Tonight's Debate: The Palmetto Ping Pong Match

Four of the five GOP candidates obviously had a mission tonight, and it wasn't to tell Republicans how they were going to defeat Obama - it was to try and derail Mitt Romney,the front runner.

I doubt they gained much ground.

One positive thing is that this particular debate was moderated by FOX, so partisan antics by the likes of people like George Stephanopoulos were mercifully absent and a much more professional atmosphere ensued.

Newt Gingrich quite correctly caught some heat from Bret Baier about the anti-capitalist attacks on Romney, but also managed to get off a number of good lines, especially when Juan Williams tried to play the race card and accused Gingrich of belittling minorities for suggesting that poor, young kids be paid for "light janitorial work" at school.

Gingrich replied, "No, I don't see that."

"They'd be getting money, which is a good thing if you're poor. Only the elites despise earning money," he said to tremendous applause.

Romney continued to be basically untouched, and continued to concentrate on taking on President Obama.

"I know the Democrats are going to be showing videos of, you know, old people being thrown off cliffs and so forth. But don't forget who it was that cut Medicare by $500 billion, and that was President Obama to pay for Obamacare."

He also did a decent job of defending himself from the expected Bain Capital attacks.

Rick Perry accused Bain of coming into Georgetown, S.C., closing a steel mill and said Bain had "..picked that company over, and a lot of people lost jobs there", Romney replied that Bain had actually invested in two steel mills and invested for seven or eight years, but that the mills closed because of foreign competition which killed their business.

"Ultimately, what happened from abroad, dumping steel into this country, led to some 40 different steel mills being closed," Romney said. "I understand what happens when China cheats, or when others cheat and dump products into this country. That's one of the reasons I'm running, is to make sure we crack down on cheaters."

It's not so much cheating as the problem of unionized American steelworkers competing with Chinese labor, but he's essentially correct and Bain's steel mills weren't the only ones affected.

Romney defended his record at Bain, saying he invested in more than 100 businesses and had an overall successful record of job creation, which is normally what happens when businesses thrive.

"If people want to have someone who understands how the economy works, having worked in the real economy, then I'm the guy who can best post up against Barack Obama," he said.

The only two points were Romney was rocked back for a second concerned calls from Rick Perry and Rick Santorum for him to release his tax records,and accusations that he had failed to challenge a Massachusetts law that that allowed convicted felons to vote while still on parole.

Romeny's answer to the first was that he'd likely get around to doing it eventually, and to the second that he was faced with a state legislature that was 85% Democrat and realized it was a no win situation.

An interesting head to head occurred between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, of all people when Paul cited Santorum's record of voting for raising the national deficit, supporting Sarbanes-Oxley banking laws and voting against right-to-work labor laws, a particular sore point in South Carolina after the dust up over Boeing wanting to relocate jobs here. Santorum accused Paul of quoting left wing Soros backed sources for his information, but didn't really effectively dent them as untrue.

Overall, I don't think anyone particularly did any damage to Romney,although Newt Gingrich may have done himself some good in putting himslef back to the front - by a nose- of the anti-Romney forces.

Rick Santorum looked just uneven enough to give Gingrich the edge, and a lot of what came out tonight about Ron Paul's stance on the military will not play well in South Carolina, although his claim that taxes should be lowered to zero certainly raised a cheer.

Another Reason Rick Perry Shouldn't Be President

Frankly, he's almost as clueless about foreign policy as Herman Cain and Ron Paul.

Take a look at this, from Saturday's debate:



Governor Perry, believe it or not, says he would send U.S. troops back to Iraq.

"The idea that we allow the Iranians to come back into Iraq and take over that country, with all of the treasures, both in blood and money, that we have spent in Iraq- because this president wants to kowtow to his liberal leftist base, and move out those men and women. He could have renegotiated that time frame."

He apparently doesn't realize that Maliki and the Iraqis ordered us out of Iraq at the behest of the Iranian controlled Shi'ite bloc that's responsible for Maliki being in power. During the flag lowering ceremony when the last of our troops left Iraq, not one member of the Iraqi government we put in power with our blood and treasure could be bothered to attend.

Is Governor Perry planning to invade again and have our military take out that shiny new army the American taxpayers built for Iraq? Is he going to have our troops overthrow the 'model Arab democracy' we left there?

As I wrote long ago, with Maliki and his friends, it was always a matter of 'thank you infidels for your time and your money. Now leave, so we can bond with our jihad brothers in Iran.'

Even before President Obama pulled us out of Iraq, Maliki and the Sadrist bloc that keeps him in power were quite clear about what they wanted. Once we empowered the Shi'ites and rushed them into elections less than two years after we invaded that were ultimately decided on tribal grounds, it was over.

Governor Perry is correct that we essentially left Iraq after putting in power a Shi'ite Islamic Republic based on sharia. But unless Governor Perry plans to go to war again and depose that government, he's simply being stupid.

This is not the first time he's demonstrated his ignorance of foreign policy matters. Back in September, when he was asked what he would do if he got the 3 AM call saying that Pakistan's nukes had fallen into the hands of the Taliban, here was his reply:

Well obviously, before you ever get to that point you have to build a relationship in that region. That’s one of the things that this administration has not done. Yesterday, we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with — and that’s the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country. So to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States.

For instance, when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16′s, we chose not to do that. We did the same with Taiwan. The point is, our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends, we will be standing by there with them.

Today, we don’t have those allies in that region that can assist us if that situation that you talked about were to become a reality.

Yes, according to Governor Perry, his solution to the Taliban or one of Pakistan's other terrorist groups getting control of Pakistan's nukes was to call and ask India or Taiwan what to do!

I'm sure he's a fine governor, but I wouldn't want him within spitting distance of the Oval Office.

Summing Up Iowa

The Iowa Caucus has come and gone.

The results were a virtual photo finish between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, but the real winner of course was Rick Santorum.

I say that because Santorum managed to come up on top with a shoestring campaign that spent a fraction of what his opponents did in Iowa, and he did it in spite of being largely marginalized in the debates. He did it in a way that you can really only do in a small state like Iowa - using shoe leather and rental car miles. Like Mike Huckabee before him, Rick Santorum triumphed in Iowa because a lot of people had a chance to meet him and liked what they saw.

Also working in his favor was the high percentage of social conservatives in Iowa and the fact that his rivals imploded. In the end, it came down to a choice between Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

Despite various naysayers, the fact that Mitt Romney did as well as he did in a Midwestern state loaded with evangelicals and social conservatives says something about his relatively broad appeal to various factions. He wasn't supposed to win here, and he actually devoted very little time in Iowa until the last weeks, when polls showed him near the top of the field.

As I wrote on these pages long ago, a significant part of this election after three plus years of Barack Obama is going to be about competency, and Mitt Romney definitely comes across as a competent candidate whom could actually perform well in the Oval Office.

Both Romney and Santorum now proceed to New Hampshire with very different challenges.

Rick Santorum has to raise enough money based on his Iowa finish to put together a campaign organization capable of taking him to the next level. If he doesn't, he simply won't go much further. He also needs to be able to adjust his message sufficiently to appeal to voters more concerned with the economy than social conservative issues.

And finally, Santorum is no longer going to be marginalized as a candidate, with all that implies. He's going to be getting greater scrutiny, and he's going to be a target. How he deals with that will make or break his candidacy. The atacks have already started with the meme in a number of quarters that he's a 'big government conservative.' He is in the sense that like almost everyone else in the GOP fold he believes in a strong national defense,border security, and a sound fiscal and trade policy. He doesn't if you translate it as 'welfare state', which is what it really means today.

Mitt Romney's challenge will be to build on his success. This is going to be a little trickier than it sounds. While Mitt Romney will undoubtedly do well in new Hampshire, he will face increased media scrutiny and is likely to face visceral attacks by Newt Gingrich,who is embittered over his showing in Iowa after leading in the pols there at one point, and blames a series of negative ads run bu a pro-Romney super-PAC.

Anyone whom saw Gingrich's speech last night knows there's blood in the water. I would even say it's to the point where Gingrich, historically a bomb thrower, cares less about winning the White House at this point than he does about doing his best to destroy Mitt Romney. That and trying to hold on until South Carolina and attempt to eke out a win there is pretty much what remains of Newt Gingrich's strategy,and we'll see it unveiled in New Hampshire in the debates and in Newt Gingrich's ads.

Gingrich will also try to contrast himself as the 'Reagan conservative' he isn't as opposed to 'liberal' Romney.

Mitt Romney's challenge will be to defend himself forcefully while not going over the line into anger and tit for tat infighting.

Rick Perry, after a disappointing fourth place finish will probably be looking at South Carolina as his firewall. If he's unable to make a decent showing there, he will likely drop out.

The biggest loser of course was Ron Paul. Due to Iowa's caucus rules, this was probably his best chance to make a decent showing. He bet all his chips on it, and lost.

Iowa's third place finish, well behind Romney and Santorum is probably the best he's going to do in the primaries, although he will continue to be a force in the campaign. His real goal is to be a spoiler and set up things for a third party run.

Iowa Comes Down ToThe Wire

The latest polls show Mitt Romney in a statistical dead heat with Ron Paul, followed by Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. Michele Bachmann is bringing up the rear, having fallen to single digits.

Romney campaigned in Des Moines today, stumping with New Jersey governor Chris Christie on a cold wet day with temperatures in the twenties. Considering the weather, Romeny drew a decent crowd as he mocked President Obama and his $4 million Hawaiian vacation.

"We’re out in the cold and the rain and the wind because we care about America. He just finished his 90th round of golf.”

Governor Christie: “You people disappoint me on Tuesday, you don’t do what you’re supposed to do on Tuesday for Mitt Romney I will be back, Jersey-style, people. I will be back,” he joked.

Rick Santorum is moving up in the polls as Newt Gingrich has been falling. A lot of evangelicals are reportedly giving him a second look. He's invested a great deal of time here in Iowa and he needs a strong finish here to keep his campaign viable.

Michele Bachmann has perhaps the saddest story of all. After winning the Ames straw poll, she suffered perhaps a terminal blow when her Iowa campaign chair defected to Ron Paul without giving her any warning whatsoever.

As much as I like Michele Bachmann, I think what we're seeing here is an indication that her campaign was hurried and perhaps premature. She's only been in Congress four years,and hopefully she can make another try for top job when she's had a little more seasoning and time to process what went wrong this time.

The State Of The GOP Race

In this most interesting of election years, the Republican race remains oddly unsettled.

With real unemployment (as opposed to the far less realistic 'official' U-3 unemployment rate) hovering at between 13& and 15% and the president's approval ratings in the low forties, 2012 was largely seen as the GOP's to lose.

Instead, we're seeing something far different as a large number of Republican voters - some estimates are as high as one third - remain dissatisfied with the GOP field as they view the debates and approach the Iowa caucus.

A major part of the sour flavor of the current race comes from the fact that many people who identify themselves as conservatives and Tea Party adherents don't feel like they have a real dog in the fight, especially since Sarah Palin decided not to run.

The race has come down various attempts to try to find a 'not-Romney' just as I predicted; each not-Romney has had their moment in the sun and been revealed as disappointingly less than perfect. Let's look at them in turn:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann came into the race with solid Tea Party credentials. Given her intelligence, high principles and charisma, for awhile it appeared that she might be able to pick up a lot of Sarah Palin's support. Unfortunately, the fact that she's only been in public life for four years was underlined by a number of unfortunate gaffes and her own admission that she 'should have Googled Ed Rollins' before making the unforced error of hiring him as her campaign manager. Between that early false start and her remarks about an unidentified child getting cancer from a common vaccine, she may simply not be ready for prime time yet. Her results in Iowa are going to say a great deal about her future prospects.

Ex-Senator Rick Santorum brought conservative principles and character into to race and a decent knowledge of foreign policy and national security issues, but he's been handcuffed by two things; his 18 point loss for re-election in Pennsylvania has convinced a lot of people he would be unable to win against President Obama, and his insistence on talking about conservative social issues is not exactly what people want to hear just now.In addition, his persona and speaking style seem to lend itself to being overshadowed by the more high profile candidates. Unlike some of the others, he's never had his moment in the sun yet. His showing in Iowa is also going to say a great deal about his future prospects.

Former Governor and Ambassador John Huntsman - yes, he's in the race too - is actually perhaps a better candidate than some people realize. Not exactly a man with the 'conservative' label associated with him, he nevertheless has some common sense stands on economic matters and on foreign policy, particularly when it comes to China, where he served as our ambassador. However that service, performed at the behest of President Obama has hurt his candidacy, and it's been difficult for him to get traction.

Texas Governor Rick Perry originally seemed like the 'anyone but Romney' dream candidate. To some, I'm sure he still is. Not only did he seem to have a solid reputation as a conservative, but he was the longest serving governor in the US - and the one with by far the best record on job creation. He surged in the polls as soon as he got in the race.

And then, the debates happened.

Not only did they reveal a position on illegal aliens that was sharply at variance with most of the GOP base, but they revealed that he simply was lousy in a debate format period. Perry's failure to name three government departments he would shut down after thumping his chest and announcing it has to rank as one of the most embarrassing gaffes in political history.

While his last couple of outings have been somewhat better, the image of him as a gaffe-prone, fumbling, pro-illegal immigration candidate who might be severely challenged to beat Barack Obama is going to be difficult to erase.

Congressman Ron Paul remains the bête noire of the Republican Party, a paleo-conservative who appeals to what could best be characterized as the diminishing Pat Buchanan, isolationist America Firster wing of the Republican Party.

He holds the distinction of being the one Republican candidate certain to cause a massive Republican crossover vote in favor of President Obama. In fact, as I mentioned before, President Obama and his handlers realize it too, which I think accounts for the sudden respect Paul in getting from the Obama Administration's media allies as well as Paul's higher profile and financial clout.

