Let’s Play Two

So, I watched the debates on Saturday night and Sunday morning — the two Republican presidential debates in New Hampshire. Did you? In any case, I made some notes — will share some of them below.

And let me caution, as I always do, or often do, that the notes are not comprehensive — they are randomish and incomplete. If you like those qualities, come to me anytime!

‐The geometry of the debates is cruel: If you’re up in the polls, you’re in the center — the center of the stage. If you’re down in the polls, you’re off to the sides. It must be great to be Rick Santorum and migrate to the center. It must stink to be Rick Perry and be forced to the sides.

‐Mitt says “take responsibility” several times when he really means “take credit.” Kind of strange.

‐Santorum says — and I believe this is a verbatim quote — “No one has more experience in dealing with Iran than I do.”

Really? No one? Including the foreign-policy personnel who deal with Iran every day?

All candidates brag. The trick is to keep your bragging semi-plausible.

‐Santorum criticizes Romney for being just a “manager,” a businessman, not fit to be commander-in-chief and president. He acts like Romney has just waltzed onto the stage from Bain Capital.

This is odd, for two reasons: First, Romney was governor of Massachusetts — right? — so he has public experience as well as private. And he has executive political experience, unlike Santorum.

Second, conservatives don’t usually denigrate private-sector experience, do they? Isn’t that the Democrats’ job?

‐In attacking Romney, Newt cites the New York Times several times. Over and over, in fact. I have to rub my eyes, and maybe I should have my hearing checked.

‐The other day, I watched a video in which Romney engaged with an “Occupy” person on the subject of corporate profits. Romney was defending corporate profits. I don’t think I had ever seen a candidate do this. You’re supposed to blast corporate profits or change the subject.

And here Romney is again, onstage in New Hampshire, defending the basics of capitalism: defending it on both moral and utilitarian grounds.

And yet Romney is supposed to be the squish and RINO in the race? Isn’t that what I read in the conservative blogosphere over and over?

Strange . . .

‐Santorum is very good at slapping down Ron Paul’s absurd and asinine charges of corruption.

‐He, Santorum, says that his grandfather was a coal miner. He says this rather a lot, I gather. Well, whoop-de-do: Everyone’s grandfather was something.

I remember 1988, when Dick Gephardt was running in the Democratic primaries. He kept going around saying that he was the son of a milkman. He wore it as some great badge of honor.

Reagan was reported as saying, “Son of a milkman? In my community, the son of the milkman was a very big deal. A child to be envied.”

‐I don’t know whether Huntsman means to condescend. But he comes off as condescending. Maybe he can’t help it.

‐Huntsman says, “Everybody knows that Congress needs term limits.” Really, does everyone know that? I doubt most Republicans now support that position (and of course the Democrats don’t).

‐At these debates, Huntsman likes to say that he has “lived abroad four times.” Gee, whaddaya want, a cookie? Are you trying to out-brag Rick Santorum?

‐Newt handles the “chickenhawk” stuff fairly well, I believe. Ron Paul says what many on the left always say: If you didn’t serve in the military, you can’t support a war. You can oppose one, but you can’t support one.

I think that anyone who thinks this can’t think.

‐Paul repeats some other grievances of the Left: that black Americans are targeted for drug arrests, targeted for execution, and targeted for war service. When you have Ron Paul around, who needs Mother Jones or Angela Davis?

‐Am I the last to know that Mitt Romney favors a constitutional amendment defining marriage, in a traditional way (i.e., the way everyone did until about two seconds ago)?

‐Huntsman seems to congratulate himself on favoring “civil unions.” He preens a bit about this. But then he says he doesn’t favor gay marriage because he’s a “traditionalist.”

Hmm. I have a feeling that, if gay marriage were more popular, he’d support it, strongly — and pat himself on the back for it.

‐Romney treats Ron Paul with gentlemanly good humor. I’m not sure I could.

‐Santorum is very clear about the adoption of children by gays: He thinks this issue should be left to the states. He is a federalist here. There should not be a national policy on adoption, he says.

In the case of marriage, however, he says that we should have a national policy, or law. This issue should not be left to the states. Here, Santorum is not a federalist.

I realize you can’t say everything in these little soundbitey debates, but why? Why is adoption a state issue and marriage a national issue? Just ’cause? Just because Rick Santorum got out of bed one day and decided that’s how it had to be? Or is there some principle behind it?

