Romney Can't Win for Winning
Another GOP Debate
Following the debate Thursday in Florida, the apparently universal consensus (spinmeisters, focus groups, polls) had Romney as the clear winner, and Perry stumbled. The focus group showed people were leaving Perry for Romney. And just when I thought I was seeing a clear trend, the FL straw poll 2 days later had Cain way ahead of both Romney & Perry -- seemed a lot of them were fed up w. politicians in general -- gee, I wonder why after Obama. And Romney'd been working FL hard, I thought. So things are still fluid, w. rumblings of Christy entering the race. And Romney today had audience w. the Donald, as all candidates seem to be making that pilgrimage – is he (the Donald) the king-maker?
After a few debates, there’s beginning to be a lot of repetition, which of course serves some purposes. But I’ll only highlight some key new points or exchanges.
Perry was asked where his detailed jobs plan is – others [most notably Romney] have posted theirs. He didn’t seem to have an answer. Bachman’s response to how much should people get to keep of their income (vs. taxes) was hardly credible or realistic – “all of it.”
I agree w. Santorum (& Reagan & FDR) that public service employee unions should be eliminated. I also applaud Santorum when he stands up against the isolationist factions in the GOP that seem to be growing (e.g., Ron Paul, Huntsman, Johnson – said we need to cut defense 43%!!!). Didn’t work leading up to WWI, WWII, 9/11,....And as Santorum said, to counter Huntsman that we can’t afford a war abroad, “just because the economy is weak, it doesn’t mean our values are weak,” and that basically we cannot afford not to win.
Romney seemed to find a softer, more acceptable way of countering Perry without putting off those whose support he might later need. Like after being accused of supporting Obama’s “Race to the Top,” saying “nice try” (he’s for keeping education at the state level, and most agreed we need to abolish the Dept. of Education). Or regarding Social Security, that Perry needs to find that Rick Perry who keeps popping up in his book saying SS is unconstitutional & should be abolished, and get him to stop talking if he no longer agrees. I also like his line about mostly private business experience, and limited government experience – 4 yrs as governor, and “didn’t inhale” (parodying Clinton).
Perry dug himself in deeper on immigration. When attacked for giving children of illegals a $22,000/year in-state tuition break, he accused those who don’t agree of not having a heart. Between that and his HPV stance, he’s certainly sounding pretty bleeding-heart liberal in justifying this or that. Mitt said we need to turn off magnets to illegal immigration like that, and the others basically agreed. It seemed like Perry was the standout against a border fence, saying boots on the ground only is the approach. Santorum rightly asked “is that working?” In a previous debate, Perry said that when Obama came to El Paso, he said there was no problem in Texas with the border/illegals, and Perry said he was either lying or ignorant. So which is it, gov. Perry – was Obama right, or isn’t boots on the ground working?
I agree w. Gingrich that if countries habitually vote against us in the UN, why should we give them (or the UN?) aid?
Herman Cain’s cancer survival story was not only inspirational, but a great case against Obamacare, which as he pointed out would likely have cost him his life in reducing/delaying his choice/treatment that was time-critical. Both Huntsman and Perry seemed in agreement that the states should experiment with health care insurance options, which seems to undermine Perry’s (& others’) objections to Romneycare in Massachusetts. And I noted one guy in the post-debate focus group had that same realization I did. Seems like Perry comes up short on any such experimentation in Texas – with the lowest insured rate in the country. Romney did a bit better explaining Romneycare, how it was private not public, how parts of it he’d vetoed but the liberal legislature overrode his veto, how states also have individual mandates for car insurance, etc. This repetition seemed to finally pay off w. several in the focus group interviewed afterwards, finally finding it easier to swallow.
Even I was embarrassed for Perry when he stumbled so miserably in trying to raise the list of Romney’s “flip-flops.” Clearly unprepared and/or incoherent, and hurt himself much more than Romney.
I liked Newt’s story of how 32 years ago the country was in about the same place – malaise. But a leader came along and said that “when your neighbor’s unemployed, it’s a recession; when you’re unemployed it’s a depression; and when Jimmy Carter is unemployed, it’s a recovery.” Santorum chimed in that Obama is the new King George the IIIrd. And then Johnson brought down the house with, “My neighbor’s 2 dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than Obama.” The MSM is anxious to defuse that by saying he stole it from Limbaugh, but Rush could care less. Mitt showed a bit of humor saying he was having trouble getting a couple images out of his mind – of Perry saying a combination of Cain & Newt would be his VP choice, and of Johnson’s neighbor’s dogs.
Luntz’s focus group afterwards called Romney “Reaganesque,” “elegant, decisive, presidential...”, and that they liked his accountability, that he admitted he would have done some things differently. Krauthammer on O’Reilly called Romney the most electable, and said the Dems say he’s the one they fear most in the election.
Dick Morris seemed to echo a thought I’ve had, that there’s a sizeable GOP group that seems constantly looking for the “un-Romney” – anyone but Romney. E.g., the clamoring for Perry, then when he stumbles, they clamor for Cain (as Cain says, it’s “Cain vs. more of the same” – he’s the un-politician – well, Romney’s close, having “not inhaled.” I have heard one talking head suggesting Cain for at least VP, even over Rubio). And now there’s increasing hope and talk of Christy getting in the race. From my perspective, they are, as the Good Book says, “looking beyond the mark,” and will always find their latest hope coming up short. Romney’s in many ways the most ideally suited to the problems we’re facing, and more than good-enough. Whether their basic unspoken objection is his religion, or demeanor (although he seems to be loosening up), it may be hard to say. If the latter, where did voting for style & demeanor get us with Obama? And if the former, well, I addressed that well in earlier posts – time to get over such pettiness for the good of the country.
Obamanomics
Obama last year said “the last thing you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes.” Well, we now appear to be on the cusp of a double-dip recession, but Obama seems to have changed his tune at the behest of Mr. Buffet & his secretary. Buffet says it’s unfair that he pays a lower rate in taxes than his secretary. I say he should pay her more so that she can afford to make more investments to make more in capital gains (as Buffet), which are taxed at a lower rate. Nothing’s preventing him from doing that, or voluntarily paying more to the government. And in fact, he’d already paid income tax on the money he earned to then invest, so capital gains is a second tax, so technically he’s incorrect about his secretary. So if, as he says, raising taxes in the middle of a recession is the last thing you want to do, apparently this is the last thing he wants to do. Which gives me great hope that we’re done with him – his job is done..... good-bye, and good riddance!
The Solyndra solar cell company bankruptcy, following a half billion in government loans after several White House visits and warnings they were a bad investment, cast additional doubt on the integrity of this administration (and claims to not do “business as usual”), and its pick of green energy initiatives (to say nothing of “shovel-ready jobs,” etc.).
If Obama makes one more nearly weekly trip to LA to raise funds among the Beverly Hills hoi-paloi, I may have to seriously consider boycotting the movie industry -- a real sacrifice for me.
Do I see more cracks in Obama's base? Maxine Waters seems offended that he chided the Black Congressional Congress for whining, whereas he dare not chide the Latino, gay or Jewish caucuses.
The Middle East
The Iranians were back doing what they do best – taking and holding American hostages for years, then finally releasing them for ransom. And they appear closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability. Interesting reports, though, of some of their key nuclear scientists recently being assassinated by unknowns using car bombs. And a report that the US sold Israel 50 bunker-buster bombs. We continue the march to Armageddon.
The Palestinians were at the UN, side-stepping direct peace negotiations w. Israel, by seeking statehood from the general assembly. As Netanyahu said, instead of seeking a state thru peace, they seek a state without peace. Obama did make a speech more supportive of Israel (finally), but in this political year with his base eroding (among Blacks, Jews & Latinos), who knows his motivation & timing? And Ahmadinejad got another circus appearance at the UN, saying 9/11 was a US conspiracy.
Pakistani intelligence was shown to be behind a mob attack on the US embassy in Pakistan, straining relations w. the US to the point of many US lawmakers demanding we halt aid to them.
