I not only listened carefully to the Republican economy debate but took verbatim notes on each question and answer (I'm a fast typist!). But I'll comment generally on the candidates and the debate rather than particularly on each candidate's answers.
General comment--The moderators were more aggressive than in previous debates, not letting the candidates get away with not answering questions, or in Cain's case, giving the same answer--999--to every question. Cain at the beginning got a very tough question on the issue of sexual harassment, which was not followed up as it might have been, probably because the audience indicated by its moans that it didn't want to go there. I thought it unfair of the moderator to push it on to Romney, asking him to comment on Cain's troubles. Romney did well in his response, which was to send it back to Cain and refuse to answer.
My overall winner is Jon Huntsman, but then I'm a reasonably rational person. Would Republicans vote for a reasonably rational candidate. Doubt it!
All of the candidates came up with simplistic solutions--reduce taxes, get rid of regulation, blab, blab, blab. And many of their responses were contradictory--they all sounded as though they hate banks, bankers, lobbyists, when it's Republicans who created these monsters. Too big to fail was their favorite evil, even more than Obama. Hey, Republicans, you gutted the regulations that fostered "too big to fail." Hypocrites.
They were ridiculous in their answers on Italy and Greece. One would think they know nothing about our global economy and how drastically we will be affected (adversely, of course) if Italy goes down. Come on, even I know this stuff. And I've never invested a dime in the stock or bond market.
Bachmann showed courage in disagreeing with the others on the current reduction in the payroll tax, which is putting a big hole in Social Security. Of course, I'm getting Social Security so that may be my bias speaking. I also liked Paul's recognition of what the Fed has done to people like me who depend almost solely on interest on savings to survive (0.5% these days), and all for the greater glory and profitability of those banks who are "too big to fail." I hate the Fed almost as much as Ron Paul, and that's saying something.
Cain is an absolute sleaze, with a few memorized answers (and canned put-downs) that he throws in repeatedly. If Republicans actually think he's presidential material then they are, if possible, more handicapped in the intelligence department than I could have imagined. At the end of the debate, the moderator from Mad Money (Jim whatever, the man who screams) told Cain specifically that the next question did not lend itself to a "999" response. And, that's exactly what we got, although Cain managed not to say "999." He's toast because of the sexual harassment scandal but he should be toast because he's incompetent. As an aside, his comment about "Princess Nancy" (particularly in light of his problem with women) was ugly. I just listened to a Republican operative state that he was brilliant. OMG!
Perry embarrassed himself horribly and I suspect everyone on the stage and in the audience. All I could think of was how awful for his wife and children. In one of his answers, he said he was planning to get rid of three government agencies and then couldn't remember the third. He stumbled on many other answers as well. Definitely not a debater. Against someone like Obama in the national debates he would fail miserably.
Romney is slick, and still not likable. He had a few questions that he avoided, but he answered most, with many answers that I disagree with, but at least he speaks with some authority. He said many things to pander to the audience, particularly his answer on China and how to deal with China and its currency issues. Impose tariffs. And will China respond, "Okay, U.S. Treasury, you impose tariffs we're cashing in." Did those in the audience even realize that China holds most of our debt. We needed a more nuanced answer but I do agree with Gingrich that 30 seconds does not permit for a serious answer. So why did Gingrich, and the others, agree to the debate terms.
Huntsman is my favorite. He comes across as intelligent, thoughtful, and sincere. He made some good points on how he had governed his own state, introducing improved health care and a flat tax. And he went after Romney on China. Easy answers are not available as Huntsman pointed out, and he suggested that Romney was pandering. He was! I hope if we must wind up with a Republican president, it's Huntsman. Intelligence counts, although I suspect not with Republicans.
Santorum is so dislikable, at least to me. He pounded on his chest too many times, insisting that he, unlike the others. has the answer, apparently to everything. I agree with him that we need to bring back our manufacturing base--don't we all agree, but how does he plan to do that in an economy that's gone global. We needed some backup, some facts, something more than blanket assertions.
Bachmann was a bit better than in the last debate, but she so rarely answers the question. She comes to the debates with bits and pieces on every subject and then throws out those bits and pieces even if they don't actually relate to the question. She's won't bounce back, so I won't spend too much time on her, but good for her on her response to the payroll tax.
Paul always delights me. He has principles and refuses to pander although he was terrible on some questions--student loans in particular. We can't pretend what's there isn't there. Gingrich flopped on that one as well. Who cares at this point how student loans got started (LBJ is dead)--the problem is, how do we fix the enormous debt that students currently face. I agree with some of Paul's positions, a very few, and disagree with most. But he's too extreme, even for the Republicans, so I doubt he'll be the candidate--highly doubt it.
Gingrich is incredibly pompous and he definitely annoyed the female moderator (don't know her name), so she pushed him hard on some questions that he refused to answer. I hope he doesn't bounce back--he's the gold standard in Republican hypocrisy (having had an affair with a Congressional aid when he was condemning Clinton over Monica), but with Republicans one never knows. All of the candidates were fixated on Fanny and Freddy, including Gingrich. One of the moderators pointed out that Gingrich walked away with $300,000 in consulting fees from Fanny, and Gingrich didn't flinch. Did I mention the "gold standard"?
No comments:
Post a Comment