the GOP establishment class. First, they mistake K Street for the public and they mistake K Street’s crony-capitalism for genuine capitalism. Secondly, they are technocrats who don’t understand the fundamentals of politics. And third, they are cowards who would rather lose than upset anyone. In the past week, we’ve received some classic examples of this.

Example One: Peggy Noonan

The first example relates to Rick Perry and comes from Peggy Noonan. Noonan is a former Bush I speech writer who wrote the obnoxious, backhanded attack on Reaganism: “a kinder, gentler nation.” She also wrote the ultimately foolish “read my lips: no new taxes.” She spent the 2008 election attacking Sarah Palin. Now she’s after Rick Perry.

There are good reasons to be concerned about Rick Perry. He seems to be a champion of crony capitalism, and I am concerned he will wrap Big Business socialism in the mantle of conservatism, just as Bush and Obama have done. And I am hearing similar concerns from other conservatives and Tea Party people everywhere. But that’s not Noonan’s concern. Nope, she unquestioningly takes him as a “natural conservative.” What troubles her is his style:

His primary flaw appears to be a chesty, quick-draw machismo that might be right for an angry base but wrong for an antsy country. Americans want a president who feels their anger without himself walking around enraged.

Really? So she doesn’t even see or care about the danger that he might be a Big Business Trojan Horse, but she’s worried that mushy centrists might not like him speaking confidently about his beliefs? Indeed, she equates having strong beliefs with being angry. This is a clear example of what is wrong with the establishment: they don’t see any conflict between conservatism and cronyism, yet they worry when the crony doesn't appear meek enough. Pathetic.

Example Two: Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush’s supporters tell us that he’s not like the rest of his family. “He’s a genuine conservative,” they say. His record doesn’t reflect that, and sure, he supports teachers unions and open borders and RINO candidates and his son is now a Jon Huntsman supporter, but "trust us," they say. Well, I’m not buying it. The Bush family are RINOs to the core and I will not support another one. I will vote for Satan before I vote for Bush.

So what did Bush do now? On Fox Business News, Bush warned the 2012 GOP contenders that they should not attack Obama. According to Bush, they can talk about his policies, but they need to steer clear of attacking Obama himself and “ascribing bad motives to the guy." Why? Because "that’s wrong” and it "risks alienating voters."

This is so fundamentally wrong. Elections that involve incumbent Presidents are referendums on the President. They are not contests of equals. In other words, with a few exceptions, it doesn’t matter who we pick as a candidate, the public will be voting based on whether or not they want to retain Barack Obama. . . that's it. And the only way to win an election against an incumbent is to turn the public against the incumbent. That means pointing out their failures, their flaws, the things they’ve done and said that the public has not liked. It means pointing out why their motivations are bad, i.e. “ascribing bad motives to the guy.” And it means attacking them personally over all the little things the public doesn’t like about them. That is how you beat an incumbent.

What Bush is proposing is for losers. It is the rules for some country club debating society, not a political campaign to lead the country. And the fact he would try to disarm his own side, once again shows why no one should ever trust another Bush anywhere near the White House.

Example Three: Stop Praising The Bad Guys!

Finally, we come to a series of Republicans going out of their way to give aid and comfort to the Democrats:

● Chris Christie tells us that global warming is real.

● Jon Huntsman called Republicans who reject the false science behind global warming “anti-science.”

● Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says that we shouldn’t repeal ObamaCare because 70% of it is good.

● Massive RINO Tom Davis, former Congressman from Virginia who supports DC statehood, can’t bring himself to point out the Obama Justice Department’s sudden investigation of S&P is retaliation for making Obama look bad. The best he can suggest is that “it almost looks retaliatory.” Right, and World War II was kinda, sorta a shooting thingy.

● John McCain and Lindsey Graham are giving the President aid and comfort on Libya, saying that the United States should be “proud of the role our country played.” McCain had previously stated that Obama made “a strong case” for the use of the military in Libya. . . even as everyone else was calling the war illegal.

This is exactly what angers average Republicans with the establishment. These are issues on which the Democrats blew it. Yet, this group of weak-kneed, "can't we all just get along" Republicans cannot stop themselves from offering aid and comfort to the struggling Democrats. This must stop. They need to learn from the Democrats that you never praise the other side and you never bail them out of their messes. And you certainly NEVER attack your own side. Until the establishment learns these lessons, they are no better than Democratic collaborators.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contenders: Recent Winners and Losers

With our Presidential hopefuls dropping like flies, it’s time to recalibrate the field. Who will get whose supporters? Who can step from whose shadow? Enquiring minds want to know. . . which means we should look at winners and losers of recent events. As usual, expect no prisoners to be taken in this contempt-riddled analysis.

1. Newt Implodes:

Loser: Newt Gingrich (candidate). Newt’s ill-advised and unfounded attack on Paul Ryan’s budget plan confirmed everything negative we feared about Newt. And his tar-baby-ish struggles to defend himself alienated the entire conservative base. This has basically sunk his candidacy.

Loser: Newt Gingrich (moronacle). Newt’s role as oracle may be endangered by this debacle. For nearly a decade now, Newt has used his flirtation with running for the Presidency to sell books and get people to come seek his opinion. His implosion has exposed the oracle as perhaps more of a moronacle, and this will likely lessen his influence on the party.

Winner: Sarah Palin (celebrity/moronacle). For every yin there is a yang, and Palin is Gingrich’s yang. She’s been trying very hard to become the female Newt, i.e. a moronacle who uses a flirtation with running to garner fame and fortune. In fact, she and Newt competed for this post throughout the 2010 election primaries by make rival endorsements. Newt’s implosion opens the door for Palin to take his place at Delphi.

Winner: Barack Obama. Obama is the big winner here because Newt’s description of Ryan’s plan as “right-wing social engineering” will be enough to allow Obama to gather leftist and squishy-moderate support to block the plan.

Loser: Medicare. Lack of reform = collapse.

2. The Huckster Drops Out:

Winner: Conservatives. Apparently, God doesn’t want the Huckster as President, which is good because conservatives shouldn't want that either. His version of conservatism, i.e. big government liberalism and leftist social theory masquerading as social conservatism, is a disastrous dead end for conservatism. Now we're spared that. And make no mistake, the Huckster stood an excellent chance of winning because of the evangelical-heavy early primaries.

Winner: Sarah Palin (candidate). Palin and the Huckster had been the prime competitors for evangelical voters. With the Huckster gone, these people will look for a new candidate. Should Palin choose to run, she should be able to pick up most of his support.

Winner: Tim Pawlenty Pawlenty apparently has been working hard to win the backing of the religious right. He’s rather bland and forgettable, but out of those who are left in the race, Pawlenty seems to be the best fit for these voters. So if Palin doesn’t jump into the race (and I think she won’t), then he could win them.

3. Mitch Bails:

Loser: The GOP Establishment. The GOP establishment settled on Daniels some time ago and they’ve been pimping him hard in the MSM as the best candidate. With him gone, they need another candidate. Sadly for them, their favored choice, Jeb Bush, refuses to run in 2012. So now they need to find someone else they can trust to not make any waves.

Winner: Jeb Bush. If Bush wants the nomination, the establishment is ready to give it to him now that Daniels is gone. He just has to say the word. But let me offer a word of caution, I (and many people I know) will NEVER. . . EVER vote for another Bush.

Winner: Chris Christie. Christie is a potential dark horse alternative to Jeb Bush. He sounds conservative and he sounds like he’s a disruptive reformer, but as Commentarama readers know, he’s a safe RINO, which is exactly what the establishment wants. If the misguided "draft Christie" campaigns succeed, expect Bush to stay out and establishment support to shift to Christie. Oh happy day.

Winner: Tim Pawlenty. Yeah, Tim’s bland enough for the establishment. If they can’t get Christie or Bush, expect the establishment to adopt Pawlenty and make him the eventual nominee.

4. Trump Fires Himself:

Winner: My Sanity. nuf said.

Winner: Barack Obama. Obama is the big winner here because Trump was causing Obama fits. Trump constantly raised issues the other Republican candidates were “too polite” to raise and he has a sufficiently large soapbox that people listened. With Trump gone, Obama can now focus on a weak Republican field.

Winner: Small Candidates. Guys like Herman Cain and other “second tier” candidates need to get noticed. The way to get noticed is to say what’s on your mind. . . the more outrageous the better. That was nearly impossible with Trump absorbing all of the media’s attention like some egotistical black hole. Trump’s departure opens the door for guys like Cain and Bolton to get some media attention.