Inquiring minds want to know.

‐A questioner on the panel keeps saying, “Why can’t two people of the same sex be in a loving relationship with each other forever?” I keep waiting for a particular answer — and it’s Romney who gives it:

“What the hell is stopping them?” (I paraphrase, of course.) “Nothing is stopping them. But the institution of marriage, and the imprimatur of marriage, is something else.”

Obviously.

‐Newt blasts the mainstream media for concentrating on any right-wing bigotry against gays while ignoring other issues and problems. For example, what about harshness toward Catholic adoption agencies, forced to accept adoption by gay couples or else? How about a little toleration all around?

Bravo, Newt, bravo. Boffo stuff.

‐Romney says, “When I’m president . . .,” then corrects himself to, “If I’m president . . .” I like that, a lot.

‐Santorum says that, in the Middle East, President Obama has let America be seen as “the weak horse.” Bingo.

‐Huntsman challenges him on Afghanistan, taunts him in a way: When will it be time to leave? Santorum answers very well: When our national security is assured (to the extent it ever can be, I suppose).

‐I’m sure this will mark me as a Communist, but I wince a little when I hear Governor Perry talking about “Eye-rack” and moving “at literally the speed of light.”

‐For a long time, Bud McFarlane’s name was kind of mud in conservative foreign-policy circles. Interesting to hear Gingrich cite him and McFarlane’s apparent support of him.

‐Diane Sawyer often looks deeply concerned and sincerely curious, doesn’t she?

‐Painful to hear Mitt Romney stumble on his English — rare for him.

‐Ron Paul wonders why we’re “involved in so many countries”: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and some others. He acts like we’re in those places for kicks. We’re just amusing ourselves, looking for trouble. Is he an adult?

Has he ever considered why we’re not so involved in South America, Central Africa, or the Melanesian islands?

‐He also acts like we hawks are against the people of Iran, for example, instead of against the dictatorship that rules them. As I’ve said before, he reminds me of the lefties during the Cold War: “Gee, what do you guys have against the Russians?”

Solzhenitsyn, Brezhnev, Sakharov, Andropov — they were all the same.

‐Let me remind you what Paul said about Michele Bachmann, on The Tonight Show: “She doesn’t like Muslims, she hates them, she wants to go get ’em.” That is — what’s the word? — a lie. And it’s not just any lie, it’s a lie with a purpose: the purpose being to paint opposition to tyranny, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation as hateful and wrong.

‐On the subject of Iran, Rick Santorum expresses contempt at Obama’s idleness and indifference in the summer of 2009. That’s when Iranians took to the streets to protest for their freedom.

In a recent interview with me, Prof. Bernard Lewis expressed the same contempt. You should have seen his face (and you will soon, I hope, when the interview is available for viewing).

‐A cheap but clever line by Santorum: Iranian radicals stole their election, Chicago pols steal their elections — Obama sympathizes.

‐One of the questioners uses “invest” as a euphemism for government expenditure — of course. They all do, don’t they?

‐Romney uses “fundamentally” a few times. Is he moving in on Newt’s patent?

‐Newt’s favorite word, possibly: “model.” (I’m not talking about Elle Macpherson, alas. I’m talking about approaches to government and policy.)

‐Mitt seems to listen intently as others talk — looks right at them. The others usually kind of do their own thing. Wait their turn.

‐I like Huntsman’s commendation of Simpson-Bowles — he’s more for Obama’s commission than Obama is.

‐Like he’s some great flat taxer or tax simplifier, Santorum says he proposes a mere five deductions: health care, housing, pensions, children, and charities. Other than that . . .

‐Like Romney, Santorum is a “different than” man (rather than a “different from” man).

‐It seems that Rick Perry has gone for a century without speaking. (Not sure this hurts him.)

‐When he does speak, he talks about America’s great potential energy resources: “solar or wind or oil and gas or coal.” Yes, he put solar and wind first! Stealing a march on Al Gore?

‐Huntsman cites a guy he has just talked to in a Keene, N.H., diner. Guy named Jamie. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But when Huntsman talks about Jamie, it sounds so incredibly condescending — like he has deigned to rub shoulders with a representative of the little people. When Phil Gramm talked about Dickie Flatt, it didn’t sound like that.

Just a stylistic thing, I’m sure.

‐Interesting that Huntsman, who is widely seen as a studied moderate, touts his economic plan as radical. He’s not just “tinkering around the edges,” he says — unlike his opponents.

‐Romney uses some lines he has used before: “We’re increasingly becoming like Europe. Europe isn’t working in Europe. It will never work here.” The lines are not new to me, but I still like them. I think I’ll like them on the next hearing too.

‐Quoting the Declaration, Romney says “unalienable,” accurately. Most people update that to “inalienable.” Chalk one up for the Mittster.

‐It’s a good night for the Wall Street Journal. Huntsman touts the paper’s support of him. Gingrich touts its support of him. Is there a Wall Street Journal primary, won by the two of them?

‐When Santorum knocks Mitt for talking about the middle class, when we ought not to have classes in America, I like it, a lot. A lot. But the message is a bit strange coming from Rick, given his grimy-hands shtick.

‐Mitt doesn’t respond to that. I was hoping he would.

‐Santorum draws some blood from Mitt on RomneyCare.

‐Mitt doesn’t respond to that either — which is odd, because he is excellent (as he has to be) at contrasting ObamaCare with MassCare, or RomneyCare.

‐Am I wrong or has no one since Tim Pawlenty used that moniker “ObomneyCare”? Kind of a clever coinage, as political coinages go . . .

‐I sense that Romney really likes to talk about slapping tariffs on China, because it allows him to go Bubba. It allows him to go populist, to get down with the demos. He’s got a pretty good rap on this too, I must say.

‐Another Bubba move of Romney’s? He uses “Democrat” as an adjective. I wonder whether he did that when he was running in Massachusetts and governing there.

‐Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I’m done with the first debate — the Saturday-night debate. Now I’m moving on to the Sunday-morning debate. But let me pause to make a general point.

When I first started doing radio and television appearances, long ago, I discovered something: How you do — the success you have — depends heavily on the questions you happen to get. Some questions set up you for success; some set you up for failure, or less than success.

The same is true in debates: How you do has a lot to do — a lot to do — with the questions you get. Obviously, you can brush aside a question and say what you want. Still: That only gets you so far . . .

Lou Cannon once told me he has a handicap when he appears on television: He always answers the question put to him. How quaint.

‐At the beginning of the second debate, the six candidates chorus, “Good morning.” Almost sweet!

‐David Gregory is charming, for a couple of minutes.

‐Newt says, “We created 11 million jobs while I was Speaker.” So help me, I think I’m kind of speechless.

What a trick, what a rhetorical device by Newtie!

‐If you read the conservative sites and the conservative blogosphere, you will hear that Mitt Romney is not a conservative. I’m not sure that will fly outside this particular world.

‐Rick Santorum has a phrase for declining to run for reelection: “bailing out.” If you don’t keep running for office, you are bailing out on people. You are virtually treasonous, or at least weak. Romney is to be faulted because he did not run for reelection forever, as Santorum did.

Santorum would have spent his entire life in Congress if the voters had let him.

This bizarre attack on Romney is the most obnoxious thing I have heard Santorum say since he attacked Rick Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, as “weak on national sovereignty.”

Barf.

‐Romney pledges, here and now, to run for a second term, if he is elected next November. That is bizarre, and dumb, in my opinion.

‐Back to Santorum for a second: Does he not believe in rotation in office? I do. No one is indispensable, even George Washington. If we are dependent on one man — if he has to hold office ad infinitum — we are doomed as a country. Laws, not men, etc.

‐Romney has a weakness: He doesn’t like to be interrupted. When he’s interrupted, he gets all squeaky and prissy.

‐Neither does Romney take criticism very well, in my observation. He reveals a glass jaw — which is worrisome.

‐Gingrich nails Romney on this outsider business: Mitt has been running for office since 1994. (Granted, he was already 47.) The voters have given him their assent only once.

‐Rick Perry seems to be running for president of the Tea Party. He talks about “leading the Tea Party.”

The thing about the Tea Party — it doesn’t like to be led, as far as I can tell. It’s just men and women acting independently.

‐Kind of funny, David Gregory grilling candidates about whether they’re truly conservative! I can see myself in such a position, making Democrats prove their left-wing bona fides!

