"The Republican Debate - Let the Games Begin"
Sydney M. Williams
Last night’s Republican debate is a reminder of the value of the democracy in which we live. Eight people were on the stage, all accomplished but with none of the accoutrements that accompany a President. Each one of whom could be someone we know. Yet one of them will likely receive the Republican nomination for President, and one could become the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. One thing is for certain; we will hear a lot more from them, as this debate was only one of about twenty over the next fourteen months.
To the extent that the moderators, Brian Williams (NBC’s anchor) and John Harris (Politico), hoped to get the participants to attack one another, they had to be somewhat disappointed. Early on, Newt Gingrich, in response to a pointed question, interjected: “We’re not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting one another. We are all for defeating Barack Obama.” That does not mean that there were not barbs tossed about. The differences, for example, between job creation in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney versus Texas under Rick Perry were explored, leading to one of the better lines of the evening. “Texas,” Mr. Romney pointed out, “has no income tax and a Republican legislature and a lot of oil and gas in the ground.” For Mr. Perry to take credit for that, he said, would “be like Al Gore saying he invented the Internet.”
The field of eight will soon be whittled down. Candidates such as Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum are unlikely to be in the field much longer. After all, it costs money to run for President, even in these early days when candidates carry their own bags. But each candidate plays a role. Newt Gingrich playing the “grand old man” kept reminding everyone that the foe was Mr. Obama, saying that anyone on this stage would do a better job. But his age, his general irreverence and his muddled personal life make it unlikely he will succeed.
The iconic Mr. Paul, always a delight to listen to, kept to his beliefs that federal mandates are a violation of our basic constitutional rights. While the world swirls around him, he keeps a steady hand on the rudder guiding his particular ship. His comment on the border was pure libertarian: “Fences with machine guns are not the answer. They may keep people out, but they may also keep people in.” Toward the end of the debate, he accused the moderators of misunderstanding the compassion of conservatives who believe in less argument. It is a difficult point to make for those brought up to believe that compassion is solely the responsibility of government.
Herman Cain is refreshing in the simplicity of his plan – nine, nine, nine. Nine percent corporate tax rate, nine percent personal tax rate and nine percent tax rate. As he said, “If ten percent is good enough for God, then nine percent should be good enough for the federal government.” Rick Santorum is the son of Italian immigrants and spoke impressively of the importance of immigration to our country.
While they all have their followers and strong points, it is difficult to imagine any one of them in the Oval Office. Mr. Gingrich is very bright, but something of a gadfly. Mr. Paul serves his country by keeping politicians honest. Mr. Cain, a successful entrepreneur, has ideas that the eventual candidate could incorporate, but in his simplistic solutions to complex problems he reminds one of Ross Perot in 1992. Mr. Santorum, in many respects a unifier, seems too nice a person to be President.
That leaves four – Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman and Jon Huntsman. Given his low poll numbers, most people would count Mr. Huntsman out. Perhaps he will fold, but I am not so sure. (At this point, let me admit my personal bias that Jon Huntsman would be the best candidate.) During the debate he emphasized the importance of picking a candidate that could appeal to independents, something that might be difficult for Ms. Bachman and Mr. Perry. For example when it came to discussing immigration, Mr. Huntsman invoked Ronald Reagan. (In fairness all the candidates made frequent reference to the “gipper.” After all they were in the Reagan Library and Nancy Reagan was in the front row.) Huntsman pointed out that Mr. Reagan saw immigration as a “human issue” and that we need to attract brain power. When it came time to take a “pledge” to introduce a balanced budget amendment, the sole holdout was Jon Huntsman. He said the only pledge he would take would be “a pledge not to take a pledge. A pledge diminishes discussion.” Mr. Perry, in contrast, said that a balanced budget is needed for the same reason one cuts off a snake’s head.
