In spite of the uniformly bad reviews it received in the blogosphere, I watched (well, listened while doing chores) last night's debate just now. I don't think it was any more boring than any of the other debates. There were fewer one-liners to lighten things up, but less stupid sniping. I agree with the consensus that there was no stand-out, but on points I'd call it a toss-up between Rudy & Huck, with edge to Rudy because he somehow seems more presidential to me: aggressive on policy, yet dignified in presentation (speaking strictly of style). Huck was very good, although he annoyed me by repeatedly referring to Romney as "Mitt" when everyone else was using formal terms of address. It seemed like calculated disrespect; there's a really sour streak under his friendly demeanor, methinks. Anyway, a couple of observations:
- I say Rudy & Huck won because the bulk of the questions were on the economy, and though (Ron Paul excepted) they're all running on similar ideas, only those two use common-sense language that appeals to voters. Romney, McCain & Paul spent time on details that seemed arcane --do normal people know what Sarbanes-Oxley is? See this from the transcript as an example. Here's part of Rudy's answer to a question about the stimulus package before the Congress (ok, but doesn't go far enough was the answer from Mitt, Mac & Rudy):
Look at it this way -- we're a competitive economy. We're competing with the rest of the world. If America overtaxes, if America overspends, if America over-regulates, if America oversues, then business and jobs and money go elsewhere. And we're doing all four of those things.
Then he too mentions Sarbanes-Oxley, but now in a way the non-wonky can understand:
We need to put as much emphasis on reducing spending. And this has to be a permanent package. So I hope that this is the beginning of a dialogue where what will happen is major tax reductions, major reductions in spending on the civilian side, a real analysis of our regulations.
Just how much business are we running out of the United States because of the excesses of Sarbanes-Oxley?
There was a report a year ago that showed that London was going to pass New York as the financial capital of the world. As a New Yorker, that was troubling to me. But as an American, it should be troubling to everyone.
Seems to me that kind of talk is much more effective than Romney's tendency to show us everything he knows when he's not generalizing. Huckabee had a really effective discussion of the Fair Tax, which I don't even support. He seemed in command of the facts and explained them without jargon.
- I understand why none of the candidates wishes to associate himself too closely with Bush, but it annoyed me that they all accepted Russert's assessment of the economy:
The Wall Street News and NBC News asked people all across the country in our poll today, "Which party would be better in dealing with the economy?" The Democrats had an 18-point advantage. With that in mind, and looking at the record over the last seven years, the unemployment rate in 2001 was 4.2; it's now 5.0. The debt was $5.7 trillion; it's now $9.2 trillion. There was a $261 billion surplus; there's now a $250 billion deficit. Gas was $1.47 a gallon; it's now $3.02.Why should the American people continue a Republican in the White House with that kind of economic record?Fair question, but the answers were weak, amounting to, I won't spend as much as those bad Republicans. What about refusing to accept the premise? Michael Graham expresses my response exactly:
How about 50+ consecutive months of growth? Surviving the tech bubble and 9/11 (a $500 billion blow)? The two wealthiest quarters for American households in history? Relatively low unemployment and low inflation vs. the rest of the developed world? Stock market still way up since Bush took office. And on and on.... Instead, ALL the candidates agree that the Bush Cheney economy stinks?Oh man their answers frosted me. Is that how they're going to debate Hillary or Obama? On the MSM's terms?
Thanks guys.
- Who knew Rudy was a Green? Russert asked him why he didn't support a mandatory cap on greenhouse gases:
The very best way to do it is to support the technologies that are alternatives that can save the environment and to get us to the point where those technologies can actually take over.We haven't licensed a nuclear power plant in 30 years. France is 80 percent nuclear; we're 20 percent nuclear; we're going down to 15 percent nuclear. We have to crack through there. We need to expand the use of hybrid vehicles. We need to expand the use of clean coal. Carbon sequestration is expensive, but it's a process that works. We have more coal reserves in the United States than they have oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.I prefer incentives for these new industries. The same thing is true with biofuels. We should expand biofuels the way Brazil has done. We should expand wind, solar, hydroelectric. We should expand natural gas, liquid natural gas. We should have a project like putting the man on a moon the way we did back in the '50s and 60s. It should be a major national project to be energy independent. That's a matter of national security. It's also the best way -- the very best way -- to protect against global warming.Just think about this. If we did everything we could, we put all these caps on, all these negative incentives on, we would crush American industry, and China and India would be sending out more greenhouse gases than we could ever match. You've got to solve it as a world problem. You cannot solve it just in the United States. It needs new industries, new ideas. They're there. They need to be supported. And you have to do this in positive way, not a negative way.
- Switching gears, I finally figured out who Ron Paul reminds me of. Dana Carvey's Grumpy Old Man. I don't find him nutty, but his response to every question is that everything's gone to hell in a handbasket and it's not his fault, he warned 'em all along. Okay. I agree with him on many things, but he'd do better to concentrate on communicating what he'd do to make things right. For example, he was asked a "gotcha" question about ending Social Security:
Yes, but not overnight. As a matter of fact, my program is the only one that is going to be able to take care of the elderly. I'd like to get the young people out -- out of it, just the younger generation, because there's no money there. And they're going to have to pay 50 years and they're not going to get anything. There's no money there.
Now, I'm saying, I'd take care of all the elderly, all those who are -- who are dependent, but I would save the money from this wild spending overseas. We can save hundreds of billions of dollars and still take care of the elderly. Right now they're getting behind because they're having a 10 to 12 percent inflation rate and we give them a 2 percent increase. So they're really hurting.
I don't want taxes on the Social Security benefits that they receive. I have a bill in that would secure the trust fund, where none of that money could be spent in the -- in the general revenues. So, in many ways, though the goal would be to get us out of this program that is a failure, it doesn't work, and is going to bankrupt this country, that the only way you can do that is save enough money, tide the people over, let the young people get out. Because they're going to be paying all these years and they're not going to get anything.
So, ironically, I, who defend the position that, you know, the federal government probably should have never been involved, I probably have the only program that would really help the elderly, because the way we're going now, the money is not going to be there. There's no way these cost of living increases are ever going to keep up with their -- you know, their benefits. They're never going to keep up with the cost of living. They're decreasing.
I say my program has a better chance of helping them than any other one.
And that program is...? You had 60 seconds to sell us, and you didn't get to it, so busy were you telling us, "in my day, Sonny, we didn't have Social Security, and Weeeee.... LIKED it that way."
