Although these debates are by now monotonous, they have the effect of shaping up the candidates (who are doing much better in general) and reminding us why the pre-primary race is really between Romney and Gingrich.
I guess Ron Paul did not consider the incineration of 3,000 Americans on American soil on 9/11 — something that neither Fascists or Communists ever achieved, and that by now would have been replicated without the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism protocols, as apparently the Obama administration believed (it embraced or expanded them all) and over 40 foiled plots attest — an act of war. Foreign relations reflect Paul’s weaknesses, but his isolationism is masked with folksy “let each country be itself” and ”taking money from poor here to give to rich abroad,” etc. All that sounds superficially sort of neat — if we forget that his cocoonism was American policy in the 1930s. It sometimes seems that the candidates are careful to dance around his views, given his possibility of a damaging third-party run.
Bachmann had her best debate, in a sincere sort of Fargo-earnestness and competence. She has no brain freezes, is detailed and animated, and comes across as earnest. If she had done this well earlier, she would be in contention, at least as much a House member can be.
Gingrich, the grand strategist, is in his top professorial, thinking-out-of-the-box mode that seeks to elevate the debate over the heads of other mere tacticians; whether it comes off as condescending or pontificating I’m not sure. Once again, though, he seems to be summarizing the Bush-Obama policy in Pakistan in a way that seems as though he is creating it. His advocacy for energy independence and his nuances on Iran are very good. With each question, we don’t expect an answer but an existential examination of the question itself; does that reflect deeper thinking than Romney’s short, competent answers, or a sort of serial pop philosophizing?
Perry is becoming the almost over-the-top candidate — last time eliminating cabinet departments and now cutting off all “blank checks” to Pakistan (to be replaced by “trade zones”?) and suggesting Leon Panetta resign. I guess he has to push the envelope, given that time is running out. He is getting better, but that is mostly because he was lately so weak.
Rick Santorum does great when he answers directly the question asked. The more he avoids attacking others, or curbs his exasperation that his often superior answers don’t lead to political traction, the better he does. But somehow such an experienced and knowledgeable candidate always seems frustrated to the point of vexation.
Cain seems never to offer any details in any of his answers, but instead offers standard business leadership talking points; I don’t think it works, since his template replies that he wants clarity, defined goals, etc. often come off as a way of avoiding providing any details about the Middle East. When he gets to illegal immigration, his greater detail on this topic reminds us that he cannot offer commensurate information on foreign policy per se.
Romney once again shows that he is sober and judicious on foreign policy in a way that some of the others come off a little scary. He does well counter-punching and avoids the crowd-pleasing gestures. His debate style is the way of his campaign, a sort of rope-a-dope, process-of-elimination candidacy. He gets neither the boos nor the cheers of the others, avoiding the Gingrich-type inspired, existential quips and the Perry-Cain weirdness. Each week that he survives, I think he gets stronger, rather than in need of a “breakout.”
Huntsman keeps harping on the Vietnam-era argument that troops abroad come at the expense of “nation building.” But he doesn’t seem to get the idea that 96 percent of our GDP is not going to defense or war in particular, but to massive social spending. His polish and unconservatism remind me a lot of the old 1960s Republican liberals like Charles Goodell, Mark Hatfield, and John Lindsay who so enthralled Democrats.
All in all, the candidates are all doing much better, and the debate reflects both that fact and that most of all of them would be far better prepared abroad than the president.
And VDH gets the National Review memo to support Romney.
Respect = dwindling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> But he doesn’t seem to get the idea that 96 percent of our GDP is not going to defense or war in particular, but to massive social spending
Erm, what? Is this McCarthy typo or McCarthy crazy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just had to laugh...
You really could not arrive at a simple understanding of this statement?
Really?
Really?
Or was this just another Democratic Partisan delusion,
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewhich prompted the entire embarrassing effort?
Prove the assertion.
Really.
Really.