Paul may actually win the Iowa caucus, which is not an actual primary but amounts to getting one's foot soldiers out into the January snow in sufficient numbers to dominate the caucus voting. He has a very slim chance of actually getting the GOP nomination, but I think there's an excellent chance he may surface as a third party candidate in an attempt to siphon off a few Republican votes.

I group Speaker Newt Gingrich and Governor Mitt Romney together because in many ways they belong together, aside from being the two presumptive front runners. Both are, essentially, big government types, albeit leaning towards the conservative side. Both are known for changing their views frequently on issues like global warming, cap and trade, various social conservative issues and mandated government run healthcare among others. Both have performed well enough in the debates to appear 'presidential'. Both would likely operate as Theodore Roosevelt-style Republicans rather than as conservatives.

Both Governor Romney and Speaker Gingrich have their own set of advantages and disadvantages.

Governor Romney has the executive experience of running a state Newt Gingrich lacks, Unfortunately, his signature achievement while governor of Massachusetts was state mandated healthcare, the direct ancestor of ObamaCare. The Massachusetts plan has been an abysmal failure, and Romney has continued to be associated with it because he's refused to plainly label it as such.

Governor Romney also has the executive experience of being a successful businessman who created jobs and wealth in the private sector. Even his missionary experience as a Mormon comes into play, where he performed with grit and determination amid difficult circumstances and rose to become the head of Mormon missionary activities in France.

Governor Romney also has the distinction, to my mind at least, of giving serious thought to international affairs and national security issues. And he's attracted a top notch group of A-list advisers in these matters because of it.

His main drawbacks? Aside from his association with the Massachusetts health plan, he has the problem of being known as the governor of a very left leaning Northeast blue state at a time when the GOP's strength is concentrated in the South, West and Midwest. His 'likeability ' factor remains in question, with Governor Romney still polling in the 20's among his own party in spite of months of campaigning. And because of his personal wealth, he's an ideal target for the sort of class warfare campaign President Obama will unleash. Nevertheless, as respectable conservative pundits like Ann Coulter have said, he might be the best thing going so far.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has the advantage of being demonstrably bright and quick on his feet mentally. Many of his supporters associate him with his time as Speaker of the House during the Clinton Administration, the last time Big Government was actually shrunken a bit. Even before that , Gingrich and a few outspoken supporters challenged the status quo in Congress, and eventually delivered a GOP House majority in 1996 that forced changes in how things were done in Washington.

On the minus side,there are also people who remember the arrogant, impulsive, loose cannon side of Gingrich's persona as Speaker, including a number of people who worked with him in Congress. It's an open question as to whether that side of his mercurial personality has changed to the point he would be an effective president.

There's also Gingrich's rather colorful and complicated personal life and his long history as a Washington insider that are going to give a great many people pause when it comes to voting for him as president.

Frankly, there isn't anyone in the above list who has so far excited the Republican base. It remains to be seen if any of the above can overcome their drawbacks and rise above the field.

Not surprisingly, there have been more than a few noises abou tother candidates getting into the race. Because of the way this year's GOP primary schedule is set up, it's actually quite possible that a new candidate could jump in, as Sarah Palin pointed out.

For that matter, from a very different part of the political spectrum , no less than former Florida governor Jeb Bush sounded off with an article on conservatism that could very much be seen as a testing of the waters.

Politics, like nature in general abhors a vacuum. It remains to be seen if that vacuum gets filled from someone who's already in the ring or from someone new from out side it.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Last Night's Debate - The War Zone

Yes, I watch these things so you don't have to.

With the Iowa caucus just around the corner, the potential GOP nominees were a lot more contentious and in attack mode than at any of the debates thus far.

As you might expect,most of the fire was directed at perceived front runner Newt Gingrich, which Mitt Romney also taking a few hits as some of the candidates a little lower in the polls saw this as a chance to damage the front runners and gain traction.

Michele Bachmann was particularly outspoken, since she's devoted a great deal of time, energy and resources to Iowa. A poor showing here would damage her quite a bit, since her support and presence in New Hampshire is fairly low key.

Speaking of attacks, I frankly have had it with Rick Perry. Previously, he refused to repute a bigoted, anti-Mormon supporter of his until pressed, and even then I felt it was halfhearted. Last night, he attacked Newt Gingrich in a particularly nasty and personal way, saying you can’t trust people who violate their marriage vows -- vows made, as he said, not only with one’s spouse but also with G-d. "That’s even stronger than a handshake in Texas".

Gingrich does have some issues here, everyone knows it and he's been fairly candid about it. But to attack him in that fashion on nationwide TV was cowardly and beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.

It drew some criticism in certain quarters, but I personally thought it was just wonderful when Mitt Romney, attacked by Perry about a supposed revision in Romney's book stuck out his hand to Perry and bet him a cool $10,000 that Perry was dead wrong. The look on Perry's face when he turned away and said "I'm not in the betting business' was priceless. It was almost as good as his brain freeze the other night when he was challenged to name the three government departments he had been thumping his chest about closing down and then couldn't even name them.

Hopefully Perry will be riding off into the sunset after Iowa.

Mitt Romney also tried to attack Newt Gingrich, and didn't do so well at it.

Trying to explain his differences with Gingrich, he ticked off a whole series of issues, but the big difference he tried to capitalize on was the idea of Gingrich as a career politician and Washington insider.

“We don’t need folks who are lifetime Washington people to get this country out of the mess it’s in,” Romney said. “We need people from outside Washington, outside K Street.”

Gingrich's response? “Let’s be candid,” he said. “The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994. . . . You’d have been a 17-year career politician if you’d won.”

The candidate who actually made took the best shots at the two front runners was Michele Bachmann. She focused on the likenesses between both of them and got in some very good shots.

Rick Santorum also had a fairly good night of it, with a message that seemed focused on Iowa caucus voters. People who used to support Herman Cain or have soured on Newt Gingrich need a place to go, and Santorum seemed to concentrate on reassuring them that he was a safe place to land.

Bottom line? Newt Gingrich seemed to shrug off most of what was thrown at him, although it's going to be hard to tell. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum may have advanced their chances a notch, although whether it will be enough to keep going after Iowa remains to be seen.

One important caveat about Iowa...it's a caucus not a primary. Rather than actual votes, it's a contest to see which candidate is better at mobilizing his or her troops on the ground, getting them to the caucus meetings and then having them take over the meetings once they're there.Which is why no one should be surprised to see a marginal candidate like Ron Paul do well there.

By the way, I'll have some interesting news on Ron Paul a bit later that sheds a lot of light on things.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

SNL's Spoof Of The Last GOP Debate...

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Last Night's Debate - 'Oops'

Ouch.

The big news out of last night's debate is that Rick Perry may have crippled his campaign beyond repair.

After saying there were three government departments he'd eliminate, he was only able to name two and froze for an agonizing 53 seconds when he tried to name a third one...ending with an embarrassed "Oops."

OK, anyone can have a brain freeze, but the problem here is two-fold; first, that he did it to himself, and second, that it reinforces his reputation with voters as someone who is an abysmal debater and likely to look like a fool facing President Obama. And that's a pretty low bar, frankly.