Following the debate Thursday in Florida, the apparently universal consensus (spinmeisters, focus groups, polls) had Romney as the clear winner, and Perry stumbled. The focus group showed people were leaving Perry for Romney. And just when I thought I was seeing a clear trend, the FL straw poll 2 days later had Cain way ahead of both Romney & Perry -- seemed a lot of them were fed up w. politicians in general -- gee, I wonder why after Obama. And Romney'd been working FL hard, I thought. So things are still fluid, w. rumblings of Christy entering the race. And Romney today had audience w. the Donald, as all candidates seem to be making that pilgrimage – is he (the Donald) the king-maker?
After a few debates, there’s beginning to be a lot of repetition, which of course serves some purposes. But I’ll only highlight some key new points or exchanges.
Perry was asked where his detailed jobs plan is – others [most notably Romney] have posted theirs. He didn’t seem to have an answer. Bachman’s response to how much should people get to keep of their income (vs. taxes) was hardly credible or realistic – “all of it.”
I agree w. Santorum (& Reagan & FDR) that public service employee unions should be eliminated. I also applaud Santorum when he stands up against the isolationist factions in the GOP that seem to be growing (e.g., Ron Paul, Huntsman, Johnson – said we need to cut defense 43%!!!). Didn’t work leading up to WWI, WWII, 9/11,....And as Santorum said, to counter Huntsman that we can’t afford a war abroad, “just because the economy is weak, it doesn’t mean our values are weak,” and that basically we cannot afford not to win.
Romney seemed to find a softer, more acceptable way of countering Perry without putting off those whose support he might later need. Like after being accused of supporting Obama’s “Race to the Top,” saying “nice try” (he’s for keeping education at the state level, and most agreed we need to abolish the Dept. of Education). Or regarding Social Security, that Perry needs to find that Rick Perry who keeps popping up in his book saying SS is unconstitutional & should be abolished, and get him to stop talking if he no longer agrees. I also like his line about mostly private business experience, and limited government experience – 4 yrs as governor, and “didn’t inhale” (parodying Clinton).
Perry dug himself in deeper on immigration. When attacked for giving children of illegals a $22,000/year in-state tuition break, he accused those who don’t agree of not having a heart. Between that and his HPV stance, he’s certainly sounding pretty bleeding-heart liberal in justifying this or that. Mitt said we need to turn off magnets to illegal immigration like that, and the others basically agreed. It seemed like Perry was the standout against a border fence, saying boots on the ground only is the approach. Santorum rightly asked “is that working?” In a previous debate, Perry said that when Obama came to El Paso, he said there was no problem in Texas with the border/illegals, and Perry said he was either lying or ignorant. So which is it, gov. Perry – was Obama right, or isn’t boots on the ground working?
I agree w. Gingrich that if countries habitually vote against us in the UN, why should we give them (or the UN?) aid?
Herman Cain’s cancer survival story was not only inspirational, but a great case against Obamacare, which as he pointed out would likely have cost him his life in reducing/delaying his choice/treatment that was time-critical. Both Huntsman and Perry seemed in agreement that the states should experiment with health care insurance options, which seems to undermine Perry’s (& others’) objections to Romneycare in Massachusetts. And I noted one guy in the post-debate focus group had that same realization I did. Seems like Perry comes up short on any such experimentation in Texas – with the lowest insured rate in the country. Romney did a bit better explaining Romneycare, how it was private not public, how parts of it he’d vetoed but the liberal legislature overrode his veto, how states also have individual mandates for car insurance, etc. This repetition seemed to finally pay off w. several in the focus group interviewed afterwards, finally finding it easier to swallow.
Even I was embarrassed for Perry when he stumbled so miserably in trying to raise the list of Romney’s “flip-flops.” Clearly unprepared and/or incoherent, and hurt himself much more than Romney.
