I watched the show last night and will confess to being surprised. Some that I thought might be viable proved incredibly inept. Some that I thought dead-on-arrival proved remarkably resilient. And one that I had thought certifiably insane reinforced my opinion.
Despite Bret Baier's plea at the start to set-aside the pre-scripted sound-bites and list of talking points several of the candidates couldn't cut loose from the rehearsal. In the process they appeared lame, unresponsive and pandering. The ones who succeeded in answering direct questions with direct answers looked presidential and intelligent--which may be something aggressively demanded by next year's voters.
The leader of recovery and arguably the most intelligent, thoughtful and impressive performance of the night came from the gentleman that everyone has already written off. Newt Gingrich was powerful and particularly when he bitch-slapped Chris Wallace, he looked far from comatose. Will the electorate notice? That's hard to say. The folks in Iowa are supposed to be politically astute but the straw poll on Saturday isn't about that so much as organization, bus convoys of supporters and paid-off sycophants who will write your name on the ballot in exchange for two hot-dogs and a glass of cheap Chardonnay.
The polling leader going into the debate looked pathetic. Michelle Bachmann said nothing substantive and repeated uber-conservative cliches without end. She really didn't enunciate any policy positions, cite any achievement specifics or even avoid a Minnesota internecine spat with Tim Pawlenty which was demeaning to both of them.
Pawlenty proved himself ready for a one-way ticket back to St. Paul. He was, if possible, worse than Bachmann. His rote line was about being a governor and succeeding in leaving his state in paralysis. He somehow believed that his gubernatorial performance was going to outshine Romney's but in the process may have forgotten the silent elephant in the room, three-term successful Gov. Rick Perry. His exchange with Bachmann got no votes for either of them.
The guy on a roll throughout the day was Mitt Romney. From the early morning out-takes of his dust-up with a paid heckler at a morning rally, he blanketed the news shows until he finished big in the debate. He had clear answers. He covered his solutions. He dodged the moderator's bullets and he looked competent and coherent. I've not been a Romney fan, but I could definitely see him taking home the trophy next year. That wouldn't be a bad outcome for me.
Truly pathetic in performance was Jon Huntsman. He looked tired and washed out, with a deer-in-the-headlights wide-eyed stare to accompany bland pronouncements of absolutely no substance. There was simply no "there" there.
Much improved, but probably not going to last in the race, was Rick Santorum. He displayed a good sense of humor as he battled for time from an obviously odd-man-out position in the pecking order. He spoke well, rebutted several times with impact, and had appeal. It will be too little and already too late, but he did well.
Herman Cain was strong as well. He took opportunities to clarify some earlier controversial statements that have adversely impacted his campaign. He was well prepared and he had policy positions which he could explain in brief that might be difficult to implement but they were understandable to the crowd. He could place well on Saturday but is clearly a no-pun-intended dark horse in a white-bread state like Iowa.
The nut job-du-jour was Ron Paul. I had begun to drift back to a point where I considered him reasonably competent after my initial astonishment at his positions four years ago when he ran. Last night he disproved any notions I might have harbored regarding his lucidity. He rambled and meandered through answers that seemed both philosophical and obtuse. His ultra-Libertarian views are far out of the mainstream of America and maybe even far from the odd-ball rivulets of American politics as well.
On the way home: Pawlenty, Santorum, Paul, Huntsman and hopefully Bachmann.
On their way to success: Romney, Gingrich and maybe Cain.
Serious contender: Perry.
14 comments:
But Ron Paul is the second coming of Thomas Jefferson.
Just listen to the Ron Paul fans.
The Flying Barrister
Perry is supposed to announce tomorrow if the pressers are accurate. I was hoping he'd jump in early enough to see him in this debate but frankly it's probably better he wait until the herd is thinned. The only serious contender I see is Romney. I don't like him but he's looking more and more presedential every day. He's a shocking alternative to obama and I never thought that possible. Neither Perry nor Romney would accept the vice position but I think Newt would. He might even be angling for just such.
I agree 100%. Jack M
DES MOINES, IA - Texas Congressman Ron Paul has won the first-ever online Iowa straw poll, capturing a commanding 44% of the over 6,000 votes cast in an online poll sponsored by Iowa Congressman Tom Latham's campaign. The results of the two-week online poll (located at: onlineiowastrawpoll.com) were announced one day before Saturday's Ames Straw Poll, which is considered by most as the first real test of a presidential candidate's organizational strength in Iowa.
The results of the online poll promoting Saturday's big event for the Republican Party of Iowa were:
1st - Ron Paul with 44% of the unique online votes
2nd - Herman Cain 16%
3rd - Michele Bachmann 10%
4th - Rick Perry 8%
5th - (TIE) Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney 5%
7th - Sarah Palin 4%
8th - "Someone Else" 3%
9th - Rick Santorum 2%
10th - (Tie) Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich with 1% of the unique online votes
It should be noted that Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin are not yet officially announced candidates for the GOP nomination and will not appear as options on Saturday's actual straw poll ballot in Ames.
