On Tuesday night, seismologists at the Las Vegas Oceanographic Institute reported the first recorded movement of a hair on Mitt Romney’s head. Although it was only one follicle, displaced a mere 1.2 centimeters, the tremors were felt from Iowa to New Hampshire. Simultaneously, these same scientists detected signs of life in Rick Perry, last seen comatose at the recent Dartmouth debate.
Such were the highlights of Tuesday’s seven-person Republican brawl at the Venetian. To be sure, there were other developments: Herman Cain stumbled, Newt Gingrich grinned, Rick Santorum landed a clean shot at Romneycare, and Michele Bachmann made a spirited bid for a comeback.
Advertisement
But the main event was the scripted Rick Perry attack on Romney, reprising the old charge of Romney hiring illegal immigrants. Perry’s face-to-face accusation of rank hypocrisy had the intended effect. From the ensuing melee emerged a singularity: a ruffled Romney, face flushed, voice raised.
It lasted just a millisecond, but it left its mark. The reassuring and unflappable command that had carried Romney through — indeed, above — previous debates was punctured. True, his unflappability is, to some, less reassurance than a sign of inauthenticity. But if you are going to show real passion, petulance is not the way to do it.
Worse, Romney turned to the referee — moderator Anderson Cooper — with a plaintive “Anderson?” seeking intervention. An uncharacteristically weak moment. What does he do when Vladimir Putin sticks a finger in his chest and starts yelling at a Vienna summit? Call for Anderson?
On substance, Romney remained as solid as ever, showing by far the most mastery of policy, with the possible exception of Gingrich — but without the lecturing tone and world-weary condescension.
Romney’s command was best seen in his takedown of Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. Cain refused to concede the burden to consumers of a national sales tax added on to existing state sales taxes. Doggedly sticking to his point long after it had been undermined, he kept raining down metaphors about apples and oranges. His national sales tax is a solution to a federal problem (a monstrous tax code), he insisted, and therefore irrelevant to any discussion of state sales taxes, which would exist regardless.
It took Romney one sentence to expose the sophistry. He simply pointed out that a real-world consumer with a basketful of apples and oranges would be paying the sum of the two sales taxes at checkout. Q.E.D.
Cain remained, as always, charming, engaging, confident, and good-willed, the only person on stage other than Bachmann who didn’t have a sour or a nasty moment. But his tax plan collapsed under fire in about ten minutes, the coup de grace being delivered by Gingrich, who, when asked why the Cain plan is a hard sell, replied, “You just watched it.” It was the deadliest line of the night.
However, the principal drama was provided by Perry. His aggressive performance brought him back into the game, especially because he now has a few weeks before the next debate to deploy his major assets: a talent for retail politics and a ton of money.
But the price of re-entry was high. His awakening wasn’t very pretty. He showed he can draw blood, but it was a nasty schoolyard punch-up. In primary races, personal attacks often have the effect of diminishing both candidates. This happened in 2004 in Iowa when Democratic frontrunners Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean knocked each other silly, allowing John Kerry and John Edwards to sneak past them.
Nonetheless, because of his considerable resources, Perry, by merely stirring himself, is back. But he hasn’t solved his problem. It’s not just that, as he readily admits, he’s not very good at debating, although that in itself is a huge liability. It wasn’t before 1960. It is now. And based on Perry’s first five performances, Barack Obama would eat him alive in a one-on-one.
But apart from the importance of debating itself, Perry’s often clueless responses betray an even deeper problem: He simply hasn’t thought through the issues on a national scale. He is still Texas. And Texas simply isn’t enough. That was most glaringly evident during the Dartmouth debate when, in response to questions about China and then about health care, Perry sought immediate refuge by talking instead about his energy plan. Interesting, but unrelated.
The Vegas fight mildly unsettled the Republican race. But its central dynamic remains. It awaits the coalescence of anti-Romney sentiment around one challenger. Until and unless that happens, it’s Romney’s race to lose.
Charles, I know you are way smarter than that concerning Cain's tax plan, but I understand you don't prefer him for other reasons, foreign policy, but that's okay. Cain understands that explaining the Fair Tax's 23% consumption tax would have been a tougher sale than 9-9-9, becaue most people, including yourself and others at NR, still profess ignorance when it comes to embedded taxes. It's been explained by others and myself here before, so I won't delve deep again. When you replace the current IMBEDDED/INCLUSIVE tax of 22-23% in products with 9%, the costs will come down or even at worst stay the same. WIth the new 9% income tax and corporate tax people will have more money in their pocket. Will some people pay more in taxes? Yes, a small number with these 3 advantages. 1) People will SEE the tax they are paying, as their receipt will show the 9% IN the price. 2) Wealthier people who CHOOSE to buy more things, because they have more money, will pay more taxes, but it will be their CHOICE. 3) People who pay no income and some no FICA will finally have skin in the game. I know this may be the hardest to overcome, but the truth isn't always nice or easy. While there are some aspects of Cain's plan that help poorer families with relief on the basics, I'm not that happy that it doesn't apply to everyone like the Fair Tax prebate, but 9-9-9 is a stepping stone to it.