Given his front-runner status, Mr. Perry was the obvious target for both the moderators and the participants. In his book (which I have not read, nor do I intend to,) Fed Up, Mr. Perry apparently referred to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, and “a lie to our kids.” While everyone knows that Social Security is unsustainable in its current form, Mr. Perry’s words provided Mr. Romney the opportunity to say that he would keep it, but fix it. The others chimed in. Mr. Perry’s executive order mandating the vaccination of twelve-year-old girls for a sexually transmitted virus (later overturned by the Legislature) was criticized as excessive use of executive power. When questioned about the fact that, as governor, he (Mr. Perry) had executed more prisoners than any other, he received applause from the audience, much to the disbelief of Brian Williams. Mr. Perry’s antipathy toward the science surrounding climate change was challenged. Mr. Huntsman retorted that “we cannot run from science.” Mr. Perry replied that we are putting the economy at risk because of a “science that is not settled.”
Ms. Bachman seemed less relevant with Mr. Perry in the race. Both are social conservatives. During the debate she seemed less strident. She argued that it was wrong to go into Libya, as “we had no interests.” She spoke of “family values” and “parental rights.”
Mr. Romney came across as the most aggressive of them all. He knows he is behind in the polls and must show he is more of a fighter. While his tenure as governor received some censure, he emphasized his role in the private sector. When Brian Williams accused him of buying companies, stripping them down, eliminating jobs and then reselling them, Mr. Romney fought back, expounding on the number of jobs his companies had created. My guess would be that Mr. Romney will be the principal beneficiary.
The main target of the debate was not one another; it was the incumbent. They all agreed on the economy’s need to increase the role of the private sector. They emphasized less regulation. They want to return Medicaid to the states. They all abhor the increasing dependency of people on government. Jon Huntsman said that while many issues are important, one is critical – jobs. “The President doesn’t have a clue,” said Mr. Romney. Mr. Perry reminded people of President Kennedy’s statement that the most powerful welfare program is a job. Mr. Bernanke, as chief of the Federal Reserve took some hits. Ron Paul pointed out that he could buy a gallon of gasoline “for a dime – a silver dime that is now worth $3.50, thanks to dollar depreciation.”
The games have begun.
Thought of the Day
“The Republican Debate – Let the Games Begin”
September 8, 2011Last night’s Republican debate is a reminder of the value of the democracy in which we live. Eight people were on the stage, all accomplished but with none of the accoutrements that accompany a President. Each one of whom could be someone we know. Yet one of them will likely receive the Republican nomination for President, and one could become the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. One thing is for certain; we will hear a lot more from them, as this debate was only one of about twenty over the next fourteen months.
To the extent that the moderators, Brian Williams (NBC’s anchor) and John Harris (Politico), hoped to get the participants to attack one another, they had to be somewhat disappointed. Early on, Newt Gingrich, in response to a pointed question, interjected: “We’re not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting one another. We are all for defeating Barack Obama.” That does not mean that there were not barbs tossed about. The differences, for example, between job creation in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney versus Texas under Rick Perry were explored, leading to one of the better lines of the evening. “Texas,” Mr. Romney pointed out, “has no income tax and a Republican legislature and a lot of oil and gas in the ground.” For Mr. Perry to take credit for that, he said, would “be like Al Gore saying he invented the Internet.”
The field of eight will soon be whittled down. Candidates such as Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum are unlikely to be in the field much longer. After all, it costs money to run for President, even in these early days when candidates carry their own bags. But each candidate plays a role. Newt Gingrich playing the “grand old man” kept reminding everyone that the foe was Mr. Obama, saying that anyone on this stage would do a better job. But his age, his general irreverence and his muddled personal life make it unlikely he will succeed.
The iconic Mr. Paul, always a delight to listen to, kept to his beliefs that federal mandates are a violation of our basic constitutional rights. While the world swirls around him, he keeps a steady hand on the rudder guiding his particular ship. His comment on the border was pure libertarian: “Fences with machine guns are not the answer. They may keep people out, but they may also keep people in.” Toward the end of the debate, he accused the moderators of misunderstanding the compassion of conservatives who believe in less argument. It is a difficult point to make for those brought up to believe that compassion is solely the responsibility of government.
