Posted on 10/11/2011 3:18:34 PM PDT by Kaslin
Greetings from the picturesque campus of the Ivy League's Dartmouth College, the site of tonight's Republican presidential tilt. The Tipsheet will have live coverage of the event, which kicks off at 8:00 pm ET and airs on Bloomberg television (time to break out the TV guide, I suspect). Before you read my take on what to watch for tonight, check out the latest poll from Gallup, which puts the three top-tier candidates within five points of eachother.
Storylines
(1) Iran: Although the debate is supposed to focus almost exclusively on economic issues, today's breaking news bombshell that the Iranian government has been caught financing and coordinating terrorist attacks against targets inside the United States should absolutely be addressed. The candidate with the most granular understanding of the issues at play on this subject is Rick Santorum. I'm eager to hear what he, and all of his rivals, have to say. (Except for Ron Paul, who doesn't think Iranian nuclear aggression is a biggie, and who will find some way to blame us for Iran's poisonous treachery). Another wrinkle: Could Eric Holder's involvement in this story provide an opening for someone to finally raise Solyndra and/or Fast & Furious in one of these debates?
(2) Chris Christie's endorsement of Mitt Romney will likely get some play. Will Rick Perry -- or someone else -- pull the Northeastern RINO card? A Perry spokesman has already come pretty close.
(3) Mormonism: Rick Perry was recently introduced at an event by a pastor who has called Mormonism a "cult." Today, Mitt Romney demanded that Perry repudiate this view, arguing that the Consitution forbids a religious test for the presidency, and that anti-Mormon bigotry is ugly and has no place in American politics. A Perry spokesman has already declined to acede Romney's request, calling the issue a "distraction." I'll be stunned if this kerfuffle doesn't spill over into the debate, and Rick Perry had better be prepared with a damn good answer.
(4) Occupy Wall Street questions are almost inevitable. The base cannot stand the mob of hippies, communists, anti-capitalists, and sundry lefty hangers-on who comprise the bulk of the "movement." Organized labor and the Democrat Party establishment are getting on board, too. He (or she) with the best Occupy Wall Street-related zinger might win one of the biggest headlines tomorrow.
Candidates
Mitt Romney - The former Massachusetts Governor is in his own backyard, leading in the polls, and feeiling buoyed by the Christie "get." Deep down, he knows that Rush is right: Absent a tactonic shift in the race, Mitt will be the Republican nominee. His goal is to keep things moving on the current trajectory. It will be interesting to see if anyone besides Rick Perry will try to jolt Romney out of cruise control.
Herman Cain - With first-tier status comes first-tier scrutiny (and first-tier stage positioning). Expect more exploration of Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan, which I called for in an earlier post. It's been fascinating to watch the Romney-Cain partnership develop over the last few debates. Neither one has anything bad to say about the other, with Rick Perry hardest hit. At some point, if Cain is going to win this thing, he's going to have to attack his ally. Will that first salvo come tonight?
Rick Perry - The guy is still raking in major bucks and has never lost a campaign in his life. Reports of Perry's demise are -- for now -- premature, but the comeback train has to leave the station soon. Perry's campaign unleashed a brutal attack ad against Romneycare this week. Almost on cue (arguably, directly on cue), the White House has leaked the story that several top Romney healthcare advisors were actively involved in crafting Obamacare. If ever there were a time to really tee off on the frontrunner, tonight would be the night. Perry's probably got the most to gain, and he seems to enjoy mixing it up, so he'll likely lead the charge. But will be be able to pull it off succinctly and convincingly, unlike his slow-motion trainwreck in Orlando? The good news: Perry's son says his dad will be "well-rested" this time.
Newt Gingrich - I briefly heard Newt compare Occupy Wall Street to the Tea Party movement on a local radio show this morning. I wonder what he means by that, and whether he's read Ann Coulter's column on the subject.
Rick Santorum - The former Senator's expertise and greatest appeal to primary voters lie in the realms of foreign affairs and social issues. Does this mean he'll he flounder in an economic debate? Not at all, but he may feel less relevant.
Jon Huntsman - He needs a strong showing in New Hampshire to justify the continuation of his campaign, so Romney's the guy to beat. But some anti-Mormon rhetoric has seeped into this race over the last few days, and Huntsman might join forces with Romney to beat it back.
Michele Bachmann - One of her previous high water marks came here in the Granite State, when she made a stellar debate debut in June. She'll try to recapture the magic tonight.
Ron Paul - The retiring Texas Representative says many of his "extreme" views of three years ago have been vindicated by intervening events, and have now gained broader credibility and acceptance. He'll have another chance to explain why tonight.
Tonight's debate is being co-sponsored by Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and a local television station. Between Romneycare, Mormonism, and the "Occupy" mob, there could be major fireworks on tap. Tune in, and follow our live chat here at Townhall.
gw...SHE is NOT a candidate!
I'm not a fan of telling your cancer-stricken wife you want a divorce, but we're talking survival of our nation here.
Global warming? Yeah...although you're right, he has backed off that.
Illegals. Here's the real problem: NOT ONE candidate is saying they'll throw them out. That's REALLY what needs to be done. Not even Sarah Palin said she'd throw them out. It kills me, but, we're stuck with that problem in one shape or form. Remember this though, Romney was caught with illegals cutting his lawn WHILE HE WAS GOVERNOR OF MA. So, when he goes after Perry, he's got nothing to stand on. And let me be clear, I don't agree with Perry's stance AT ALL, but Romney's going to secure the border? PLEASE! He couldn't control his own lawn care.
Even IF Romney was to win...he’d be a cluster f**k POTUS and bring all the gains the GOP (via the TP) has made down with him.
You can’t even bank on him making good or even reasonable appointments for the SCOTUS or Federal benches, look at the complete losers he submitted for appointment in MA. Remember, we don’t vote for judges in this state, they’re all appointed.
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think Cain was shilling for him, but I truly believe he is.
Face it, it’s a battle NOT to get stuck with whore bag Mitt as the GOP nominee.
The nominee will have to bring in those substantial parts of the country; the VP is usually a supporting/ complementing character. Other than ‘08, the VP candidate hasn’t done that much to affect the ticket.
The last winning race I can remember where geographic balance was important and effective was 1960. As it appears today, the likely GOP nominee will be either Romney or Perry or Cain. From the cast of characters in tonight’s debate, I don’t see any who can pull a given state that wouldn’t go GOP under most circumstances. Could Bachmann pull MN into the GOP column? Or Santorum pull in PA? I’m not even convinced (think it more unlikely) that Romney could win MA’s electoral votes. TX and GA are already pretty dependably GOP. It’s extremely unlikely that Cain would cut into Obama’s base. Ask Michael Steele about that. His base may not show up but they won’t vote Republican.
The top of the ticket will have to swing PA/VA/NC/FL/OH back to the ‘red’ column and pick up a few. I think most of those states are primed if the GOP gives the right ticket. But voters have to have some assurance the newly elected GOP POTUS/Administration would be ready to govern from Day One. They’ve learned a novice can’t do it.
So if the ‘likely’ nominee is drawn from among those three, his executive experience has to be complemented by someone who knows how the federal government works. That means someone who’s served in Congress or in a Cabinet or other high government office.
And I don’t get the **** about the Chilean SS model.
Herman keeps yapping about it, but isn’t that what GW Bush proposed? and Perry Highlighted with the Galveston county plan?
How does this make Herman a pioneer?
” I still have not seen a good defense for Perry’s in-state tuition for illegals. Waiting for a good reason why they get something legal citizens from Arizona or New Mexico or wherever else can’t get.”
Not that it’s a great defense of the law, but it is a fact that only 4 US states have laws prohibiting in-state tuition for children of illegals. Arizona is one of those 4 (passed the law in 2006), New Mexico is not.
I dislike giving in-state tuition for illegals as much as anyone, but the reality is there are only a handful of states that have taken proactive measures to prevent this. And BTW, there’s no record anywhere that I can find of any of the other candidates trying to prevent this in their own states. The sad reality is that most elected politicians are panderers (AZ Gov Brewer being a possible exception) and most elected officials on both sides of the aisle have viewed this as an issue for which to pander to Hispanics.
The only reason there is any “outrage” about it being expressed now is because it’s an Achilles heal for Perry. I guarantee you that if Perry were not in the race, there would not be one syllable uttered about this issue.
I really just wish Perry had a more articulate way of explaining this. All the candidates have some baggage, but Perry’s biggest problem has been being able to explain his justification for signing this. Like for example the fact that this position is not exactly out of the mainstream for today’s politicians.
Cain is a skunk, too. Open your eyes. Pick the most conservative skunk. :)
LOL!!!
That incident told me all I ever needed to know about him. Romney,I mean.
Newt most definitely helped himself tonight; no doubt.
Bachmann didn't do badly, but she's not VPOTUS material either. I thought she was initially, but she's not. Is she hanging around to attack Rick? Perhaps.
Did you write the article? :)
“...imagine what will happen to it if it’s reduced to 9%.”
You understand that the base of the Business Flat Tax is not the same as the base for FICA, right ? Currently, the 12.4% that is SS only applies to the first $106K of wages ($5T base) while the other 2.9% of FICA applies to all wages ($6.3T base). The 9% applies to effectively all wages, plus business inputs from foreign businesses, plus profits — because payroll and foreign purchases are not deductible from a business’ revenue when determining “income”.
So instead of 12.4% of $5T in limited wages + 2.9% of $6.3T in all wages, there is 9% applied to $10T [wages ($6.3T)+imports($2T)+profits($1.7T)]. $900B from the 9% Business Flat Tax vs. $825B from the 15.3% FICA.
In this way, the 9% Business Flat Tax completely replaces the FICA revenues from BOTH employer and employee.
The 9% Sales tax on retail goods completely replaces the Corporate Income Tax revenues.
The 9% Flat Individual Income Tax applied to the full $12.5T income from all sources, minus capital gains income ($600B), minus charitable giving ($50B) leaves $11.85T taxable and $1.06T revenue. This almost exactly replaces the Progressive Individual Income Tax revenues.
Newt always flap his lips in an appealing way when talking to conservatives. But he fully committed to the “third way” when he’s not playing a conservative on tv. That is why he supported algore’s cap and trade.
How about Volcker? He’s the real Fed hero of the last 40 years.
Nite all, it’s been fun. 7 (or is it 8) debates down only 17 to go. LOL
I’ve been thinking about the vitriol and I think it boils down to a growing hatred for Mexicans and for illegals which is somehow being blamed on Perry.
If you ever went on a Palin thread and saw her supporters in screeching and ranting action, you will recognize the “virtriol.” They moved to Cain. It’s insanity, actually. :)
Everyone else seems to be angling for a spot in the Romney Administration.
I see it differently. The main reason why conservatives are in an 'outrage' over it is because one of the governors who advocated for it when it passed and advocates for it still wants to be our next president.
And I have been quite vocal opposing it in my state but I live in the Peoples' Republik of Kalifornia where, despite the fact the state is tens of billions in the hole, it still want to spend more on ILLEGAL invaders.
Perry and Texas started the trend, they should be proud.
Yeah, yeah, and if Cain dropped out tomorrow you'd pick the next most conservative candidate and trash his supporters, too. Your act is stale.
Those who espouse such nonsense may want to reconsider.
I don't give a hoot if they're white, brown, black or yellow. If they're here ILLEGALLY they do not deserve taxpayer funded subsidies. And I know I am in good company with that position.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2782527/posts?page=96#96
Contrary to the La Raza Rick name calling crowd, Rick Perry simply signed off on what the entire TEXAS legislature passed overwhelmingly and handed over to him, but for four votes. Count ‘em. FOUR. VOTES. AGAINST. INSTATE TUITION.
Case should have closed a long time ago. That train has still left the station. What governor casts a veto to an entire legislature the size of Texas? A non-issue. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.