Would you like to have a debate…
…about the debate?
The line forms here.
[NOTE: As these debates continue, I find myself more in tune with Stephen Green’s drunkblogging attitude. Except of course that I don’t drink. Come to think of it, that’s rather a big “except.”)
Boring.
More of the stupid party being stupid, at least they aren’t evil. Is it true nice guys finish last?
I don’t either – but may have to start if I have to watch Brian Williams again.
The WORST debate questions in the history of debating. 50 variations on “Who is more conservative?” and how do you plan to win with all those negatives?”
Typical of inside the beltway reporters who are asking questions for the sit around the water cooler discussions THEY have. WHO CARES!
I only saw the beginning, which means I mainly saw Romney’s attack on Gingrich: “You spent 15 years on K Street, and that is a problem.”
Romney’s attack represents a problem with Romney: Romney is concerned with, and allows himself to be strategically manipulated by, untruths which are believed by the left and the media. Instead of standing up for truth: Romney allows falsehood to guide his actions.
I do not believe that Romney is arguing that there is something wrong with working on K Street. Rather, Romney is arguing that left and media believe there is something wrong with working on K Street, and Republican voters must dance to the false tunes which are being played by left and media.
This option never occurs to Romney: educating American voters about the importance of the public (represented by K Street) being allowed to directly consult with members of Congress?
Persuading the public, or leading the public, never occurs to Romney as a serious option. Rather, he believes we must act according to whatever falsehoods the public believes, and that is that.
I am not saying that great Presidents are never boxed in by the realities of misguided public opinions. Of course they are. Every President is sometimes boxed in. Rather, I am saying this: Mitt Romney almost constantly perceives that he is boxed in.
What strikes me in all this, is how absent democrats are in any engagement of a national give and take dialogue during such tumultuous times. They instead, in quite sharp contrast, present their lone teleprompter President in a one sided conversation with imaginary strawmen.
SteveH,
Good point.
I’m going to be a contrarian and say that I think the debate was pretty good for our side. The people who found it boring are probably already pretty well informed and have chosen their candidate. But the average citizen who has a life may have been getting most of their info from pundit sound bites. Last night they had an opportunity to see that Republicans can have thoughtful grounds for their positions. They could hear our entire field say why Obama has failed. They saw that Romney had a backbone, Gingrich has a philosophical basis for his opinions and can do more than play Gottcha, and that Santorum really knows something about foreign affairs. (I leave Paul out of this because he is not worth wasting my time on.) This is just what average America needs to see to avoid falling for the Obama attacks that conservative are ignorant and don’t care about others.
I just don’t think most voters care about who is the true conservative; they care about who makes sense. A certain amount of boredom is probably needed to let them develop a gut feeling for the candidates and to think about issues. We make a mistake when we let our debates sink to the level of a Michael Vick dogfight. Last night didn’t change my preference for Romney, but it did convince me that our field is better than Obama. I hope it convinced others not to stay home if their favorite isn’t our candidate.
It seems to me that Mitt went from being too passive to being too aggressive and it wasn’t pretty.
Both Romney and Gingrich came across to me as being very intelligent, having a good grasp of the facts behind the cases they were making, and having strong feelings about beating Obama.
I like Santorum too…I liked him more than most people even in the early days of the campaign. I think his view about letting the large banks fail back in 2008 and 2009 is a bit too simplistic. They deserved to but that would have been catastrophic at that time.
Paul…..well…..
BTW, I just finished reading “13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown”. I recommend it highly to get an understanding of why we had that crisis and what is needed to make sure it doesn’t happen again. To give you a hint, Greenspan once said that if a bank is too big to fail, it’s too big.
The book has a slight liberal bias but I think most of us here can handle that.
Go to this link from here to get it and help Neo out with a small commish:
http://www.amazon.com/13-Bankers-Takeover-Financial-Meltdown/dp/0307379051
During the Florida debate last night, former Gov. of Massachusetts, Willard Mitt Romney, explained a very important point of what will be his immigration policy, a brilliant solution:
Self-Deportation yes Self-Deportation …
Way to go Mitt.