Herman Cain is refreshing in the simplicity of his plan – nine, nine, nine. Nine percent corporate tax rate, nine percent personal tax rate and nine percent tax rate. As he said, “If ten percent is good enough for God, then nine percent should be good enough for the federal government.” Rick Santorum is the son of Italian immigrants and spoke impressively of the importance of immigration to our country.
While they all have their followers and strong points, it is difficult to imagine any one of them in the Oval Office. Mr. Gingrich is very bright, but something of a gadfly. Mr. Paul serves his country by keeping politicians honest. Mr. Cain, a successful entrepreneur, has ideas that the eventual candidate could incorporate, but in his simplistic solutions to complex problems he reminds one of Ross Perot in 1992. Mr. Santorum, in many respects a unifier, seems too nice a person to be President.
That leaves four – Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman and Jon Huntsman. Given his low poll numbers, most people would count Mr. Huntsman out. Perhaps he will fold, but I am not so sure. (At this point, let me admit my personal bias that Jon Huntsman would be the best candidate.) During the debate he emphasized the importance of picking a candidate that could appeal to independents, something that might be difficult for Ms. Bachman and Mr. Perry. For example when it came to discussing immigration, Mr. Huntsman invoked Ronald Reagan. (In fairness all the candidates made frequent reference to the “gipper.” After all they were in the Reagan Library and Nancy Reagan was in the front row.) Huntsman pointed out that Mr. Reagan saw immigration as a “human issue” and that we need to attract brain power. When it came time to take a “pledge” to introduce a balanced budget amendment, the sole holdout was Jon Huntsman. He said the only pledge he would take would be “a pledge not to take a pledge. A pledge diminishes discussion.” Mr. Perry, in contrast, said that a balanced budget is needed for the same reason one cuts off a snake’s head.
Given his front-runner status, Mr. Perry was the obvious target for both the moderators and the participants. In his book (which I have not read, nor do I intend to,) Fed Up, Mr. Perry apparently referred to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, and “a lie to our kids.” While everyone knows that Social Security is unsustainable in its current form, Mr. Perry’s words provided Mr. Romney the opportunity to say that he would keep it, but fix it. The others chimed in. Mr. Perry’s executive order mandating the vaccination of twelve-year-old girls for a sexually transmitted virus (later overturned by the Legislature) was criticized as excessive use of executive power. When questioned about the fact that, as governor, he (Mr. Perry) had executed more prisoners than any other, he received applause from the audience, much to the disbelief of Brian Williams. Mr. Perry’s antipathy toward the science surrounding climate change was challenged. Mr. Huntsman retorted that “we cannot run from science.” Mr. Perry replied that we are putting the economy at risk because of a “science that is not settled.”
Ms. Bachman seemed less relevant with Mr. Perry in the race. Both are social conservatives. During the debate she seemed less strident. She argued that it was wrong to go into Libya, as “we had no interests.” She spoke of “family values” and “parental rights.”
Mr. Romney came across as the most aggressive of them all. He knows he is behind in the polls and must show he is more of a fighter. While his tenure as governor received some censure, he emphasized his role in the private sector. When Brian Williams accused him of buying companies, stripping them down, eliminating jobs and then reselling them, Mr. Romney fought back, expounding on the number of jobs his companies had created. My guess would be that Mr. Romney will be the principal beneficiary.
The main target of the debate was not one another; it was the incumbent. They all agreed on the economy’s need to increase the role of the private sector. They emphasized less regulation. They want to return Medicaid to the states. They all abhor the increasing dependency of people on government. Jon Huntsman said that while many issues are important, one is critical – jobs. “The President doesn’t have a clue,” said Mr. Romney. Mr. Perry reminded people of President Kennedy’s statement that the most powerful welfare program is a job. Mr. Bernanke, as chief of the Federal Reserve took some hits. Ron Paul pointed out that he could buy a gallon of gasoline “for a dime – a silver dime that is now worth $3.50, thanks to dollar depreciation.”
The games have begun.
Labels: TOTD
posted by Thought of the Day @ 6:12 AM
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home