I liked Newt’s story of how 32 years ago the country was in about the same place – malaise. But a leader came along and said that “when your neighbor’s unemployed, it’s a recession; when you’re unemployed it’s a depression; and when Jimmy Carter is unemployed, it’s a recovery.” Santorum chimed in that Obama is the new King George the IIIrd. And then Johnson brought down the house with, “My neighbor’s 2 dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than Obama.” The MSM is anxious to defuse that by saying he stole it from Limbaugh, but Rush could care less. Mitt showed a bit of humor saying he was having trouble getting a couple images out of his mind – of Perry saying a combination of Cain & Newt would be his VP choice, and of Johnson’s neighbor’s dogs.
Luntz’s focus group afterwards called Romney “Reaganesque,” “elegant, decisive, presidential...”, and that they liked his accountability, that he admitted he would have done some things differently. Krauthammer on O’Reilly called Romney the most electable, and said the Dems say he’s the one they fear most in the election.
Dick Morris seemed to echo a thought I’ve had, that there’s a sizeable GOP group that seems constantly looking for the “un-Romney” – anyone but Romney. E.g., the clamoring for Perry, then when he stumbles, they clamor for Cain (as Cain says, it’s “Cain vs. more of the same” – he’s the un-politician – well, Romney’s close, having “not inhaled.” I have heard one talking head suggesting Cain for at least VP, even over Rubio). And now there’s increasing hope and talk of Christy getting in the race. From my perspective, they are, as the Good Book says, “looking beyond the mark,” and will always find their latest hope coming up short. Romney’s in many ways the most ideally suited to the problems we’re facing, and more than good-enough. Whether their basic unspoken objection is his religion, or demeanor (although he seems to be loosening up), it may be hard to say. If the latter, where did voting for style & demeanor get us with Obama? And if the former, well, I addressed that well in earlier posts – time to get over such pettiness for the good of the country.
Obamanomics
Obama last year said “the last thing you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes.” Well, we now appear to be on the cusp of a double-dip recession, but Obama seems to have changed his tune at the behest of Mr. Buffet & his secretary. Buffet says it’s unfair that he pays a lower rate in taxes than his secretary. I say he should pay her more so that she can afford to make more investments to make more in capital gains (as Buffet), which are taxed at a lower rate. Nothing’s preventing him from doing that, or voluntarily paying more to the government. And in fact, he’d already paid income tax on the money he earned to then invest, so capital gains is a second tax, so technically he’s incorrect about his secretary. So if, as he says, raising taxes in the middle of a recession is the last thing you want to do, apparently this is the last thing he wants to do. Which gives me great hope that we’re done with him – his job is done..... good-bye, and good riddance!
The Solyndra solar cell company bankruptcy, following a half billion in government loans after several White House visits and warnings they were a bad investment, cast additional doubt on the integrity of this administration (and claims to not do “business as usual”), and its pick of green energy initiatives (to say nothing of “shovel-ready jobs,” etc.).
If Obama makes one more nearly weekly trip to LA to raise funds among the Beverly Hills hoi-paloi, I may have to seriously consider boycotting the movie industry -- a real sacrifice for me.
Do I see more cracks in Obama's base? Maxine Waters seems offended that he chided the Black Congressional Congress for whining, whereas he dare not chide the Latino, gay or Jewish caucuses.
The Middle East
The Iranians were back doing what they do best – taking and holding American hostages for years, then finally releasing them for ransom. And they appear closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability. Interesting reports, though, of some of their key nuclear scientists recently being assassinated by unknowns using car bombs. And a report that the US sold Israel 50 bunker-buster bombs. We continue the march to Armageddon.
The Palestinians were at the UN, side-stepping direct peace negotiations w. Israel, by seeking statehood from the general assembly. As Netanyahu said, instead of seeking a state thru peace, they seek a state without peace. Obama did make a speech more supportive of Israel (finally), but in this political year with his base eroding (among Blacks, Jews & Latinos), who knows his motivation & timing? And Ahmadinejad got another circus appearance at the UN, saying 9/11 was a US conspiracy.
Pakistani intelligence was shown to be behind a mob attack on the US embassy in Pakistan, straining relations w. the US to the point of many US lawmakers demanding we halt aid to them.
Comments
Post a Comment