Random Observations Re: Last Night’s Debate

When I finally tuned out last night, the bobbleheads were calling the debate for Mitt Rombot because (i) the Rombot failed to completely short circuit on stage, and (ii) none of the other contenders really went after it.  From the bobbleheads’ perspective, calling the debate in the Rombot’s favor is undoubtedly the safe call as the Rombot is almost certain to win the New Hampshire primary two days from now and apparently is topping the polls in South Carolina (curse you, Newt Gingrich!  You have once again proven that I simply cannot predict what Republican voters are likely to do.)

In no particular order, below the fold are some random observations about last night’s GOP debate:

Newt: Giving Iowans What They Want

There is a theory being espoused by conservative and liberal pundits alike that one of the factors powering Newt Gingrich in the polls is the idea among Republicans that “the Professor” could wipe the floor with Barack Obama in a debate.  Paul Waldman explains the idea here:

If you aren’t tuned in to conservative media – the radio shows, television shows, and websites where the base Republican voter lives – you might not be aware of how powerful this impulse is.  Many conservatives are positively obsessed with the idea that contrary to all appearances, Barack Obama is kind of a dolt.  There’s lots of talk about how Obama only got into Columbia and Harvard Law School because of affirmative action (you may remember noted highbrow intellectual Donald Trump making this claim), and endless jokes about Obama overusing teleprompters, with the idea that he’s too dumb to give an extemporaneous speech sometimes implied and sometimes stated outright.

So many conservatives have a fantasy that if they nominate their own smart guy, he’ll show the world that they’ve been right all along, that Obama is really a numbskull whom people only believe is smart because the liberal media sing his praises . . . .

. . . . [T]o many Republicans, Newt offers the opportunity not just to defeat Obama but to expose him as a fraud.

It makes sense to me that a sizeable chunk of the Republican base would believe this about President Obama, and that it would be important to them to win the election by humiliating Obama and the Liberals as much as possible.  Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that these voters care more about humiliating Obama and the Liberals than about actually winning the election in the first place.  As mentioned here, and here Republicans don’t debate political ideas, Republicans wage war against political demons.

(Bonus Romney quote from last night’s debate:  “There are Democrats who love America.”  This should not go unremarked.  Romney delivered that line like he was saying something revelatory, like it would surprise his audience to learn that there are at least some Democrats who are not actively working to destroy the United States of America.  I tell you, the entire GOP is barking, staring mad.)

And for those Republican voters looking for assurances that Newt Gingrich might just make their dreams of domination and humiliation come true . . . well, Newt turned in a pretty good performance last night.  I’m sure that any doubts such voters may have been harboring on that score were put to rest.

Imagining a Better Republican Debate

I didn't watch it myself, but I followed a couple of sites that were liveblogging.

(1) I understand that Ron Paul was asked whether he truly opposed a fence along the Mexican border because it might prevent Americans from leaving the country and he said that absolutely was the reason he opposed the fence. Ron Paul . . . doubling down on the Crazy! That makes me so happy.

Seriously, do these people think there is only one way into the country? What do they suppose Canada is, the Fifty-First State? What about our coastline, which is 12,380 miles long (if you believe the America-hating CIA) or else 95,471 miles long (if you believe those Poindexters over at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Hhmmm . . . y'know, that does seem like a fairly big discrepancy, but our own federal government came up with both numbers so I'm sure they must both be correct.

(2) And speaking of "securing the border," can't we just once have moderators who will ask some follow-up questions to explore exactly what this fence fetish demonstrates about the Republican Party? I mean, last night's debate was held in Florida -- can you imagine what it would have looked like if the questions and answers had been at all honest and consistent?

"Governor Romney, you've come out very strongly in favor of building a fence along the border with Mexico. But a great deal of illegal immigration runs through Florida. Do you also favor encircling Florida's coastline with a big fence?"

