The debate starts in about an hour. I’m thinking that this debate is going to be a little dull from the moderator standpoint. One of the problems that these debates present is that there aren’t many questions that the base (conservatives) are actually concerned with being asked. I have my doubts that Bloomberg in New Hampshire is going to bring us anything different. Also, the way that the panel on Bloomberg is talking now, it seems like they’re just interested in starting fights between the leading candidates – which comes at no surprise.
I will be updating throughout the debate. Post comments below or on my facebook page. I will keep track of both. Enjoy the debate.
I might as well go ahead and say that I will be keeping a close eye on Cain and his handling of Romney. So far, everyone who has gone after Romney has lead with their chin. I think that when you “go after” someone, like Cain stated he is going to do tonight, you run the risk of looking desperate. Romney has no glass jaw, he is better trained than any of the other candidates and well prepared for the haymakers that are going to be thrown his way. Will he, like he did with Perry, pull a rope a dope? I hope that Cain doesn’t fall into that trap.
I’m of the opinion that plenty of people are going to throw punches at Romney and that Cain would be better served to stick to his appeal rather than Romney’s disfiguring goiter. The thing about goiters is that everyone knows that it is there…and the person who points it out just comes across as a jerk.
Romney comes out talking about common ground with the democrats. A good unrealistic talking point? Overall, this might be a winning slogan, but it doesn’t appeal to me. How do you work with the democrats when their philosophy is so far out of line? This is what the House has been doing over the last year – working with the democrats to raise debt limits and continue in the same path we were in prior to the Novermber elections…just on a little slower track.
One of the most refreshing and promising things that I am hearing from this debate (and previous ones) is the focus on the federal reserve and our need to investigate the goings on in that department. I don’t think that getting a Perry or a Romney in the White House would benefit the movement calling for these investigations. We need to let some light in on this area to act as a disinfectant.
In response to Gingrich’s remarks on prostate cancer….I know a bit about this. Basically, people who have prostate cancer later in life (after 85) but don’t have other medical problems, likely won’t be treated for their prostate cancer. The reason for this is that prostate cancer is one of the slowest growing cancers (typically). What the research has found is that the cure is worse than the disease in most cases and in many cases it is the cure that kills them when it may have taken 10 to 15 years for the cancer to even start causing serious problems. That said, I am with the candidates on the notion that government shouldn’t be making that decision.
In Tim Russert’s second book about fathers (I forget the name) an individual wrote in a letter about his father who, in his later years refused to have doctors treat his cancer. His entire family and his doctors argued with him. In the end, he outlived his young healthy doctor in spite of his cancer. The point is that it isn’t always bad to not have cancer…but it is always important to have that decision in your hands.
Am I crazy or is Ron Paul the only one who is making sense regardding the housing market and the fed? Where in the world does the fed get the power to get involved in the housing market? Not the constitution. So why are we trying to continue to tweek the system that has failed us so bluntly?
How many millions of dollars does Perry have for every “ugh” he just said in that response? Unfortunately, he was followed up by a polished and clear Romney. Was that done on purpose? Who knows. It’s the 5th time they’ve been to Romney compared to two a piece for everyone else. He also seems to have no time limit. He’s sitting in the middle and the moderators seem to be having a conversation with him whereas they seem to be impatient with the answers that other candidates give.
I am supremely disappointed in that stupid response with Bachman about Cain. While I agree with the sentiment regarding opening another “pipline” of revenue, but not the broader principle that she referred to as a “tax plan, not a jobs plan”. I think that this is a jobs plan – it gives a simple code that job makers and investors can apply with no effort. It takes the guessing out of the game. But the “666” response might have been the cheapest and dumbest remark I’ve heard in these debates thus far.
Cain responds to Santorum with a great statement – the difference between him and the others is that they are supporting ideas based on what will pass, not on what we need. That “kick the can down the road” comment was strong and appealing to both me and the audience.
Right before the break I can hear Bachman just throwing out “repeal Obamacare”…which basically wraps up her campaign chances in a nutshell…small and not based on much. She had to throw her voice out there in an attempt to be heard and all she said was one of the three things she says every time. Now, I know that Cain is beginning to sound like a broken record with the 999 plan and his advisors need to tell him to move on to other things once in a while before this becomes old hat. But still, Bachman sounds weak and worthless at this point.
Cain’s question to Romney rocked. It runs to the underlying philosophical differences between his ideas and Romney’s ideas regarding the economy. The fact is, nobody can really challenge Romney’s 59 point plan because nobody can understand it as it is. That confusion doesn’t offer business any comfort or clarity. It is, as Santorum said earlier regarding the business owner who won’t hire until he sees how Obamacare effects him, the same negative principle applied to a broader situation. Investors invest when they can easily and predictibly figure out where their money can go. Is there any question where your money goes in the 999 plan? How about that 69 point plan? Exactly.
Romney is so polished that he will get through the night talking the most and saying the least. He is well trained. Sometimes he makes me think that the question actually was different from the one given.
When Cain said “Greenspan” I grimmaced. That didn’t sit well in my stomach. It was kind of a dumb question, but kind of a dumb answer at this time too. He should have dodged a name – but he’s not much for dodging (something I tend to like about him)…but as Kenny Rodgers said in The Gambler “You’ve got to know when to hold ’em, and know when to fold ’em”. Sometimes Cain has to dodge some of these stupid specifics…and that was one of them.
Anyone remember the last time Newt talked?
I’m going to go ahead and call this one for Romney by default. Nobody else made any movement – and perhaps that is because Bloomberg had Romney’s name etched into the trophy before the debate even started…but also because Romney is a pro at running for President at this point. I remember how flustered he was in 2008 when Fred Thompson nailed him on supporting regulations that “he made”. He no longer flustered (or those tough accusations). The rest of the crowd is still grasping. Cain is saying good things, but he’s not nearly polished enough.
Bachman, Santorum, and Huntsman needed to make huge moves tonight and simply didn’t. They’re done.
Let me also say that, after tonight, I think Cain might be hurt simply by not having any supporters among those who are likely to drop out soon. We shall see…but I don’t think he’s got many friends on the stage.
Filed under: Uncategorized