Even worse, he tried to recoup during th eanswer to another question, saying "It was the Department of Energy I was trying to think of." Aside from being lame, the Department of Energy is one of the last government departments I think you want to close given that our whole approach to energy independence needs to be ramped up and the efforts co-ordinated nationally.

Even Governor Perry realizes what a game changer this is.

Perry came into the debate at 9.3 percent on InTrade. He’s now down to 4.9 percent and dropping. One of his top fundraisers is reportedly saying that his campaign is over and it's time for him to focus on being governor of Texas.

Herman Cain managed to skate through on the sexual harassment question. Moderator Maria Bartiromo brought the topic up, saying: “Shareholders are reluctant to hire a CEO where there are character issues.”

Cain's response was to sort of sidestep an answer and attack the premise of the question: “The American people deserve better than someone being tried in the court of public opinion based on unfounded accusations,” Cain said. “This country’s looking for leadership and this is why a lot of people, despite what has happened over the last nine days, are still very enthusiastically behind my candidacy.”

It was an obviously prepared and rehearsed answer that got some cheers and was probably the smartest thing he could have said, but it doesn't really address the situation - or his poor handling of it thus far.

The candidates seem to have decided, individually or collectively that there's not going to be any sparks between candidates and they will focus on the positive. Newt Gingrich was his usual articulate self and Mitt Romney also continued to look like the most presidential person on the stage, at least in terms of his poise and ready answers.

He spent a decent amount of time talking about national security and foreign policy issues,an area where he's fairly strong. He reiterated unequivocally that as president, he would see to it that Iran did not obtain nuclear weapons.

When asked to address the flip flopping image, he was likewise strong, saying,“I think people know me pretty well, particularly in this state. I think people understand that I’m a man of steadiness and constancy.”

“I will be true to my family, to my faith and to my country, and I will never apologize for the United States of America.”

In summation, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich came out of the debate with some momentum, Herman Cain managed to avoid any major mistakes and Rick Perry is going to have some serious thinking to do about his next move.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Rick Perry's New Tax Plan

GOP Candidate Rick Perry has finally released an actual economic plan,and the policies he's endorsing are not terrible,at least the way they've been outlined so far.

It starts off with a 20% flat tax proposal that includes the key word voluntary,something you rarely hear. In other words, you would be able to have your accountant figure your taxes based onyour current rate and compare it to the flat tax rate of 20% and pick the one most advantageous to your situation.

It's unclear whether Perry's plan would continue to allow you to use itemized deductions if you picked figuring your taxes the old way over the 20% flat tax. If it does, fine, it's workable. If not, that's an error that will stifle a certain amount of economic activity.Either way, it's certainly something a lot better than Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan.

Perry's plan would continue to allow deductions for mortgage interest and charitable deductions for households earning less than $500,000 a year and would increase the standard deduction to $12,500.

Perry's plan calls for a 20 percent corporate tax rate,and calls for capping federal spending at 18 percent of the country's GDP - something I want a lot more details on.

It would be far preferable for me to hear a candidate make specific commitments on what he plans to cut rather than just throwing a figure out there.

Perry's proposal also calls for allowing younger workers the option of privatizing their Social Security accounts, something we also need a lot more concrete details on. Total privatization is likely counter productive and could lead to a situation like we had when the program was first adopted at the height of the depression - substantial numbers of destitute old people with no means of being self-supporting. But intelligent privatization that uses actuarial tables to determine a certain minimum amount as forced savings to prevent that but also allows discretionary invest of the rest is exactly what's needed.

After a number of gaffes and some horrible debate outings,Governor Perry is trying to play catch up and be seen as a serious candidate again. This is at least a step in the right direction.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Farce In Las Vegas

There's only one word to describe last night's GOP debate in Vagas - embarrassing.

Part of it was Rick Perry's desperation to do anything to stop his campaign's freefall, and part of it was that CNN's Lefty moderator Anderson Cooper did an abysmal job and not only allowed some of the candidates to behave like kids fighting in a schoolyard but actually egged them on.

The wildest swinging came from Governor Perry, who tried to make an issue about Governor Romney's supposed 'hiring' of illegal aliens for landscaping and maintenance work at his home, something that been unsuccessfully thrown at Romney before. Romney's explanation is a simple and plausible one, that he hired a company to do the work and simply had no way of knowing they had illegal aliens among the work crew.

I've got news for Rick Perry. In most states with substantial populations of illegal aliens, you've probably unknowingly 'hired ' one of them if you've gone to a car wash,visited a restaurant, gone to a fast food drive through, had your house painted or your roof repaired or hired anyone to do your gardening or brush clearance. In fact, if Governor Perry has done any of these things, he's almost certainly 'hired' an illegal alien or three himself.

So instead of actually discussing the issue intelligently, what we got was a silly brawl.

Most of the debates have highlighted a certain lack of substance among all the candidates, although that's definitely a product of the way the debates have been conducted. No one with any real understanding of the issues America faces should be expected to answer some of these questions in a minute, and when you get someone like Anderson Cooper in charge, you get exactly what you got last night. I don't think it's accidental that the questions asked seem skillfully constructed steer away from anything that could be construed as an avenue to attack President Obama's failed policies, although some of the candidates are better than others in using the brief time they're allowed to work a mention of that in.

After last night, it struck me that most of the candidates on that stage might justifiably mention President Reagan as someone worthy of emulating, but they seem to have forgotten what President Reagan called his eleventh commandment: 'Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.'

As I look at the GOP field, I think I mirror the feelings of many Americans. While we realize that almost anyone on that stage would be better than what we now have in the White House now, (let's eliminate Ron Paul please, in spite of his occasional good idea) we're still undecided because of the lack of substantive answers on most of the issues from any of these candidates.

A capsule look at the three frontrunners makes the reason for this uncertainty obvious.

Herman Cain, likeable though he is seems to answer almost every question aside from his unworkable 9-9-9 plan by saying he would 'gather all the intelligence/information, look at all the angles and make my decision based on that.' He's an intelligent candidate with a compelling personal story who's been impressive in how quickly he's learned the political ropes, but his answers in certain areas have highlighted the fact that he simply isn't knowledgeable about a lot of areas like foreign policy or how government works. I'm simply not convinced he's ready for the top job yet.

Ron Paul, of all people took advantage of this when he slapped Cain around last night about his 9-9-9 plan by saying that the Republicans were at fault for the debt problem 'because we were in charge during the last adminsitration' . A confident and informed candidate would have responded by reminding Paul that according to both the Federal Manage and Budget office and the Congressional Budget Office, the major debt problems and the bulk of the outlandish spending occurred after January, 2007 - the date when the Democrats got control of both houses of Congress. ...followed up by a line about how he,Cain, was more about solutions than blame, and maybe even including a stinger by alluding to Rep. Paul's long and successful career in bringing pork and government largess to his home district.

Another question mark I have about Cain is his not revealing what advisers he has, if any. As a successful CEO, he obviously knows how to hire, a significant aspect of what a president does, and especially one with no governing experience - so whom has he hired? And why the secrecy?

