Chris' take on the GOP debate, round II (for me)

Yeah, I watched the debate on Fox.  It's usually pretty good entertainment, and I'd really like to have a good idea of who to vote for other than ABO.

So here's how I graded out this time around.


9. Gary Johnson.  The newbie was very nervous, not real clear, didn't contribute anything of real note other than a jab at his neighbors' dogs, and isn't Ron Paul all the libertarian we really need?  Grade: D+

8.  Michelle Bachman.  I know some of you are saying, "Oh, he must not want a woman president".  Let me assure you, I watched every episode of Commander In Chief with Geena Davis, and I would've gladly voted Christine Todd Whitman over Carter or Mondale.  I just listen to her and see a little Michelle in her brain flipping through index cards trying to find the appropriate one to read.  And the HPV shot thing is a well-beaten dead horse. Grade: C-


7. Rick Perry.  For me, he slips a bit in each succeeding debate; and while I know they keep fueling Perry/Romney stand up bits for the ratings, the simple truth is that Romney owns him almost every time.  Tonight, the battles weren't kind to him, and the last one left him looking confused and tongue tied.  Definitely hurt himself the worst.  Especially when he was directly asked by the moderator for details on his jobs plan since he was the only one who didn't have a specific plan on the table, and he basically said, "I'll tell you later" in a half-sentence on the way to answering a question nobody asked..  I said to Laurie, "A swing and a miss!" Grade: D

6. John Huntsman.  He neither hurt or helped himself, but a lot of people stepped up their game and he didn't.  He should wear a t-shirt that says, "I served four times in foreign posts for my country" so he doesn't have to keep reminding us.  He's a very intelligent man; I just sometimes get the notion that he appreciates that fact more than anyone else. Grade C+

5. Newt Gingerich.  If the last question was any indication, he'll be the #1 contender for VP.  And frankly, that's not a bad thing.  Really successful in an elder statesman sort of way.  Grade: B-

4. Ron Paul.  He definitely helped himself tonight.  It didn't hurt that Johnson made him sound more mainstream.  He was able to weave his similarities to the others with his more extreme ideas a lot better tonight, and may have positioned himself to outlast all the other "second tier" players save Cain.  Grade: C

3. Rick Santorum.  About a third of the way in, he began finally to assert himself.  At the beginning, I told Laurie, "He could light his tie on fire and no one would notice him. " Then he got into a big tilt with Huntsman over whether to pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan (he wanting to "fight to win", while Huntsman said "we all want the boys to come home"), and it seemed to charge him up. He also had a good performance on the thorny "don't ask, don't tell" subject by saying that the Army isn't there for having sex in, it's for fighting, and the whole topic is irrelevant compared to the stuff we should be worried about. A vastly better performance than the last one I watched.  Grade: B-

2. Herman Cain.  I actually liked what he said the best, and I think he really is putting himself into the thick of things in these debates.  He's intelligent, articulate, with good ideas, and he drips class.  I found myself clapping for his answers three separate times, to zero for the others.  My one reservation is that he's not really been bloodied in any of the one-on-one battles, and I'd like to see if he handles them as well as Romney and Santorum did tonight. Grade: A+

1. Mitt Romney.  I have to put him up at the top for one simple reason- he's getting lots of face time against his perceived main rival (Perry) and he's not only winning, but widening the gap.  Watch any of the one on ones with Perry, and tell me who you'd rather see 3 AM with someone arming nukes and aiming them at us.  Grade: A.

Republican debate

A tough night for me (see last post) so I'll be brief, but I know you are all dying to know my take on the debate.  One thing I did was ask Laurie what she thought, kind of a not-so-involved take on things.  She loved Herman Cain for his presentation and his specifics; Pretty much lumped Perry and Romney in a dead heat in second; gave Paul a slight nod over Bachman in the third tier; and put the rest in the "I didn't hear them enough to form an opinion " group.  Not especially bad news for Santorum and Gingerich, but devastating to someone who talked as much as Huntsman.  Now for my take, from the bottom up:

8 and 7- Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum.  I might give Santorum the edge just because he had good points but just seemed to vanilla to make an impression.  Bachman, the analysts on MSNBC said, put herself into the lower tier with this performance, and I tend to agree.  When Laurie described how she felt about her, I said that she meant Bachman was very "cardboard" and Laurie agreed.

