Tag Archives: 2012

What happens when Gingrich gets his mojo on? The CNN/Tea Party Debate.

They say that you can’t win a debate, but you sure can lose one. Tonight, despite walking in at the front of the pack, Perry sure did his best to prove that true. He’ll stay on top of the polls, for now, but he didn’t do himself any favors tonight. Like any front-runner, he took a beating for his record, and he managed, semi-successfully, to avoid saying anything too damning.

That said, he didn’t sound too articulate, either.

And that’s all I’ll say about that.

Now on to the rest of the pack. Left to right:

1. Huntsman: For a guy who started his campaign calling for civility, he sure has come a long ways. I wonder if it has anything to do with his lead consultant, one John Weaver.

2. Cain: Tonight was his best debate, yet, but I don’t think it will move him much. He still brings a breath of fresh air to the campaign, though, and I like that.

3. Bachmann: She’s an insurgent by nature, and she does best on the attack, which she did, taking on Perry on his 2007 executive order by-passing the Texas legislature to inoculate 12-year old girls against human papillomavirus. She’d make a better VP than a President.

4. Romney: After a sharp back and forth on Perry’s social security comments comparing it to a Ponzi scheme, Romney found a chance to lay out his seven point plan to rebuild the economy. He’ll stay in second place, but he took a few blows. He’s no Tea Party darling.

5. Perry: See above.

6. Paul: With Blitzer in control, Paul was noticeably less vocal than usual. And while he may understand motives for anti-Americanism abroad, he struck the wrong cord with his audience when Rick Santorum took him to task.

7. Gingrich: If a debate could be won, then the trophy would go to Gingrich. Deftly dodging Blitzer’s bait, he took Obama to task, focused on the economy, and slipped in critiques of czars and subsidies to GE. Kudos to Newt.

8. Santorum: Good showing tonight, even if I wish he’d go home. Strong at points, petulant at others.

I’ve been told that debates were not a good indication of who would be a good president. That may be, but they sure show a lot about who shouldn’t sit in that seat.

If nothing else, they are great political theater.

Reagan Debate Recap: Perry, Romney and six other candidates

Ah, presidential debates. They have little to do with demonstrating one’s fitness for the highest office in the land, and yet they are often weighed and measured with the highest of stakes.

Such it is for our generation, cultured to see winners and losers after a series of head to head play-offs, championships, and competitions between athletes. We’ve simply transferred those expectations over to the selection process for our chief executive.

Enough philosophizing, though, let’s look at last night. What were the substantive results on the race?

From my perspective (in an arm-chair far from the spin rooms), we are starting to see true colors. Further, with Rick Perry finally in the race and on the podium last night, the race feels full. We’re still missing Sarah Palin, but she’ll show up, if just with her bus as she “tours” America.

Yes, I do think there’s a good chance she’ll get in.

But back to the debate. Since your time is short, here’s the skinny on the “winners” and “losers.” Since his supporters will cry “foul” if he doesn’t get his due for winning the after debate polls, we’ll start with Ron Paul.

  • Ron “if I had a silver dime for every time the press ignores me” Paul: From moments of brilliance (attacking Perry with an ad for his support of Al Gore then going after him on HillaryCare in the debate) to sheer weirdness (gas for a “silver dime”), I both like what he says and shake my head. He’s kaleidoscopic.
  • Mitt “I have a 160-page plan to kick-start the economy” Romney: Coming into the debate as the strongest candidate but down in the polls due to Perry’s entrance to the race, he managed to come off articulate, graceful (especially when the rest of the candidates were piling it on to Perry), and wise (as when he took a Reagan-esc stance on Social Security). While not the clear winner, he remains on his pedestal as the man to beat (Obama in 2012).
  • Rick “We execute bad people” Perry: with expectations set high, Perry came out strong against Ponzi schemes–er, I mean Social Security–but weakened as the others pointed out his weaknesses. Fortunately, for him, it was not an “intellectual discussion,” a term he use dismissively twice, and he’s not Mormon, as Chris Matthews pointed out repeatedly. I couldn’t help but feel like he had all of George W.’s strength, but none of his charm or wit. A pretender.
  • Jon “I can beat Obama if we skip primaries” Huntsman: Trailing (everyone) Huntsman excelled at looking and sounding articulate, but also a bit petty. Huntsman repeatedly drew attention to Utah’s economic success under his term as Governor, but I couldn’t help but wonder why all the Utah State Legislators who served with him  and delivered those bills to his desk are now supporting Romney…
  • Newt “I’m running for Veep” Gingrich: To the press: don’t mess. Gingrich was articulate and reminded us all that he was a part of the Reagan revolution. I couldn’t shake the feeling that he’s shifting to VP candidacy land, though.
  • Herman “9%” Cain: He continues to come up with good one liners, but he’s not making ground.
  • Michelle “SNL” Bachmann. I know SNL was watching, just hoping she’d stay in long enough for them to cast her…in the meanwhile, she’s fading. Perry has stolen her based, Pawlenty was gone for her to fight with, and her performance was next to unremarkable.
  • Rick Santorum: Did you know his parents and grandparents were Italian immigrants? He won’t leave until they stop inviting him, but he’s on stage…for now.
Your take? Is this really already a two-horse race? Can Huntsman pull out a New Hampshire miracle and become relevant in 2012? Will Bachmann find a way to win more than just the Iowa straw poll? Should we care that Ron Paul gets ignored by the media while last place runner Huntsman is their darling?
Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan

Image via Wikipedia

The biggest loser of the night, as one colleague pointed out to me? Ronald

 Reagan. He’d be a RINO next to these guys, especially Perry and Bachmann (who at points sounded like a psychic trying to channel his spirit). He compromised, raised taxes, grew government to fight the “evil empire,” and, most importantly, inspired Americans to save the economy without the government’s help. Maybe it’s time the candidates stopped trying to be the Gipper and started trying to be themselves.

Also, to beat Obama and get the economy back on track.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Mitt Romney and “the Mormon Question.”

Governor Mitt Romney of MA

Image via Wikipedia

The “Mormon” question. [sigh] Who hasn’t heard it yet?

Can a Mormon be elected president?

I can’t get into a conversation about politics and the 2012 campaign for the White House without Mitt Romney coming up. This includes conversations with your average voters and political insiders, family and friends, Democrats and Republicans alike. (Why, yes, I do live in Utah…why do you ask?)

My in-laws ask about what I think Mitt’s chances are while munching on cupcakes after the baby blessing. While in D.C. last week, GOP party insiders and legislators from at least three different states  swapped reasons why they think that, short of a major scandal, Mitt’s got the nomination all but in the bag. The man is getting a lot of attention (right now), and there are few who think he can’t pull it off. Continue reading

Could you say “President Ryan” in 2013?

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 05:  U.S. Rep. Paul Rya...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Rep. Paul Ryan is thinking about running for the soon to be vacated US Senate seat in his state.

I think he could do better. And so could America. We could draft him for the Presidency.

In truth, a presidential run makes a lot more sense for Ryan than does a Senate race. Ryan is already the de facto leader of the Republican Party on the most critical issues of the day. If he’s concerned about spending time with his family, what better way and better time (when they are little and not distressed teenagers thrown into the national spotlight) to bond with them than a family ad­ven­ture seeing America followed by a job where dad could work from home? While there are many potential candidates for the Wisconsin Senate seat, who among the current presidential contenders is really up to winning and then governing? A new poll shows a plurality of GOP voters don’t think any of them is. (“Some 45 percent now say they’re dissatisfied with the GOP candidates who have declared or are thought to be serious about running, up from 33 percent two months ago, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. Just 41 percent are satisfied with the likely Republican field, down from 52 percent.”)

Further,

One Senate seat is not vital to the republic, but Ryan himself has made the case how critical it is to address our looming debt crisis now. Without the White House and without someone exceptionally capable to advocate for it, it’s hard to see how the “The Path to Prosperity” is ever going to be enacted. I’m at a loss to think of another Republican who can bring together Tea Partyers, wonks, social conservatives, hawks, libertarians, Wall Street and Main Street Republicans and connect with a new generation of Republicans.

In a very practical sense, the question for Ryan is: Why not give his party and the country six months (September 2011 to February 2012)? By then he’ll either have failed to catch fire or he’ll have a clear path to the presidential nomination. Six months. Twenty-four weeks. For a politician constantly at work in Congress, in town halls and in media appearances, that doesn’t sound like that much. (In fact, I would venture that his schedule is more rigorous now than the average presidential contender’s.)

You see, there is no good reason for Ryan to avoid a presidential run. Sometimes, if you don’t see the opening and seize it, a better one never comes along. Bill Clinton understood this in 1992.

via If Paul Ryan can run for Senate, why not for the presidency? – Right Turn – The Washington Post.

Take the opening, Representative. Take it.

For an earlier post where I have looked at Rep. Ryan’s work on the budget, check here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Will he? Should he?

Jon Huntsman, Jr. leaves his post as Ambassador of China today. Will he throw his hat in the ring?

(h/t Wall Street Journal)