And then there's Cain's propensity for shocking gaffes,like the recent one about building an electrified fence on the Mexican border. While he later dismissed it as a joke after it raised eyebrows even among his supporters, he certainly didn't deliver the remarks as one.

Mitt Romney may come across as presidential, and he's obviously done some deep thinking about the issues, but his convenient endorsement of policies that resonate with the GOP's conservative base as opposed to some of his former positions has created a lot of uncertainty.

He's become pretty good at fending off some of the slapshots sent his way by the other candidates, but there still seems to be a packaged, slightly insincere aura about him, mainly because he does seem so crafted.

As a former Blue State governor who created the clear antecedent to ObamaCare, is he serious when he says he wants to repeal it? As a Harvard-trained technocrat, can he really be counted on to rein in the excesses of Big Government run amuck? Who is the real Mitt Romney? That's essentially what people want to know, and while he's given off some positive signals, he's been far too cautious about revealing it, and it's no certainty that he ever will.

Rick Perry's executive experience as a governor is obviously a plus, but his obvious weaknesses as a debater and his facile endorsement of boilerplate conservative positions set against his failure to adequately address his endorsement of Big Government programs like the Gardisil vaccination dust up, the Trans America Super Corridor or his defense of instate tuition rates for illegal aliens makes me wonder if he ever really wanted to run for president at all in the first place, deep down.

His performance in last night's debacle couldn't have gratified anyone but his hard core supporters.

He's proven himself skillful at raising campaign cash and at slapping together an organization in record time, but the question remains at how serious the whole endeavor is. Thus far, Perry has proven himself to be good at mechanics but poor at both process and substance.

There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, but at least one of these three men is going to have to take some serious steps to address these questions in order to get voters to support them for any other reason than the fact they aren't Barack Obama.

I doubt it would happen, but I would love to see representatives of the major GOP candidates ore even the candidates themselves sit down quietly somewhere, take an honest look at what happened last night and whom it actually helped and come to an agreement about better ways to conduct themselves with each other so that the American people get a better and more substantive look at the candidates.

It may be that our politics have degenerated to the point that someone who's actually a real leader simply can't surface in today's political circus, but I think I speak for a great many people in saying that I'm sick and tired of simply voting for the lesser of two evils.

The stakes in 2012 are higher than they've ever been.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Current Republican Lineup...The Sale Isn't Over Yet

There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, and the recent furor over the Republican contest proves that, if not much else. No one's close to making the sale yet.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, the front runner stumbled badly in last week's debate and if he has another couple of bad outings, he could very well fade away. Not only were a number of his answers weak, but he failed to take the battle to the other candidates, leaving people wondering how he'd actually do against President Obama.

He continues to double down on the Gardisil question, and his vulnerability on the illegal alien issue has become evident and was exploited handily by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum last week.

Not only that, but when the foreign policy finally reared its ugly head at long last, he flailed around badly:

BAIER: Which brings us to this, Governor Perry, if you were president, and you got a call at 3 am telling you that Pakistan had lost control of is nuclear weapons, at the hands of the Taliban, what would be your first move?

PERRY: Well obviously, before you ever get to that point you have to build a relationship in that region. That’s one of the things that this administration has not done. Yesterday, we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with — and that’s the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country. So to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States.

For instance, when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16′s, we chose not to do that. We did the same with Taiwan. The point is, our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends, we will be standing by there with them.

Today, we don’t have those allies in that region that can assist us if that situation that you talked about were to become a reality.

Is Governor Perry saying that we're going to ask India or Taiwan what to do? Fine, the alliance with India definitely needs work, but we're talking about an emergency situation - our enemies just overthrew a government that wasn't at all friendly to us anyway and got themselves a nuclear arsenal.

This is not the sound of a president-in-waiting.

Former Senator Rick Santorum's answer was almost as bad:

To answer the question on Pakistan, which I’m not too sure was answered. The bottom line is, that we should be establishing relationships in Pakistan with allies of ours, folks like relationships with President Musharraf who we had in the past with others in that country so if in fact something like that would occur we could work in concert to make sure that that coup could be overturned and make sure those nuclear weapon do not fall in those hands.

But working with allies at that point is the last thing we want to do. We want to work in that country to make sure the problem is defused.

Talking about not answering the question! So in Senator Santorum's world, he's just been informed that the Taliban, the Haqqani Group or Lashkar-e-Taiba just took over Pakistan's nuclear facilities in Waziristan and he's going to depend on deposed President Musharraf to help us out? "Quick, get Pervez on the phone.Maybe he can put together a counter-coup."

The fact is that when you have a 3 AM call like that, 'defusing' the problem is already too late and so is talking to 'allies'. It means there's been a civil war,and our enemies just won. My answer, had I been on that stage would have been to say that a faction who are not our friends taking over Pakistan's nukes is quite probable, and as president I would have had a contingency plan ready and waiting with our military for destroying them completely on the ground the minute they fell into questionable hands. The fact that two presidential candidates would go into an Obama-like dithering on something this basic is scary, frankly.

Herman Cain, however likeable has yet to prove that he has the chops needed for the Big Job. The FOX moderators did him a great kindness by not asking him any deep foreign policy or national security questions, since he's already shown that isn't his strong point. And his 9-9-9 plan on taxes which has some merits also has a number of those awful devils in the details. That 9% national sales tax, for instance. Anyone whose seen how politicians around the world have handled a Value Added Tax ( which is essentially what Mr. Cain is proposing) ought to be damned wary of implementing it. Here's a hint; just like sales taxes in your state, they tend to go up, up, up. And it might also be noted that Cain's plan would eliminate the tax break on mortgages, thus putting the boot into an already depressed industry. My prediction is that his straw poll win in Florida will have about as much effect as Muchele Bachmann's in Iowa.

Mitt Romney is an old hand at campaigning by now, and it shows. His answers to questions are clear and obviously well thought out. Unfortunately, he has a habit of only answering half a question and glossing over the rest, and that's going to become more noticeable as time goes on, especially if he overtakes Perry as frontrunner and assumes Perry's role as punching bag for the rest.

His support for the Obama administration's Race to the Top education program is going to come back to haunt him, as will his insistence that RomneyCare's individual mandate only applies to 8% of the population. Actually, that law applies to everyone in Massachusetts. And he's also going to have to figure out how to defend himself on Bain Capital's record on outsourcing jobs.

Speaking of Michele Bachmann, as likeable as she is, she's also proven that she's not quite ready for the Top Job yet. Her positions continue to devolve into talking points, she's shown an unfortunate tendency to be gaffe-prone and continues to be willing to die on questionable hills like the one about how the Gardisil caused retardation in a child.

I'm not even going to discuss the other marginal players. None of them are going to be the GOP nominee,let alone get into the White House.

But I have a feeling that applies to the others as well, at least at the present time. None of them, in my opinion, has really made the sale yet. None of them appears to be an obvious choice for President yet, although Mitt Romney has done a fair job thus far of at least coming close. Plus, it's still very early days and the support of each candidate is still pretty soft.

The 2012 election is the GOP's to lose, but I still think we haven't seen all the candidates. With the first major test being the Iowa Caucus in February, there's plenty of time for someone else to get in.

Actually the deadline is pretty clear. To get your name on the ballot in Florida,you need to pay filing fees by October 31st. And to participate in the South Carolina primary, the last date in November 1st.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a major trick or treat in the Republican race before Halloween.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

UN Ambassador Rice Accuses GOP Critics On Israel of 'Playing Politics'

UN Ambassador Susan Rice used an interview with former Democrat operative George Stephanopoulos as a vehicle to bash GOP candidates Governors Mitt Romney and Rick Perry for their criticism of the Obama Administration's policies on Israel, and inadvertently revealed a lot about the Obama Administration's mindset:

Saying the Republicans were “playing politics” with international issues, Susan Rice responded to Mitt Romney, who called the President’s handling of Palestinian statehood an “unmitigated diplomatic disaster,” and Rick Perry, who suggested the U.S. should cut off funding for the Palestinian Authority if it continues to pursue a UN vote on statehood.

“I think Governor Perry ought to really consider the real world implications of that for Israel. Because the security assistance that the United States provides the Palestinian Authority benefits Israel directly and Israelis are well aware of that,” Rice said.

“But the reality is George, from his second day in office President Obama has been committed to bringing the Palestinian and Israelis to a final agreement so that there is an independent Palestinian state living side by side with the Jewish state of Israel,” she told me. “He’s done so and will continue to do so first and foremost because it is in our national interest to do so, it’s the right thing also for Israel and for the Palestinians.”

“So for those who want to play politics they’ll play politics. But the reality is Israel has had no better partner than this administration,” Rice said.

When one looks back at the Obama Administration's actual record on Israel,the earlier unilateral trashing of the agreement under which Israel signed on to the Road Map, its six month de facto arms embargo on Israel, Obama's demands that Israel forbear seeking to protect it's religious shrines as part of its heritage, his demands on Jerusalem, his open courting of the Muslim world and President Obama's treatment of Israeli PM Netanyahu not once but twice, her statement that Israel has no better partner than the Obama Administration is laughable, and even more disgraceful is that Stephanopoulos allowed her to make that statement without challenging it.

Also fascinating is her claim that the Israelis need the US to fund 'Palestine' for Israel's security. If the Israelis depended on the 'Palestinian' forces for their security, there would simply be a lot more dead Israeli civilians...and the fact is that the 'Palestinians' have never put a single person in jail for killing Jews. The 'Palestinian' security exists to protect Mahmoud Abbas and his corrupt apparatchiks and enforce their unelected rule, provide minimal police services and provide jobs paid for by donor aid. And yes, to provide the armed framework for a future War Against the Jews, just like it did for Arafat.

Quite revealing also is that Ambassador Rice refers to ” an independent Palestinian state living side by side with the Jewish state of Israel” when Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state..primarily because there’s no pressure by gullible western donors like the Obama Administration for them to do so!

Instead, the pressure is almost completely on Israel for more and more strategic concessions in exchange for zilch, because that’s the mindset and bias people like Rice, President Obama, Susan Power and others in the administration have.

It’s this attitude which enabled Palestinian intransigence and refusal to make any concessions. After all…why should Abbas be less ‘pro-Palestinian‘ than President Obama?

If the president really wanted to end this nonsense at the UN, which abrogates two treaties (Oslo and the Road Map) the Palestinian Authority as well as the US signed on to , he could do what George HW Bush did when Arafat tried this back in1989, threaten to cut off UN funds if they proceeded. But that's not President Obama's Agenda.

Perry and Romney are entirely correct. It’s amateur hour at this White House, fueled by ideology.


please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Some Off The Cuff Reactions To Last Night's Debate And The GOP Field

Bearing in mind it's very early days yet and anything can happen, here are a few of my impressions of last night's debate and the way the current race for the nomination is shaking out.

I fully expected Rick Perry to be a target yesterday. He's the current front runner, he's come up fairly rapidly and Michele Bachmann in particular needed to try to slap him around in order to keep from fading into the ozone.

Perry for the most part handled it reasonably well, although both Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann got in some good shots at his expense.I particularly liked his response to Michele Bachmann's exaggerated attempt to underline the $5,000 campaign contribution Perry got from the maker of the Gardisil vaccine, Merck: ""I raised 30 million dollars [in campaign funds]. Merck donated $5,000. If you're saying I can be bought for $5,000, then I'm offended."

The problem with the Gardisil issue for Perry as far as I'm concerned is not the money, it's the fact that his ex-chief of staff who worked for Merck was obviously was able to influence the governor to do something at odds with his previous record, which is strongly parental choice and anti big government. I'm surprised Perry hasn't sidelined the issue by simply saying he was wrong, it was poorly handled and emphasizing that it was a departure from his previous record. Like Mitt Romney on the Massachusetts health care debacle, he says something like that but then tries to justify it.

One thing that did surprise me is that the issue of illegal immigration and border control didn't come up before last night. Perry signed off on what amounts to a modified version of the DREAM Act in Texas, granting in-state tuition rates to certain illegal immigrants working toward citizenship.

"That is the American way," Perry said, although he was quick to add that he doesn't support the DREAM Act President Obama is currently enforcing by executive order. "That's amnesty. What we did in Texas was a state's right issue. Regardless of what the sound of their last name is, [we are saying] that we believe in you. We're going to allow you to be contributing members and not be a drag on our state."

Bachmann replied: "The American way is not to give taxpayer-subsidized benefits to people who have broken our laws."

Romney piled on as well. "Of course we don't give in-state tuition credits to people who've come here illegally."

One thing I badly want to hear that hasn't surfaced much yet is foreign policy. Americans are rightly concerned about the state of the economy after three years of gross and incompetent mismanagement, but I'm convinced that we're going to be facing some major foreign policy challenges in the near future. And it would be nice to hear more from the candidates on these matters.

So, where do the Republicans stand, now that the official campaign season has begun?

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney remain the front runners, with Romney supported by a chunk of the GOP establishment and Perry by the more conservative wing of the party. Michele Bachmann lost a lot of her following once Perry got in the race, if anything she's continued to slide and unfortunately for her she's made enough questionable statements at this point where she's essentially out of the running. It's an open question whether she or the other marginal candidates will be able to keep going until the Iowa primary in February.

Governor Sarah Palin still remains a factor, and it's by no means too late for her to get in if she decides to. Perry's conservative and Tea Party support is fluid, simply because the alternative is Mitt Romney.If Governor Palin decides to run, she will pick up virtually all of the supporters of Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum as well as a chunk of Rick Perry's. It may be that staying out and letting the other candidates spend money, beat each other up and flame out could end up being the wisest strategy out there, and I speculated that she might do exactly that a while ago.



I'm going to go on record to say that barring something crazy happening like a national disaster that rallies people behind a sitting president or a major scandal involving the GOP nominee, Romney, Perry or Palin could each defeat Barack Obama handily.

There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, or even a perfect president. What's important is for the electorate to make a hiring decision based on whom could best do the job and gets the closest to upholding some very basic principles.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Rick Perry Channels Sarah Palin On Foreign Policy

Texas Governor Rick Perry made a decent speech today to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in San Antonio, with a lot to say about avoiding foreign interventions without clear goals.

“I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism. We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened and we should always look to build coalitions among the nations to protect the mutual interests of freedom loving people,” Perry told thousands of veterans today.

“It’s not our interest to go it alone. We respect our allies, and we must always seek to engage them in military missions. At the same time, we must be willing to act when it is time to act. We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multi-lateral debating societies, and when our interests are threatened American soldiers should be led by American commanders.”

“A president should never send our sons and daughters into war without a plan to win and the resources to make that possible,” Perry said. “It’s a dangerous world that we live in today. Our enemies often don’t wear uniforms or swear allegiance to a particular flag but instead to an ideology of hatred. As the 10th anniversary of the attacks of 911 approach, we must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy wherever they are before they strike at home.”

Yes, a decent speech. In fact, I thought so before, when I heard almost exactly the same thing from Governor Sarah Palin.....almost four months ago, practically word for word in some places, in a speech she gave at Colorado Christian College.

I'm glad to see that Rick Perry's listening and picking up a few pointers.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

How Should Much Should Conservatives Slime GOP Primary Candidates ?

My good friend Bookworm has a post today that explores a vital question...how far should conservatives go when it comes to attacking GOP primary candidates?

As she points out:

As the primary season heats up, here’s a good question to ask: If we want to end the primary season with a viable political candidate to face off against Barack Obama, are there limits limits to the nature of the attacks that bloggers launch against the Republican candidates during this primary season?

My take is that it is very important for us to learn as many facts as possible about the candidates, whether we’re learning good things or bad. However, I’m not yet ready to leap up and castigate any candidate as the devil incarnate. (Even Ron Paul, whom I would not like to see win, can be challenged through facts, not hyperbolic insults.)

As we learned in 2008, there are no perfect Republican candidates. Unfortunately, the other lesson we’ve learned in the last 2.5 years is that Obama is a perfectly scary Democrat president/candidate. This means that, when the Republican primary ends, we need the last Republican candidate still standing to have the strength to face off against Obama. If we inflict too many wounds against our own people, the primary winner may be so weakened, s/he cannot win the final, presidential battle. Further, if s/he’s bleeding badly from the ideological wounds we inflict, Independents will shy away, as they will almost certainly be incapable of discerning between the wounds inflicted during internecine conflict from the type of fatal flaws that spell death at the presidential polls.

As of today, I can easily say yucky things about every one of the Republicans now seeking office (especially Ron Paul):

(1) Michele Bachmann has no more executive experience than Obama did at this stage in the game, and we all rightly predicted that he was grossly unprepared for high executive office;

(2) Paul Ryan, should he weigh in, will also lack that experience, plus he’s got a geeky quality that might not play well in the media;

(3) Mitt Romney has the RomneyCare albatross and all the charm (and good looks) of a Ken doll;

(4) Ron Paul takes libertarianism to an inhuman extreme that includes jettisoning the nation of Israel and supporting Iran’s quest for nuclear arms;

(5) Rick Perry tried to strong-arm Gardasil, whether because of fear of cancer, ties with Merck, power lust, or something else, plus he’s kind of smarmy;

(6) Chris Christie, should he weigh in, has sharia ties, offends people with his outspokeness, and will have to fight the fat-taboo that governs in America.

While I certainly concur, my own take on this is somewhat different.

Today in Memeorandum, the first 13 stories are anti-Perry pieces and the next 3 are anti Bachmann pieces, put out by outlets like the NYT, CNN and what I'll call the Soros media ( Think progress, Steve Benen in the Washington Monthly, Right Wing Watch, etc.). This stuff is being co-ordinated from the White House and it's going to be like that for the next 14 months.

As far as I'm concerned, the three major candidates, Perry , Bachmann and Romney all have their flaws ( none of the others have a shot at getting the nomination) but the next election isn't going to be about them. It's going to be about the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. That's why anyone who gets the nomination or looks like they might is going to be demonized. As I've said in print before, if the GOP ran Daffy Duck as the nominee, I'd probably vote for him over Obama.

2008 isn't really a good example, since we ended up with a candidate whose relationship with most of his own party was largely one of mutual and intense dislike and whom ran one of the most inept campaigns in modern memory, awash with self-inflicted wounds. The only reason John McCain even managed to get within six points of a qualifications challenged candidate like Barack Obama was his gritting his teeth and picking Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Yes, we ought to vet the candidates, but our chief task, as I see it, is getting this sorry excuse for a president and a man out of the White House, retaining the House and taking the Senate with a conservative majority.

In terms of executive experience, all three major candidates could be slimed a bit - Romney accomplished little except RomneyCare, Rick Perry was governor of the weakest executive branch in the 50 states and had comparatively little decision making power, and Michelle Bachmann has never run a government entity. In fact, Governor Palin or Rudy Giuliani would be the strongest choices if we're looking for a record of executive experience and accomplishment, and neither is in the race yet.

But each of the three have at least accomplished things in life outside of government and run something. To me the central issue is the quality of their instincts and their moral character, because the rest you can hire out. That's what we ought to be focused on, in my opinion.

Character is what kicks in when you're called on to make the tough decisions. And that's a major part of the equation of leadership, something this country has been literally starved of for a long time.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Rick Perry And Jobs

As Texas Governor Rick Perry gets into the race, the White House has primed the usual suspects with anti-Perry talking points and unleashed the galley slaves at George Soros' various media outlets.

One of the chief points of attack has been to downgrade job creation and economic growth in Texas. By now, you've heard 'em all:

'Texas is riding an energy boom'

'Lots of those jobs are public sector'

'A lot of those jobs are low paying minimum wage jobs'

'The Texas unemployment rate is 8.2, hardly the lowest in the country'

My favorite whiz kid over at Political Math has parsed the actual Bureau of Labor Statistics data ( via memeorandum) and decisively shoots down every one of these arguments. The facts are that Texas is creating jobs at a rate well above any other state in the Union ( 2.2% since the recession started), the median wage is about average for the nation, Texas actually cut public sector jobs, the energy sector is only 3% of employment, and the unemployment rate is what it is simply because people are fleeing Blue states like California and Illinois in massive numbers, looking for work. Texas isn't just growing faster than any other state in the Union, it's growing over twice as fast as the second fastest state. Even when you factor out energy jobs, that's still true.

While I have mixed feeling about th eidea of Rick Perry as president, none of these arguments attempting to downplay the economic growth of Texas is worth yesterdays dirty dishwater.

Now, one argument that's worth examining is that Perry was just lucky to have been at the right place at the right time, and the job creation in Texas had nothing to do with him.

Fine, but if that's your argument, than you have to explain why President Obama can claim to have 'saved or created' any jobs at all. You can't say on the one hand that government creates jobs when it comes to President Obama and doesn't when it comes to someone who's been governor of Texas for a decade.

Of course, the usual suspects will argue that anyway.