Censorship sucks. There is no rationalization. Really
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm understanding the statement to mean 96 percent of U.S. GDP is going to social welfare spending. Maybe McCarthy is conflating total debt with annual spending? I don't know. He's pretty nuts, so maybe he believes it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseD'oh. Hanson, not McCarthy. I take it all back! Hanson's dotty and often monotonous, but he's not crazy. I still have no idea what the 96 percent thing's supposed to mean.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTiresome.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI see McCarthy's hiding behind every tree.
redfate foisted by his own petard. boom.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePaul always sounds off tune when he adopts the Osama bin Laden excuse for 9/11: our bases in Saudi Arabia. But I'll tell you, sitting in the hall, Ron Paul had one of the best answers of the night when asked if he would "help" Israel. Paraphrasing, "Help them? How about we get out of their way? Every time they go do something, we get in the way and tell them they can't do that. Israel can take care of itself, let them."
That was a very effective answer. What's the old saying? "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Paul seemed to be advocating Option 3. The only thing the US needs to do is let Israel defend itself, and tell the UN to go straight to h*ll when they pitch a fit.
I thought Gingrich had the best night overall. But I will be unsurprised to see Ron Paul get a significant bump tonight. He did well. I've been told for years that Ron Paul is a kook. He does not sound like a kook. He sounds a lot like my retired parents...despite his out of the mainstream views on drugs and abortion. The GOP has a big problem because Ron Paul, more than really any candidate up there, is speaking to the Tea Party conservatives in the party. I think a lot of analysts are missing this, and the risk of a third party run is real.
A lot of Republicans are looking at their party, and are seriously doubting that the GOP is any different than the Democrats. We've been sandbagged twice this year by the GOP. I don't think that conservatives are going to continue to put up with this. Furthermore, Paul had an outstanding answer on the Defense budget...the sequestered cuts are a fraud. He is right, and we all know it. Nobody on that stage really argued with him, but Paul was the one who drove that nail home. The anti-statist theme of this election has no sacred cows.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone foolish enough to think the two Parties are the same, is part of the problem.
Nor can the USA simply let Israel go it alone...
Ron Paul was as delusional as it gets about this World. If his mindless offering were ever entertained as serious, they would be as damaging to all, just as the Democratic Partisan folly we see today.
It is stunning Paul cannot learn from the proven strength of the Ronald Doctrine. And absolutely no wonder why the Democrats continue to push Paul...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you are underestimating how many delusional people are going to be voting this year. My post and analysis is about a third party run, not the GOP nomination.
Obama said a lot of kooky things too, and he got 66,000,000 votes. And I am daily reminded on this blog that there exists a large number of people who do not distinguish between the two major parties.
Third party...very possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Obama said a lot of kooky things too, and he got 66,000,000 votes."
First, I agree: A third-party Paul run seems almost inevitable at this point.
But, I don't think Obama said anything "kooky" in his 2008. In fact, as far as message discipline goes, he ran the best campaign I have seen since Reagan in 1980.
Obama made one mistake, and that was the extemporaneous "Joe the Plumber" gaffe - that's when he let the mask slip, ever so briefly.
Other than that, Obama was a perfect cipher; a tabula rasa upon which projected everything they wanted to hear to hear. To left-wing wackos, Obama was the second coming of George McGovern (without the baggage of crazy old Eagleton), and to "moderates" Obama seemed like a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic man who was going to "cut taxes & balance the budget". Obama practically campaigned as FiscCon.
Luckily, Obama won't be able to run as such a blank slate this go around, and while I still don't expect the media to do their job, Obama won't be able to run from near double-digit unemployment. His record now speaks for itself - and what it has to say isn't pleasant.
The only way he gets 66M votes again, is if we let the good people of Kenya vote in our elections too - and word is that Axelrod is looking into that as we speak.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In fact, as far as message discipline goes, he ran the best campaign I have seen since Reagan in 1980."
That is utterly detached from reality.
His campaign was utterly unprepared for the Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, and Bill Ayers stuff. He only had one speech (at the DNC), was always on teleprompter, and frequently stuttered or lost his place or said something ridiculous when off-prompter. I distinctly recall that during one of the McCain/Obama debates he was asked "How would you fix Social Security" and his full answer was "Fixing Social Security is easy". I'm sure I could recall more if I were so inclined, but why relive misery.
The magic of the Obama campaign was the way the media shielded and promoted him. You had to dig to find his gaffes, the ones that made it public were underplayed, and meanwhile he was framed in a golden light at all times possible.
