presidential candidates

First Florida debate

by asmwizard

 

Conducted by Brian Williams, the first Florida debate, on January 23 — just two days after the SC primary — was televised by NBC. The audience was instructed not to applaud, which reduced the impact made by the candidates. It probably prevented a lot of boos and cheers for Paul, and made it harder to know who won the debate.

 

The roles of the candidates seemed to have been reversed. For the first time, it wasn’t Romney trying to be presidential and the other candidates attacking him, rather it was Gingrich who played that role. In my view, Gingrich won, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. On CNN after the debate, three left-leaners seemed to think Romney won, that his attacks were effective. I thought Gingrich deflected them and suffered very little damage. There was no doubt that Romney was out to destroy him in the first hour, and to a lesser extent Santorum and even Paul tried as well. There was little post-debate analysis.

 

Not much new was learned. This morning, Laura Ingraham described the debate as agonizingly boring. The absence of crowd response and the lack of new material, as well as the lack of substantial differences with the candidates probably made the debate average at best. Newt kept his cool, never went off against anyone, so the level of passion was less than in the SC debates.

 

Romney asserted that Gingrich was kicked out of the House by his fellow Republicans; Newt responded by saying he asked them to vote against him because they needed to get the issue out of the way. I thought the argument was acceptable. Romney also said repeatedly that Newt had lobbied while working at Freddie Mac, Newt denied it, and had released his last contract with them. Newt said he has never lobbied in his entire career.

 

I don’t believe this debate will affect the polls very much.

 

That’s about as much as I feel like analyzing for this debate. The debate can be replayed from First Florida Debate


2nd SC Debate

by asmwizard

CNN sponsored the 2nd debate in Charleston, SC on Thursday, January 19.  John King was the moderator.  The four candidates looked almost lonely on the stage, since Perry had dropped out that morning.  The crowd was very large.

Note – anything below in parentheses is my opinion.

King began with Newt, asking him about his 2nd wife Marianne, who interviewed with ABC last Friday night.  The report was somehow made available to CNN.  ABC will run it tonight for the first time on Nightline.  Marianne accused him of asking her for an “open marriage” at the time he was having an affair with Callista.  Newt immediately reacted in anger, saying he was appalled that CNN would open a presidential debate with such trash; saying he had gone through pain, and called it “despicable” that CNN made the decision to run it.  He said he was tired of the elite media attacking Republicans.

((My note: This was a huge moment. Newt may have won the debate, even the nomination, on his opening response to the question about his previous marriage. No one else on the stage is capable of such a powerful response. I don’t think anyone else would have dared to say it, or could have said it so eloquently. He might have won — or lost, the nomination based on his scolding of ABC, CNN, and John King. CNN, ABC, and King deserved it. I think it was the most memorable moment of the debates this far. Most such moments have come from Newt. I’m not sure how to evaluate the effect on the national audience. I know some of the Charleston audience stood and clapped. ))

Santorum was asked to comment, said people should make their own judgments; I am essentially perfect.  Paul wondered about the big corporations that own the media; Romney said it is not a real issue.

? Paul was asked for 3 things he would do as president to get people back to work; get government out of the way; sound currency; fewer regulations.  Gingrich said he’d repeal Dodd-Frank; take advantage of the natural gas off the coast of SC, and use some of the money to modernize the Port of Charleston; and overhaul the Corps of Engineers.

? Gingrich – what did Romney do wrong at Bain?  Georgetown (SC) Steel was a firm he closed down; Romney ought to explain his record at Bain.  Romney – capitalism works; he’d stimulate energy production in the US; would get rid of Obama’s crony capitalism, such as at GM and Solyndra.

? Santorum – on what he’d do for jobs – support capitalism; Obama wants to make everyone dependent; I’d cut taxes to zero for manufacturing firms.

? Paul – should federal govt. give special help to returning veterans? – Some.  Santorum – help veterans; he’s appalled that Obama is cutting veteran benefits while refusing to do anything with entitlements.  Romney – it should be done at the state level.  Gingrich – GI Bill after WWII and tax cuts made the economy take off.

? Romney – can Obamacare actually be reversed?  I will sign executive order on the first day granting waivers to every state; complete repeal will require friendly congress; after he eliminates Obamacare, he will replace it with market-oriented solutions. Gingrich – should repeal all of it; as for the provision that extends insurance for children at home up to 26 years old, elect us and your kids will have jobs and can go out and buy their own.  Santorum – trivial attack on Romney, accusing Romneycare being just like Obamacare; trivial attack on Newt saying he supported individual mandates up to 2008.  Here Santorum argued back and forth over the allegation.  Gingrich and Santorum then went back and forth over the mandate.  (This was largely wasted debate time.)  Paul – it’s likely we can’t fully defeat Obamacare; by the way, Santorum voted for Bush’s drug plan.

? Santorum – Gingrich recently suggested that it would be better if Santorum and Perry would drop out of the race.  Santorum – Being grandiose has never been a problem for Newt; he’s full of ideas, but we always have to worry about what he will say; I beat him 2-0 in Iowa and NH; he can’t manage anything; I’m steady.  Gingrich – The next president will have grandiose problems and will need to be able to handle them.  I can do that; I engineered the first Republican majority in the House since 1928.  I did this and that.  Santorum – (becoming really vicious) Newt has an idea a minute but doesn’t have major management skills; was evicted from the speakership by Republicans after 3 years; knew about the check kiting in the House by members for years but didn’t dare to do anything about it.  G – (defended himself.)  Romney – you’ve just heard why an outsider (like me) is needed; it’s amazing how much credit candidates take for things they play only a small part in; Newt was only mentioned in Reagan’s diary once.

? (for all) When will you release your taxes?  Gingrich – I released mine an hour ago, it’s on my website at www.newt.org;  Romney – I’ll release mine when they’re done; I pay a lot of taxes.  Santorum – I do my own taxes; my taxes are on my home computer; when I get home, I’ll release them. Romney – I don’t apologize for my success.

? Santorum – Apple Computer employs 500,000 in China, only about 40,000 in the US.  What would you do to bring those jobs back to the US?  I have a made in the USA policy; I advocate zero taxes on manufacturing firms. 

? Paul – How would you revive “Made in America”?  When we send money to China, they just use it to buy our debt, so it’s OK; We see less cost to consumers because of overseas manufacturing; We have more manufacturing in Right to Work states; I’m big on RTW.

? Gingrich – What’s your take on SOFA?  (The internet restriction bill now in Congress). I favor internet freedom; any company whose rights are compromised has the right to sue; SOFA the wrong thing to do.  Romney – Newt had it right; I favor a narrow restriction on the violators.  Paul – I opposed the law.  Santorum – I opposed the law, but internet can’t be totally free; piracy from overseas must be stopped.

? (for all) – If you could go back to the beginning of your campaign and do one thing differently, what would it be?  Gingrich – I’d skip the first 3 months, when I tried to be a traditional candidate; since then, I’ve run an idea-based, internet-oriented campaign.  Romney – spent less time talking about other candidates and more time on President Obama.  Santorum – wouldn’t change a thing; it’s awesome to be one of the 4 remaining candidates.  Paul – trying to better express myself; speak more slowly.

? Gingrich – You’ve mentioned a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.  How would you handle the problem?  Close the border; make English the only official language; modernize the visa system; make it easier to deport illegals – 2 weeks instead of months (lots of luck on this one); guest worker verification system (essentially an on-line registry) outsourced to a credit card company like VISA or MasterCard, who are expert at catching fraud; For people already here, if they’ve been here 25 years, have paid their bills, committed no crimes, and have an American family sponsoring them, I’d allow them to stay.  (I doubt if many could jump all those hurdles.)  Romney – not a tough problem; I’d set up a register of residents (probably my phrase); I wouldn’t round them all up and ship them out.  (Other countries, such as Sweden and Mexico, have an online list – a registry – of all citizens.  I support the idea, but there are privacy buffs who would be horrified.)   Santorum – Newt’s idea bad; anyone here illegally 25 years probably stole their ID; Romney – we’re a nation of legal immigrants.  Paul – about 25% of illegals work for private individuals, would you punish them? Gingrich – as president I would immediately instruct my Attorney General to drop all immigration lawsuits against states such as Arizona and South Carolina. 

(Here some discussion of abortion, sniping back and forth between Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum.)

? (for all) One minute summary of why you should be the nominee.  Paul – SC known for respect of Liberty.  Gingrich – If a Saul Alinski radical and incompetent Obama is reelected, it’s all over; we must have a team victory, so we control House and Senate, to be most effective.  Romney – Pursuit of Happiness makes our country powerful; I like capitalism.  Santorum – I agree with Romney; I’m the best man to take on Obama; (Here, he actually bashed Romney and Gingrich) Vote for me.

++++++++++ debate ended.  It lasted about 2 hours.

The three remaining candidates are remorselessly determined to be president, and will do anything, say anything to win.  None will give in as long as there is any reasonable chance.  The remainder of the campaign will be bitterly fought.  Of course I exempt Paul, who is really a protest candidate and has no chance whatever to be the nominee.  

I may regret my words later, but here I’ll give my assessment of each candidate at this point, just before the SC election:

Romney – no longer regarded by everyone as the inevitable candidate.  Has been very smooth for almost all his debate exposure up to now.  He’s made very few gaffes.  He sounds like a conservative, says all the correct things, but I fear he might turn left after his election. 

Santorum – I still regard him as not ready, too inexperienced to be president.  His sniping at the other candidates, often repeating the same things, is often juvenile and petty; his bragging over his accomplishments as a Senator are not always convincing.  Still, he is conservative and bright.  He might not be a total disaster as president.  He is the dark horse, and Gingrich and Romney may destroy each other.

Gingrich – I see him as a brilliant, powerful man, the right person to lead at this critical time, although he made many enemies as Speaker – among establishment conservatives, who are barely center right, and of course he was terrifically attacked by Democrats, because he was effective against them.  Like Winston Churchill, his personality is complex, his flaws are many, but I believe he will be by far the most effective president in reversing the trend to the left. 

Paul – his simplistic ideas and his unwavering support of the unmodified constitution resonate with many, and he should be given a chance to speak at the convention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First SC January debate

by asmwizard

Conducted by Fox News on January 16, Martin Luther King Day.  Moderator, Bret Baier.  Questioners, Juan Williams, Jerry Seib, Kelly Evans.  Attendees, Perry, Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Paul.  John Huntsman announced earlier in the day that he was suspending his campaign, then endorsed Romney.  A huge crowd attended in a very large auditorium.

In my opinion, Gingrich was the clear winner, getting very large crowd response; Perry, Romney, and Santorum tied for 2nd.  Paul was glib and tried to look more moderate, except for foreign policy.  Romney stuttered a few times, was not quite as smooth or confident as in previous debates, but probably didn’t hurt himself very much.  Perry may have had his best debate.  Santorum scored some points, was not at all deferential to Gingrich as he had been in past debates.

Fox News has some articles available which should persist: Gingrich spars  Romney put on defense

There was sharp questioning, my notes are very approximate, as I didn’t have time to jot down the questions.  I’ll try to show highlights only:

? Gingrich.  Last September, you vowed to be non-critical of the other candidates.  Why aren’t you now?  G – After the barrage leveled against me, I had to change my approach; Romney’s business record should be explored.

? Romney.  Your record at Bain?  R – 4 of the businesses I created were extremely successful; handled over 100 businesses.

? Perry.  You accused Romney of vulture capitalism.  P – in Georgetown SC Bain picked the company clean; Romney should release his income tax records; Dodd-Frank needs to be repealed, is choking banks.

Romney – the firm in question was a steel mill, hurt by foreign dumping; dumping broke about 40 steel producers about that time; I founded a new steel mill using modern technology that succeeded.

? Paul – your scathingly critical ads on other candidates. Pl – it’s OK if it reflects truth; Santorum voted against right to work.

Santorum – Paul has been quoting left-wing outfits like CREW; I did vote against right to work because my state (PA) was not a right to work state.

? Santorum – you accused Romney’s Super PAC of distorting your record.  R – his PAC accused me of advocating the vote for convicted felons; after a felon has served his time, been released, he deserves to regain his vote.

Romney – a convicted felon remains that all his life, should never be allowed the vote.  (Romney stuttered here.)

Perry – this is a state issue.

? Romney – in New Hampshire, Huntsman called you a “perfectly lubricated weather vane”.  Will you change again?.  R – No. (in so many words)

? Perry – in South Carolina, the federal government is suing to stop voter ID.  Does the fed have a right to do that?  P – Federal govt. has declared war on my home state of Texas and against SC; NLRB ruled against SC and Boeing because it’s a right to work state; As prez, I’ll boost state’s rights; Fed is also at war against organized religion; Obama’s administration is out of control.

? Santorum – would you support extending the jobless benefit by 20 more weeks?  S – not unless they receive training while receiving benefits.

? Gingrich – How many weeks of jobless benefits would you support?  G – All should be tied to training; 99 weeks of school would get you an associate degree.

— Skipping questions and trite responses from Romney and Paul;

? Romney – will you release your tax records?  R – I will, around April.

? Romney – you have a hard policy against illegal immigration.  Are you alienating Latino voters?  R – No; I would veto the Dream Act.

? Santorum – there are currently very high levels of unemployment and poverty in black population.  What would you do about that?  S – studies show if you work before marriage, graduate from high school, and refrain from having children out of wedlock, chances are only 2% you’ll be poor.

Paul – skip

? Gingrich  – aren’t your remarks about blacks working derogatory?  G – No; Black Americans should prefer jobs over food stamps; my daughter’s first job at 13 was as a church janitor, she loved having money; I’ve been publishing a newsletter on the subject; New York City pays ridiculous wages to their janitors because of unions; kids could also work in the cafeteria, library, and office, it would teach them responsibility and give them money which poor families especially need; only the elites despise money.

? Gingrich – didn’t you imply that Blacks are lazy and irresponsible?  (The crowd booed this question by Juan Williams)  G – Obama has put more people on food stamps than any other president in history; I will find a ways to help poor Blacks get a job and own it.  (Standing applause)

Paul – skip his remarks about foreign policy.

? Gingrich – Would you go into a country such as Pakistan and kill someone (such as Bin Laden) without declaring war?  G – Pakistan had to know Obama was living a mile from a huge military base; Andrew Jackson was sabered in the face as a young boy by a British officer, and his idea about dealing with enemies was – kill them!

Paul – we should have a golden rule in dealing with other countries – do with them as we would want them to deal with us; We wouldn’t like it if China came into our country and killed someone.

Romney – Gingrich was right; Barack Obama should not have announced the date of our withdrawal in Iraq; we are under attack, need a strong military.

? Romney – would you negotiate with the Taliban?  No, Biden said we would, and he was wrong to want to do that.

Skip dialogues with Santorum, Paul, Perry.

? Perry – Now that Islamist regime has taken over Turkey, should they be kicked out of NATO? P – cut their foreign aid to zero; Turkey no longer works with us; There should be no space between US and Israel; I served in the Air Force.

Paul – I too served in the Air Force – 5 years; Taliban just wants us out of Afghanistan, Al Quaeda wants to come here and kill us.

? Romney – would you have signed National Defense Act, which allows us to retain Guantanamo prisoners forever? R – foreign terrorists have no rights.

Santorum – American citizens caught as terrorists should have right of Habeas Corpus. 

Skip

? Romney – what are your plans for entitlement reform?  R – Medicare, premium support like Ryan plan.

Gingrich – Social Security voluntary choice between old plan and new plan; personal savings accounts like Chile, (wildly successful there); 95% would take advantage of PSA’s; every American becomes an investor.

? Santorum – Isn’t your plan to cut taxes for manufacturers to zero actually having govt. pick winners and losers?  S – I’d cut business taxes to a flat 17.5%, but manufacturing is where we’re losing jobs, which is why I’d cut taxes for them to zero; Newt’s Social Security plan is fiscally irresponsible because he’d have to borrow money to put in the personal savings accounts.

Gingrich – I’d finance it by cutting out 185 bureaucracies.  (My note – actually, in Chile a portion of payroll tax is paid into the personal account)

Romney – Rick is right; we can’t borrow more money at this time; Newt’s plan is fiscal insanity!  (I thought this was a mean choice of words)

Skip conversation on gun control

? Gingrich – You voted for a bill supporting one child per family in China.  G – wrong.  On Super PAC – I’ve called on mine to edit out that isn’t true.

Romney – we’d all like to see Super PAC’s ended.

? Perry – Now that illegal immigrant rate of border crossing is at a 40 year low, shouldn’t we stop spending money on it?  P – immigration is low because the economy is at a 40 year low.  If I’m president, border will be closed within one year.

? Gingrich – Has the No Child Left Behind Act been a failure?  G – yes; teachers tend to teach the tests; I would eliminate the Department of Education; return control to states; and they should eliminate their departments of education, return control to local school boards.

(end at about 1:50)

Note – there was a running twitter for the TV audience where the audience could indicate whether the candidate answered the question (above the line) or didn’t (below).  Newt and Paul were consistently above the line, Romney was the least here. 

There was a very good Fox News post-debate show with interviews of Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Huckabee Forum 2

by asmwizard

On Saturday, January 14, Mike Huckabee conducted a forum with 5 of the Republican candidates in Charleston, S.C.  The audience was composed of people who professed to be undecided.  Each candidate was questioned by himself for 12 minutes, with all questions coming from audience members, who lined up to ask them.  One rule was that candidates would not be allowed to criticize each other.  Only Ron Paul did not participate.  The event was held in the afternoon, then televised that evening on a special 2-hour Huckabee program. 

The atmosphere was friendly, and all candidates were confident, glib, and smooth.  None were seriously challenged.  This was milk toast on steroids.  I took notes on each question, but will only comment on highlights or new information, if I can find any.  I’ve ignored some questions and some answers.

Romney – what would you do to help the housing market?  Would have govt. stop doing things that hurt; get people back to work; supports the mortgage interest deduction.  What about Obama’s extra-constitutional actions?  Obama packed the NLRB (labor relations board) with recess appointments while the Senate was in session; jams legislation down our throats; I wouldn’t do that.  Why should a Paul supporter vote for you if you are the candidate?  I will cut and cap federal spending.  Medicare reimbursement to doctors will be cut 27% in May (I think), will drive doctors to stop working with Medicare patients, what will you do about it?  My plan is similar to Paul Ryan’s, it will allow choice between the current system and premium support.  Why should conservatives vote for you?  Look at my record; Read my book “No Apologies”.

Huntsman – What would you do about well-educated immigrants coming to America and taking high-paying jobs?  I think we need them; immigration system is broken. What about America’s manned space program, (currently no vehicle)?  The space program inspires; It has economic benefits; I will not contract it out of the country.  (My note – no mention of NASA’s Orion project.)  What about the Department of Education?  If I’m president, tell it good-bye.

Gingrich —  How would you address the unemployment problem?  In SC, develop natural gas.  Would you abolish the Federal Reserve Bank? No, I’d audit it; fire Bernanke; release the last 3 years of memos so the public could learn what they’ve done.  Creative destruction is a fact of life in captialism, why do you criticize Romney about it?  Obama will test candidates, they must be vetted.  The country is sick of gridlock, why would you be better as president?  I did it as Speaker.  When you debate Obama, how will you address his class warfare arguments?  I’ll ask the public, would you rather live on a paycheck or food stamps?  I’m a federal employee, will my job go away – can you cut the deficit without cutting federal jobs?  I’ll try to move them to other jobs; employees would prefer more productive jobs; would eliminate poor workers.  What would you change about election laws?  Let anyone donate anything, as long as all donations are made public; this would eliminate VACs and a lot of negativity.

Santorum – How would you address the trade imbalance with China?  Eliminate restrictions which make American manufacturing 20% more expensive than foreign nations, even excluding the high business taxes; Obama administration produces 150 regulations per year; as president I would review all.  Why do you make exceptions for rape & incest when it comes to abortion?   I don’t.

Perry – How can we get people off welfare?  Health & Human Services should focus on fraud, set up an office of Inspector General.  How can we simplify tax for businesses?  I advocate a 20% flat tax.  What kind of person will you pick for vice president? Philosophy and passion same as mine. What about the National Labor Relations Board? I will do away with it; Obama is at war with South Carolina – won’t let Boeing produce the Dreamliner here because it’s a right to work state, lawsuit on SC’s immigration laws.  What will you do about ridiculous EPA regulations?  Texas has been a victim of ridiculous EPA rules;  the EPA can be much smaller; most environmental regulations should be at the state level.

At the end, each candidate was given a ridiculously short 1-minute summary. 

All in all, very bland.  Perry probably got the most applause when he pointed out that the Obama administration has made war on South Carolina.

 

 

 

New Hampshire debates.

by asmwizard

There were 2 debates in New Hampshire, on consecutive days. On Saturday, January 7, ABC News held a debate lasting an hour and 40 minutes. Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulis moderated. Candidates present were, left to right on stage, Huntsman, Paul, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry. Michelle Bachmann is out now. The debate management was nothing special.

Note the placement on stage: Romney, as always, center left, and Santorum had a middle slot for the first time in any debate. As usual, the center candidates got the most time. Romney was his usual teflon self, no one really got to him, although everyone else tried. The audience didn’t applaud much.

There currently are videos and articles about the debate on ABC News, but links to these will quickly leave the main page. They should be long-term accessible at: Why Romney wasn’t attacked, Fact checking, and Short debate video.

From my notes on the debate:

Romney: If jobs are starting to turn around, Obama didn’t do it; Washington insiders don’t understand the economy, my experience is in leadership. Santorum: we don’t need a CEO in the White House, we need a leader.

Gingrich: Bain Capital (Romney’s firm) was a story of greed, killed as many jobs as it created. Cited a New York Times article.

Romney: not surprised that the Times did that article, was surprised that anyone on stage would quote it.

Huntsman: Bain is part of his record. Governors (such as himself) will do as president as they did as governor. Pats himself on the back about Utah.

Romney: thinks himself superior because he has worked in the private sector.

Paul – Santorum exchange: Paul called Santorum corrupt – took money from lobbyists, raised debt ceiling 5 times, is a big government person. Santorum denied, saying he was attacked by CREW, a George Soros organization, and anyone who hasn’t been attacked by CREW isn’t conservative. Paul: Santorum is a big spender, not conservative.

Perry: Huntsman and I are the only Washington outsiders. The Tea Party should love us.

Huntsman: will push for term limits. I understand China (by implication, no one else does.)

Romney: Unlike me, Obama had no experience as a leader, made mistake after mistake learning on the job.

Perry: My having served in the military is an advantage; Obama doesn’t understand the military.

Gingrich: on being asked about a Paul ad which asserted he dodged the military and wouldn’t understand it, said Dr. Paul says a lot of things. He cited being an army brat taught him a great deal, Newt has taught military history for 32 years to military personnel, and said he didn’t dodge or ask for a deferment, but was in college and wasn’t eligible for the draft, and his father was in combat area at the time.

Paul: asked about racial slurs in his newsletter, said he has explained all that, and it happened a long time ago. Said he understands racism, blacks unfairly prosecuted for crime and drugs. Minorities suffer more. Drug laws unfairly enforced.

After a long break for commercials, George asked Romney a question he thought strange (as did I) — Do states have a constitutional right to ban contraception? I don’t know if this was an oblique reference to Roe vs. Wade, suggesting that abortion is a form of contraception, or if some state is trying to ban condoms or morning after pills. George didn’t explain it very well, and Romney didn’t know what he was talking about.

Romney: no state wants to do it. He turned to Paul and said: ask the expert on the constitution.

Sawyer read a sob story letter from some gay guy saying his marriage should be recognized.

Gingrich: marriage is between a man and a woman, has been for all of history, but nothing should stop gays from forming long term relationships.

Huntsman: would support civil unions.

Santorum: marriage amendment is a federal issue, he supports it. Same sex adoption a state issue.

Romney: civil union OK.

Gingrich: on same sex adoption, Catholic adoption suppressed in New Hampshire because they don’t accept same sex couples. Federal govt. forces them out of adoptive services. It’s bigotry. (He received the most applause of the night when he condemned this.)

Perry: Obama administration is fighting a war against religion. He’ll stop it.

Huntsman: Time to bring troops home from Afghanistan. Would leave 10,000 to counter terrorism. A civil war is coming there.

Gingrich: there are serious region-wide problems. Cited Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, etc. Says a new overall strategy is needed.

Santorum. Agreed with Newt. Obama has made many mistakes. Says he sanitizes the language so that the enemy (Muslim extremists) aren’t called by name.

Perry: would send troops back into Iraq. (gasp) My note — since Iraq doesn’t want us, that would require another invasion. This was probably a gaffe by Perry. Perry says Iran will move into Iraq at light speed.

Gingrich: disagreed,

Romney: would only send troops if American interests are involved.

Paul: sanctions only lead to war.

Santorum: the Iranian people like Americans; Obama turned his back on them.

Romney: government must encourage private sector.

Gingrich: govt. should be technologically smart, need systematic investment in infrastructure.

Various candidates: asked how we should bring back jobs, cited the usual things: cut corporate taxes, regulations, etc.

Huntsman: China’s GDP is falling, Wall Street Journal endorses his tax plan.

Romney: Obama put America on road to decline.

Gingrich: Romney is a Masschusetts moderate, and is cautious, even timid.

Santorum: Romney is not bold. Romney used the term “middle class”. Santorum thinks that’s class warfare rhetoric.

Romney: uttered platitudes on open markets, deregulation.

Huntsman: we must succeed in relationship with China. Must sort through trade issues with all countries.

Romney: China is a bad actor, they manipulate currency, steal our intellectual property, etc. He would rein them in.

Huntsman: Romney would start a trade war.

