We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, November 10. 2011
Update: No, wait, I was wrong. I just discovered it this morning. One of the main bloggers, 'God's Critic', did, indeed, write about the upcoming debate. A half an hour before it started.
Well, alrighty, then!
The asshats at CNBC didn't stream it (the first debate that hasn't been), so I didn't see it. If nothing else, though, at least it finally answered that pesky question, "Is there a liberal bias in the mainstream media?". Can you imagine them not streaming a debate if Democrats were involved? If you'd like to tell them what a bunch of biased pigs they are, their contact page is here.
And no, I haven't seen the Perry video, despite it being thrown in my face all morning long. Quite frankly, I'm not into sadomasochism. I read the transcript and feel sorry for the guy. I'll take a look at where we stand in the next election post.
Rot in hell, CNBC.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Ah - well, allow me then to fill you in my friend.
I kind of agree with you on CNBC - they made some odd choices. Jim Cramer spent the entire evening shouting at the candidates using his patented hyperbolic personality - bad choice on his part - didn't care for that at all. Bartiromo went for a "debate moment" with Cain's troubles and was really hit hard by the audience. More on that later. Harwood's question to Romney was also soundly booed by the audience. More on that later. Steve Liesman didn't do much better trying to elicit a complicated answer to a complicated question in 30 seconds - then got pissed off when he didn't get the answer he wanted.
Best question of the night came from Caterpillar's CEO Doug Oberhelman. Unfortunately, he didn't get the answer he probably wanted.
Romney: I still think it is his to lose. He looked cool, calm and collected. He made some great points. The moderators tried to hit him hard on qualifications stumbled a little but he recovered nicely. Great answer on Italy. Solid answer on his housing plan being a jobs plan – the two are literally interlinked – and on middle class tax simplification and lowering the middle class tax rate. Great answer on Cain’s “harassment” problem. The moderators tried, but they failed. Not sure about not bailing out the Big Two went over – it seemed to get some positive response, but I’ll bet it didn’t play well in Detroit.
Cain – He did get back on message with 9-9-9 (anybody want to make a joke about 999 being 666 upside down?). He was aggressive, looked strong and confident in his answers, on a single track. Good answer on the allegations of harassment. Moderators made a mistake on that one – glad the audience gave both of them hell for it. He looked relaxed and at ease which is a plus. Not bad performance given all he’s been through this week. I think he muffed the Princess Nancy line – I think he wanted to say Princess Pelosi. I don’t think it was his smartest line, but there it is. He’s not going to be the nominee though. Might be better for him to pull out and campaign like hell for who ever gets it. Maybe a Cabinet position.
Perry – clearly you are not the one we were looking for. I said it at the time he entered – he wasn’t ready for national politics and what plays well in Texas would not play well nationally. He got a decent start, but shot himself in the foot.
Newt – guy knows his stuff, that’s for sure. You can’t pick one thing that Newt answered that wasn’t sharp, detailed and knowledgeable. Unfortunately, I just can’t see him as President. I view him as a Republican Clinton – a policy wonk. I don’t think we need a policy wonk in the White House. The guy is smart as hell though – no doubt about it. The problem is (1) baggage train is really long and heavy and (2) he’s just not likable. He’s the Sheldon Cooper of the Republican Party. Plus, other than the Contract with America, can you name one really good thing he did as Representative form Georgia and as Speaker of The House?
Santorum – spoiled frat boy. Too shrill, too much me, me, me, I, I, I.
Bachmann – just when you think she's a dimbulb, she digs it up and brings it home. A really solid performance – she clearly knows her tax policy, has some good concepts and ideas that came through and shined. She was a little short on the direct questioning but overall did a credible job. She didn’t do a Perry like implode with ridiculous statements, ideas or assertions. Don’t think she is a winner though – I’ve been through my reasoning on that before – no reason to flog it now.
Huntsman – had a good moment with his China trade war answer – hit a homer on that one –scored one against Romney’s answer. Just average on the rest of the issues. I’m not sure why he’s even being considered as a viable candidate. I just don’t get it. He also looks a little crazy.
Paul – Still a Grumpy Old Man. This is his forte’ and he did well. Once again, he’s got some good ideas, but you can’t dynamite the entire government, return to the gold standard and liberate the universe from government regulations all at once – which it seems that is what he wants to do. Anybody but me think he’s getting shrill and more a little…um…cantankerous? He tried playing to the Paulbots with a little tub thumping but apparently there weren't a lot of Paulbots in the audience.
