Debate in Michigan
CNBC hosted the Your Money Your Vote Republican presidential debate on Wednesday night in Michigan. After repeated attempts by media questions intended to raise issues about Cain and the sexual harassment allegations against him, and being repeatedly booed by the audience, the moderators finally went on to the topic that had been promised to be the focus of Wednesday night’s debate: The economy.
The various candidates seemed to respect the wishes of the crowd, whether through conscious decision beforehand, or by sheer political instincts given the reactions of the crowd to these off-topic questions.
To me the funniest moment in the debate came when Rick Perry said he would shut down three departments of government, and then went to list them:
Rick Perry: “Education, commerce and uh, uh, um, uh”
Ron Paul: “Oh my.”
Later in the debate, Perry said:
“Energy! That’s the one I couldn’t remember earlier.”
Of course, while Perry suffered from memory lapses, Romney suffered from sheer babbling. In answer to a follow-up question about Romney-care, he said:
“People have a responsibility to receive their own care…”
What? What does that mean? How can one not receive one’s own care?
I think he was basically caught flat-footed, and didn’t have a rehearsed answer, so strung together a few syllables. It was utter nonsense, every syllable.
Romney also avoided the direct answer on the Payroll Tax cut question, not wanting to be cornered there either. Romney is an eel, and I refuse to vote for him under any circumstances. This lack of courage, and this unabashed pandering that characterizes Romney surely damns his candidacy in my view. Gingrich also squirmed away on this question.
Michele Bachmann had the right answer ready on the payroll tax, and I was happy to see her confront it bluntly.
Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich had the right answer on student loans, while Rick Perry tried to escape this one too.
Herman Cain simply doesn’t know enough to be President. His answer on market volatility and uncertainty demonstrated this thoroughly.
Perry needs to go home. No offense, but Rick, you’re not helping yourself at all. Jon Huntsman was right to call Romney out on the tariff pandering, but at the same time, he didn’t really offer any viable solutions of his own.
The entire debate was interesting and lively, but I would rather see the format of the Cain-Gingrich debates applied to other pairings. I’d like to see Gingrich take on Perry, and Bachmann take on Romney. I would like to see Cain take on Paul, and you can pair Huntsman with Santorum, because after all, everybody else needs a night off, and these two guys can’t buy attention.
as you know Mark, I am interested in politics and want to see Obama defeated, but I did not watch the debate for two simple reasons. 1. They are going to give pat answers that they think a conservative like me wants to hear, or 2. they will flub the answer. Hate to say this , but you have dull witted moderators asking dull witted people questions, and that is just the truth of the matter. It amazes me that out of millions of people in this country, these are the best we can come up with not only in politics but in the media. Our media and political people in this country is walking proof that we have a failed educational system.
"It amazes me that out of millions of people in this country, these are the best we can come up with" (carlinwin12)
I don't know why you are "amazed" … with rare exceptions, anyone with even an ounce of intelligence who would even consider running for office in the USA today would only have to spend 2 seconds looking at what would be in store for them to decide that having their fingernails pulled from their hands with pliers would be preferable to running for office.
IMO, the only exceptions to this assessment would be those with a true "servants heart" and I believe those people are VERY few and far between.
If I had never heard of Sarah Palin, I would have had no problem choosing the best candidate from the present field, however because I have I find myself in the position of settling for the least offensive. I still would vote for any one of them over Obama.
I disagree with your assessment of Herman Cain's responses on the impending collapse of Italy's finances and general economic uncertainty. A free-market government does not intervene in a foreign country's finances. Our government should be concerned only with clearing obstacles to our own growth and bolstering certainty by firming our currency and calming our business regulatory environment. If we are growing at a healthy clip, we don't have to worry about being pulled down by Europe. This was Cain's argument.
Banks aren't lending because they are facing contradictory regulation. As a former Federal Reserve bank chairman, Cain knows this and has been drawing attention to the plight of banks during these debates. I think the other candidates (excepting Bachmann) are afraid to be seen as bank-friendly, leaving the argument to the lies from the Occupy Wall St movement.
Overall, a pretty good debate (better than most, anyway).
I still strongly support Ron Paul and his war on the Federal Reserve and Keynesian economics (the so-called "progressive dead end").
Everyone needs to understand that nearly all of our economic woes are a result of prolonged inflationary monetary policy and federal intervention in the markets. We must drastically (even painfully) cut spending and size of government, get back to sound money and let the corrections occur. That's the only way out of this, folks.
"The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists."
– Ernest Hemingway