The only part I think they left out is the wealthy Republicans are far more likely to give voluntarily from their own pockets to the needy than the Democrats who want to give with other people’s money.
Did you know there are twelve more Republican debates after tonights? I wish there were that many football games left.
Here’s what I’m anticipating, some good, some not good –
– Huntsman is not appearing. He doesn’t have a chance in the Republican primary anyway, he’s far to liberal or moderate in this Year of the Tea Party. All he did was crack jokes in the last debate anyway.
– That leaves 7 contenders. It’s time to start winnowing down the contestants so we can rally behind somebody. Trouble is, all of them have their good points. Cain for his bold economic plan, Paul for his distrust of the Fed, Romney because he’s well-spoken (though I’m not enamored with his social engineering and China trade background), Bachmann for her unwavering Tea Party principles, Santorum for his practicality, Gingrich for his knowledge and political experience. And I’m sure Perry has some sort of good points if I look for them hard enough.
– But moderated by Anderson Cooper? He hates the Tea Party. I expect unfairly worded questions (would you rather starve old people or let them resort to cannibalism?) and unabashed liberal antagonism. Not that it’s all bad – it’ll prepare the candidates for next year’s debates with Obama who has far friendlier press to deal with.
– Note that social issues aren’t really on the table at the moment. Seek ye first fiscal responsibility and all these things shall be given unto thee.
Speaking broadly: In the 2006 and 2008 elections, and at some point during the past decade, the ancestral war between Democrats and the Republicans began to take on a new look. If you were a normal human sitting at home having a beer and watching national politics peripherally, as normal people do until they focus on an election, chances are pretty good you came to see the two major parties not as the Dems versus the Reps, or the blue versus the bed, but as the Nuts versus the Creeps. The Nuts were for high spending and taxing and the expansion of government no matter what. The Creeps were hypocrites who talked one thing and did another, who went along on the spending spree while lecturing on fiscal solvency.
In 2008, the voters went for Mr. Obama thinking he was not a Nut but a cool and sober moderate of the center-left sort. In 2009 and 2010, they looked at his general governing attitudes as reflected in his preoccupations—health care, cap and trade—and their hidden, potential and obvious costs, and thought, “Uh-oh, he’s a Nut!”
Which meant they were left with the Creeps.
All I want is for a politician to mean what he says, and to do what he means. I’m tired of the weasel words trying to straddle the fence, then voting for big projects to funnel to your district so you can buy votes.
Being Creeps is why the Republicans lost. Being Nuts is why the Democrats are losing now. But American wants neither Nuts nor Creeps.