So far the people I see complaining the most about the plan are the politicians, because it begins to take power away from them and puts it back in the hands of the individual, which gov't just can't fathom doing. The intellectuals/pols that are so blinded by partisanship or the belief that we most work within the disaster we call the federal, or better yet the NATIONAL bureacracy don't won't to upset the apple or orange cart. It is the people that are demanding something different and that like the 9-9-9 plan. It reminds me or Cain's previous book, "They Think You're Stupid". That is what Gov't thinks of it's people and the media does nothing but multiply that affect.
Charles I have enormous respect for you and you have helped educate me in the last 10+ years. I was fortunate to meet and get a picture with you at the NR 50th anniversay. I will continue to watch and look for your articles.
Herman Cain is a BOLD leader for bold times. Our country is at a time in history when bold leadership/ideas are needed for it's survival. Cain is not perfect, but he is better than the other candidates. I will be able to support any of the other candidates full-heartedly if Cain doesn't win the nomination, but I will support Herman until his withdrawal.
God Bless you all and God Bless the United States of America.
Cain/Bolton 2012
***Sorry for any spelling errors. I'm horrible.***
You know long ago Mr. Krauthammer predicted Obamacare dead in the water. He was wrong. He has been wrong with his insight on a number of domestic political assessments. He was quite right about Delaware, and of course the Palin Franchise.
Unfortunately we all misread things at times, and this offering is a prime example. I don't mean to say that Perry will not cling to an ugly campaign for some time. He showed no class or honesty for that long ago - even dishonestly inflating job numbers in Texas. He could have run a great offering as a sound CEO, but instead revealed he was just playing the fashion devotees for chumps - having no substance.
Perry has so utterly revealed himself as a typical Public Service Political clinger, telling the entire GOP base they are "heartless" for disagreeing with him. He is well beyond damaged goods for the Primary, and if he survives to win - then we will have committed pure political suicide once again. On par with the disastrous Maverick Ticket and the delusional fiasco in Delaware.
No, that debate was no rebirth, and those living a little too close to the Beltway, guided by too many wishful thinking "dreamers" pushing vacant fashion in the once proud conservative movement, have produced another narrative which doesn't have any real substance.
Romney and Perry were the Primary, with Perry having fallen dramatically. Cain has picked up the fashionable devotion - he is a welcome sight in the GOP Primary. But come the votes as we see it now, I will wager anything the betting money is accurate at this moment - Romney will get the votes (without a massive - dramatic change in the Race). The Democrats would again be all too fortunate if we do not wisely go with the strongest candidate, which is Mr. Romney, without a doubt.
"I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps, and I believe that our education like such as South Africa, and the Iraq, everywhere like, such as, and I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., or should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for our children."
I respectfully disagree. If Perry's big moment against Romney was over something substantive then, yeah, maybe. But Perry's "zinger" concerned a non-existent illegal immigration problem revolving around Romney's lawn service. I'm not saying Romney responded all that well, but in fairness Romney spent the night fending off interruptions and cheap shots from both Santorum and Perry, and one's nerves do fray after awhile. Perry may have put a ding in Romney, but not much more, and neither Perry nor Santorum helped himself with his antics. They may have hurt the Republican Party.
About Cain. All that matters is votes. His performance in the debates has never been all that great, but it doesn't seem to matter. His supporters understand we're not trying to nominate the next President of the National Debating Society. They just like the guy, and the debates aren't altering that. I wish he'd do better in the debates, because the 999 plan is way better than it's being portrayed -- it's been endorsed by Art Laffer, for heaven's sake -- but I'm not sure it matters. Cain's voters "get" who he is and are comfortable with what they see.
perry has been on stage a long time. i have watched him finesse his way through a lot of trouble waters. he is the strongest conservative candidate we have. "man, you 'bout to see sumpin' you ain't never seen before!"
Not so much. I agree that Romney was rattled, but I don't think it was a big score for Perry.
Awake at last....... but nasty, is not the way to be remembered, and the man still can't give a speech without stumbling over his notes.
"...On substance, Romney remained as solid as ever, showing by far the most mastery of policy, with the possible exception of Gingrich — but without the lecturing tone and world-weary condescension."
I don't see the world-weary condescension, Charles. And what's wrong with a lecturing tone now and then. Perhaps the citizenry hasn't been lectured enough. They sure don't get it in school these days. I can think of times when Reagan sounded like a lecturer and when he did, you knew that he knew his stuff and that it came from his core. By contrast, one could say that Romney's attitude is affected and coreless. I'd prefer lecturing followed by some learning on behalf of the electorate.
I supported Romney in 2008 as he was the better candidate. But the country has changed and Romney hasn't. He made two unforced errors: "There are many reasons not to vote for me" (duh) and "I'm running for office...I can't have illegals on my property!"
Rick Perry excels in retail politics. Did you see him in the Dartmouth fraternity house? This is much more important over the course of the campaign. Many of these debates will be town hall style...interacting with real voters not Anderson Cooper. Perry is much more of a natural, likable guy and he will clobber Obama on the issues.
