With Whom to Dance, Florida Google Fox GOP edition, 2011
This was the first of the Presidential debates I've managed to catch in full, although I had to watch it in bits and pieces before finally finishing this (Saturday) morning. Before, I've been content to get commentary after the fact, mainly because my current favorite, Gary Johnson, hasn't been invited to the previous debates. How did I think this one went?
Well, all in all, disappointing. With nine candidates, I admit, the threshold necessary to even have my guy there, it's hard for any one candidate to stand out with anything substantive. Johnson made a valiant effort, managing to get a nice quip about shovel-ready jobs in there that even amused the other candidates who were happy to reference it after the fact. Paul was unusually subdued (for him, anyway). He handled the abortion question pretty well. Not perfect, and he's far from the pro-choice champion that Johnson is, but he defended his opposition to bans on “morning-after” with pragmatic wisdom often eluding pro-lifers. Perry came across as scatterbrained and unfocused, though I appreciate that he stuck to his guns, relatively speaking, on immigration. It was cool that the Fox reporters noted that “path to citizenship” seemed to be more popular among the people interested in the debate than the fence-building and deport-them-all talk you heard from the other candidates. Romney was better than expected, but he still strikes me as plastic and well... politician-like, which is surprising given that the only political office he's ever held was for four years. You'd think he'd spent his life in politics. Huntsman did unusually well; he struck me as more informed than most of the other candidates, though he didn't really acquit himself on the natural gas subsidy issue.
Herman Cain was also much better than I expected, though again, this may only be speaking to my low expectations! Still, not bad from him. I'm curious about his 9-9-9 plan, though I liked the remark someone made afterword that it sounded like a pizza marketing promotion. And he didn't say anything weird or creepy about Muslims. See, a low baseline of expectations.
(As an aside: even my guy, Johnson, is pushing the Fair Tax, which isn't my preferred policy. I'd rather have a Flat Tax. But no question, if I have to choose between the status quo and the Fair Tax, I'll happily, cheerfully, endorse the latter. I don't know that I buy the mainstream economic diagnosis entirely, that banks and investors have plenty of capital, but they're just sitting on it, so we need to get them to spend. If that's true, though, than taxing consumption may not be the best policy. People are already restraining their spending and cutting back on luxuries. That's actually the main thing that I wish people would see. The “market,” or rather, the people acting economically in the aggregate, are “correcting” for profligate spending over the last decade and the massive debt they've accumulated. So the slump, while not good in itself, plays the role that a fever plays when you're sick. It's a by-product of this correction, and an information signal in its own right, so it really shouldn't be discouraged (by trying to get people to spend when they otherwise wouldn't) or encouraged (by a Fair Tax). The best thing that can be done is to provide regime certainty and stability with respect to laws and regulations, so people can know that if they are ready to spend and invest, they can do so with less risk of exogenously imposed changes that could render their investments into costly mistakes. But I digress.)
Santorum was slippery. I expected him to stick to his guns on gays in the military, and he kind of did, but deceitfully described his position in a way that didn't sound like it was anti-gay, when it was. Bachmann and Gingrich were two that left little impression of any kind on me; they didn't seem serious to me. The former certainly struck me as ignorant, especially with respect to the HPV vaccine issue, and she didn't really get out of the “mental retardation” comment she was responsible for with any grace.
All in all, the debate itself didn't strike me as a forum for … well, serious debate about the merits of ideas. It was a forum comprised mostly of clowns and has-beens. Which of course means that Obama and Biden would both fit in well there. But it strikes me that the point may not actually be to argue for particular conclusions, but rather merely to look good, or “presidential,” and to make your other opponents look bad. In that respect, I was surprised that Huntsman sort of confessed what his strategy is: allow Perry and Romney to rhetorically beat the tar out of each other, a la Guiliani and Thompson, and then to waltz in for the nomination like McCain, as the last man standing. Of course, for that to work, Huntsman would have to win New Hampshire, which at present would be tough. Last I saw, Romney is dominating New Hampshire with a comfortable 30 point lead. Ron Paul is running second, followed by Huntsman and Perry respectively, but those three are all only in the 10-15 range. Romney would have to seriously implode for that to change, but there are still several months left, so that isn't impossible.
As for Johnson, of course I realize that his candidacy is the darkest of dark horses now. But I'm glad he's there, with all his affable awkwardness and, yes, authenticity. It may be victory enough if he's able to force the other candidates and the media to take him seriously and pay attention to him, and to make sure the things that GOP Presidential primary candidates take for granted and don't want to talk about get said. He may only be the Clark Kent of the candidates, but Clark Kent had a secret power that kept him from getting knocked down. Likewise, Gary Johnson's secret power, his authenticity and reason, mean that whatever blows he takes, he'll just pop back up.
Thus far, I think I can identify precedents for all the people running that seem to provide explanatory templates, archetypes if you will, for the dynamics of this race. Thus far:
Romney: John Kerry '04
Perry: Bush '00
Huntsman: Bob Dole '96/McCain '08. Eagerly hoping Perry and Romney magically transmogrify into Guiliani/Thompson.
Gingrich: A harder one. Trying to be the wise, elder statesman, but more a has-been who has trouble catching a break. Maybe Adlai Stevenson '56
Cain: Forbes '00 (Still the non-politician and successful businessman, but nowhere near as radical or interesting as Forbes '96).
Bachman: A cross between Pat Robertson '88 and Dennis Kucinich '04.
Santorum: Robertson '88
Ron Paul: Ron Paul '08
Gary Johnson: Clark Kent. Maybe Paul Simon '88?
Well, all in all, disappointing. With nine candidates, I admit, the threshold necessary to even have my guy there, it's hard for any one candidate to stand out with anything substantive. Johnson made a valiant effort, managing to get a nice quip about shovel-ready jobs in there that even amused the other candidates who were happy to reference it after the fact. Paul was unusually subdued (for him, anyway). He handled the abortion question pretty well. Not perfect, and he's far from the pro-choice champion that Johnson is, but he defended his opposition to bans on “morning-after” with pragmatic wisdom often eluding pro-lifers. Perry came across as scatterbrained and unfocused, though I appreciate that he stuck to his guns, relatively speaking, on immigration. It was cool that the Fox reporters noted that “path to citizenship” seemed to be more popular among the people interested in the debate than the fence-building and deport-them-all talk you heard from the other candidates. Romney was better than expected, but he still strikes me as plastic and well... politician-like, which is surprising given that the only political office he's ever held was for four years. You'd think he'd spent his life in politics. Huntsman did unusually well; he struck me as more informed than most of the other candidates, though he didn't really acquit himself on the natural gas subsidy issue.
Herman Cain was also much better than I expected, though again, this may only be speaking to my low expectations! Still, not bad from him. I'm curious about his 9-9-9 plan, though I liked the remark someone made afterword that it sounded like a pizza marketing promotion. And he didn't say anything weird or creepy about Muslims. See, a low baseline of expectations.
(As an aside: even my guy, Johnson, is pushing the Fair Tax, which isn't my preferred policy. I'd rather have a Flat Tax. But no question, if I have to choose between the status quo and the Fair Tax, I'll happily, cheerfully, endorse the latter. I don't know that I buy the mainstream economic diagnosis entirely, that banks and investors have plenty of capital, but they're just sitting on it, so we need to get them to spend. If that's true, though, than taxing consumption may not be the best policy. People are already restraining their spending and cutting back on luxuries. That's actually the main thing that I wish people would see. The “market,” or rather, the people acting economically in the aggregate, are “correcting” for profligate spending over the last decade and the massive debt they've accumulated. So the slump, while not good in itself, plays the role that a fever plays when you're sick. It's a by-product of this correction, and an information signal in its own right, so it really shouldn't be discouraged (by trying to get people to spend when they otherwise wouldn't) or encouraged (by a Fair Tax). The best thing that can be done is to provide regime certainty and stability with respect to laws and regulations, so people can know that if they are ready to spend and invest, they can do so with less risk of exogenously imposed changes that could render their investments into costly mistakes. But I digress.)
Santorum was slippery. I expected him to stick to his guns on gays in the military, and he kind of did, but deceitfully described his position in a way that didn't sound like it was anti-gay, when it was. Bachmann and Gingrich were two that left little impression of any kind on me; they didn't seem serious to me. The former certainly struck me as ignorant, especially with respect to the HPV vaccine issue, and she didn't really get out of the “mental retardation” comment she was responsible for with any grace.
All in all, the debate itself didn't strike me as a forum for … well, serious debate about the merits of ideas. It was a forum comprised mostly of clowns and has-beens. Which of course means that Obama and Biden would both fit in well there. But it strikes me that the point may not actually be to argue for particular conclusions, but rather merely to look good, or “presidential,” and to make your other opponents look bad. In that respect, I was surprised that Huntsman sort of confessed what his strategy is: allow Perry and Romney to rhetorically beat the tar out of each other, a la Guiliani and Thompson, and then to waltz in for the nomination like McCain, as the last man standing. Of course, for that to work, Huntsman would have to win New Hampshire, which at present would be tough. Last I saw, Romney is dominating New Hampshire with a comfortable 30 point lead. Ron Paul is running second, followed by Huntsman and Perry respectively, but those three are all only in the 10-15 range. Romney would have to seriously implode for that to change, but there are still several months left, so that isn't impossible.
As for Johnson, of course I realize that his candidacy is the darkest of dark horses now. But I'm glad he's there, with all his affable awkwardness and, yes, authenticity. It may be victory enough if he's able to force the other candidates and the media to take him seriously and pay attention to him, and to make sure the things that GOP Presidential primary candidates take for granted and don't want to talk about get said. He may only be the Clark Kent of the candidates, but Clark Kent had a secret power that kept him from getting knocked down. Likewise, Gary Johnson's secret power, his authenticity and reason, mean that whatever blows he takes, he'll just pop back up.
Thus far, I think I can identify precedents for all the people running that seem to provide explanatory templates, archetypes if you will, for the dynamics of this race. Thus far:
Romney: John Kerry '04
Perry: Bush '00
Huntsman: Bob Dole '96/McCain '08. Eagerly hoping Perry and Romney magically transmogrify into Guiliani/Thompson.
Gingrich: A harder one. Trying to be the wise, elder statesman, but more a has-been who has trouble catching a break. Maybe Adlai Stevenson '56
Cain: Forbes '00 (Still the non-politician and successful businessman, but nowhere near as radical or interesting as Forbes '96).
Bachman: A cross between Pat Robertson '88 and Dennis Kucinich '04.
Santorum: Robertson '88
Ron Paul: Ron Paul '08
Gary Johnson: Clark Kent. Maybe Paul Simon '88?