Winner/Loser: Big Candidates. Despite the circus aftertaste found in the "Nutty Trump Bar," our bigger candidates look like duds by comparison. With Trump gone, they no longer need to face the daily comparison. This is technically a win, though it’s also an indictment as it highlights just how pathetic our current field is.

So what we have here is this. Movement conservatives lost with Newt. The religious right lost with the Huckster. The establishment lost with Daniels. And the lunatic fringe lost with Trump. That's got some perfect symmetry if you ask me.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contender: Jon Huntsman Jr.

Let’s continue our look at GOP contenders with a look at Jon Huntsman Jr. Huntsman is routinely described as a “moderate” by some and “not as moderate as he sounds” by others. Some of his views are indeed well within the conservative mainstream. But several of his more important views appear to be on the left end of the spectrum. Also, he's got all the wrong friends.

Huntsman is the former two-term governor of Utah. He is also a Mormon and comes from a wealthy family. His estimated worth is around $70 million. He was first elected in 2004 with 57% of the vote and was re-elected in 2008 with 77.7% of the vote. His approval ratings topped 90% at various points. So far so good. But in August 2009, he resigned to become Obama Ambassador to China. In and of itself, this should not be considered a problem, but in this case, combined with his repeated attempts to make himself out as the “moderate” candidate, this may evidence a man more comfortable with the system than political principle.

1. Economics. When it comes to economics, it’s hard to argue that Huntsman is not a conservative. As governor, he pursued a pro-business agenda of tax cuts and employment incentives. Following his term, Utah was named one of the top three states in the country in which to do business. His biggest achievements in this regard were streamlining state government, cutting the sales tax and simplifying the tax code. In 2008, the libertarian CATO Institute praised Huntsman’s tax policies, giving him the highest ranking of all 50 governors. However, CATO also pointed out that he “completely dropped the ball on spending, with per capita spending increasing at about 10% annually during his tenure.” This may be more consistent with a big business Republican than a conservative.

2. Global Warming. Huntsman believes in global warming and in 2007 signed a Western states pact with Arnold Schwarzenegger to regulate emissions in Utah. He has yet to backtrack on this stupidity.

3. Foreign Policy. It’s not clear what Huntsman’s position is on foreign policy, except that he’s known to believe in the power of diplomacy and he happily accepted the role of Obama’s ambassador to China, a job that essentially involved kowtowing to the Chinese. He praised Obama’s handling of the Osama bin Laden killing, but has yet to take a stand on other issues.

5. Social Issues.

A. Abortion. Huntsman is opposed to abortion and has signed and supported various laws to limit abortion or impose restrictions on abortion. One of these laws requires doctors to describe the pain the fetus is likely to feel to the mothers before they can get an abortion. He also helped establish a fund to defend Utah in court, should Utah ever ban abortion entirely.

B. Gays. Huntsman has riled many conservatives with his support of civil unions. He does not appear to support gay marriage per se.

C. Guns. Huntsman is opposed to gun control and actually supported unpopular bills in Utah to expand gun rights by allowing drivers to carry loaded weapons in their cars without a permit.

D. Immigration. Huntsman described himself as “moderate” on the issue of illegal immigration and has been careful to avoid getting specific. He talks vaguely of wanting “comprehensive reform,” which is generally code for amnesty. While governor, he helped introduce a “driving privilege card system,” which sounds suspiciously like drivers licenses for illegal aliens, he fought to protect in-state discounts for illegal immigrants at Utah colleges, and he worked with Janet Napolitano to expand the guest worker system.

6. The Fuzzy Stuff. Much of the “fuzzy stuff” is troubling with Huntsman. For example, he happily embraces the “moderate” label. That’s not a good sign. Also, he has sought out Bush and McCain advisors for his inner circle, people who have demonstrated they lack political instincts, an understanding of policy, and a set of principles. That’s a huge problem. He’s also the one candidate that many on the left claim is someone they could love. Jimmy Carter and Huffington Post both have high praise for him. That’s truly disturbing. Finally, most of the big players in Utah, even people like the current governor who was hand-picked by Huntsman, have all said they will support Romney over Huntsman. Again, that's not a good sign when the people who know you (and owe you) won't support you.

All told, this seems to add up to a man who favors big business and democratic policies, except in a few isolated instances like abortion and guns, and who is very comfortable within “the system” and would fit in well at the country club.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...