Observations from the Tea Party debate

Romney just keeps getting better. Solid performance, hard to see anyone rattling him in the debates. Scores solid point almost at will. His health care commentary was almost what I wrote verbatim in a paper last week. Perry looks like an amateur by comparison.

Perry just doesn’t seem ready for prime time. His handling of the vaccination question was abysmal; no way should Bachmann have scored points on that front. He allowed everyone to portray the initiative as force, despite the fact that no children were forced to receive vaccination. And he sounded downright liberal in defense of his in-state tuition for illegals. No amount of tough talkin’ Texas swagger can erase that from his record. And his comment that he can’t be bought for only $5k was one for the ages: I may be a whore, but doggonnit I ain’t no cheap whore!

Bachmann was Bachmann. She pretty much says whatever she wants, truth or lie, and no one seems to give a shit. And why should they, unless she’s attacking their record. Her slide to irrelevancy continues unabated, thankfully.

Santorum bobbled his way through the attack on Paul’s 9/11 comments. Why attack Paul in the first place? To prove you’re mainstream? Ok, we get that. No one likes Paul’s blowback assessment. Seems like he’s fighting for 3rd place. He’ll lose that race, too.

Huntsman was unimpressive. His treasonous line fell pancake flat, as did pretty much every attempt at humor I’ve seen from him. The debate stage is not his best format.

Cain kept pushing some $9.99 pizza deal. I have no idea what that’s all about.

Paul just needs to quit. He’s preaching to the choir in every performance, and the size of that choir isn’t going to change by a single percentage point. Running once was enough; regardless of how true his assessments and predictions may be, he’ll never make it within 3 candidates of the nomination.

Someone told me that Gingrich was there, but I don’t remember hearing a single word from him.

I do remember the crowd cheering at the notion of letting an American senior citizen die if unable to pay his medical bills. And by crowd, I mean more than just one or two people. That was pretty surprising even among that audience. I guess former Congressman Grayson wasn’t too far off when he said that the Republican plan for health care is “die quickly.”

Overall, it’s looking like Romney will be moving back to the front runner spot shortly, if not already. That’s probably a good thing, both for the reasonable wing of the GOP and for moderates/independents looking for a palatable set of options next November.

I did not see the debate but heard snippets. Your assessment seems spot on with the exception of the cheap shot Grayson comment.

I have said this before that Perry not only scares me on his GWB religiosity but also his GWB liberal tendencies. It wasn’t that long ago he was campaigning for Gore.

I did hear a pretty lucid discussion on the prescription drug benefit and medicare funding but I don’t remember who was making such salient points.

Right now, Romney wins the nomination as the adult in the room.

No, it was not a senior that was in the set-up scenario, it was a healthy 25-30 yo that had opted not to insure himself, then had something catastrophic happen.  Agree Romney was good, Huntsman was not.  Newt made a couple of very good points, and is one of the best speaker/framers of debate there, but as I've heard elsewhere, just comes off as too professorial.  I think Paul lost a few points last night, and Santorum was a mixed bag.  Cainwas sharp, as usual, but just doeas not seem to have the political gravitas to compete. 

Here’s you go:

BLITZER: Thank you, Governor. Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just – you’re a physician, Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.

A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.

Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/September/13/transcript-gop-debate-health-care-issues.aspx

I may be a whore, but doggonnit I ain’t no cheap whore!
**
I didn’t watch it. Did he really say that? It reminds me of the old joke, attributed to George Bernard Shaw:

“(Shaw) was at a party once and he told this woman that everyone would agree to do anything for money, if the price was high enough. ‘Surely not,’ she said. ‘Oh yes,’ he said. ‘Well, I wouldn’t,’ she said. ‘Oh yes you would,’ he said. ‘For instance,’ he said, ‘would you sleep with me for… for a million pounds?’ ‘Well,’ she said, ‘maybe for a million I would, yes.’ ‘Would you do it for ten shillings?’ said Bernard Shaw. ‘Certainly not!’ said the woman. ‘What do you take me for? A prostitute?’ ‘We’ve established that already,’ said Bernard Shaw. ‘We’re just trying to fix your price now!’” (source)

Overall, it’s looking like Romney will be moving back to the front runner spot shortly, if not already. That’s probably a good thing, both for the reasonable wing of the GOP and for moderates/independents looking for a palatable set of options next November.

But…but…but the Straw Poll in Iowa didn’t have Romney winning anything? The Iowa caucauses and straw poll are a joke, kind of like Iowa itself.

The reality is that at least Romney has a chance. Everyone else including Perry should just drop immediately, otherwise a lot of good republican donation will be spent on losing candidates.

The good thing for the democrats is that Romney is like a democrat. It will be really really hard for him to say that he will do things differently from Obama, since everything he’s done has been like Obama.

Too bad you didn’t quote his response. It was pretty well done (especially his continuation after Blitzer interrupted him).

Too bad you didn’t quote his response. It was pretty well done (especially his continuation after Blitzer interrupted him).

I’m confused by his answer. After hemming and hawing until he was finally forced to answer, he said, “No.” So is Paul’s position that saving the lives of people who - for whatever reason - can’t pay for health care is the purvey of charity, e.g. those who go into cardiac arrest around someone as charitable as Paul might live, but others may not? If that’s his position I wish he would say it more explicitly.

Too bad you didn’t quote his response. It was pretty well done (especially his continuation after Blitzer interrupted him).

PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced –

BLITZER: But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody –

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: And we’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that’s the reason the cost is so high.

The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.

There’s no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.

(APPLAUSE)

Paul is really losing his mind.

how do you (everyone) think romney’s mormonism plays in the general election?

-mike

Romney’s Mormonism will play less a role than Obama’s Obamaism.

Romney’s Mormonism will play less a role than Obama’s Obamaism.

Agreed. It may be an issue for the primary, but not in the general election.

ie., moderates or independents will find it easier to elect a mormon than they did a black man (or a white woman)? just curious about what role everyone thinks that’ll play.

-mike

I suspect Romney’s religion is a bigger impediment in the Republican primary than it would be in the general election.

"how do you (everyone) think romney’s mormonism plays in the general election? "

He can’t win. He will make a good run and it will sink him. I was raised LDS (Mormon) and from real life experience I can tell you enough people will not vote for a Mormon in the Republican party that he will not be the candidate.

I agree with this… I keep waiting to see when/if it becomes an issue in the primaries… hasn’t yet, but at some point I’m guessing it will with the evangelical vote in the rep. party…

I suspect Romney’s religion is a bigger impediment in the Republican primary than it would be in the general election.

Two reasons why it won’t matter in either contest: One, I think people realize that the issues are big enough at this point in history that positions transcend pew choice, and two, it’s still easier to vote for a weird kind of Christian than a Muslim.

Paul is really losing his mind.

Yeah. What kind of nut advocates personal responsibility! That’s just insane crazy talk. What we need is more socialism, more mandates, more of our lives dictated by political pull. We can’t have people running around making decisions about their own lives.

also, inflation

-mike
.

It shouldn’t make that big of a difference, however, I expect Obomney vrs Rombama to be a close race, so it might be big enough. The Reps rely on a huge evangelical base, and I’m sure they won’t get energized behind him.

Being a Republican Mormon will help as I don’t think Obama will be in the position to use that against him in the general. Had Romney been running as a Mormon Democrat, he’d get destroyed. The elections are more about campaigns than anything else and the Republicans would have no problems painting him as an anti-christian wierdo. The Democrats won’t be able to use that tact.