6- Ron Paul.  I put it this way:  He's like the guy who says, "Let me drive," and you kinda hesitate but let him, and he does okay for a while, and then all of the sudden he's up on the sidewalk or wrapped around a tree.  Intellectually much sharper than the other two, but none of them had a very good speaking style.

5- Newt Gingerich, and I struggle to put him here, because the few points he got to make were very well put.  He had the best line of the night when the guy from politico brought up the praise he heaped on Perry in a foreward to Perry's last book and asked if that meant that he was willing for Perry to "be his proxy on economic matters" in the debate.  He replied, "No, it means if the governor writes another book, I'll write him another foreward."

2, 3, and 4.  This is the hardest part for me, because while I have a clear idea that I thought more of Romney than Perry (probably because Romney looked more like a man in a debate, and Perry was busy being the lead character in "You're So Vain" with his constant looking into the camera), but I just can't decide where I want to put Huntsman.  At any one time I put him anywhere from ahead of Romney to behind Newt.  I will agree with MSNBC on one thing- Romney did better for himself than Perry did.  And I guess I'd say the same for Huntsman.

1- Herman Cain.  He was intelligent, well-spoken in the extreme, had simple to explain, specific plans.  I'm not saying he's my guy (or not), but it sure would be nice to see him as President so that the African American community could see what a good, honest, intelligent black man- one who would suggest they work rather than feed them a welfare check and a pat on the butt- might do for them.

I apologize to everyone that I've only read one of your blogs tonight.  Earlier my heart wasn't in it; now my eyes are bailing on me.  I promise I'll catch up tomorrow- if the Good Lord is willing and the planes still fly.

The Debt Crisis, and the Harlot's Forehead

I had a moment this morning when I just had to go out and, as I told Laurie, "do some mental screaming".  The reasons were of faith and finance.  I started with the Journal Gazette headline, which summed up the idea that Texas Gov. and 2012 Presidential candidate Rick Perry prayed for our country, our economy, and the decisions being made by our government by the line "Perry asks God to solve U.S. crisis".  Which is good if, you being a liberal and unconscious to the mashing of facts to express your opinion, you want to paint Perry as a fundamentalist whacko who'd turn the nation's government into one big church.  So it goes any time a person of faith expresses an opinion.  Those of you old enough will remember the fathers of these anti-religious bigots saying that JFK's election would make Washington an adjunct to the Papacy because he was "catholic".

Another example came as I watched a morning news program (Fox, because CNBC was busy stimulating the economy by running paid programming) where a conservative girl and liberal fellow were debating the debt ceiling deal.  For her credit, at least she was objective;  she pointed out not only that the cuts made were just a start of what were needed, but that Defense was "greatly bloated" and that high end tax loopholes need to be closed.  She was not ashamed to say that harmful rhetoric pervaded both sides.  When Mr. Liberal got his shot, was he willing to be as even handed?  Well, his main "points" were:
-The Tea Party was to blame for the S&P downgrade.
-The Tea Party was a bunch of "terrorists" who held up the government and the people to get what they wanted.
-The Tea Party was responsible for the sinking of the Titanic, the explosion of the Hindenburg, and the meltdown at Chernobyl.  (Not really on these, but you get the point).

Yes it was THE LIBERAL who could not get past his talking points to have a reasonable, adult discussion.  It was THE LIBERAL that thinks that fighting however misguidedly for your economic policy position is just as evil as, say, flying a plane full of people into a building full of people.  It was THE LIBERAL who had no intention of saying, "well here's where my side should have given a little".  And, it was THE LIBERAL who claimed that the Tea Party had been planning to make the debt ceiling a battleground for the last two years, instead of saying truthfully that the debt ceiling should have been a battleground FOR THE LAST THIRTY YEARS.

I'm not saying that the republicans are fighting for truth, honor and apple pie.  Think about this- the stimulus was in essence giving money to rich businessmen to create economic opportunity.  A good dictionary would use this as a definition of "trickle-down economics".  Yet the same liberal who won't say a word against Obama in the face of the majority opinion that the stimulus failed, are more than happy to say trickle down econ won't work- WHEN THEY ARE THE SAME THING.    Meanwhile, republicans assail the stimulus and say that cutting taxes to the corporations will stimulate growth, never admitting that these, too, are the same thing.

You want the truth about economic policy and politics? Here it is:  Republicans won't raise taxes, not because of you and I who are down here already screwed, but because the rich and corporations are where they get their power- and that's who is unwilling to pay their fair share, Obama's recent primer on the debt crisis notwithstanding.  And, democrats won't cut the spending, or reform entitlements, because the "great unwashed" and the unions are their power base.  Behind every bit of rhetoric that either side spews out, the underlying motivation is nothing but self-preservation.  Both sides as a group are disingenuous in claiming they are fighting for the little man- they are in a constant fight for nothing more or less than their next election.
I only get pissed at the liberals because they are revisionist historians at the core- willing to tell any lie (and convince the undereducated to believe it) to bolster their cause.  At least I hear some conservative voices willing to stand up to the rhetorics and say, "Hey, that's bulls--t," like the lady on Fox did today.  Show me a liberal willing to do the same.

In the meantime, we sit here with a narrow bandwidth of time before China and the G20 say, the hell with you, and really put the squeeze to us.  And the best solution we can come up with is to print up yet more monopoly money, because nobody wants to stop campaigning for office long enough to commit to working on a real solution.  If we weren't in the age of metal detectors, I'd bet money that during the "supercommittee" meetings, someone on the panel would take out a gun and shoot another panelist.  Because we talk in protest signs and work together like rutting bucks.

And so, out I went to calm down thinking of what I studied in this morning's Bible reading.  One phrase had caught my eye- Jeremiah 3:3:

3 Therefore the showers have been withheld,
And there has been no latter rain.
You have had a harlot’s forehead;
You refuse to be ashamed.

A harlot's forehead, I asked?  A perusal of my concordance shows that the Hebrew word translated "forehead" or "brow" connoting something of prominence.  In other words, when someone looks at you as a person, what stands out?  I have to look at myself in the mirror every moment to see if I have a Christian's forehead, or a harlot's.

And in that idea, I have to ask our government, our political sides:  What is your forehead?  Republicans, I agree that most Americans are taxed to the limit now, and that spending is where we need to work to eliminate the debt.  Can you agree, that $900 for a$7 part tells us that Defense is one of the first places to start?  If I agree that just giving money to the corporate heads will not result in jobs, will you agree that tax incentives haven't worked either?  Democrats, if I agree that all people, corporations and little guys, must do their part, will you agree that we won't NEED  as much if we do not SPEND as much?  If I agree that Defense can be reformed, can you agree that rampant social security, welfare, and medicare/medicaid fraud tells us that entitlements need reformed just as badly?  If I agree I don't have all the answers, can you agree that I am not a "terrorist" because I didn't agree with yours?  Whose forehead do you have? 

Quite frankly, I think we all have enough "scarlet letters" that name calling rhetoric only proves the bankruptcy of your mindset.  Mind you, I'm not trying to say either side is stupid- but if all you can bring to the table is, "It's their fault", then YOU ARE.