It was not a masterful campaign. It was a shoddy campaign presented as masterful by every single supposedly independent media source in the world.
"Obama practically campaigned as FiscCon"
Obama campaigned as a lie to everyone's enemy. To the classical liberal he was secretly fiscally prudent and an old-fashioned American, winking at the hippies to get their vote. To the left-winger he was for gay marriage (he says he's against it but you know he's lyin' just to get those scared right-wingers to go along) and amnesty and Earth first, and just winking at those crazy nedrecks to get their vote.
And again, he was only able to do this because of a compliant media who felt his entire life's background was irrelevant when evaluating the sincerity of his promises.
If the media backs Obama again, he will get a second term. That's the sad fact.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Obama campaigned as a lie to everyone's enemy. To the classical liberal he was secretly fiscally prudent and an old-fashioned American, winking at the hippies to get their vote. To the left-winger he was for gay marriage (he says he's against it but you know he's lyin' just to get those scared right-wingers to go along) and amnesty and Earth first, and just winking at those crazy nedrecks to get their vote."
Summing up: Obama ran a masterful campaign.
It was cynical, but it was carefully calculated to get voters to vote for him.
And you left out one more thing. When the financial collapse happened in September 2008, Obama's calmness and reassuring manner contrasted sharply with McCain's erratic performance: First suspending his campaign to go back to Washington, then accomplishing nothing there.
Give the devil his due. Obama, an ultra-liberal, repackaged himself as a reassuring "bring us together" moderate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Summing up: Obama ran a masterful campaign."
Bingo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Obama campaigned as a lie to everyone's enemy."
Interesting. So, you're saying Obama wasn't really the person that everyone thought he was, and yet Obama ran a horrible campaign?
Do you see the cognitive dissonance in what you're asserting?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBased on everything we have seen about Obama since he assumed office, I believe he was simply lucky. He knew he had to misrepresent himself, yes, but that didn't require him to be any kind of master strategist. The media were willing to cover for him; he could assuage liberal guilt; and he had a horrible opponent. It's that simple.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"but that didn't require him to be any kind of master strategist"
No, that was Axelrod's job, but it did require him to stay on message, and that's EXACTLY what he did.
I think your remarks about what we have seen since Obama became president are right. When he says something as idiotic (and wholly unnecessary) like "The Cambridge police acted stupidly", it underscores just how good his campaign was. The real Obama reflexively wants to blame the white guys. That's who he is, it's embedded in his DNA.
But, NONE of that came out during the campaign. And, even though he sat in a church for 20-years that was (and is) as racist as they come, he wasn't hurt by it, at all. In fact, his campaign - somehow - used those attacks on Obama to further endear himself to Independents. To this day, I have no idea who that happened.
On script - and during a campaign - Obama was one of the best I have ever seen. His problem is it's virtually impossible to effectively run a country in campaign mode, although Obama certainly tried. If you're going to be successful - like Reagan & Clinton - then you have to have the ability to wing it. Obama doesn't - which again highlights what a great campaign he ran.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Ron Paul ever tried a third party run, whether on his own or pushed by his cultish supporters, he would damage his son's future career in politics forever. I can't believe he would want to do that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Ron Paul ran as a third party candidate, Tea Party members and all conservatives would know that Paul has no care about defeating Obama, or listening to the will of conservatives, but cares only about his ego. He will never get more than single digit numbers in a general and would guarantee an Obama win.
Any American who voted for Ron Paul would be wishing for Obama to win so that the destructive policies of all that is good in this country could continue.
It will be up to voters in 2012 who want to stop this administration to vote for the winner of the Republican nomination and to vote for good conservatives for the Senate and House. Republicans must win both houses with big majorities to help the White House with a good Republican in it reverse the disastrous course of this administration.
Ron Paul will not launch a third party bid. Paul refuses to take positions that might make him more populuar whilst campaigning because he is dedicated to principle. He is there to change the debate and get people thinking. He knows full well that if he bolted to a third party he would get people so angry that his effort to get people to think and challenge themselves will have gone for nothing. I think he cares too much for his libertarian ideas to do that.
I think you are also right in thinking that Paul hopes that his son can carry some of his ideas forward and will want to ensure that happens. I hope it does happen- I think the son is a big improvement on the father.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse