Posted on 10/19/2011 3:43:21 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Not a single candidate came out ahead in last night’s Vegas slugfest—Romney looked petty, Perry looked desperate, and Cain was obviously lying to himself about his 9-9-9 plan.
After a seemingly endless series of eight prior candidate encounters, one of the GOP presidential contenders finally came up with an ingenious debate strategy that counts as fearless, distinctive and utterly original: attacking Ronald Reagan over the arms-for-hostages deals during Iran-Contra.
Near the conclusion of a deeply damaging slugfest that weakened every candidate on stage, Congressman Ron (“Dr. Demento”) Paul outrageously trashed the Gipper’s memory in response to pre-debate Herman Cain comments about trading Guantanamo terrorists for a hypothetically kidnapped American soldier. Newt Gingrich shouldered his way into the discussion and seized the opportunity to defend Reagan’s legacy (and to plug a documentary the former Speaker co-produced with his wife Callista) by reminding the audience that the most popular Republican of the last 50 years actually regretted sending weapons to Iran in return for American captives.
When a big CNN debate that’s supposed to focus on America’s future concludes with an utterly irrelevant dispute about a 25-year-old scandal that tarnished the reputation of a conservative saint, then you know it was a terrible night for the party. One of the savviest political observers I know (who’s been working for Republicans since the Nixon era) sent a terse text message offering an appropriate reaction to the Destruction Derby: “GOP, RIP.”
As the well-funded frontrunner, Mitt Romney had the most to lose in the Las Vegas debate and he probably did lose the most in the ugly, Hobbesian war of all-against-all that unfolded under the wry prodding of moderator Anderson Cooper. In previous confrontations, Romney glided effortlessly above the fray, listening attentively and sympathetically to even the most inane comments by his competitors, never dropping his suave self-assurance or genial demeanor, cleverly reserving his harshest rhetorical barbs for the ultimate enemy, Barack Obama. On Tuesday night, viewers got their first glimpse of a rattled Romney who seemed unmistakably frustrated by crude and nasty attacks from the two rantin’ Ricks—Santorum and Perry—who slimed the governor over Romney-care and immigration (respectively). The irritation made sense given the fact that his interlocutors wouldn’t shut up and gave Mitt no chance to respond to their angry charges. But whenever a candidate pleads for the right to finish a statement without interruption, and even appeals to a moderator to enforce order, he looks weak and unworthy as a prospective commander-in-chief.
Mitt also demeaned himself with his needling, insistent attacks on Perry’s immigration record and his condescending comments about his Texan foe. It’s true that Perry had a tough time in prior debates, but Mitt looked snide and smug when he brought up those previous performances, or school-marmishly reminded the governor that if he wanted to be president he needed to allow others the chance to talk.
Romney remains by far the most formidable debater in the group in terms of substance and the transcript of his performance will read better in writing than the visual and audio impressions conveyed on air. He also enjoyed a few genuinely presidential moments, including his impassioned insistence that attacks centering on a candidate’s personal faith ought to be out of bounds, and his gracious acceptance of Perry’s feeble, inadequate (and repeated) acknowledgment that he “disagreed” with comments by one of his pastoral advocates about the evils of Mormonism.
Perry began the debate with more energy, focus and confidence than he brought to the table in previous engagements but, as always, he looked increasingly exhausted and confused as the evening wore on. His oafish effort to smear Romney for once contracting with a lawn service that employed illegals (a cheap-shot charge exhaustively explored in Mitt’s previous campaign four years ago) marked a new low point for the Perry campaign and leads me to the conclusion that unslick Rick will feel forced to terminate his collapsing candidacy at some point before the Iowa caucuses.
Herman Cain probably suffered the least of all candidates, remaining unflappable, avuncular and incurably engaging even as his rivals effectively shredded his now-largely discredited 9-9-9 tax plan. Not even an earthy communicator like the Herminator can plausibly insist that a tax restructuring could simultaneously maintain revenues at their current rate and lower burdens on corporations and the rich, without raising payments from the middle class and the poor. As a math major in college and holder of a graduate degree in computer science, Mr. Cain surely understands that it doesn’t work to take in the same amount of money and to reduce taxes on some citizens, unless you’re simultaneously hiking taxes on others.
At least Michele Bachmann acknowledged this point when she agreed that expanding the tax base (an obvious requirement for any effective reform) means demanding some contribution from every citizen, but this proposition won’t help her popularity with the 43 percent of the public that currently pays nothing to the IRS (and often receives money as tax credits).
All in all, only Democrats (and Jon Huntsman, who boycotted the proceedings over primary scheduling disputes) could have enjoyed this evening of mean-spirited sniping over mostly irrelevant issues. For GOP contenders and their managers, they can at least try to reassure themselves by solemnly repeating Sin City’s tourism mantra (cleverly invoked by Rep. Bachmann in her opening statement): What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
They should be so lucky.
Gingrich stood out as the best candidate during the debate...
...but i still like Cain.
Actually they were all pretty good except for the Bobbsey Twins, Mittie and Rickie.
Oh, not the pie analogy! This was said about the Kemp/Roth tax plan Reagan got through Congress.
You grow the size of the pie to get the same revenues or even more. But Medved, like most RINO's, never bother to even consider government spending. They always look at revenue. If you grow the economy and increase the revenue while also seriously curbing spending you will be back to surpluses that can be used to pay off the debt.
I wouldn’t take anything Medved says about anything like this without a truck-full of salt.
You don’t have to scratch him very deeply to find “Big-government Thug”.
Perry gave the appropriate response to Mutt and his religion.
Nuttin feeble about it.
Your values and demonstration of those values are what’s important.
It was an ugly night; hard to watch. The only plus was that it was on CNN and expectations for a meaningful debate were low.
Michael Medved still as delusional as I recall him when I listened to him a few years back...
Mr Medved was a McCain supporter in 2008. He will be a Romney bot this time. Remember this as you read his words.
medved self destructs.
i was listening to his diatribes against conservatives.
he never liked palin.
Michael is just a sissy and afraid of his own shadow. Yeah, don’t dare suggest that 43% of the population pay any taxes!
Further, ignore that Cain would eliminate their payroll taxes.
Geez, he’s even afraid to let the republicans disagree with each other in a debate.
And it’s a big deal to respond to Ron Paul and mention that Reagan made a mistake on Iran Contra?
Bingo!!
What the hell, the GOP was barely present (Romney)
[ Not even an earthy communicator like the Herminator can plausibly insist that a tax restructuring could simultaneously maintain revenues at their current rate and lower burdens on corporations and the rich, without raising payments from the middle class and the poor. ]
Whats overlooked by Medved is that if federal government spending is radically dismembered and eliminated Nein/Nein/Nein may work..
Whats not said is that his plan would quickly become Value added taxation..
9/9/9 could easily become 33/33/33... over time..
You know.... like URP is positioned for..
[ Whats not said is that his plan would quickly become Value added taxation..
9/9/9 could easily become 33/33/33... over time..
You know.... like URP is positioned for.. ]
Harder for 9-9-9 to be raised than you think because we are so used to politicians raising taxes that are hidden and that are “someone else’s taxes” (but we all pay for anyway due to the makers having to pass the costs to the consumers).
Romney can't fix his RomneyCare problem, his flip-flop problem, etc. Cain CAN fix or at least minimize his 9-9-9 problem, if he wants to.
Obviously, Michael Medved is still using the equation “Higher tax rate=more revenue”. Doesn’t work that way, no time, no how.
Taxation formulas are far more complex, and one of the great things about any tax that presumes to be fairly applied, is how it may be applied to EVERYBODY, not only to the select few. Because when taxes apply only to a few people, the tendency is to raise the rate of taxation to confiscatory levels, thus curbing any activity that may be subject to such rates. But when EVERYBODY has skin in the game, and everybody stands to have a patch of hide stripped away, the taxman is a little more wary of what animosity may arise, and keeps the bite rather small on everybody.
Yes, some citizens would become subject to taxes that they have not been paying for a while. And others that have been carrying a disproportionate burden would see the load lightened. If the load on the less wealthy were sufficiently high that they could see some personal sacrifice on their part, it is much easier to ask others of greater means to bear a similar burden. Or alternatively, the government COULD just stop spending so much, and get busy on defending the full faith and credit of the United States.
Which is much more the business of government than “guaranteeing” business loans and distributiong largesse to the favored parties.
obvious RomneyBOT attempts to rewrite history
as he pimps Milt.
LOSER: Romney - aggressive backstabber and liar
Winners: Mr. Cain and the Speaker
Ha! Medved, the not-fully-rehabilitated democrat. I listen to him on occassion because I tire of Hannity and Dave Ramsey. I’d love for Levin to be on in their slot.
But as far as the “writing” of Medved, I just can’t stomach it. He is so damn wimpy. He drives me absolutely nuts with the way he lets liberal whining b*tches go on-and-on on his show so he can appear to be reasonable.
Hey Michael, just stick to your movie reviews and you’ll be fine.
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.