I've read some of the transcripts from last night's "debate" in Iowa.
First off, how awful are American political debates? Are there any redeeming value to them, beyond a candidates ability to speak talking points and pander?
Second, Huntsman showed again why he's the darling of all Burkean conservatives and why he will never win the nomination.
Third, when Ron Paul is the most reasonable person on stage, you have a problem.
Fourth, Bachmann is really in it to win it. She beat the crap out of Pawlenty, which admittedly is a "world's tallest dwarf" type of distinction. Pawlenty really is as milquetoast as he appears to be. Romney was mostly invisible and the major moments were Bachmann's.
Fifth, it would have been nice to see Perry in that group, just because you want to start winnowing at some point. We all know the following candidates are toast: McCotter, Gingrich, Roemer, Santorum, Johnson and probably Huntsman and Cain. Pawlenty is in the toaster. Paul's acolytes will fight to the bitter end, so he can stay.
But it would be much more illuminating to see a debate between Bachmann, Romney, Paul and Perry with maybe Hunstman in there as a voice of sanity. Right now there is no inducement to stand apart.
Good example: when asked whether they would support a deficit reduction deal that was 16 parts cuts to 1 part revenue they all declined. Every one of them. Let that sink in.
It would be fun to see a guy like Hunstman become the Eisenhower Republican In The Room and start talking in terms of what we once considered conservatism. Just to "heighten the contradictions". As it is, everyone on that stage is trying to out Teatard each other.
The only thing going for them is few people are paying attention right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment