It’s been a while since I wrote a longer post about the GOP field; I’ve mostly confined my comments to twitter (@jcsnotes). But, I did get a chance to watch a lot of the CNN National Security debate tonight and thought some longer form stuff was in order.
Mitt Romney. Sorry, I couldn’t get beyond the part where he alleged that Mitt was his real first name. Maybe there’s some sort of hidden joke here (such as Wolf not being Blitzer’s first name?) but I just don’t get it. His debate performances are actually pretty amazing to watch. He really only gets into depth on issues if it’s absolutely required. He’s otherwise fine sticking to bromides. He held onto his 25% tonight.
Newt. Upon some reflection, he really is the anti-Romney. A 2-man battle between Romney and Newt would actually be enjoyable to watch. Because there is no way Newt can limit himself to bromides. He’s simply incapable. The real vulnerability Newt has is that 30% of what he offers up is simply unsupportable BS. And the President is intelligent enough to figure out when to call him on that in a debate. I’m not sure Romney is that savvy or that gutsy. Playing it safe against Newt in primary debates could turn out to be a losing strategy - charisma matters. And next to Romney, Newt can appear charismatic. I can’t believe I just wrote that part. On immigration, Newt definitely gave the far right of the GOP caucus the middle finger tonight. Afterwards, the resident CNN tea partier muttered that the issue was really best put by Romney - we need to make legal immigration easier, etc… This ignores two basic realities - people always say this until confronted with some evidence that the new immigrants won’t be prepared to vote for their party (this is true for both parties). Also, as I tweeted, the issue of the 11 million folks currently undocumented might not be THE issue, but is AN issue. And, it’s going to be costly if the answer is deportation. The CNN tea partier might want to wish the issue away, but Mitt Romney won’t be able to if he’s the nominee. Reagan got the existing undocumented alien aspect of this issue, both Presidents Bush got this aspect of this issue. If Newt is the nominee, he’s walking in their footsteps. Has the party really gone that far right in four years?
Cain. His answer to any difficult issue is that he would have to study it and only go with the options which guarantee success. The first part of that structure is almost admirable and - I hesitate to say this - realistic (gasp). In a way, I’m amazed that the average GOP voter has stood for it to date. But then he says his second part. And I just tune him out. There is never going to be a “Bomb Iran” plan which has any reliable indicia of success. There wasn’t such a plan with respect to getting bin Laden. Unless and until Herman Cain can actually sound like he can accept that being President sometimes means picking the least worst option, I don’t think he’s a player.
Perry. The funny thing is that his standing in the polls has freed him up to repeat some really wacky stuff which could come back to haunt him if he ever surges. The idea about zero-ing out foreign policy is just wacky. Santorum and Bachman have rightfully tweaked him about the lunacy of the concept. But, if you listen to his answers, you get a little bit of a notion of how he thinks. He wants to take the crony capitalism that has characterized his tenure of Governor of Texas, and roll it out worldwide. Check out the transcripts tonight - for at least the second time that I’ve heard - he’s suggested replacing foreign aid with American corporations being allowed to enter these countries and create jobs (and presumably profits). With the idea being (and I’m putting more meat on these bones than the Governor has) I guess that these jobs would result in increased government revenues. Magic - there’s your aid. There is a small chance this is fiendishly clever, there is a larger chance that this is monumentally nuts. But, something tells me that this is a closer look into the political soul of Rick Perry than anything else I’ve seen to date.
|#