Republican Debate

We watched the debate last night and found it to be somewhat lackluster compared to the Fox debate last week. The moderator, CNN's Brian Williams, kept a tight reign on the questions and the answers, often throwing questions to one or two candidates but not letting the others answer. He went back to the old liberal tactic of trying to provoke the candidates to fight each other, and overall I think he did a rather lousy job.

I will say this in Williams' favor. He addressed all the candidates respectfully by their titles; Senator Santorum, Governor Romney, Speaker Gingrich, and Congressman Paul. One of the things that has irritated me is the lack of decorum and proper respect, not only by previous moderators, but by the candidates themselves, calling each other by their first names. This informality might be good in private conversation or among adults of their peer groups, but in front of the nation, with young adults and even teenagers watching, there ought to be a formality that shows respect to the positions in government that they hold. This first name business belittles the respectability of their profession. (I know! There's not a lot of respectability left in their profession.)

All of the candidates had good answers on certain issues, and weren't so dynamic on others. Santorum continued to fall into the trap, or maybe he thinks it's good strategy, of attacking both Romney and Gingrich more than delineating his own positions. Romney went on the attack against Gingrich, who surprisingly was remarkably reserved in his responses. One of the criticisms of Gingrich is that he's a loose cannon and blows up in a heartbeat, but he remained calm through all the attacks against him showing a different side of his personality. What I found interesting was that sometimes one of the candidates would have a real good answer and the others, rather than trying to present a contrasting opinion, would agree with him.

Ron Paul had maybe his best debate (of those that I've seen) on the economy, but at the same time maybe one of his worst on foreign affairs, which highlights what I think of the last debate. He'd be a lousy president, but probably great as the Secretary of the Treasury.

A lot of criticism continues to be made about Romney's tax returns. Romney as well continued to attack Gingrich's role with Freddie Mac, insisting on calling him a lobbyist, and complaining about how much money he made from it. Gingrich released his contract with Freddie Mac to show his position was as a consultant, not a lobbyist. Furthermore, his advice to Freddie Mac was to refuse the subprime mortgages, and then he opposed the Obama bailout of the institution. I don't think Romney's attacks on that are going to give him any traction, and may hurt him by his insistence on misrepresenting the situation.

The real debate on Freddie Mac ought to be about Barney Frank and the Dodd/Frank bill that forced Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to buy up subprime mortgages and caused the entire housing crisis in the first place. That's something the press has totally ignored, but it is the real issue.

Romney said he would be disclosing his tax returns for the last two years today, which he has done, and they apparently show that he's made over 20 million each of the last two years, and paid around 3 million in taxes each year, a lot less than the 900,000 Gingrich paid for his 3.2 million in income last year. He also claims to have given more to charities (probably Mormon charities) than he paid in taxes. Personally I don't think any of this should be an issue. I don't care how much a person makes as long as he makes it legitimately and legally.

If the liberals insist on making Romney's and Gingrich's finances the focus of debate, they ought to turn it around and expose Obama's purchase of a multi-million dollar house when he was too poor to afford it, and the plot next door he got for free through the twisted dealings of one Tony Rezko who is now serving time in prison. They ought to compare how much they've given to charities with Joe Biden, who revealed with his tax returns in '08 that although he had also made millions, he had given about $300 to charities in one year. Whoopie-do.

There has also been a lot of criticism between the candidates and all over the internet about who is the most conservative of the bunch. It's too bad that Michele Bachman dropped out of the race because she probably was the purest conservative of them all. Unfortunately she was unable to present herself as being tough enough, like a Maggie Thatcher, to be the leader of the free world (although she'd probably be a lot better than the current one). She also spent too much time attacking the other candidates and proclaiming herself to be the only true conservative, and not enough time explaining her positions.

I don't think "who is the most conservative" needs to be an issue anymore in these debates. Romney was a moderate to liberal Republican governor, who continues to move to the right to try and win the Republican base. But he's the Republican establishment choice, as well as the Democrat and liberal media choice, which is probably why he's been unable, after six years of campaigning, to attract the conservative base, even though the ultra conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter has jumped on his band wagon.

Santorum and Gingrich continue to be mauled by Ron Paul supporters (by Ann Coulter as well); Santorum mostly for being anti-Second Amendment, but Gingrich for being a closet Marxist. The attacks on Santorum haven't been as strong as those on Gingrich, mostly because he's been down in the pack except for his surprise victory in Iowa. Gingrich is kind of an anomaly. He is criticized for a number of decisions that appear to be very liberal, and yet when confronted, he usually has some good reasons behind those decisions, or has admitted to having made mistakes, which of course is only human. Then again, he has a record of a very conservative career in politics as a supporter of Reaganomics, four balanced budgets as Speaker of the House, and American exceptionalism among other things.

Ron Paul is a libertarian, which is a conservative out on the far right fringe, a borderline isolationist, and in favor of so little government that it's almost anarchy. Now that's not entirely true, but he is seen as a radical by even most conservatives. We are all in favor of constitutional limited government, but I think laws against illegal drugs and abortion are not inconsistent with the Constitution as Paul seems to think.

The critical issue this year is simply defeating Obama. I think any of these candidates, Romney from the left, Paul from the right, or Gingrich and Santorum from the center, will be better than the current occupant of the White House. In Obama we have a potential dictator who doesn't give a rip what you or I think. With the Republican candidates you have someone who may not agree with you on every position, but who will listen to you and be swayed by the will of the people. That's why no matter who wins the nomination we need to get out and vote. This year, more than ever, is not the year to sit it out if you don't get the candidate of your choice.

It will be interesting to see what Obama says tonight in his State of the Union address. I meant to write a critique of his speech last November, which was pure claptrap, but didn't get it done. I imagine tonight will be more of the same; a declaration of all that he's done for the country (division through class warfare), of a growing economy (4 trillion of debt, he hasn't submitted one budget to Congress on time in three years, and the budget he submitted last year was rejected by the Democrat controlled Senate 99-0), of how he has created 3 million jobs (a figure no documentation can prove, and which belies the fact that there are 1.5 million more people unemployed today than when he started and unemployment is still above 8.5%), and of his great foreign policy, in which he no doubt will take the lion's share of credit for getting bin-Laden.

The reality is nobody in the world takes him seriously. Look at Iran. Obama criticized Bush for not opening a dialogue with Ahmadinejad. He promised to bring about peace and normal relations by talking to the Iranians rather than threatening them with military force. Now Iran is threatening us with military force in the Straits of Hormuz, and Obama still hasn't opened a dialogue with Ahmadinejad. Romney has been the most active in focusing on Obama, but all the Republican candidates need to make him the subject of their criticisms rather than each other.