Some general observations:
It seemed that all the candidates decided to hold the line and take Reagan’s First Commandment to heart. Huntsman and Santorum tried to differentiate themselves but failed – at least I think so. I would be willing to bet good money that if you put Santorum and Hunstman’s pictures on a wall and asked random people who they were you might get one out of twenty correct IDs. All the candidates stayed on message, did what they had to do. There weren’t any fireworks (other than the Cain/Romney questions which both men handled with skill and panache) which was positive and good. Perry is clearly out of his element, he’s not a national politician in any sense of the word, he doesn’t seem to have a grasp of just how important these things are. You can excuse the occasional brain fart, but he seems to have a lot of them. He doesn’t sound prepared, he talks like he has a mouth full of marbles and he had a very real deer in the headlights look to him.
So my initial impression is that Perry is toast, nobody cares about Santorum who comes across as selfish and me oriented, Huntsman is only there because the media wants to push a RINO as a candidate, Bachmann isn’t going to be the nominee but I can speculate she’s positioning herself for a Cabinet position, Cain didn’t hurt himself which given the week he had was important – poised, confident and feisty, Paul is what he is - Ron Paul, Romney came across as confident, stumbled but recovered, relaxed, gave good answers and Newt showed his complete and through understanding of the issues.
Best line of the night – Herman Cain: “The problem with Dodd/Frank is Dodd and Frank”. Terrific line and it sounded ad lib. Brought the house down.
Best of the Twitter Feed:
“If Gingrich reviewed movies, he would spend the first half of every review deconstructing the very idea of reviewing movies.”
“You do know Romney is a breed of sheep? I have spun some red Romney fiber into yarn and am threatening to knit some Mitts.”
“First candidate to call Romney "Mittens" gets my endorsement”
“Someone throw a chair – I’m bored.”
“this is the portion of the debate where santorum, making up for lost time, jams in as much bragging abt himself as possible in one answer”
“Perry had a GREAT answer cooking, then brain FARTED so hard & couldn't even come close to recovering. WOW.” Reply: “It could be worse. Perry could've been caught on microphone talking crap about the leader of America's closest ally.”
“Did everyone on stage get the memo from Joe Republican that we didn't want to see GOP Cage Match?”
“Watch for men in white coats, butterfly net coming on stage for Perry ("BUT I DID KNOW IT! I DID! I DID!")”
“Thanks Gov Christie & Rep Paul Ryan for not running for president. We're doing just fine without you. No, really.”
“Ugh. That Perry video is going to be like the MNF footage of Theisman breaking his leg.”
"We were all transported back to high school, when a classmate choked in front of the class"
Thank you, good friend! I hereby take back all those hundreds millions of bad things I've said about you on my personal blog site, "AllCurmedgeonsShouldBeShotOnSight.com". That was both a superb wrap-up and a very generous gesture for you to take the time. For the record, I agreed with absolutely everything you said. It just goes to show that even when you have a really, really old guy from the Vietnam War days and a fresh, vibrant 'whippersnapper' like myself, common ground can be reached.
(Doc wipes the tears from his eyes at the thought of two Maggie's commenters actually agreeing on something.)
I'm glad that Cain didn't look bowed from the pressure of the week. It sounds like Romney would have won my 'most presidential' award again, and Perry -- jeez, this is sad. What a friggin' disaster. I feel like I'm watching the election go up in flames every time he has another gaffe. If it's 'Romney or nothing', we have a problem. I both said in my election posts and intimated in my 'Morning Meeting' posts that Perry seemed like the one candidate who might be able to pull off beating an incumbent -- always a tough challenge no matter who it is. People like the known over the unknown, despite the failings of the known.
"and take Reagan’s First Commandment to heart."
But...but...but what am I going to use in my 'Morning Meeting' posts without the candidates throwing vile invectives at each other?? Don't these people realize they're ruining a perfectly good meme? This "being cordial with one another" stuff has got to go!
(11th Commandment, BTW)
At this point, I think I'll watch it when the video hits the scene, because few things are more scrumpdileicious than listening to an audience boo some asshat liberal moderator. Even though it wasn't streamed, someone out there captured it. I'll grab a hi-def version off Usenet rather than go the lo-res YouTube route. I want the audio at its highest quality so I can hear every single boo.
“Someone throw a chair – I’m bored.”
Okay, Mr. Culture, what's that in reference to?
Thanks again, bud. That was terrific.
No problem - glad I could help.
“Someone throw a chair – I’m bored.” isn't a pop culture thing - it was somebody just making a comment about being bored.
Geraldo Rivera would be crushed to know that you don't consider him part of pop culture.
How quickly they forget, Gerry!
I think a lot of Newty's baggage comes from an article in Mother Jones about serving divorce papers to his wife while she was on her deathbed (or some such). That story is false as explained by his daughter here: http://www.creators.com/conservative/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting-the-record-straight.html
You are on the bean like usual, my mud-bespeckled crayfish friend. I already have the relevant quote from this little gem ready my next election post. A couple of commenters here have thrown the "poor Newt's wife" bit around. Won't they be disappointed. :(
I like Newty a lot, but false perceived baggage is still baggage. My rule for this election is in the primary - Anybody but Romney and in the general - Anybody by Obummer.
Having said that, I have to say that I heard a few minutes of Romney on health care last night and he sounded pretty good. Besides his constantly shifting principles, Romneycare was my main gripe so maybe I could live with him a president after all.
I've been a fan of Newty since before '94 and would love to see him be president but as I said before, his negatives among some of the unwashed scare me.
False perceived baggage is still baggage
Our comment area's QQQ for the day.
Re: RomneyCare, I'm still behind what he said in the very first debate; that there's a difference between a state plan and a nationwide plan. If I have a Romney worry, it's his stance on AGW. But, like his statement about RomneyCare, AGW can be disproved with facts, unlike, say, someone's stance on abortion or capital punishment.
I haven't kept up with Romney on AGW. People seem to go into and out of that mess (see Newty and Pelosi in the stupid AGW commercial ... Yikes!). If Romney is still worried about Polar Bears, that would be a problem, too.
I don't remember the gory details, but he hired some big AGW guy to be on his staff. But if it's between Romney/AGW or Obama, that's still an easy call.
I believe Romney recently back tracked on AGW. I believe his statement was something to the affect of even if AGW might be true it doesn't justify the huge cost to the economy to try to fix it with solutions that are not certain to work.
If he's serious, that's good enough for me assuming he'll put his actions where his mouth is and reign in the EPA.
Unless, of course, he's read the 'five years' article I've seen floating around this morning. Time is running out, friends! We've got to act NOW!
meh...global financial collapse is going to happen first.
Wow must be true because it referenced a 'sobering analysis'.
So if it was so sobering, why did I chuckle?
I realize that I do not trust anyone who “looks Presidential”. Burned too many times by well-composed but weakly-principled representatives of the Bi-factional Ruling Party.
Leadership sometimes requires throwing a chair to get people interested and motivated. Can you picture any of these candidates marching at the head of a militia?
Sighhhh...that's not the role of the President of the United States. He's the Commander and Chief not the leader of some rag tag posse.
If that's what you want than stock your local, state and congress with those types. That's where the real work gets done.
I do think Romney is analytical and business minded enough to do some major restructuring of the massive unelected federal bureaucracy and greatly increase the development of domestic energy thus unleashing our economy. If he accomplished those things, I'd consider him a success.
We then disagree about the role of President. I say the CinC should be able to inspire and lead from the front. The CinC needs some of Patton’s or MacArthur’s blood.
The national CEO is what you want. And that is part of the job. But you highlight why Romney sux for the times we’re in. GOP Dukakis. Changing the arrangement of cubicles in the Federal office buildings does not address deficit or debt. Promises about tweaks to a strangling tax code does not unleash resources for productive use.
Any President can increase domestic energy production by Executive Order. Sign some leases, stop obstructing exploration. If any of these candidates do not do that they fail.
Contrary to most conservatives desires/fantasies (I'm a self identified conservative), that type of conservative action is just not going to happen from the top down. It's going to have to happen from the bottom up and will greatly help to have a sympathetic President that won't work against those initiatives.
I’m not clear that conservative vs. progressive is relevant. It’s more country class vs. ruling class.
I like the bottom-up pressure the country class has generated. I want one of ours inserted into the ruling class power structure. We can work both the bottom and top at the same time.
I have zero trust that Romney would not work against bottom-up conservatism. Appease and pander, all in the name of competent compromise. He built a career on regulatory capture. Romney’s interest are not the people’s. He’s more like a zookeeper.
(O.K., I drifted off into gratuitous Romney-bashing. If he gets the nomination, such will be one of my pleasures.)
Didn't watch it, reached saturation about a month ago.
Perry's moment - not a problem. He seems to have principles and character. Doing a commercial effectively selling refrigerators to Eskimos in one take isn't what I want as the Chief of the Executive Branch. There was a candor there that I found endearing.
Also - bumper stickers, "It's Willard's Turn, Darnit"
I would agree with you if the three Departments he wants to eliminate aren't part of his standard stump speech. I just saw a Perry ad on the tele that detailed it again - so its not like he's just making it up out of whole cloth.
He just doesn't have what it takes. I mean heck, Cain handles these things better than Perry does and he's practically a novice. Perry is supposedly a practiced and polished politician and he hasn't shown any of that right from the git go.