"Why, no, Chris -- that would block our ocean views and beaches and destroy Florida's tourist industry. We can't have that."

"So chasing tourist dollars, in your view, is more important than protecting Americans from illegal immigrants?"

"Now, now, I didn't say that, I just said I wouldn't build a fence. Ahh . . . probably what I'd do is order the construction of gun emplacements every five miles or so, and set up a naval blockade to prevent any illegal immigrants from sneaking ashore. The big guns would only add to Florida's scenic charms, and anybody trying to make it into Florida would get shot out of the water."

(Republican audience breaks into cheers and applause.)

"And you'd be willing to do that even if it meant preventing anybody from leaving Cuba and coming to America to join the rest of their family?"

(Thinking of the all-important conservative Cuban-American vote, and sweating a little). "Well, now, I didn't say that either. Uhhmmm. . . . Probably what I'd do, I'd task some high-tech spy satellites to remain over Florida and the Caribbean 24/7 so we could know which boats held brave Cubans fleeing the oppressive Castro regime, and which boats contained dirty, filthy poor people just trying to take advantage of good ol' Uncle Sam."

"So . . . no Haitians then?"

(Relieved to be back on familiar ground - it never hurts you in the Republican polls to bash black people - Romney replies in his best patrician voice) "Certainly not - no Haitians."

"Thank you, Governor Romney. Turning now to Congresswoman Bachmann, Congresswoman you've also been a staunch advocate of a border fence with Mexico. But you hail from Minnesota, which is a border state itself. Are you also in favor of building a fence along the Canadian border, which is - let's face it - much longer than the one we share with Mexico?"

"No, Chris, I am not. Our problem is with the illegal immigrants sneaking across from Mexico. Canada has an education system that turns out students who leave American students in the dust, health care for all its citizens, better infrastructure, much better and faster internet speeds, a higher median household income, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal study Canadians are the second-happiest, most satisfied people in the world, right behind the Danes -- America doesn't even rank in the top ten. So, no, Chris, I don't think we need to spend all that money to secure the Canadian border -- the fact is Canadians don't want to move to America." (Breaks off to stare vacantly for a moment, listening to what she's just said.) "But that's their loss, Chris, because America is the best country in the world."

(Pavlovian trained Republican audience breaks into chant: "USA! USA! USA!")

"Thank you, Congresswoman that's an . . . impressive explanation of your position. So am I right --"

"And you'd better not try to build a fence between us and Canada, either! It sounds like a lot of Americans might wanna move there! Maybe someday soon."

"Yes, thank you Congressman Paul. Getting back to what I was trying to ask just a moment ago - and this question is for the entire panel -- so is it really just the Mexicans everyone here is concerned with?"

(Panel nods, as one.)

"And the Haitians, too."

(Panel nods, as one, again).

"Yes, and the Haitians too -- thank you, Governor Romney."

(3) I haven't checked the news or any websites this morning, but last night the sense I got from the commenters I was reading is that Perry looked unsure, unfocused and unsteady - that Romney cleaned his clock. But these commenters were all posting on the liberal sites that I most commonly frequent, so I'm a little wary of ascribing too much predictive power to these views.

I remember watching Gore and Bush II during the 2000 presidential debates and after every one I thought Gore was the clear winner. He had an obviously greater command of the facts, had clearly thought through the consequences of his policy decisions, and of the two candidates he was definitely the guy I'd want in charge if something terrible happened -- like, say, I dunno . . . the worst terrorist strike in American history. Bush just put on a goofy smirk and an aw-shucks attitude and looked offended that anybody might not think he was ready to be president.

And after every debate I listened to pundits and looked at polls and it seemed to me these people had watched something else entirely. Bush was 'confident,' 'down-home,' a 'natural leader,' and Gore was 'wonky, stiff, stuffy.'