"I congratulate Ron Paul and his campaign on this victory," said Iowa Congressman Tom Latham whose campaign for Iowa's new Third Congressional District sponsored the poll. "Regardless of the results, the most important message of this online poll is that Iowans are united in their motivation to bring common sense back to Washington. And it's clear why. Americans are tired of paying for Washington's failed and costly policies. They are ready to fight for leaders who will put people before politics and progress before partisanship to change the way Washington works and the work that Washington does to restore the confidence in the American Dream."
Source:
http://www.kcautv.com/story/15255706/ron-paul-wins-online-straw-poll
Santorum and Obama: Two Peas in a Pod?
by Connor Boyack
George Orwell is no doubt smiling down from the heavens after witnessing last night’s Republican “debate” in Ames, Iowa. Why, you might ask? This event featured more doublethink (if not hypocrisy) than any other in recent history.
Recall that Orwell defined doublethink in 1984 as “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them…” The Ames Debate offered several instances of this very thing, many relating directly to the Tenth Amendment.
Congresswoman Bachmann, for example, has positioned herself repeatedly as a leader in the tea party, state’s rights, and Tenth Amendment movements. Asked last night whether there was a difference between the state or federal government mandating that an individual buy a product (referring primarily to health care insurance), Bachmann responded that there was no difference. It is “unconstitutional,” she maintained, regardless of whether it is imposed by the state or federal government. She did not cite which part of the Constitution denies states this authority.
Continued:
Of course, that’s because no clause in the Constitution prevents states from doing it, as Congressman Paul rightly noted in response to Bachmann’s doublethink. Paul stated that the federal government is not empowered to go in and stop states that do bad things.
Moments later, Senator Santorum jumped in to criticize both of them, claiming that their responses were indicative of “the Tenth Amendment run amok.” Said Santorum:
Michelle Bachmann says that she would go in and fight health care being imposed by states, but she wouldn’t go in and fight marriage being imposed by the states. That would be okay. We have Ron Paul saying oh, whatever the states want to do under the Tenth Amendment is fine. So if the states want to pass polygamy, that’s fine. If the states want to impose sterilization, that’s fine. No! Our country is based on moral laws, ladies and gentleman. There are things the states can’t do. Abraham Lincoln said “the states do not have the right to do wrong.” I respect the Tenth Amendment, but we are a nation that has values. We are a nation that was built on a moral enterprise. And states don’t have the right to tramp over those because of the Tenth Amendment.
Continued:
Leaving aside the fact that he inaccurately portrayed Rep. Paul’s stance, it is obvious that Santorum is no Tenther, but rather a power-loving thug looking to impose his personal set of morals and values on any people living under whatever level of government he can use to accomplish his goals. In this respect, he’s hardly different from Barack Obama at all.
Obviously, Santorum has either not read or understood the Tenth Amendment — included in the Constitution which he has on several occasions sworn an oath to support and defend — which provides for the very things he is criticizing.
States do have the ability, under the constitutional system the Founders put in place, to “do wrong.” They have the sovereign authority to decide whatever they wish on whatever matters they like, provided that this authority has not already been delegated to the federal government, or has not been explicitly denied them in the Constitution.
For as we read in the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In Federalist 45, James Madison provides a well-known quote regarding the balance between federal and state powers:
Here we go again. Ron Paul wins an online poll. What a surprise - it's 2007 all over again. About the only one who thinks it's a real result is the madman himself. What a joke. Romney is weak and a RINO, and Newt's private life is a mess (he's also too old). Rick Perry for me, successful and a Texan to boot.
JB5
Ed, is there any truth to the article which ran in today's WSJ concerning Perry? I know that stories can be written to obtain a desired result so I'm always skeptical of what I read.
Bongobear, of course there is "some truth" in the WSJ article. Probably the most cogent statement is near the end when the author confesses that even the best intended government funds, administered at double-arms length from the executive can still offer an appearance of impropriety.
The fund was established under applicable legislation. It was overseen by a board of trustees appointed in the same manner as more than 1200 boards and commissions in the state. It engaged in hundreds of transactions and inevitably some connections can be made to campaign donors.
Is this a "smoking gun"? At this point it is innuendo. If it develops into something more substantial that will certainly come out, but not much has been demonstrated thus far except the usual dredging for something on potential candidate.
The birth certificate, college grades, and associations with churches pretty much reveal a normal American so far.
Who is the nut posting under an anonymous sobriquet that feels compelled to cut an past a long article in so many pieces? Is it a Ron Paul fanboy trolling?
Ridiculous.
The Flying Barrister
Thanks, Ed. About what I figured.
I'm a fan of Ron Paul, and has my vote (I didn't post those anonymous comments btw). But I've been wrong before on candidates I've supported.
I would love to hear some substantive criticism of Paul though. Other than media sidelining and the he's fringe/nutty/unelectable broad strokes, I'm not sure I've ever heard anybody actually present something specific to argue against him on. Would love to be educated on this thread.
Since he has won two CPAC straw polls in a row, and apparently has received more contributions from military donors than all the other Republicans combined, I'm not so sure he's out of the running. Just wish the corporate media masters would stop sidelining him.
Ed: here's Alex Jones on Perry. What do you make of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SB8evaZ7zDI
Jones is often a big mouth, but he is dead cold sober in this one. I'd like to know if his report stands up, as far as you know?
And I second the motion from PickYourBattles to hear some analysis of Ron Paul.
Post a Comment