The Presidentiial Address, the Republican Response, and Me

The President's Side

It continues to amaze me how President Obama still feels the only way to get the sympathy of the American People is to wrap himself up in the banner of Ronald Reagan.  Of course, tonight he also wove in Jefferson, Bush the Elder, and Clinton.  His speech was alright if it was made to educate the American People in something they hadn't been hearing about for the last 8 months.  As it was, he made a fairly good- and fairly deceptive- case for the basics of the Gang of 6 plan, which for all its warts I still think is the better of the plans.  I have said before I'd like to know how rank and file Tea Partiers defend tax breaks to Exxon/Mobil, GM, and their brethren.  But, as usual, he didn't stop there.

It's All Their Fault

He did make a somewhat halfhearted effort to not lump all republicans together, and he did say that his own party needed to quit their crying and be willing to make tough choices on entitlements.  But then he very explicitly let us know who the villains of the piece were IHHO:  John Boehner and the newly elected "young gun" republicans.  He managed to slip in the pro forma "they want to eliminate Medicare" just before mentioning the demand for Medicare reform, thus putting the truth out there, but covering it first with the scary lie that makes you ignore it.  Instead of mentioning the $800 billion in new tax revenue that Boehner had agreed to before Obama changed the rules Friday night, he made the blanket "they won't allow for any taxes" and won't agree to making the richest Americans pay their fair share", which "they (the richest) have stepped up and been willing to do everytime this nation has had bipartisan agreement".  So the rich are ready to pay the new taxes- the GOP won't let them.  Hmmm.

Obama's big score

The one good hit the President got in was on Boehner's new "temporary ceiling raise" , which Obama called "kicking the can down the road another six months". And y'know what, he's right.  This needs to be finished, once and for all, NOW.

Overall

For all the "smoke coming out of his ears"  (said Bob Scheaffer) in this "tough speech"  (Bob again),  to my ears a reasonably educated high schooler could have written this and got a 'b' in his civics class.

Boehner Fires Back

The Speaker taught Bob the meaning of a tough speech.  If Obama had smoke coming out, Boehner had fire and brimstone.  Where I don't agree on the no taxes period approach, Boehner did score several hits.
1. Boehner said, "the President came to us in January wanting to do business as usual.  Mr. President, the days of doing business as usual are over."  Any of you liberals in the press and elsewhere that still want to cling to that myth of Boehner as a weepy guy who cries at the drop of a hat, you just keep telling yourself that.  You may soon find tire tracks down your back.
2. Boehner wasn't afraid to mention what all America has already heard- that they had a deal Friday night and the President shat all over it.  "the President changed the numbers, " Boehner said gravely.  I'd surely like to be a fly on the wall when these two get together.
3.  Boehner got to the heart of why he and the President have not hammered something out already:  "He came to us in January wanting a blank check.  He still wants it now.  And he's not going to get it."
4. Boehner's characterization of the democrat idea of a balanced plan; " We spend more, you pay more."  Not completely accurate, but the funniest line of the night.
5.  Boehner felt no need to wrap himself in dead presidents to make his point.  And he was right there.

I Hear A 'But' Coming...

I've said this on my CC&B vs GO6 post last week:  This spot is not the place to bring in a Balanced Budget Amendment.  I don't deny we need one, just that it needs to attach itself to this bill.  Boehner hinted that his new proposal (which I haven't seen) forgoes the requirement for a BBA and instead calls for a bipartisan committee to lay the groundwork for one.   If so, then let's put that into a deal which gets the cuts, caps the spending, and raises the ceiling now, not some six month patch.  Boehner also called the new taxes a job killer- and giving subsidies to companies that are charging us $3.80- 4.00 a gallon for gas ISN'T?? 

Overall

This was  the kind of speech you wish the Speaker could've gone first, so we could really see Obama at his pissed-off best.  Still, for all that, it was the kind of speech that, like Obama's you wish you could've heard months ago- and not with one week left before default.

And The Winner Is...

On style and substance, Boehner.  On sympathy, and pathos, Obama.  But for all the good it did us as Americans, they might as well have done this in the boxing ring.