Skip to main content
On the off chance that someone cares about my reactions to the political process, I watched the entirety of the Republican debate on September 7 (thank you, YouTube, though Part 4 seemed snipped) and I'd have to say that I'm assured by what I saw. There are no obvious morons in the bunch,* and all of the big ideas on all the issues of the day are on the table, simply due to the sheer number of candidates and the diversity of perspectives. I thought that I'd give a short little pithy summary of each candidate's evening (hopefully humorous) and then offer some concluding thoughts:

Rick Perry: "Dude, I'm good-looking, folksy, Christian, and Texan. No, you've never seen this before! Just sit back and enjoy the ride."

Mitt Romney: "I am the only person on this stage who's read a real book in two months. I believe nothing I'm telling you, but I'm not Obama."

Newt Gingrich: "The term 'policy wonk' was coined for me. I'm personally off-putting, but I'm also correct. I won't win, but feel free to call if you get stuck."

Jon Huntsman: "I secretly hate the Republican base, I've actually been to foreign countries, and there is a 77.2% chance that I'll say something inoffensively sensible."

Michelle Bachmann: "What? You mean 'Obama Sucks' isn't good enough? I should probably be running a home-school co-op instead of running for president."

Herman Cain: "I have no chance (and Obama set back the acquisition of Black political power by 50 years) so I'll say interesting things about economic and fiscal policy. When these boobs make it worse, they'll realize I was right in 35 years."

Rick Santorum: "I am a neocon fascist. I'm not sorry about it. Our military can do everything. We are the new Rome, and we shall never fall."

Ron Paul: "I'm the most correct one here, but these people just make me so ANGRY that...war is bad. No, I will not be able to speak coherently for more than 15 seconds. Look, a squirrel!"

My take: Huntsman and Gingrich were outstanding. I'd love to hear those guys bat policy around in a room at 2 AM. Romney is very smooth, but a mite untrustworthy. The big loser tonight was Bachmann. She does not appear to be able to articulate a full political philosophy; she seems like she'd be a great advocate for children, families, or education. Fine: yes, she is attractive. And no, I don't mind attractive women in politics at all. It doesn't mean I think they are stupid, or sex objects. It means I'm a man, a young man, and it will be a long time before I fail to notice. Which reminds me: Hey, Christine O'Donnell, if you're ever in Missouri, I heard you were single and looking. I'm Catholic; so are you. Just think about it. I digress.

Santorum's answer to the question about foreign policy was horrid; re-thinking the strategic deployment of the US military and the scenarios under which it would be used is not 'isolationism.' Isolationism implies isolation--economic, social, and military--and even our friend Dr. Paul is not advocating disengagement; rather, we are advocating an engagement that is primarily economic, striving for mutual interdependence. Your suggestion otherwise says, "I'm incapable of re- examining America's military role in the world, because we cannot be wrong." You may find it useful to read President Washington's Inaugural Addresses and take heed. On the positive side, your statement in defense of Republican philosophy concerning poverty (in the face of a loaded question) bears repeating until it is at least respected, even if not agreed upon. Brian Williams was useless as the moderator, but his question to Perry with respect to the death penalty was a good one. It stuns me that although the editors of the most prominent conservative magazine in America are divided right down the middle on the issue, being a politician opposed is political suicide, or at least oblivion.
I have to say that Bachmann's stance on the wisdom of the Libya mission, coupled with her critique of President Obama's defense spending cuts and overall foreign policy, has more than the faint whiff of hypocrisy. Libya's freedom rationale, and ongoing relation to the so-called "Arab Spring," is not substantially different than the one offered for Iraq. She did not say that a good mission has been poorly executed; she said it should not have occurred. In other words, pick a basic foreign policy stance: military non-interventionism, (Dr. Paul) supranational military interventionism, (Eisenhower in Korea) or unilateral military interventionism (Bush the Younger). Good debate.

*Note: Perry mangles words, and doesn't think on his feet. Though being articulate is highly overrated (see "44th POTUS") it is prized among voters. He did sound like a dummy several times.


Popular posts from this blog

Underneath, It's All The Same

 As a general rule, I hate "pox on both your houses" takes on politics. Most of the time, I'm inclined to think that a particular person chooses this take because someone else has made them uncomfortable with a certain aspect of their own philosophy. If they adopt a posture of cynicism, maybe they can escape the moral force of that criticism. That could be bulverism in any one case, but I have seen it before, and I can't paint a picture without generalizing. Anyway, I didn't come here to talk about that. I came here to say that both major parties in the United States--and the people themselves--have embraced the absolute individualism at the heart of classical liberalism. Rightists want freedom from constraint in economics, environment, religious liberty, and a few other things. Leftists don't believe in this absolute individualism with respect to economics or the environment (not to mention religious liberty), but they do embrace it with respect to human sexu

You're Not Going To Die If The Democrats Win The Elections

I guess I'll tell you my gripes with Crisis magazine: the whole thing sounds like a Rod Dreher fever dream. You would think that armies of drag queens were kidnapping children to take them to the infamous Story Hour, in some kind of right-wing dystopian novel that is the reverse of The Handmaid's Tale. Come on, man. In other news, I would like to congratulate the Democrats, on seemingly finding some semblance of an economic message. You know, I'm old enough to remember when they actually were the party of the working class; it seemed like there for a while, they were the party of debt-ridden upper-class English majors, complaining because their slice of the pie lacks cherry sauce. [Wait, aren't they still those people?--ed.] Too soon. Anyway, I am what they used to call a "social conservative". And to be clear, I am not a social conservative for the sake of winning an election; I really believe and try to do the things that I say in this regard. Someone, howev

Final Election Analysis

 We might even say we're mere hours away from beginning to know who will assume the office of president on January 20 of next year. I'll cut right to the chase: I think this is going to be a really big win for Joe Biden. Real Clear Politics has shown a very heavy right bias, in the including of sketchy online polls, and in delaying the release of live voter polls more favorable to Joe Biden. Even so, their national polling average shows the lead for Biden at 7.8%. Keep in mind that if that were to hold, it would be a bigger percentage margin than Barack Obama achieved in 2008. The state polls are tight nearly everywhere, but they show clear leads for Joe Biden. The upper Midwest probably will not make any presidential calls on the night of the election, but Biden's lead in states that Trump should absolutely easily hold in a reelection campaign indicates to me that the president is in real trouble. He achieved a popular vote percentage in 2016 of 46%. He's going to be n