Almost everyone I know believes two things about Romney:
He knows nothing of the average day to day American.
He has no soul. He is as whitebread as Wonder. Very plastical and fakey he is.
This is why he has the northeast but that's about it. This is why his approval stays pretty much the same.
Could he stand up to obama in a debate?
Sure, maybe, but it would be like watching two suits fighting over a place on the rack.
How do you know Romney knows nothing about the average day to day American? (as if there were such a thing). And why does that matter? We're hiring a president, not a nanny.
I'm looking for a person with success in management, success in executive matters, an understanding of the economy, a powerful stage presence, a command of the issues, and NO SCANDALS. I would also love to vote for a good family man.
I couldn't care less if he understands my troubles. That's why I have a dog.
Charles, I'm not feelin' the Herman love... C'mon, now, Charles!
---------------------------------------------------
9-9-9 Talking Points I WISH Herman would use!
1. Establishment, career politicians HATE it because they CAN’T HIDE THEIR CORRUPTION in the tax code anymore.
2. 2/3′s are required to raise it a penny. Even in less partisan days, it’s a seismic event to get a 2/3′s to agree cancer is bad and puppies are cute.
3. 2/3′s, by the way, was The Founders’ Original Intent. That ‘Glorious Liberty Document’ as Frederick Douglass called it. Would YOU be a member of the 1/3 voting to RAISE EVERYBODY’S – not just Obama’s fat cats – EVERYBODY’S taxes? Really?
4. Remember the Reagan years? You know who did the math on Reagan’s economic proposals when it was MORNING IN AMERICA? Art Laffer. You know who is on the record supporting 9-9-9? ART LAFFER.
5. If you are another Steve Jobs in your garage with no money but a great idea, are you MORE likely, or LESS likely to succeed NOW, or under 9-9-9?
6. If you have to pick a country on planet earth to do business, and you could pick COMMUNIST CHINA, or The Land of Liberty, even FREER with 9-9-9, which place would you rather try to draw the best & brightest to work for you? Hmmm? You know – CREATE JOBS?????
——————————————————————————————————————————–
HELLLOOOOOOOOOO?????????????????????????????????
THIS AIN’T ROCKET SCIENCE!
OH- Wait – Herman actually, LITERALLY, *w*a*s* a rocket scientist!
A rocket scientist is an aerospace engineer. Aerospace engineering is the primary branch of engineering concerned with the design, construction and science of aircraft and spacecraft. It is divided into two major and overlapping branches: aeronautical engineering and astronautical engineering. The former deals with craft that stay within Earth's atmosphere, and the latter with craft that operate outside it.
Hermann Cain has an undergraduate degree in Mathematics from Morehouse College, and a Master's degree in Computer Science from Purdue. Cain is a nice man, however, he's no rocket scientist.
You are unduly impressed with his credentials.
I am an Electrical Engineer and Computer Scientist (PhD Candidate) by degree ... and a rocket scientist for the U.S. Army and NASA by trade. Rocket design, development, and testing has soooo much more to do than what you say. You are either naive or being intentionally misleading.
Mathematics and physics are core sciences which engineering is built upon. Due to their inherent abstract nature, both of these degrees are considered much more difficult than engineering degrees. Although engineers typically make more in the marketplace, they don't carry the same amount of respect.
My brother received his undergraduate degrees, a BS in electrical engineering and mathematics from MIT. He has a PhD in Computer Science and applied mathematics. In his opinion elelctrical engineering was the most difficult in his joint degree undergraduate program.
Of course, there's more to rocket science than I described, this was only a blog entry, not an essay on rocket science.
Herman Cain has an undergraduate degree in mathemathics, once again, he is no rocket scientist.
He seems like a nice man, but to call him a rocket scientist is hyperbole, or just plain lying.
I suspect you wrote this rebuttal to showcase your own resume.
Charles, you do yourself no favors by continuing the mantra that Obama is a good debater. When is the last time you saw a debate with teleprompters? What are you basing this on, his debates with McCain? Perry would ruffle Obama's feathers by calling him out on truths, which would result in the bumbling, incoherant "ah,um, er, ah's..." that show his true "smartest man in the world" oratory skills.
I fail to understand why everyone, including you Charles, gives Newt such negative comments. I am still undecided but do believe he grasps everything better than Romney. It almost seems like you and FOX News are trying to push us to Romney because you have determined he is the best candidate. Sorry to tell you but I do not believe Romney will win the southern states in the primaries. If he does win the nomination, I also believe Obama will win the South and a second term. To me that means he is probably not electable. But yet all we hear out of the Right Wing Press is how electable he is. I think you and others need to start listening to what Newt says. He's the only candidate who stays on message and has probably won all the debates. (my score not yours) He's just not getting air play cause the sacred Ivy League press has decided he is not electable and they want their candidate. Hate to tell you but if Romney is the choice, I will have a very tough decision to make cause I don't see much difference between him and Obama. And I'm not alone.
Follow