PS: Last but not the least, Romney is making his ITR public TODAY, just before the SOTUS speech…
What a great manager.
gcotharn (@2:37 AM) wrote:
“. . . I am saying this: Mitt Romney almost constantly perceives that he is boxed in.”
I agree with much of your analysis in your post, but I’m not sure it’s because Mitt sees himself as boxed in. I think he’s responding from his native left-of-center basis. I really do think his conservatisim is poorly worn.
I’ve made a similar point in other threads at this site by focusing on Newt; Newt is the only of the candidates who does not permit the left to define the question. Romney, Santorum, Paul all respond to a question even when it’s asked from a leftist the perspective. It’s an apologitic conservatism which is destined to keep conservatism as a minority position. It’s like saying “I’m sorry you feel that way, but . . . .” This approach validates the liberal basis of the question.
Only Newt among them takes the liberal premise of the query to task, sometimes correcting it, sometimes repudiating it. Critics read it as simply skewering “The Press” and say that this can’t play for long, but it’s much more than that. It’s an active repudiation of the liberal mindset from which point the question was asked. This was most clearly evident in Newt’s John King response calling the item “trash” (invalidating the question, the madness, if you will) and decrying the press’s constant attacks on Republicans to protect Obama (criticizing the method).
As for Romney’s left-of-center basis, Byron York’s essay yesterday has an interesting take on exactly that.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/york-romney-struggles-massachusetts-problem/332026
gellieba,
I think you miss the point of self deportation. Romney is against amnesty because it raises the expectations of illegals that they just have to ride things out. He thinks that if there is a crackdown on hiring illegals, they won’t come here for jobs and may see brighter prospects back home. He sees that illegals are going home because of our bad economy. He also sees that going out and rounding up masses of people is unworkable. Do you have any idea how many sob stories would be broadcast daily in the US and abroad if that policy were attempted. We would immediately have a NIMBY type effect: not with my friend’s mother who is an upstanding member of our church.
The best approach is to tighten our border, offer disincentives to coming and staying here illegally, offering a fair deal to those who leave and want to return, and stating clearly why all immigrants should make sure their offspring have the language, civic, and social skills needed to function here. Naturally anyone who is caught breaking laws is deported.
I know you want a fight with Romney, but his positions are actually tougher than Newt’s.
T,
Thanks for the link. When you are in a blue state, you have to pick your battles cause you’ll never win them all.
When you are in a blue state, you have to pick your battles cause you’ll never win them all.
If that blue state is California, you don’t win any of them.
…the only way to win, is lose. And move to another state.
…worked for me.
expat:
Being a first generation legal immigrant I went through the process of waiting overseas for my name to be called.
We must enforce the current Immigration Law. Politicians of both sides shall be also held accountable for the degradation of this deplorable situation which occurred during the last +35 years.
One of the first decisions the next POTUS (Newt) shall make is to seek an amendment to the Constitution, so foreign moms to be, will be no longer coming to the USA to have their baby … becoming instantly US Citizenship. It took me 10 years to become US Citizen, so there..
A the same time the next POTUS must close the border(s) by any possible ways: fence, troops, High Tech, etc…
Then the next POTUS will be in a much better position to deal with the millions of illegals (military service, $penalty, community services, deportations, no amnesty).
Newt’s approach will be fine with me.
Lastly, we cannot forget the demographics if the GOP want to survive in the years to come.
gellieba,
I really don’t think there is that much difference between Romney and Gingrich at this point. Gingrich is trying to put his nice side forward with the Dream Act and Romney his tough side. I have read that illegals are going home because of the economy, so self deportation will alleviate the problem.
Our whole immigration policy does need to be changed, but you are absolutely right that we can’t even have a reasonable discussion about this now. I know people who are caught up in the visa mess. It really sucks for people who do want to become Americans as opposed to the squeaky wheels that are well oiled by La Raza sympathizers. I though the discussion last night about English as the national language was good. To me it is simply immoral to condemn children to second-class citizenship by pretending they don’t need to speak English. Maybe if we can use this type of argument to chip away at the multiculti nonsense, the needed discussions will follow.