Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Personal Aside: In the Debate Last Night These Were Ones Who Showed Up Well--..

Debate.

In the debate last night those who showed up well were Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee…and, surprise, Paul. Giuliani because he has the ability somehow…and I cannot explain it…of dominating the panel. Why? He’s not handsome, is a little Italian guy, balding—but with a flashing smile. Yet he somehow has the quality that says despite all the imperfections, you can see him in the Oval Office. Romney is without qualification the smartest guy in the room. I am consistently amazed at his encyclopedic command of language and issues. Huckabee grows on me every time I see him. Once he was regarded as the most eloquent candidate but only on social issues—then the most colorful but only because he was wittiest. Now he’s an easy second in articulation to Romney—good all-round. Paul has that feisty man of conviction, man of principle as when he said he would not take a pledge to support whomever will be the nominee. Easy answer for one who ran as the Libertarian party candidate and who probably will again while at the same time under Texas law be able to run for reelection to the House—where he endorses congressional term limits. Let us say he will stay in the House until term limits become a part of the Constitution.

The losers begin with Fred Thompson who is too unexciting, too bland, too old looking, too low-key to warrant much attention. Followed by Brownback and Tancredo (the latter having no business being on the platform with the rest of them). Duncan Hunter had one good moment in the debate where he talked about trade—but that was the only good moment he’s had thus far.

Last week I wrote that I would apply the Pascal Wager to Giuliani were he to get the nomination. I better get ready because I imagine he will. In the meantime, my candidate is…Mitt Romney because his present position squares with all of my views. The nominated ticket could be Giuliani and Romney.

Now for your plebiscite with your views on the debate.

13 comments:

  1. Heaven help us. Nancy Reagan found being treated as a queen suited her perfectly.

    You read the profile of Giuliani's third (so far) wife. Can you possibly let that woman end up as first lady of our country?

    Shades of Mary Todd Lincoln!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tom-
    I certainly agree with your assessments of Romney, Huckaby, and Old Fred.
    You didn't mention McCain, who I felt sounded worn out- tired of it all. I agree that Brownback can pass without comment.
    I don't share your enthusiasm concerning either Guiliani or Dr. Paul, but certainly not for the same reasons. I'm sure there are many who will.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Too many - Comic Book Guy types get in the way of true insight.

    e.alexander - A comment like your's comes from a twerp who could stand an old school puss slapping - for openners.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not sure about your list of "losers." Perhaps you should elaborate more. Senator Brownback, for instance, isn't a celebrity and he doesn't do magic tricks, but he does have a consistent conservative message and his record speaks for itself.

    He is the only candidate actually trying to do something about the situation in Iraq BEFORE 2009. He is a man of principle. I'd rather have that than a Slick Romney (who stands for nothing) or a Giuliani who is pro-abort, pro-gay and anti-gun.

    But silly me for having conservative values!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Romney's PRESENT position" sums up the Romney flaw quite well. He's history, as are Paul, Tancredo, Brownback (sadly), Huckabee (ditto) and McPain.

    And Fred will get stronger, not weaker, as time goes on. It will be between him and Rudy, and I suspect that since Rudy is a Statist, Fred will overcome.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think it is interesting when the financial pundits say that the Chrysler strike is about whether it is possible to keep manufacturing in the United States.

    Image such a comment about manufacturing! To Wall Street and Globalist utopians, MADE IN AMERICA, has become a bad bad word. WHY?

    This is BAD! According to the federal reserve economic studies, the major economic engine for the Midwest, and thats were we live folks... is Manufacturing! They fed says an economic replacement for it has not been found. Microsoft and Apple arn't moving their corporate headquarters here. And much of Midwest manufacturing is tied to auto productions. For the sake of greater short term profits on Wall Street are we supposed to get rid of all manufacturing and its wages to miniscule wage countries like China? China is NOT a free country... it is a totalitarian COMMUNIST COUNTRY! How can you have a FREE trade with a country that is not FREE? Our trade deficit with them is MAMMOTH! And no one including Tom Roeser gives a damn! But have you noticed, Ohio once are Republican state is going Democratic because of the trade policies. Michigan once had a Republican Governor and is in trouble and tried to put in a massive service tax and even tried to tax fast food because it is losing out in the low wage race to the bottom.

    Take time to study the multiplier effect. An economic engine built on manufacturing dramatically enhances the the multiplier effect and benefits all of us. Remove the economic engine and the multiplier effect collapses. What is left, a Walmart/McDonalds economy is a big nothing. City after city, town after town across the Midwest is being gutted of their economic engines which are being sent to China strictly for low wage and high markup profits for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. You gut the economic engines and where will the taxes come from for Social Security, Medicare, Middle East Hobby Wars, etc? Are we doing this so a few can live very well in a gated community in Boca Raton or Santa Barbara?

    Then there are the illegal aliens and their untaxed underground economy that depends on the tax dollars from the middle class to support services for them. Is it no wonder the State of Illinois can't balance a budget.... or the State of Michigan? ETC ETC.

    I think Pat Buchanan pegged it the best with his current opinion piece in Human Events that you can read by clicking on the above. But then you all would today label him as an anti-semite, nationalist, flag waving, trad-Catholic, Paleo-Conservative cum Wacko, as his takes on the the failed and sovereignty robbing economic utopia of Neo Conservative globalization.

    We all have to wonder about the economic future of OUR country.... We all can't live off of paper profits, sub-prime mortgage spinoffs, and hedge fund manipulations. That is a FALSE economy. In my opinion the debate missed this completely.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As shown by his answer to the question did the Pres require congressional authorization to attack Iran.

    What was his answer, consult attorneys? Is that the answer of a thinking person, or a person who has read the Constitution, as Congressman Paul pointed out?

    Tom, Tom, you support Romney, but call Congressman Paul un-intellectual?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Can anyone name a President, a Congress, a Supreme Court, in this and the previous century, that either read, and better yet were lead by The Constitution?

    While Dr. Paul is a fine patriot and gentleman, he is also a modern Don Quixote.

    Put him in the ring with Reid, Pelosi, Ted the swimmer, Dodd the sandwichmaker with Ted, Barney Franks, etc. etc.

    Factor in the effect on our VOLUNTARY service people. Move on, please--

    ReplyDelete
  9. With regards to an earlier poster comparing Giuliani's wife to Mary Todd Lincoln -- I will take a Mary Todd Lincoln if that is what it takes to get a Lincoln! I want to support both Thompson and McCain but they both seem to be too old for the job and too tired on the campaign trail. I don't think the ticket will be Giuliani and Romney because Romney can not deliver Massachusetts. Giuliani will need someone who is a social conservative from the West or South in a swing state. Maybe Huckabee but Arkansas only has a few electoral votes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. IZSRIDon't want to over/inter act, but I believe reading that Mary Todd damn near drove Abe nuts, plus his innate depression, plus his generals before Grant, etc.
    The point I am trying to make is that Presidents after George Washington have always changed direction in mid-stream for one reason or another.
    Roeser was right on saying that Romney is the sharpest knife in the drawer.
    I am a life-long Roman Catholic, who has lived for nine years in Mormon country. I am not impressed by that, but I am impressed by Mitt.
    P.S. My first vote was for JFK. Everyone can make mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr. Ron Paul.

    Rudy was too scared to challenge a carpetbagging Hillary Rodham while serving as mayor of New York in 2000.

    Conservatives will stay home (and rightly so) if Rudy is the nominee.

    Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is a strong conservative and able to attract crossover independents and even Democrats as did Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

    Ron Paul is on the right side (70% +) with Americans who want to end the war and to control our borders.

    Most elections I have to decide between the lesser of two evils or vote third party. I am excited to have a candidate who I can trust and is as conservative as I am to vote for in February (and hopefully 9 months later).

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are right. Ron Paul gains in every
    debate he is in because he is a man of
    principle. You should have heard his
    speech at the Robert Taft Club. Better
    yet, you should have been there. Hippies in pony-tails smoking weed, brown-shirted Nazis goose-stepping about the auditorium, wearing arm bands
    with Robert A. Taft's picture on them!
    They had come together to salute Ron Paul and honor the memory of Senator
    Taft who was himself,ofcourse, a Hippy
    and a Nazi, as his record on civil liberties and a non-interventionist
    foreign policy clearly shwows. I myself
    and a Nazi-Hippy who supports Ron Paul.
    You know I am a Nazi-Hippy because I am
    an orthodox Roman Catholic, as are so
    many of Dr. Paul's followers. You know
    what was missing from that event? A fat,frightened old man in suspenders who has a penchant for scoth, a perverfid imagination ,and an invincibly.
    Ron Paul for President! The Doctor is in!
    Seig Heil and Ave Maria!
    Republican Establishment disposition.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You are right. Ron Paul gains in every
    debate he is in because he is a man of
    principle. You should have heard his
    speech at the Robert Taft Club. Better
    yet, you should have been there. Hippies in pony-tails smoking weed, brown-shirted Nazis goose-stepping about the auditorium, wearing arm bands
    with Robert A. Taft's picture on them!
    They had come together to salute Ron Paul and honor the memory of Senator
    Taft who was himself,ofcourse, a Hippy
    and a Nazi, as his record on civil liberties and a non-interventionist
    foreign policy clearly shows. I myself
    am a Nazi-Hippy who supports Ron Paul.
    You know I am a Nazi-Hippy because I am
    an orthodox Roman Catholic, as are so
    many of Dr. Paul's followers. You know
    what was missing from that event? A fat,frightened old man in suspenders who has a penchant for scoth, a perverfid imagination ,and an invincibly Eastblishment disposition.
    Ron Paul for President! The Doctor is in!
    Seig Heil and Ave Maria!
    Republican Establishment disposition.

    ReplyDelete