‐Ooh, is Huntsman sore at Romney for a comment that he, Romney, made last night: about Huntsman’s service as ambassador to China. Romney keeps saying that Huntsman served Obama; I think ambassadors should be seen as serving the entire country, not just the man who happens to be president. (I hope they see themselves that way too.)

Mitt should have left this one alone, in my opinion.

‐Perry makes a charming allusion to his previous “Oops” episode.

‐Rick Santorum has provided a new definition of cheek: A questioner asks him a question, and he ignores the question entirely in order to make some other points. Fine. But then, when the questioner moves on to someone else, Santorum interjects that he wants time to answer the original question.

Priceless!

‐This is priceless too: A questioner says to Romney, “You talk all the time about opportunity for Americans. But what about Americans left behind?”

Um, they could certainly use some opportunity. That’s the whole point about opportunity: Those who have made it have had their opportunities already.

And so on . . .

‐Romney says, in a nutshell, Businesses feel that they’re under attack — that they’re opposed by Washington, rather than supported by Washington.

I think this is true. I also think that this point will have Americans nodding their heads, whether they’re directly involved in business or not.

‐Newt scores big (and makes me smile) when he mocks the EPA for its imperiousness and idiocy.

‐I think it looks fairly cheesy and amateur when the reporter-questioners read their questions, word for word. Don’t you?

‐Santorum gives a solid and credible answer on his support for the prescription-drug benefit. He placed his chips on the HSAs, the health savings accounts. Those were supposed to be “the camel’s nose under the tent,” as many said at the time, upsetting the whole structure of socialized medicine.

That seems a century ago, with ObamaCare upon us and all . . .

‐When Ron Paul says the word “entitled,” it’s pure Pittsburgh, pure Ohio Valley. That never goes away, no matter where you live, no matter how old you get. At least it hasn’t in Paul’s case.

‐Holy moly, is Jon Huntsman mean. He looks urbane — trim and slick — but he’s a junkyard dog.

‐He seems to have a hell of a claque in the audience, however. Where did they come from?

‐He knocks the others for “talking about gays, talking about unions.” Dear man, they were asked about those subjects!

‐I’m surprised another of the candidates doesn’t bring up Huntsman’s endorsement by the Boston Globe. Shouldn’t that hurt Huntsman among Republicans and conservatives?

‐Speaking of the liberal media: They have been on shining display in these two debates. The questions reflect a liberal bias. These guys can’t help themselves. It’s baked into their cakes.

They make the candidates say what pain they are willing to cause, with their spending cuts. Okay. But what about the pain caused by a collapsed economy, by a dead-broke nation? How about doing nothing to stop such conditions?

They in effect make candidates pledge to be bipartisan, to reach across the aisle. Do they importune or shame Democrats in the same way?

They insist on kindness to the sitting president. Did they ever insist on such kindness when George W. Bush occupied the office?

“What would you say or do to make Republicans uncomfortable?” they ask. Have you ever heard them ask the equivalent question of Democrats? “What would you say or do to make Democrats uncomfortable?”

They virtually obsess on gays and gay issues. And they ask, “What positive contributions do labor unions make?” (Romney, by the way, tossed off a very good answer to that, referencing carpenters.) They do everything but give a Democratic stump speech.

Years ago, Henry Kissinger offered a sharp insight about the liberal media: They have “preempted the categories.” They draw the boundaries, they determine what we discuss. That’s why we talk about right-wing anti-gay bigotry, instead of hostility to Catholic adoption agencies, as Newt said.

In the interests of fairness and balance, I think a series of conservative journalists should be allowed to moderate the Democratic debates, next time we have them.

‐Santorum is quite right about the Iranian regime: It is (probably) not deterrable. The way Professor Lewis puts it is, the possibility of nuclear retaliation is not a deterrent to Iran, but rather an inducement. Martyrdom on a mass scale is even sweeter than martyrdom for individuals. Besides, the Muslim world is very wide. What is a few million Iranians?

Kissinger says that the central question is this: Is Iran a country or a cause? If a country, well, you can deal with it, the way we deal with other countries (including the worst, such as the Soviet Union). But if it is a cause . . .

‐Since when did Paul, in these debates, become “Dr. Paul,” all the time?

‐Newt is still banging on about the New York Times and how it has found out Romney. Newt and the Times: a powerful collaboration!

Thanks for joining me today, political junkies, and I’ll see you soon.

#JAYBOOK#