Tonight’s debate was interesting from a number of different prospective, but there were no real breakout moments for any candidates. A few observations on specifics I will mention and then an overview of the debate in perspective.
The first serious point of debate was the payroll tax cut currently being proposed by the Democrats. The candidates all made various points, but the main argument was stated best by Michelle Bockman when she pointed out that Democrats, while claiming to be worried about Social Security, are deliberately hastening its demise by taking 110,000 Billion per year out of social security with this “tax cut”.
A main theme in the questioning tonight was to attempt to take Newt Gingrich out of contention, as many other front runners have been destroyed. You will notice that in the tenor of the questions as we go along.
Probably the most remembered line of the debate was uttered by Newt Gingrich after Romney had trotted out his favorite “I’m from the private sector and I’m here to help”line. Gingrich’s line was, “if you had defeated Ted Kennedy in 1992 you WOULD by now have been a career politician.” That is not word for word but almost. It really made the point that Romney’s claim on that score is a little specious. Romney also attacked Newt on allowing kids to work at school, which had a pretty weak argument.
Newt’s rebuttal was that the families could use the money, and the kids could learn in real time that working leads to money, and develop good work habits. Pretty hard to argue, as part of my marketing class in high school I worked the school supply store for free. Good to learn how to count down a register, be responsible for money, etc. etc. etc. Really good practical idea from Gingrich and I think many people out here in the work world realize it.
The old standby of asking Mitt to explain Romneycare was once again handled by Mitt as well as you could expect. The question of state’s rights is always what Mitt likes to talk about. The issue is putting government in charge of complex processes and expecting a good outcome. Mitt never addresses the inevitable “big government” bias that kind of legislation represents, Bill Clinton. One wonders how Stephanopolis would have reacted to a similar question about his former boss.
Newt answers these questions on a very serious way, always acknowledging both that he has done things that were wrong, and that the voters should take that into consideration. His only request, is that they keep in mind he is now a grandfather of 68 years of age, and has asked forgiveness from God an his family. Pretty much all he could day, but he says it well and he says it humbly.
I will have more tomorrow, but I leave you with this closing thought. It was started by Diane Sawyer wondering aloud why the politicians couldn’t get together and work for the common good. I would ask you to consider the broad scope of the Republican debate. Every person on that stage, accepted the basic premise that if Americans were not choked down by high taxes, they would and would take care of themselves and in fact excel. Every person on that stage saw excessive interference and overspending and over regulating as the obstacle to an expanding middle class. They differ on their ways of getting there, but they all embraced the American dream of working hard to get ahead.
I contrast this to the Obama platform for re-election. If you tune to MSNBC you will hear all about how the American Dream is in danger of dying because the government isn’t big enough to save it. The poor average American is defenseless against the evils of giant corporations and needs “government” to succeed.
They cite our success story over history and completely ignore that our best days were when we were governed least.
Instead of inspiring excellence, their stories inspire victim hood and envy. In their world, no one gets ahead on merit, and the deck is stacked against everyone THEY (or the union) don’t protect. They see you as the amiable dunce that need cradle to grave – nanny state mothering. I exaggerate for effect, but that is the basis for their argument.
Protect the citizens from the 1% that invest in the businesses that help employ, directly or indirectly, the 99%. Make business more expensive, and more people will find work. And if they don’t, we’ll take money from the 1% and pay them anyway. And if we create a dependent class in the process, be sure outfits like Acorn are around to register them to vote!
And we are to believe that President Obama is going to win re-election?