I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

[Lamplighter]

I read the first article I came to on the GOP debate...
I'm sorry, I did it again. I need help. I promise to try harder.
It was by

Fox News
By John LeBoutillier
Published October 19, 2011

Candidates Clash at GOP Debate But Voters Are Left Empty-Handed

Watching Tuesday’s GOP debate in Las Vegas this is what
Republican voters are looking for and have yet to find:
a leader who presents a vision to us – the American people –
of how he or she will reverse a widespread sense of national decline
and then lead an American revival.

<snip>
[a lot about the snipping back and forth between Romney and Perry]
<snip>
[Fox serious questions if Cain and 999 can withstand critics]

Ron Paul continued to say things that previous GOP
presidential candidates would never have had the courage to say –
especially about aid to Israel, closing foreign military bases,
not building a fence on our southern border and the Occupy Wall Street protestors

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum were almost invisible in this debate.
They no longer have any impact on the contest --
they have become vanity candidates who stay in the race through Iowa – and then disappear.

Bottom line: not the best debate for the Republican Party overall.
We did not present a Reaganesque, positive, hopeful, visionary face to the American people.

and besides all that:
I seriously disagree that Michele was almost invisible.
She was the only one that stood out from all the men in black.

I do agree that she was not really Reaganesque.
She was more Nixonesque in her "Commander in Chief" uniform.
But then, Nixon was ridiculed for his proposed White House
"praetorian guard" uniforms (below)

.

[Lamplighter]

This LA Times article makes me wish I had watched the GOP debate.

By Robin Abcarian
October 18, 2011
Vegas debate: Cut everything in budget -- but the military

<snip>
Newt Gingrich, suggested that “historically illiterate politicians”
(referring presumably to their illiteracy about history,
not their continuing illiteracy, if you see the difference)
should not be charged with making “a numerical decision about the defense budget.”

“I’m a hawk,” said Gingrich, “but I’m a cheap hawk.
The fact is, to say I’m going to put the security of the United States
up against an arbitrary budget number is suicidally stupid.”

Cain was forced to defend something he had apparently said earlier on CNN,
that he would consider negotiating for the release of an American soldier
in exchange for all the detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

Bachmann pronounced that position naive,
but Cain said he does not believe in negotiating with terrorists
and did not recall making that remark to CNN.

Paul, who frequently harps on military spending,
said he did not want to cut “any defense.
There’s a lot of money spent in the military budget that doesn’t do anything for our defense.”
Why, he asked, do we have troops in Korea, Japan and German? <snip>

and besides all that:
There was nothing worth watching on TV last night.
.

[classicman]

That is a very different perspective from what I saw and from what the pundits said in the aftershow.

Bachmann held to the "mothers" blah blah blah
Santorum stayed on the family blah blah blah.
Cain was on defense for his 9-9-9 and ignorance of foreign policy.
Newt ... was Newt.
Perry was attacking Romney and trying to look strong
(I think he looked like an asshole bully)
Romney looked like Romney.

[TheMercenary]

Glad I never watched it. It really is to early to get caught up in it. I will wait til the field narrows down before I worry to much about what any of them say.

[ZenGum]

[ incredulous stare ]

That's all I got.

[DanaC]

Wow.

[DanaC]

Say what ye like about the Republicans: they're entertainig.

[Lamplighter]

Just 10 days ago, Classic forecast the imminent demise of Herman Cain's 15 minutes.

Maybe Cain's run will continue for a while,
and maybe he will become the GOP candidate,
and maybe he will even be elected President in 2012
By now enough has been said about Cain to understand him
So, until my dog does get into this fight, I plan to ignore him and his "discontinuities".

It's time to look closer at the others for the qualities they possess and profess.
Right now, Romney and Perry seem to be the two top-dogs in this fight...
Washington Post
By Philip Rucker
Published: October*22a

Mitt Romney reaches out to voters but often lacks the common touch

Would Romney, he [a man in the crowd] wanted to know,
“finally give the people of Iowa an alternative to that?”

This was Romney’s moment to make the case that he is the substantive one,
the electable one, to tell Republican voters that Michele Bachmann and
Herman Cain and Rick Perry may be the candidates they love
but that Mitt Romney is the president they need.
And that that is why they should love him, too.

But Romney didn’t. Instead, he queued up his talking points —
that he will be back again, hopes to win here, but will campaign everywhere.
<snip>
When voters exposed themselves emotionally, Romney offered little empathy.
When they sought his support for their causes, Romney didn’t show them that he cared.
Romney was scripted when he could have been spontaneous.
He was boardroom cool when he could have been living room warm.

It’s not for lack of trying. Romney lets his hair breathe,
goes tie-less and travels with a slimmed-down entourage.
He deploys his wife, Ann, to share stories about Mitt the husband and Mitt the father.
He campaigns less as someone looking to fulfill his personal ambition than
as a turnaround specialist whose skills are needed for the nation.
“I am not in this race for me,” he says.

Brent Siegrist, a former Iowa House speaker who endorsed Romney in 2008
and plans to do so again. said, Romney still has weaknesses.
“He’s almost too perfect — too good-looking, too successful — that’s just what it feels like.
It’s almost like he’s Robert Redford in ‘The Candidate.’ ”

In the movie:

"The Candidate", presidential candidate, Bill McKay,
travels the state, with his liberal statements eroding each day.
His support of abortion rights and gun control fade to mush,
while his stump speech is reduced to the same few clichés
and a new slogan: "For a better way: Bill McKay!"

And besides all that:
It has been reported that upon viewing the film, Dan Quayle came to the conclusion
that he was more handsome than Robert Redford, and that
he would be well equipped to win a campaign to enter the White House

I've seen the movie "The Candidate"
Robert Redford was a great actor
Mitt Romney, sir, is no Robert Redford

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Just 10 days ago, Classic forecast the imminent demise of Herman Cain's 15 minutes.

I can still hope for a change can't I?
Perhaps the media fascination of this guy will end soon ... I don't see that happening though. See their coverage of Palin, Bachmann et all as a reference. They seem to be fixated on the extremist positions instead of the more rational ones.
(I don't wonder why)

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by classicman

I can still hope for a change can't I?

NO! That's for democrats.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

I can still hope for a change can't I?
Perhaps the media fascination of this guy will end soon ... I don't see that happening though. See their coverage of Palin, Bachmann et all as a reference. They seem to be fixated on the extremist positions instead of the more rational ones.
(I don't wonder why)

I know you don't wonder why.

I believe the why is mostly two fold, and these two factors exacerbate each other in a positive feedback cycle.

1 -- MOST media is commercially based, and depends, as most corporations do, on making a profit. That profit comes from advertising mostly, and the revenues from advertising comes from advertisers who have been told and expect to have their commercials seen/heard by lots of people. What attracts those viewers/listeners? Spectacle, suspense, a good story. More excitement means more audience.

2 -- MOST presidential candidates for a party nomination know that they have to appeal to the greatest number of voters (for this restricted "election"). The voters in these several elections/caucuses/primaries are interested, motivated, focused voters. These are people who have definite ideas about what they want in a candidate. This includes "independents" for those areas that permit independents to vote. These more keenly interested, highly motivated, more intensely ideological voters have their choice among the competitors for the party nomination. They're looking for someone who is the *most* Republican, or the most (fill in the important issue here) of all the candidates. The result is you hear the candidates *competing* to be more _____ than the next one. This results in a "I'll see your position, and raise you" race to the far end of the spectrum in a race to be the most appealing. "I know you are, but I'm MORE." A race to the extreme.

This is double fucking rainbow awesome for the broadcast media, as each day is a richer harvest of more spectacle than the last one. Since the candidates know this too, they play on the media's hunger for more and more, substance be damned. Point 1 feeds on point 2 and that makes more of point 1, repeat (ugh) until the nomination.

Then it is a race to the center, because this new pool of voters is very different than the previous pools for the candidate who wins a major political party nomination. This race to the extreme then race back to the middle makes for some mental whiplash, but that is a small price to pay to get elected. Which must be done before one can govern.

[Lamplighter]

They're looking for someone who is the *most* Republican,
or the most (fill in the important issue here) of all the candidates.
The result is you hear the candidates *competing* to be more _____ than the next one.
This results in a "I'll see your position, and raise you" race to the far end
of the spectrum in a race to be the most appealing.
"I know you are, but I'm MORE." A race to the extreme.

V's comment above is true. And for Perry, it is business as usual.
In Texas, the candidates traditionally vie for who
is the "most Conservative", regardless of party affiliation.
Romney doesn't have a clue how this works, so his numbers stay constant.

But the thing that is really different this time around is the parties have reversed themselves.
Usually, it's the Democrats beating up on one another in the primaries,
and then have to suddenly realign for the general election.
The Republicans usually fall right into formation with the candidate
based on who is next in line (a la Romney).
I think McCain was the exception, and look where that got them.

If the Republicans are not successful this time, the Roves, Rollins, Norquists,
and McConnolls will squash the Tea Party and their ilk for generations to come.

[classicman]

I'm beginning to think that some Republicans would rather lose the election and bitch about everything Obama does for another 4 years instead.
At least they wouldn't have to be responsible.

[Lamplighter]

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm beginning to think that some Republicans would rather lose the election and bitch about everything Obama does for another 4 years instead.
At least they wouldn't have to be responsible.

I was thinking that when McCain picked Palin.