The truth of the matter is that government doesn't create jobs per se, but low taxes, a lackof intrusive regulation and a business friendly climate do. To the extent Governor Perry has facilitated that, he can take a certain amount of credit....just as the current occupant of the White House deserves blame for promoting exactly the opposite.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Rick Perry And Islamism

Sultan Knish has a fairly balanced look at Governor Rick Perry and Islam ( h/t, my pal Terresa at The Noisy Room via twitter). Here's a slice:

Some questions have been raised about Rick Perry's views on Islam. Islamic infiltration into American politics means that every candidate deserves close scrutiny. My purpose is not to attack Perry, but to conduct a preliminary discussion of the subject. Pamela Geller and Debbie Schlussel have written their own articles, which add more pieces to the puzzle. As with every candidate, the discussion will go on as more materials are brought forward.

First of all it's important to recognize that the Rick Perry question, is also the Chris Christie question, it's the question that comes with every governor from a state with a large and politically active Muslim population. This question will have more serious implications as the size of the Muslim population expands even further.

The multicultural pandering that used to be associated with the Tammany Hall political machine has become second nature in American politics. There is hardly a governor who does not pay lip service to diversity or do roundups of all the religious groups in America. That's an unfortunate reality.

The initial good news is that Rick Perry did not try to influence the judicial system on behalf of a member of a terrorist organization, or appoint a terrorist Imam's political affiliate to a superior court judgeship the way that Christie did.

The worst thing he seems to have done is played footsie with the Aga Khan and appointed one of his people to the State Health Council. He also seems to have met with a group of black clergy, which included a Nation of Islam minister, and made the usual trips to Dubai to talk up trade and academic exchanges.

In this context, I should mention that the Aga Khan is head of the Ismaili sect of Islam, a moderate group considered apostates by most Sunni and Shia. No Ismaili has ever been connected to terrorist or jihadist activities to my knowledge.

As Knish points out, some of Governor Perry's other associations, some of which involved supporters of the new Texas laws on the selling of halal meat are not so innocuous.

Governor Perry is an Evangelical Christian and strong supporter of Israel,but as Sultan Knish points out, so was George W. Bush. And it didn't stop President Bush from pandering to Islamist groups here in America, turning a blind eye to Saudi-funded Muslim Brotherhood fronts to the point where it hampered our war effort or pressuring Israel for strategic concessions to the 'Palestinians' or a ceasefire that essentially saved Hezbollah from annihilation.

At this point, it would be premature to compare Governor Perry too closely to President Bush, just as it would be dishonest to say that a Bush-style presidency wouldn't be an improvement over what we have in the White House now.

But the Perry candidacy needs close watching,especially as more facts come out and Governor Perry is asked to clarify where he stands on certain things.

I'm not particularly willing to settle for George W. Bush redux. And I don't think the country's best interests would be served by it either.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Bachmann Wins Iowa Straw Poll; Pawlenty Ends Presidential Bid, And Palin Strategizes

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann won the Iowa Straw Poll on Saturday, a test vote five months before the Iowa caucuses. Rep. Ron Paul came in second and Governor Tim Pawlenty finished a distant third.

The results were enough for Tim Pawlenty to call it quits.

"I wish it would have been different, but obviously the pathway forward for me doesn't really exist, so we're going to end the campaign," Pawlenty told ABC's Jake Tapper.

"I'm doing this because I love this country and I want to defeat Barack Obama because I think he's got it on the wrong course," Pawlenty said of his withdrawal, "but I don't get my identity or my sense of worth or my values or my faith from politics. I get it from my personal faith in God, and I believe in this country, I love this country, I thought I would have been a great president."

T-Paw ruled out a vice presidential nomination. "That's not something I'm even going to consider," he said. Well, at least not until someone asks him.

Pawlenty's big problem was fundraising, and with Texas governor Rick Perry getting into the race, he simply couldn't afford to keep going.

The same is probably true of the other marginal GOP candidates, John Huntsman, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum,and I expect them to drop out in the next few months.Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have no chance whatsoever to get the nomination, but they'll stay in as long as possible just to generate attention.

While the Straw Poll has some importance,it's worth keeping in mind that we're talking about a total turnout of about 15,000 votes, so like the Iowa cauci, it's an indication more of the organization and zeal of a candidate's followers rather than their actual support.

At present, the GOP field has narrowed to Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry. You can also include Sarah Palin if she gets in. Which , by way of an interesting sidebar, is what she was speculating about to a swarm of reporters in Iowa, when asked what kind of a campaign she'd run when and if:



“Each campaign that I’ve ever run in these 20 years of elected office have been kind of unconventional -- right, Todd? We’ve always been outspent two to one, 10 to one, five to one; never won any polls heading into election night but usually won the election. So it would be unconventional and very grass-roots. Very grass-roots. And I wouldn’t be out there looking for hires out of that political bubble that seem to result in the same old ideas, the same old talking points, the things that Americans get so sick and tired of hearing and kind of suffering through.

“You know, we want new. We want new energy. We want conviction and passion and candidness -- even if through that candidness you make mistakes and you say things like ‘the executive power in Texas is different than the executive power in Alaska.’ . . . I’m just saying that candidness, not fearing so much what the interpretation is going to be when it comes to the comments and positions you’re articulating but just speaking from the heart and saying, ‘Here’s where I think America needs to head, and here’s how I think we can turn the economy around, and here’s what I’ve done in the past to show you truly a foundation of where my beliefs come from of what works in a small town, in a state, in a big industry like oil and gas -- what is it that can be done to turn things around.’ I’ll express that and not fearing what the ramifications of the expressions would be.”

She was obviously doing a little thinking out loud about how she would run a campaign against the current field.I'd say she hasn't opted out yet at all.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Last Night's GOP Debate

For those of you who didn't watch - or couldn't manage to sit through - last night's GOP debates, here are a few notes. As always, I watch this stuff so you don't have to.

First,I feel I have to comment on FOX and the Washington Examiner's rather unprofessional setup.There was no reason not to ask all the candidates the same questions, and the moderators ignored some of the candidates to the point where poor Rick Santorum was actually forced to make an issue of it. I also found their attempts to provoke fights between Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann more appropriate to a reality show than a serious presidential debate.

So, thumbnail impressions. This was essentially the Romney and Bachmann show. Both got a lot more attention than any of the others and managed to come off well, with a slight edge to Mitt Romney, who appears to have been carefully groomed by his handlers. He won simply by not losing. Michele Bachmann appeared a bit tired, but was still feisty and came up with a number of good lines.

Herman Cain is obviously not ready for prime time. He knows very little about foreign policy, and his pat 'we have three problems' non-answer to most of the questions directed at him was not encouraging.Buh-bye.

Gingrich, Santorum and Pawlenty are fighting for their political lives, and it showed. They're essentially history, unless T-Paw manages to get a VP nomination out of the deal.

John Huntsman and Ron Paul might as well not even be there.A couple of people who weren't familiar with Paul's radical foreign policy views let me know that they found him downright scary. Fortunately, he has no chance whatsoever to be president.

The biggest story on the debates are the people who aren't present...Rick Perry, who's already in and Sarah Palin, who isn't, at least not yet.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!