Romney: China has much more to lose in a trade war, they wouldn’t start one. Cited the small sales to China, their huge sales to us. (My note: cutting off goods from China would cause American prices to go up, but might cause enormous problems for the Chinese.)

My take: the debate wasn’t managed well, questions didn’t produce new information. Debate went over old ground. Stephanopoulos may have acted like a Democrat in posing his questions: Stephanopoulos may have been unfair.

 

*********************************

On Sunday morning, January 8th, NBC held a one-hour debate in the time slot for “Meet the Press”, or as Rush Limbaugh calls it, “Meet the Depressed.”

This was moderated by David Gregory, and was one of the best-run debates of the campaign. Gregory’s rapid delivery seemed to entice the candidates to speak rapidly in answering, and his questions were good, in my opinion. Some new ground was covered.

From my notes:

Asked who of the group would make the best candidate:

Gingrich: not Romney. He is relatively timid, is a Massachusetts moderate, and will have a tough time beating Obama. I’m a Reagan conservative.

Romney: (defending) I cut taxes 19 times, New Hampshire knows I did a good job in a neighboring state; several governors have endorsed me.

Santorum: if Romney’s record was so good, why didn’t he run for re-election? When he and Romney ran at the same time in 1994, why didn’t Romney stand for conservative principles?

Romney: It’s not unusual that career politicians should want to stay in office, but he is not a career politician.

Gingrich: (after Romney talked too long) the red light doesn’t mean much to Romney; would like him to stop the pious baloney; he’s been running since the 90’s.

Romney: proud of my service.

Paul: Romney supported TARP; no one is talking about real cuts.

Perry: I have the best chance to beat Obama and re-invigorate the Tea Party. When I look at the rest of the candidates, I see nothing but insiders. Insiders caused all our current problems in spending.

Romney: I will stand up for Republican ideas.

Huntsman: We are in an age of austerity. Romney’s spin confuses the audience; indignant because Romney criticized him for putting the country first. (So Huntsman said – I rather doubt it)

Romney: Huntsman worked for Obama.

Huntsman: this nation is divided because of attitudes like that; agrees with Ryan plan; would means test entitlements.

Santorum: agrees with means testing entitlements;likes food stamp, Medicaid block granted to states.

Gingrich: likes the Ryan-Wyden plan because it contains options;national columnists and journalists seem to like stories involving pain for the American people;Newt doesn’t;would cut the fraud and embezzlement from Medicare.

Perry: would eliminate commerce,education, and energy departments. Continuation of the joke about his forgetting the 3rd one.

Santorum: would impose immediate means testing of entitlements, for all; his plan similar to the existing one for federal employees (premium support and choice) which works well; in his plan seniors would have choices.

Romney: right choice is to shrink government.

Huntsman: my tax plan endorsed by Wall Street Journal;

Gingrich: asked about dealing as president with a hostile congress, said he negotiated successfully with Bill Clinton.

Romney: worked with legislature containing 85% Democrats; developed respect for each other; they granted him unilateral power to cut spending; thinks he can always find common ground.

Paul: dodged an assertion that he was ineffective in the House – Steph. said Paul originated 620 bills in his career, only 4 made it to debate, only 1 adopted into law. Paul: in his spending cuts would go back to the 2006 budget.

Santorum: Paul has always been in the margin of the House, would be very dangerous president.

(Here, a few minutes of some trite stuff I’ll skip over) then:

Perry: biggest problem is congress; they are out of control; I’d change them to part-time. (my note – congress would have to vote on that. Not very damned likely to happen – therefore, it’s meaningless noise.)

At this point, a couple of New Hampshire yokels (journalists, actually) were brought in to ask questions.

Q. Obama administration recently cut support for poor families to obtain heating oil. Would you continue that?

Huntsman: country should fix energy problems; oil distribution monopoly (whatever that is) is bad, would favor other forms of energy.

Q. How do you feel about subsidies?

Paul: subsidies generally bad.

Romney: don’t need fed to solve all problems; send these programs back to states; block grants.

Q. having to do with gays or gay marriage: (remember, New Hampshire allows gay marriage)

Romney: I don’t discriminate, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Santorum: wants all to be respected, but supports marriage amendment; gays should be treated like everyone else, have no special “rights” as such.

Q. on right to work laws:

Perry: right to work is a federal issue.

Q. what contributions do unions make?

Romney: training; government unions pay scale should reflect private sector pay for same jobs.

Gingrich: removing restrictions on energy production would make prices fall.

Q. What to do about cross-state pollution laws?

Romney: Need to keep air clean, so some regulations needed; natural gas for power production is cleaner than coal.

Q. You would replace the EPA with an “Environmental Solutions Agency”. What is that?

Gingrich: EPA has become increasingly dictatorial, bad for business; talked about their attempted regulation of dust in dry areas; his new agency would take effect on business into account.

(skip trite exchanges)

Paul: Health care is a “right”? Entitlements are not rights. I don’t like “rights”.

Huntsman: what the presidency needs is real leadership (me); will attack the “trust deficit”.

Q. Why can’t we live with nuclear Iran?

Santorum: because they’re governed by a religion which likes martyrdom, death not a deterrent; Pakistan not a theocracy.

Here, a heavyweight exchange between Gingrich and Romney. Gingrich complained of untruth in Romney’s PAC ads against him, Romney said he didn’t control them but they were true and cited his “being kicked out of the House, being fined $300,000, etc. Gingrich denied that it was a fine or that he was kicked out. Gingrich’s PAC is releasing a 27 minute film about Bain Capital, Romney’s firm, and their predatory business practices – buying companies in trouble, selling off their assets, dissolving them, and putting employees on the streets.

There was a bit more, but nothing major. This debate lasted an hour and 27 minutes, including breaks. This may have been the strongest criticism Romney has received. Gingrich faced him and accused him of dishonesty. Romney gave as good as he got. I’m not sure who won this one. Santorum was strong, Perry made no gaffes, Romney was smooth, Gingrich was strong and confrontational.

New Hampshire is probably a battle for 2nd and 3rd. Romney will win, the others are fighting for crumbs. If Romney doesn’t do better than 30% or doesn’t have at least a 10% lead over whoever is in 2nd place, he might be seriously hurt. Perhaps Paul will make a strong showing, but he is almost irrelevant. Huntsman has staked all on New Hampshire, was not particularly impressive in the two debates. He might drop out if he finishes last or polls less than 10%. Perry will most likely finish last, most certainly less than 10%. Less than 5% might make him think seriously about dropping out.

 

Newt, Freddie Mac, and the Pundit war

by asmwizard

A lead in the polls is a fragile thing, as many presidential primary candidates have discovered.  The public is easily diverted.  Take Howard Dean, for example, who led in polls for the Democrat primary for the 2004 election, when John Kerry and John Edwards unexpectedly finished ahead of him in the Iowa Caucuses.  He attended a post-caucus rally for his volunteers at the Val-Air Ballroom in West Des Moines, Iowa and delivered his concession speech, aimed at cheering up those in attendance when he uttered his famous scream.  The video was picked up by the networks and comedians, and endlessly repeated just after winning the Iowa Caucuses.  Making him appear very unpresidential, it effectively ended his candidacy.

There was a perfectly valid explanation that few people heard:  Dean was suffering with the flu, which gave him a feverish and flushed appearance.  Feeling warm, he took off his coat and rolled up his sleeves.  (from wikipedia) Dean was shouting over the cheers of his enthusiastic audience, but the crowd noise was being filtered out by his unidirectional microphone, leaving only his full-throated exhortations audible to the television viewers. To those at home, he seemed to raise his voice out of sheer emotion. 

Michael Dukakis was another candidate whose status was seriously damaged by a small thing.  In 1988, he was the Democrat candidate for president, running against George H. W. Bush.  Accused of being soft on defense, he staged a photo of himself, sitting atop an Abrams tank, wearing a tank commander’s helmet.  This backfired, and the picture was used to mock him as silly and again, unpresidential.  There were other damaging factors that were brought up to hurt Dukakis, but this may have been the most telling.   Bush won in a landslide.

The issue that may sink Newt Gingrich’s candidacy is that he worked for Freddie Mac as a “consultant” over a six to eight year period after leaving the House, and while he was a private citizen.  Michelle Bachmann, in the December 15 debate, accused him of “peddling influence” and hypocrisy, in that he helped the (evil) Freddie Mac management scam the American public by pushing subprime mortgages, but he now wants to bring them down.  I’m paraphrasing Michelle’s comments.  A TV attack ad by Mitt Romney accuses Newt of being a lobbyist, using the “If it walks like a duck . . .” saying.  

Newt has attempted to explain his work with Freddy Mac.  (Quoted from Sam Youngman, Reuters):   “I just want to set the record straight,” Gingrich said. “We had a company. The company had three different offices. We were paid annually for six years, so the numbers you see are six years of work.  Most of that money went to pay for overhead, for staff, for other things that didn’t go directly to me.”  

Newt has explained his Freddy Mac involvement in a long interview with Greta van Susteren on Fox News.  He provides a briefer explanation on his website at Newt’s answers.  The complete Greta van Susteren interview can be accessed from there.   Newt said his Gingrich Group had three offices and 30 employees, had many customers,  and was paid by Freddy Mac for “strategic advice.”  He said he never lobbied or used his influence. 

Newt was interviewed by Mark Levin on his radio show, and gave him an even more cogent justification of his consulting activities with Freddy Mac.  Mark Levin.

Michelle, Mitt, and many pundits from TV, blogs, and publications are piling on Newt, refusing to accept his explanations.  Among these are Wall Street Journalists, many columnists, and Fox News contributors and journalists such as Charles Krauthammer and Ann Coulter.  George Will is very negative to Newt, as is a frequent contributor to the Kansas City Star whom I happen to like a lot, E. Thomas McClanahan. 

Newt has his defenders as well, but there aren’t many.  Jonah Goldberg, Andrew C. McCarthy, and Rush Limbaugh are almost alone.  McCarthy has a long and well-reasoned defense at McCarthy’s defense.  Goldberg’s article “A Gingrich presidency?  GOP says ‘inconceivable’” appeared in the Kansas City Star: Gingrich inconceivable.

Rush Limbaugh suggested a day or two ago that establishment conservatives don’t want to nominate a “true conservative” and that explains the assault on Newt.  I concur. 

I happen to believe and accept Newt’s explanations of his Freddy Mac activities, but this issue might bring him down.  I hope not.  I believe he is the best candidate.

 

Final debate before Iowa

by asmwizard

Fox News held the final debate before the Iowa Caucus in Sioux City, Iowa on December 15, 2011.  Brett Baier moderated.  Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly, and Neal Cavuto were questioners.   Candidates present were Gingrich, Romney, Paul, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, and Huntsman.  Donald Trump has withdrawn from his proposed debate, which has not been officially cancelled.

A good review of the debate can be found at Rich Lowry’s review.  Rich doesn’t like Gingrich much, see his editorial bashing Newt at Winnowing the field.  I don’t yet know how to respond to his charge that Newt was kicked out of the House by his colleagues in 1998.  I do know that Newt was voted out as Speaker, and then resigned rather than continuing as an ordinary member.  This was after Newt was censured for alleged ethics violations by a violently reacting Democrat majority – pushed by Nancy Pelosi.  I don’t know Lowry’s politics.  I continue to support Newt as the best candidate.

Video snippets from the debate can be found at Fox News debate.

The first question to each candidate challenged them with bad things currently said about them: Gingrich on how conservative he is; Paul that he is unelectable; Bachmann that she doesn’t appeal to moderates and is too conservative; Perry, a weak debater who might have to debate Obama;  Huntsman, in that he is praised by moderates but isn’t very conservative; Santorum, with all the effort in Iowa, why has he failed to catch fire?  The candidates had a chance to refute those assertions.  Most did fairly well.

The next question: If you are president, and like the current situation have a House or Senate in the other party and face a government shutdown, what would you do to break the impasse?  Santorum said he would lead, motivate, and go to the public; Perry said he would apply his governing experience; Romney stressed his leadership ability, said in Massachusetts he had a legislature that was 85% Democrat; Gingrich pointed to his experience in working with Bill Clinton; Paul went off on a tangent and talked about cutting spending; Bachmann said she would speak before entire Congress and set ground rules – no new taxes, balance the budget, and follow the Constitution; Huntsman said leadership is action, not words. 

The next round consisted of questions giving each candidate a chance to refute criticisms against them.  Romney, about Newt’s criticism of his Bain experience, that Obama would level the same attacks.  Gingrich, that he worked for Freddie Mac, said that government sponsored enterprises (GSE’s) like Freddy Mac are sometimes good and effective, but he would bring down Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, that he worked with them as a private citizen, never tried to influence any politician, while Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were at fault in the housing crisis.  Paul was asked about his negative ads on Gingrich, responded that big business and big government are bad.  Bachmann accused Gingrich of peddling influence with Freddy Mac, when Newt responded she wasn’t factual, she came back and accused him of taking paychecks from them.  In general, Bachmann struck me as a vicious little bitch, but Krauthammer said after the debate she was strong and on point.  Gingrich was asked about his endorsement yesterday of Paul Ryan’s and Ron Wyden’s new bi-partisan health care reform plan.  He praised it and welcomed the bipartisanship. Romney agreed.  Perry talked about his part-time Congress.  Huntsman, asked about the 22% tariff China has placed on American car imports, gave a long-winded answer saying we need to get closer to the Chinese people.  Santorum, I forgot what he was asked, but he talked about his plan to have zero per cent tax on money corporations bring back from overseas.

The next round started out with one question to Romney, then went to the Judicial Branch.   To Romney, which 10 industries will grow in the next 10 years?  Let the market decide.  Gingrich, that attorneys have said his comments on reigning in the courts are dangerous, gave a very strong response saying that courts are arrogant and should not legislate;  Bachmann, should the 9th circuit court be abolished?  Courts should follow Constitution, should not make laws.  Paul, subpoenas for judges to Congress would be bad.  Romney, need care in appointing judges.  Santorum, recited his experience in taking on judges.  Perry doesn’t want lifetime terms for judges.  Huntsman, emphasizes rule of law, not a memorable answer.

The round on foreign policy was where Paul stumbled badly, while the other candidates gave predictable answers.  Paul would remove sanctions on Iran, said there is no evidence they will ever have an atom bomb, predicted America will overreact.  Santorum: Iran has been at war with us since 1979.  Romney: Obama asked Iran to give back the drone, pretty please.  The President’s weakness invites war.  Bachmann: Iran will move into Iraq right after we move out.  She never heard of a more dangerous answer than Paul’s.  Paul: war is dangerous.  Bachmann: Paul’s biggest problem would be under-reaction.  Gingrich: would re-examine a U.N. that is anti-American in many ways.  Huntsman: U.N. serves as peacemaker.  Perry: would impose a no-fly zone over Syria.

On energy:  Gingrich: grand slam home run when he criticized Obama’s putting off the Keystone Pipeline decision until after the next election.  Huntsman: generalities, as usual.  Bachman: Obama’s Keystone decision based on his re-election, not America’s need.  Perry: federal government should not pick winners and losers. 

On Immigration (but questions not always answered): Perry: as president, if Eric Holder didn’t know about Fast & Furious, Perry would fire him immediately.  Santorum: Iraq is training jihadists in Venezuela.  Romney, asked why illegals would leave if he didn’t round them up, said he would implement an ID card system and punish employers who hired illegals.  Gingrich, on becoming president, will stop all lawsuits against states, cut off federal aid to sanctuary cities.  Huntsman, says we need a more moderate approach to illegals, says numbers have dropped.

On social issues:  Romney, accused of changing positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, admitted changing from pro-choice to pro-life, said he opposes discrimination against gays but has always opposed same-sex marriage, said the Massachusetts Supreme Court made him allow it as governor.  Santorum said Romney ordered the state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  Bachmann accused Newt of having the wrong idea on life.  Newt said life begins at conception,  said Bachmann didn’t have her facts right.  Bachmann, said she was outraged that Newt said she didn’t have her facts right, accused Newt of (indirectly) supporting partial birth abortion.  Newt denied. 

That was essentially it, although candidates were polled on whether they should break Reagan’s “11th commandment” and go after other candidates.  All essentially said, “we can take it” and “Obama will do worse.”

========

My overall evaluation: Romney was smooth, didn’t attack, and wasn’t hurt.  Gingrich hit home runs – getting strong applause — on all but his response on Freddy Mac, which he addressed but didn’t convince the crowd or the pundits.  The remaining major skeleton in his closet, which I haven’t seen him address, is the fact that he was censured by the House, including virtually every Republican, as he was on his way out.  He has mostly put the other criticisms down.  Paul was exposed, and if his followers weren’t so fanatical, he might lose support.  Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, and Santorum didn’t help themselves.  Romney and Gingrich probably won the debate, most likely a tie. 

The 14th debate

by asmwizard

I’m calling this the 14th televised debate.  It was held in Des Moines on December 10, sponsored by the Iowa Republican Party and conducted by ABC.  Liberals Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos (had to look up the spelling) were the moderators.   My guess on attendance was around a thousand, all selected by the party.  The six candidates present were: Santorum, Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Paul, and Bachmann.  John Huntsman failed to attend, possibly because he wasn’t invited, or possibly because he’s off in his own world.  Either way, he has never been relevant.

The format was similar to previous debates conducted by news networks: one minute responses, 30 second rebuttals.  Romney and Gingrich were positioned in the center and received the most time, but all had a chance to speak.  Some of the questions seemed designed specifically to expose Newt, and this was good for him because he blasted them out of the park.   Both Gingrich and Romney may have stumbled slightly, however.  Bachmann came across as a mean little lady, and didn’t help herself much, in my opinion.  Perry was himself, which isn’t good, Paul remained strange, and Santorum probably gave his best performance. 

The first question was a bit naive: how many jobs would you create as president, and how long would it take?  Romney said 11 million in 4 years; Newt repeated his record on job creation, especially while speaker.  Someone gave the correct answer, I believe it was Perry, who said no one can tell but he would create an economic climate to allow the private sector to create them.  Every one mentioned lower corporate taxes and less regulation, except Paul, who gave his usual meandering poppycock.

Are you in favor of renewing the payroll tax cut?  Bachmann said no – it cost 111 billion this year, we’re already borrowing from general revenue; Santorum voted no, while Romney, Perry, and Gingrich were for it in a qualified way.  Not sure what Paul said, but then I never am.

Who is the most conservative candidate?   This useless question provoked no intelligent responses – each candidate said “me” within a cloud of words.

The first attack on Newt: addressed to Paul, Why did you run an ad saying Newt is a “serial hypocrite”?  Paul listed several things – the Pelosi ad, I believe; Newt’s “Right-wing Social Engineering” comment on the Ryan Plan health reform; and making money at Freddy Mac.  Newt responded and explained each of these rather well in the short time he had to talk, but he did get some extra time here.  Others went on to attack Newt: Michelle called him “the poster boy for crony capitalism” – again referring to his time with Freddy Mac, and Newt explained again, but told her she should be truthful in her comments.  Perry attacked Romney and Perry on health insurance mandates.  Gingrich explained that it first began in 1994, to counter Hilary Care, and originally began with the Heritage Foundation as a conservative idea, but rapidly lost his support as the unintended consequences became clear.  When Romney tried to address the question, he said it was OK for states, bad for the federal government.  Perry came back and said that wasn’t what Mitt’s book said, and here Romney offered to bet Perry ten thousand dollars.  This may have been a blunder, according to pundits after the debate – insensitive in bad economic times.  Perry turned it down. 

Somewhere, I think in the prior round, Romney cast himself as an outsider and implied Gingrich was a career politician.  Gingrich responded by saying Romney would have been one if he hadn’t lost the 1994 senatorial election to Ted Kennedy.  Mitt and Newt laughed with each other several times during the debate, appearing to have a good time on the stage.  Perry’s exchanges with Romney also appeared friendly.  Only Michelle seemed to lack a sense of humor.  It now strikes me that she never has, and perhaps that’s why she hasn’t done well as a candidate.

Then came the question seemingly designed to hurt Gingrich.  Should marital fidelity, family values, and faith be considered important factors in choosing a president?  Diane Sawyer knew full well only Gingrich has had marital problems and is known to have been unfaithful to his spouse.  Of course, she selected every other candidate to speak before Gingrich.  Every candidate agreed those attributes were very important – talked about how long they had been married, how many kids they had, etc.  Perry said, “If you’ll cheat on your wife, you’ll cheat on your partner, and who knows who else.” (Paraphrase, but the general idea.)  Then it was finally Newt’s turn: he said: of course those things are important.  He cited the Federalist Papers words on integrity, said voters should consider those factors in choosing a candidate.  But he said he has made mistakes but now he’s a 68 year old grandfather. It was the best possible answer under the circumstances.

I’ll paraphrase the next question: What would you do about illegal aliens still in the country (after you close the border)?   This is another gadfly question, since there is a controversy among the candidates – only Gingrich has suggested any sort of leniency.  Here, I believe Newt stumbled, but so did the other candidates, of which only Romney gave a slightly better answer – he mentioned registering the aliens, but then deporting them and making them get back in line.  Newt explained his plan to have long-term illegals pass through some tests to become legal, but Diane asked him how long – and Newt said 25 years.  So, only aliens who could prove they had been in the country since say, 1987, could qualify.  That struck me as incredibly harsh.  What about someone who has been here 20 years?  Newt insisted on 25.  I don’t think Newt has given the matter sufficient thought, nor have any of the candidates – or perhaps they don’t really want to touch this with a 10 foot pole.  Perhaps only I see this. 

However, the others displayed no leniency whatever.  All illegals would be deported.  I’m not sure Paul had a chance to give his usual incompetent answer.

Do you think Palestinians are an “invented” People?  This was a phrase from another comment by Newt.  Newt responded yes, and we need to stop lying about people who attack Israel every day and deny Israel’s right to exist.   Mitt Romney mostly agreed, but thought Newt caused unnecessary turmoil, should watch what he says. Newt responded by saying he is a Reaganite who, like Reagan, will tell the truth, referring to Reagan’s “Evil Empire” and “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall” comments which made history.  Santorum said truth should be spoken with prudence; Perry thought it a minor issue, and Bachmann was critical and talked about how many times she has visited Israel.

What was the last time you had a financial problem?  (paraphrased)  Perry, grew up poor; Romney, was rich but dad had been poor, made him work; Bachmann, came from a middle class family but divorce made her mother struggle and Michelle had to get a paying job at 13; Santorum, came from a modest home; Paul, wife worked his way through medical school; and Gingrich, family once lived in an apartment over a service station, and his father’s income as an army officer wasn’t much.

Should federal government regulate unhealthy habits (such as obesity, smoking)?  Paul, hell no; Perry, such things should be left to the states.

What important thing have you learned from another candidate?  Santorum, as a young politician, watched Newt’s tapes on government; Perry, Paul got him thinking about Federal Reserve problems; Romney, no one specific, all show leadership; Gingrich, Santorum’s consistency on Iran; Paul, incoherent answer; Bachman, Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan shows value of simplification and plain speaking.

The debate ended there, at the 1:47 mark.

Afterward, several pundits thought Romney was hurt, differed on Bachmann, one thought Gingrich has taken over as the inevitable nominee and solidified his position.

 

The Huckabee Presidential Forum

by asmwizard

The forum of December 3, 2011 was not a debate.  Mike Huckabee’s idea was interesting.  Give each candidate exactly 11 minutes, with a final one-minute summary at the end.  The questioners were state attorneys general, from 3 states.  The general topic was the relationship between the federal government and the states.

Herman Cain, having dropped out of the race earlier that day, was not present, nor was John Huntsman.  The six candidates were Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, and the Ricks – Perry and Santorum.  The 3 questioners – all lawyers – posed some but not all tough questions. 

Newt’s most difficult test was on his immigration ideas – having a local board select which long-term illegals can stay was questioned, and rightfully so.  He was also questioned on his initial support of a federal mandate for insurance.  He handled the questions well and wasn’t hurt too much.  For the second time, I heard him refer to President Obama as a “Saul Alinski radical.”  In my view, though arguably true, this is a mistake.  Such references should be saved until direct debates between Newt and Obama.

Romney did quite well.  He called the EPA a tool in the hands of the president to crush fossil fuels in favor of renewables.  He would eliminate the NLRB.  While harshly criticizing the Department of Education, he would continue to test kids.

Perry said some interesting things.  He would not support a national right-to-work law, would leave that to the states.  He believes the federal government should reimburse states for their expense in dealing with illegal aliens.  He wants to amend the constitution to have shorter terms for Supreme Court judges, doesn’t like appointment for life as it is now.  As said earlier, he wants congress to meet every other year.

Bachmann also did well.  She favors a federal law enforcing right-to-work in all states.  She confirmed she would deport all illegal aliens without exception.   She would abolish the Department of Education, and supports the amendment for human life, defining a fetus as human.

Ron Paul’s performance was terrible.  He came across (to me) as cranky and crazy.  His opposition to the Patriot Act would strip tools from the federal which give them the ability to stop acts of terror before they happen.  He thinks terrorism is a crime, not a way.

Santorum did fairly well.  He said the government does things to hurt families, citing aid to unmarried mothers which results in couples not marrying so they can continue to receive government money.   He cited EPA regulations that hurt states.  He said the president has an obligation to enforce the law, and supports the Patriot Act.

In my view, the candidates are over-exposed.   This is the most heavily televised pre-primary season of all time.  There are currently 4 remaining events this month, 3 to be held in Iowa, and the Huntsman-Gingrich debate to be held in New Hampshire.   Two of these events were arranged within the past few days, as was the Huckabee Forum.   Perhaps the most interesting is the Donald Trump debate, coming up on December 27, a week before the Iowa Caucus.   The Donald says that sometime after the debate, he will endorse one of the candidates.