So I'll be interested to see if Perry suffers the kind of set-back in the GOP polls that his described performance from last night would seem to warrant. Lord knows I'm not the target audience here, nor are any of the people whose comments I was reading last night; if Perry's approval ratings actually go up that'll highlight even more the vast differences that exist between the people facing each other over America's modern political chasm.

Rick Perry's Debate Debut: Handicapping the Candidates

I watched the debate via Internet, but I assume the sound quality was the same for those watching on the TeeVee – boy!  did that suck!  The amount of reverb present whenever anyone was talking gave me a headache and sometimes made it next to impossible to figure out what was being said.  I don’t know if that was a problem with the audio equipment or somehow resulted from the fact the debate appeared to have been held in an airplane hangar, but it was extremely annoying.  Almost as annoying as the hagiographic video they ran of St. Ronald Reagan and his missus.

As for the GOP base audience, I took notes of the things to which they seemed to react/applaud.  These included:

--Newt Gingrich’s charge that the “liberal media,” acting as the debate’s moderators, were “carrying water for Obama”;

--Michele Bachmann’s claim that the Affordable Care Act constitutes “socialized medicine”;

--Jon Huntsman’s charge that Obama should “get out from behind a teleprompter;”

--Santorum’s announced goal of cutting way back on food stamps and housing assistance; and

--Rick Perry’s assertion that Social Security was “a monstrous lie” that “won’t be there” for our children. 

But by far, what drew the loudest and longest applause was Brian Williams attempt to ask Rick Perry about the record number of people he has executed as Governor of Texas.  The really chilling thing about this applause is that it started before Williams could even finish setting up the question.  He got as far as saying “Governor Perry, you’ve presided over the executions of the largest number of people of any modern governor –” when the audience broke into sustained and spontaneous applause.  They were applauding Perry for killing a lot of people.  If you wanted evidence of the bloodthirsty nature of the GOP base . . . There it is.

Individual assessments of each candidate's performance are below the fold.

Ron Paul: Crazier'n a Bag of Snakes

Well, I tuned into last night’s Republican nomination debate.  If there were any doubt before that the media think it’s their responsibility to pick winners and losers for the American people, this spectacle should have put such doubts to rest.  So far as the moderators were concerned, last night very much was Rick Perry’s Big Debut: Going Toe to Toe with Mitt.  Every candidate other than Rick Perry and Mitt Romney – the two frontrunners who Conventional Wisdom says will have to fight it out in a steel cage death match for the nomination – got amazingly short shrift. 

Moreover, even when one of the other, lesser candidates did get a question it seemed to me that two times out of three it was a question about Rick Perry.  At one point pretty much all the candidates got involved in a 5 minute discussion regarding Perry’s decision to have little girls inoculated against the Human Papillomavirus, which causes cervical cancer.  This was an issue, apparently, because many true blue Conservatives feel that only the threat of cervical cancer prevents their little girls from one day having Teh Sex -- and as all true blue Conservatives will tell you, women having Teh Sex is worse than women getting The Cancer.

But as crazy as that sideshow was, inch-for-inch and pound-for-pound the greatest entertainment bang for your buck last night was to be found in the demented little Keebler Elf that is Ron Paul.

Thoughts on the Seven Dwarfs Debate

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

About Last Night's Republican Presidential Debate

Just a quick note, because this is something that has bugged me for some time, because there is just enough of the hint of truth in it to turn it into a Zombie Conservative Lie such that it never dies, and because I haven't seen anybody else mention it yet. In fact, I have yet to see anybody remark on this statement at all, even though it is easily the most radical thing to have been said last night.

During the debate, Gary Johnson announced that he was in favor of ending - completely - all corporate income taxes. He justified this by arguing that corporate income is money that is "taxed twice." We all own the corporations, he said, so when a corporation makes money that money is taxed, and then when it is distributed to "us" it is taxed again and that isn't right. (Let's just skip over the fact that most Americans do not, in fact, own corporations, or even any stock in a corporation other than what might be held by our mutual funds.)

Goddammit.