Maggie's Farm

I have maintained from the beginning that the issues are, for want of a better term, a side issue.  It's all about electability, and that's where our problems lay.

Personally, I've thought since before he even entered the race that Perry would be the only one who could beat an incumbent.  I stress the word incumbent, because incumbents are notoriously hard to unseat.  I think the incumbent return rate to Congress is around 90%.  In an even match, with two new opponents, I'd say we clean up in the next election.  But when an incumbent's running, there's automatically a big slice of the population that's simply going to go with the status quo, preferring a known, if unwelcome, candidate over some unknown they might end up hating.  That's intrinsic to human nature and there's no fighting it.

On the issues, we've got this thing made in the shade.  The 2010 election was a massive referendum on the direction this country is heading, and all of our candidates everybody but Ron Paul are telling the people exactly what they want to hear.  And I mean that in the sincere form, not the pandering form.  In regards to the issues, the minor differences between our candidates everybody but Ron Paul boil down to mere quibbles.

So, if we figure the issues are a done deal, then it's back to fighting off the momentum of an incumbency.  As I see it, we have a number of things going for us:

— For starters, simply the proliferation of laptops and smartphones and tablets and notebooks has widely broadened the number of informed people out there in just the past few years.  While that leaves them open to lefty persuasion, more importantly it allows the truth to get through.  When it comes to the simple aspect of 'people becoming informed', we're riding the crest of a very fortuitous wave.

— Taking a look at the humanistic side, the good news is that people have short memories.  Say, didn't Perry once say something bad about my Social Security?  Oh, hell, maybe I just misunderstood him, it was so long ago.

The bad news is that they don't have very good memories at all, which is why they call them lingering impressions, because they linger long past the memory of how some false accusation was soundly disproved has vanished.  While Perry's gaffes will recede in time, the MSM will make damn sure that Cain's sordid past of (fill in horrible crime here) continues to be mentioned right up until Election Day.  "Seventh Accuser's 3rd Cousin Speaks Up on Cain's Wanton Lust, Claims 'He raped my mind!'" blares The National Enquirer.  "527th Woman Comes Forth Claiming 'Cain Made Me Feel Uncomfortable'" blats The New York Times.

— The public is becoming exposed to the horror of Dodd-Frank...finally. I'm sure a number of people dug into it after the first dozen times the panel mentioned it, but when you've got exhibitions like Cain put on here, you're really throwing it in the public's face.  That, and their tough answers at the 'security' debate the other night, coupled with Gingrich wanting to throw Ben Bernanke into a dark, dank prison cell is demonstrating that this group means business.

— It's also been an education for many that Congress was responsible for the mortgage/loan/debt crisis, not the banks.  I hope they pound this one home a few more times.  It's honestly one of the best-kept secrets out there, in that you can read article after article on the subject and never once see the word "Congress" mentioned.  So it's nice to see it getting shoved into the spotlight.

— Another thing that's nice to see coming to the public's attention is the history of Social Security, and how it was doing just fine, thank you, fine, until Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson got his greasy mitts on it in 1968.  And here we have the candidates offering the nice, sensible solution of, you know, returning the goddamn thing to its pre-68 status!  They've mentioned it twice and I hope they will many more times.  It brings the whole question of why we're arguing about Social Security in the first place into sharp relief.  The candidates should constantly point the finger, blaming the Dems for being so greedy and screwing everything up.  Again.

I'd call that Meme #1.

Okay, let's cover the gang.

Cain

Future historians will long point to the 'Cain Case' as the quintessential example of political unpreparedness.  On the first day of the campaign, he should have stood before the press and said:

Now, I want all you folks to know something about me.  I grew up in a warm, loving, huggy family, as I'm sure many of you did, and I'm not afraid to hug a friend hello or pat a co-worker on the back for a job well done.  I've patted a lot of shoulders and backs in my day, and with my recent meteoric rise [wait for applause], with my recent fine showing in the polls, you can now expect some of those former female colleagues to be paid off by Democratic operatives to come forth claiming the new-wave definition of sexual harassment; that my patting them on the back or shoulder made them feel 'uncomfortable'.  My staff is standing by with hundreds of notarized depositions declaring that I have always acted appropriately, and our legal department is ready to pounce on any news organization that supports these charlatans.  We will not have any muckraking or racism in this election unless you, the press, provide it.

Or words to that effect.

But he didn't, and I think he's toast.  It's one of those taints that just won't go away.

Perry

The good news is, he's back!  Ponzi Scheme, what?  Forget the past, man, we've got an election to win!

The bad news, as Perry readily admits, is that he's a doer, not a debater.  Now, IF (and that's a mighty big 'IF') the Maggie's Valued Readers™ can band together en masse and force Perry's campaign to hire me as a campaign strategist, he'll have a shot in the debates with Obama.  Most pundits will flat-out state that Obama will eat him alive, but we can use that strength against him by playing the Aw Shucks Card (© Dr. Mercury 2011) against him, basically making Obama out to be what he really and truly is, a snotty liberal twit.

"Well, gosh, them sure were some big fancy words you used there, Mister O-bam-ee, but I'm just an ol' country boy who knows how to git things done, and this-here great nation of ours needs some fixin'!"

(thunderous applause)

Or words to that effect.

Romney

This is the real tough nut to crack.  If Perry had kept self-destructing, I was ready to turn my attention to the only other candidate who I think has a chance in hell of beating Obama.

The problem with Romney is one of perception and identification; of 'pegging' him.  At times, he comes across as the most 'presidential' person in the room, while during other answers you start wondering if you should jot down 'bread' on your shopping list.  So how do you gauge a person who comes across as somewhere between presidential and bland?

I do, however, think he'd make a fine president, and one of the ugliest memes that's recently developed on the right-wing blogs is the "non-Romney candidate", implying that anyone — anyone! — will do except Mitt.  This is almost as sad as their "Oh, Crap, Another Debate!" attitude and their dispiriting, disheartening choice of headlines and links.

What's odd is that these people seem to have no foresight.  Okay, so they spend six months convincing everyone that the absolute last person we all want is the despicable Mitt Romney in the slot.  Then — you know where this is heading — suddenly Romney wins the nomination... and now what?  "Never mind, folks!  He's really a cool guy after all!"

That's what they're going to tell people?

Anyway, I suggest we all get mentally steeled to the very serious possibility that Romney will walk away with it and be prepared to support him with gusto.

I have been a registered Republican my entire life, and for one reason, alone.  Simply put, Republicans view government as a business, not a social club, which is precisely the correct way to approach it.  Putting an actual real, live businessman in the White House is obviously an idea that appeals to me.

Bachmann

Gee, I warmed up to her just as everybody else cooled off.  She was the first candidate to really slam Dodd-Frank, for example.  I'd wager that if it had started off with just five candidates and she'd had a lot more time to speak, she'd still be a contender today.

But, as anyone brave enough to read the right-wing blogs has seen, she's now being written off without a thought.  Thanks for the memories, Michele.  Sorry about that 'bra' remark.

Paul

I suppose we should be grateful for his continued presence.  As I might have mildly implied more than once, he's not qui-i-i-ite like the other candidates, so it's good to have him around as kind of a 'sounding board' which the audience can then use as a reference point to reality.  To put it philosophically, how do you know what reality is until you've seen what lies beyond?  This is the valuable service Mr. Paul provides, and I don't want to see any more of those horrid, nasty, vile remarks about him in the comments.

That's my job.

Gingrich

Gingrich Rises in Polls to Virtual Tie With Romney

Boy, I called that one, didn't I?  I read back what I'd written about him after the first eight debates, and I picked up on him just about from the beginning.  At first, like everyone else, I blindly wrote him off, but then he actually started speaking... and that's when the Big Picture Guy emerged and I'm sure a great number of people glommed onto it.  I knew he'd pick up steam as word spread that his answers just didn't seem like everyone else's.  Even if they couldn't put it into words, i.e., Big Picture Guy, they still knew there was something different going on.

I don't, however, think he's close to electable, so I'm taking his climbing numbers as an amusing side show but nothing more.  The good news is that the type of people who have jumped on Newt's bandwagon are a smart set — as opposed to the drones who step into the voting booth having never watched a debate in their life — and Newt's fans will simply jump on board whoever takes the nomination and should, it says here, support him or her enthusiastically.

Huntsman & Santorum

Please go away. Our deepest and most heartfelt thanks to both of you and dear Michele, but it's time to move on, don't you think?

Speaking of which, I never did find out how or when they start whittling these things down.  Anybody know?  Spin a bottle?  Throw a dart at the wall?  Toss I-Ching sticks onto a bamboo mat?  Is chicken blood involved in the process?

Next debate is this Saturday night.  B → R B □.