Republican Roundup

It’s always fun to hear the pundits make their pronouncements following a political debate.

Such was the case last night, as a baker’s half-dozen plus one crowded the stage at the Reagan Library in an attempt to stand out from the pack.
If you missed the debate, here it is:





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM174emEhak

Time will tell if these political talking heads have nailed it, but after the debate, I listened to the largely left-leaning MSNBC to hear how folks like Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz and Chris Matthews scored the sparring.

With some deviations, the thumbnails are as follows:

RICK PERRY- The newest entrant and instant frontrunner did not perform all that well, particularly when characterizing Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme”. He may be dead-on, but that statement won’t play well with the typically older electorate that shows up to Republican primaries. Some pundits declared him dead in the water, others said it was just a rather large speed bump. Everyone agreed that his Texas style and shoot-from-the-hip rhetoric will play well to the base, but may be a real stumbling block in the general election (should he be nominated). His denial of the science behind climate change and evolution exposes Perry as a narrow-minded leader whose millions of like-minded minions will gravitate to. Failing to take a more expansive (and rational) viewpoint is nothing short of a critical missed opportunity.

MITT ROMNEY- To me, he looked to be the most at ease and comfortable under the glare of the national spotlight. He pounced on Perry’s Social Security gaffes and in doing so, perhaps created the space needed to draw the clear distinction he needs. As the former front-runner, he didn’t look intimidated at all by Perry, who seemed a bit jumpy to me. The content was good-and the tone was more statesmanlike than Perry.

MICHELLE BACHMAN- Clearly in need of political resuscitation following Rick Perry’s entry into the race, I thought she needed to really hit it out of the park. She didn’t.
She did OK in my view, but the Tea Party’s debutante has been left at the dance without a date. Many pundits declared Bachman’s candidacy DOA. They may be right.

RICK SANTORUM- I don’t know whose money he is wasting by continuing in the race, but were I a donor, I’d be asking for my money back. Basically Newt Gingrich-Light, he adds very little to the discussion.

JOHN HUNTSMAN- I was surprised at the talking heads collective dismissal of Huntsman, who I thought did very well. He was well spoken, critical without being mean-spirited and seems to have the resume that makes him qualified. He even seemed, dare I say…”presidential”? That said, there was something about him that seemed just a tad too “slick”. In fact, he reminded me a bit of failed Democratic candidate John Edwards. No one wants to be compared to that loser.

NEWT GINGRICH- This man is an enigma to me. He is at once highly intelligent and articulate—and a complete buffoon. Past inflammatory statements follow him around so much that his cogent thoughts often get lost in the baggage. His attack on the media last night (sometimes a justified strategy) seemed planned to evoke a rise out of the conservative audience—and in this case was unwarranted. The clashing of Republicans on that stage was clearly destined to happen—and was unprovoked by the moderators.
When Newt’s entire campaign leadership walked out on him some months ago, it should have been a hint to get out of the race. That he hasn’t taken it means this ongoing campaign is merely an ego trip. Newt, go away.

RON PAUL- Perhaps the most outspoken candidate in 2008, Paul last night seemed to me to be a cranky old man. With views that were so out in left field, he too has little reason to stay in, except for one aspect. The entertainment value he provides as he needles everyone else is priceless. I may even contribute to his campaign.

HERMAN CAIN- I’ve saved my favorite for last. As a former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and a Baptist preacher, he has ZERO chance of getting the nomination. Too bad, as he was the most straightforward, direct and articulate of the bunch. Aside from the “Ponzi” comments, his proposal for “9-9-9” seemed to stand out from the pack—and make more sense than most anything I’ve heard from anyone from any party. Nine percent corporate tax, nine percent income tax and nine percent sales tax---without any loopholes, exemptions or exceptions was refreshingly sensible. The revelation that General Electric made BILLIONS of dollars in profits and paid NO corporate income tax underscores a system that is functionally broken. Cain’s assertion that the federal government must get out of the business of “picking winners and losers” makes intuitive sense.

The U.S. President is becoming more of a CEO. Managing revenues—and leading Congress in the allocation of assets is Job 1. Rhetoric without funding equals empty words.

Whomever is nominated, one thing is clear: Ronald Reagan, whom each of the candidates virtually worshipped last night---couldn’t possibly be nominated by the Republican Party today. His embrace of Social Security and a host of other social programs would make him a flaming liberal when stacked against this year’s slate of candidates.

If it weren’t so pathetic, it would be amusing.

If you’d like my blog in your box, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com