POLITICAL COMMENTARY
A quick word on the GOP debate last night. I’m following them because one of the candidates will be our next president unless the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot. For what it’s worth, here is my assessment based on how the candidates presented themselves and their ideas, not the validity of their ideas. Any Republican who ends up as the nominee is going to focus on “free market solutions,” even though most of their solutions are not “free market.” But their proposals will be better than President Obama’s knee-jerk Keynesian-welfare statism.
Rick Perry ▲ For his first foray into the national spotlight he did a great job. He was smooth, persuasive, fairly articulate, and almost never got flustered. He spoke directly to the TV audience and presented simple ideas that were easy to grasp. Like most politicians he dodged the tough questions. I would say for presentation he was the best up there. Everyone was expecting him to fail as another W. Bush and he exceeded expectations. He is my least favorite candidate.
Mit Romney▲ Mit did a good job, but not as good as Perry. He has a tendency to get into details which loses the audience. People think these debates are for candidates to debate the issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. The idea is to communicate to the TV audience and get them to like you and your ideas. You need to express concepts simply and clearly. He was well prepared and had good answers for his critics except the ones he couldn’t defend (Romneycare). I still see him as a middle-of-the-roader, but so is Perry.
Michelle Bachmann ▼ If anyone was a big loser it was Bachmann. I found her presentation weak and off-key. She looked scared and haggard. Her answers were stupid and way off target. She came across as the lightweight she is. She is about equal to Perry in my dislike.
Ron Paul ▼ He continues to spiral downward in the effectiveness of his presentation. While he is my favorite candidate he did horribly. The man is still in the trenches fighting the good fight but he blew it again. I am very disappointed in him. I have criticized him for not being serious in his quest for the Presidency. He fumbles his answers, wanders, goes off on policy issues, and loses his audience. Don’t get me wrong: I agree with (almost) everything he says. But he’s letting the movement down. He’ll start falling in the polls once the Iowa Caucuses start up. Sad to say.
John Huntsman ▲ ▼ I agreed with a lot he had to say. He, like Romney, can play the businessman card, but he was good on immigration (Reagan Amnesty) and getting out of Afghanistan. He is a Mormon but apparently believes in evolution (vs. creationist bible-bangers Perry and Bachmann), and agrees there is good science behind global warming (it doesn’t mean I am in favor of destroying the economy because of it; but face it, man’s activity is a factor in climate change). I felt he was more free market that any other candidate except Ron Paul. He needs to work on his presentation though. He comes across as being stern rather than Perry-Romney confident. He’s my next favorite after Ron.
Forget the rest:
Santorum: Dope.
Newt: Clown.
Cain: Good, but no one takes him seriously, especially donors.
Today I would put Perry as the front-runner.
Great write up. Informative and concise. As much as it hurts me to say it the Ron Paul comments are on target.
bummer about ron paul. can we just vote for the cardboard cutout of the gipper?
Ron Paul has done this to death. He needs some new lines, and would be a far stronger candidate if he openly mocked the opposition. There’s no debate he can’t win, so long as he doesn’t fall back into the same lines that only thinking people will get.
Just getting up there and beating people with budget numbers doesn’t work because people don’t want to think about why things got bad. They want a way out. It’s not how you fell into the hole, but how to get out.
Ron Paul is an amazing person. 40 years of absolute consistent, dogged, principled advocacy for free people and free markets; a truly moral person. His integrity is inspiring. I would not be reading this blog if Ron Paul did not run in 2008.
Unfortunately, I agree with Jeff’s review above. Politics is about sales – if you doubt that, look at the liars and sociopaths that manage to get themselves elected. Dr. Paul’s commitment to the ideas is the most important thing and it is compelling, but the presentation is (politically) lacking and this matters.
It’s too bad Gary Johnson’s campaign couldn’t get more traction. He doesn’t have Ron Paul’s legacy or the ‘star power’ of Perry but I think he’s the best candidate in the GOP field. I hope he gets another chance (2020?).
Jeff, your comment that Ron Paul will start failing in the polls could not be more wrong. It is easy to predict that the readers of this blog will demonstate the growing support that Ron Paul has so expect your comments section for this entry to be overwhelming.
From watching this so-called debate, it was apparent that the message of Ron Paul is being co-opted by the others which demonstrates his growing influence. When have you ever heard mention of the Federal Reserve or a discussion of foreign policy in serious terms rather than in jingoistic terms?
As the results of the Obama admininstration continue to fail and it will, more people will begin to listen to the Paul message and his poll numbers will continue to rise. It is also important to note that Paul support does not leave Paul, only the others decline. Accordingly, if the election of a republican is the goal of the Republican Party then only Paul can be the nominee since a loss of Paul voters will doom any other republican.
Once again, the message of Austrian Economics should be heeded. Do not try to project human behavior on the basis of past statistical data.
I sincerely hope I am wrong.
Man, I’ve been reading you for a while, but the fact you buy into the anti-God “we’re science” cognitive map like Huntsman is so late-term bourgeois if not Soviet. What are we going to do, “win the future” by counting photons? Should we build Ivan Drago types? Also, Huntsman admitted he does whatever it takes to get elected and won’t pledge to honor anything. Why do we Capitalists care how old the earth is or what monkey is my cousin or who hates cow farts? Send your kids to private school. We’ll take whoever pledges to unleash free markets and real prices, even if he or she prays for success.
What is your point? Are you expressing a religious viewpoint? I personally find creationists anti-intellectual and that is not who I want in the White House. J
My point is that, to my surprise after reading your good financial posts and resistance to Obama, when it comes time to unseat him, you suddenly sound like a Marxist (materialistic and believing in the superiority of your own epistemology). I’m balls to the wall for Capitalism and I wouldn’t care about your religious or irreligious beliefs if you were too. You want to be a professor of science then go to the ivory tower; you want to be a scientist then invent something that creates financial value; you want to beat Obama, then knock it off and focus on policy only, and leave character assassination to the Left.
So, if I criticize a candidate for his ignorance, religious or otherwise, that makes me a Commie? Yikes, dude. I suggest you read something about epistemology, starting with Mises’s Theory and History. Also please read today’s piece, “That Terrible Day.”