The GOP Field at Iowa - image nola.com
Watching the GOP debate sponsored by Fox News and the Washington Times provided the public (which should have been watching given the increasingly clear indication that one of those standing on that stage in Iowa, will, unless Perry of Texas and Palin of Alaska jump in, be the next President), with an insight into how these candidates respond to the “hard” questions thrown by Fox’s Chris Wallace.
The beginning of the debate was as expected, each candidate giving their view of how they might fix the economy, while dismissing President Obama’s non-efforts, in the correct “red-meat”, pre-primary language that is necessary to pump up the base. What was most noticeable with the opening questions was the similarities rather than the differences between all of the candidates on the stage – They all appeared to be in complete control, all looking, more or less, presidential, and extremely polite.
Then Chris Wallace started to ask questions that were pointed and directed at each candidate regarding a particular media story, while at the same time, inviting individual candidates to comment on the one standing at the next podium, or the one down – basically all Hades broke loose, and this is what one could take away from the ensuing brouhaha: Michelle Bachmann can hold her own, no matter how base the charge, she fires back and has the ability to look at her detractor, and the audience, as if they were somehow less than (choose any adjective).
Tim Pawlenty was the most contentious of the debaters, going after Bachmann with gusto, and a little less gusto when it came to Romney. Wallace, when asking a round of pointed questions at Answer Man, Newt Gingrich, was probably most shocked when Gingrich turned on him, literally. One thing about Newt Gingrich, the soft-spoken Virginian can deliver cutting barbs, with wit and sarcasm while refuting an accusation, all in a lecture. Romney and Cain were also asked the “hard” questions, deflecting them with ease, while Wallace continued to pit one against the other, looking quite gleeful. He should have been gleeful. He engineered a shouting match between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul that was of interest, surprisingly, Santorum appeared to give his best, while Paul had a virtual meltdown. Usually Paul is composed, but the Wallace method of creating debate brawling, got to the good Congressman. Unfazed: Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachman, who stood up for themselves, without taking the bait (unless it came to Pawlenty and Bachmann, in which case, she clearly “let him have it”.
Of Particular interest was the question posed to Bachmann by Wallace, regarding a comment she made (era unknown) regarding the Christian concept of being submissive to a spouse. Wallace, asked pointedly if she would continue that “submissive role” if elected, implying Bachmann’s husband would be calling the shots. She then gave Wallace a bit of religious education regarding the biblical meaning of submissive, taking into account that most American’s don’t read their Bibles, (most notably the press): simply stated the particular verse and use of the arcane language translates into respect, and charges both the husband and the wife to literally listen and support one another. She shorted it to “paraphrasing” it means “respect”. She handled that well, if, and only if, someone understood the true meaning, however, that the majority would not, can be taken to the bank.
What this blog learned from this debate: The majority of the candidates took Wallace’s’ bait and acted like children, (it’s easy to see who the tattle-tale of the group might be) or petulant old men, with glaring exceptions: Mitt Romney, although also fired up at times, maintained his cool, also note: Romney appeared more tousled, less neat, more human, and more right (on issues), more gracious (with his fellow candidates) and therefore, more Presidential. Herman Cain, give credit where credit is due, although inexperienced in the political realm gave pound for pound, without coming across as a hot head, or someone whose temper could easily be riled. Bachmann, who was put directly under the spotlight, with hard barbs from Pawlenty and Wallace, made her points, without sounding off base, rather, using a knowing look (translated - I feel sorry for you – you idiot, now stand back) and then stating her case, without scratching anyone’s eyes out or breaking down in tears – she stood up for herself, and did so as graciously as possible, given Pawlenty’s barbs. It was as if by design, Wallace, pointedly started the mix up, in order to make certain candidates trade verbal barbs and others, to well, become unhinged. He shook the wheat from the chaff. From this perspective, Romney was clearly the winner, not on content, but on the sheer fact that he escaped the Fox/Washington Times Debate the least ruffled, followed by Cain and Bachmann.
Who was missing? Governor Rick Perry who will announce this weekend, and Governor Sarah Palin, who, one would like to see up against Wallace and his playful incitement of what can only be called a “GOP Debate Riot”. One would hazard to guess, that neither would take the bait, like Romney, it would be beneath them.
This brings up an interesting personal revelation, never having been a fan of Mitt Romney, he was actually likeable, presidential, and although accused of being “like Obama”, as was Gov. Huntsman, Romney rose to the occasion, with each leading question and pointed barb, even straying from his talking points! Romney needs to be Romney more often – the tousled, and quick witted, sarcastic Romney, that points out the worth of Candidate Cain, calmly and with reason.
One can therefore, see an Iowa straw poll that gives Romney, Bachman and, Cain credit for their performance, and as for the rest, a thank you note for the entertainment. Of course, this all depends upon what happens when the Texan rides into Iowa, and Palin drives in with her bus next week. One would like to see both announce, and give the GOP stage a real advantage for continued entertainment with a purpose, to this mind, qualified candidates are those that want the job, believe they can fix the mess, and have some resume that suggests that they can play both sides of the aisles (or use persuasion mixed with persistence), and only one was on that stage last night – Romney. The other two, would round out the field nicely, and the rest, as history notes on these debates, will be relegated to the obligatory 2 questions per debate for Candidates that don’t stand a snowball chance in Hades.
Predicating, which is dangerous, and assuming (which everyone knows what that stands for) the next debate should feature Romney, Bachman, Cain, Palin and Perry – giving the nation an opportunity to view the persons that, in this option, appear to have a handle on the dire straits were in, and are not afraid to take on the task. (Adding one Donald Trump to the mix would just be the icing on the cake!).
Although the press as we know it today, would continue to live in the fantasy land where the President wins reelection handily because not one of the GOP candidates is suitable (to them). What this blogger saw was the absolute potential in the aforementioned that were on that stage, and as a moderate, choosing a candidate that will lead our nation, without taking months to deliberate, have the background and history of making decisions (or in Bachmann’s case, standing up and fighting in the trenches for the people and fearlessly, one might add) and most importantly – lead, both the on the U.S. stage as well as globally.
Closing: Although much is made of Romney’s involvement in “Massachusetts Care”, which morphed into Obamacare, read this article: From the Examiner: Romneycare-a-revolution-that-basically-worked”which talks about Governor Romney’s original intent, and where the Massachusetts Legislature mandated it to the point that made it appeal to Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment