Friday, January 20, 2012

State of Play

Another presidential debate last night -- only saw excerpts of it because the kids were watching something else. Good thing, too. A lot happened in the last few days, though:

  • Our friend First Ringer provides a typically great synopsis over at Mitch's place if you need to catch up on all of the particulars, but the big news of the day was that Rick Perry dropped out of the race and endorsed Newt Gingrich, which was a curious move. One could write volumes about the problems Perry encountered in his campaign. Whether anyone would want to read them is another matter. He was supposed to the deus ex machina of the race, but he turned out to be more of a doofus ex machina. He has a good record as governor and I remain convinced that being a governor is the best prerequisite for the job of President, but he wasn't ready to be president. And it's likely he never will be.
  • Newt Gingrich is, as always, the most interesting guy in the race, although he's interesting in the sense of the famous Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times." One of his ex-wives unloaded on him yesterday and the matter came up in the debate, which gave Gingrich the opening to be outrageously outraged about the whole thing. He took great, theatrical umbrage and battered CNN moderator John King about the neck and ears, earning a standing ovation from the assembled crowd. It's a pretty good trick to get a room full of Republicans to give a standing ovation to a philanderer, but that's the beauty of Newt. I continue to believe his popularity rests entirely on his willingness to play bully boy and take the battle to his interlocutors. I'll admit I enjoy it, too. Having said that, it's preposterous to think he could be an effective President. Andy Aplikowski has an interesting take on the matter of Gingrich, too.
  • Rick Santorum is still standing, for reasons that aren't entirely clear. I've never really thought much of him and while he's been occasionally effective on the trail and may have won Iowa after all, he's not the right guy to run the country. Social conservatism is fine but for it to triumph it needs to win the hearts and minds of the citizenry through persuasion, not be imposed by fiat. And Santorum seems far too comfortable with the notion of using the tools of the state to impose things by fiat.
  • Ron Paul is Ron Paul. He's doing his Old Testament prophet shtick and raising important points, but he's also 76 years old and it's evident that he's getting worn down. I fully expect him to remain in the race to the end, though, because he's playing the long game and trying to change the nature of the conversation. And in doing so he's performing a necessary service.
  • That leaves Mitt Romney. He's not the guy most conservatives would prefer, but he's the guy we are likely to get, despite the punches in the nose he's getting at the moment. He's been running for president for about 8 years now and the experience shows in his campaign. He's problematic for several reasons, but in the end the question will be this -- is he better than Barack Obama? If this year plays out the way I suspect it will, Obama will have a very difficult time convincing anyone he deserves a second term.

19 comments:

Brian said...

Re: Perry--I agree that a governorship is probably the job that can most prepare someone for the presidency. But if we learned anything from GWB, it's that being governor of Texas can't be all that hard. (And Perry didn't campaign 1/10th as well as GWB did.)

Re: Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul--Yeah pretty much.

Re: Romney--I realize I'm not sitting in the most representative slice of America, but I just don't see how he beats an incumbent Obama unless unemployment goes back up or gas tops $5/gallon. The swing states turn on turnout, and enthusiasm for Romney among the people who would vote for him is palpably lukewarm. He's Kerry in 2004 or Dole in 1996.

There also remains the wildcard of what Ron Paul's supporters will do, especially if there is a halfway decent LP or independent in the race. If there is, Obama wins in a cakewalk.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

You could start a new feature, Mr. D. You could call it, "A second Obama term would be better than....."

I'll play.

A second Obama term would be better than....
...flatulent mosquitos.

I'm sure we can find many reasons to re-elect him if we try hard enough.

Mr. D said...

He's Kerry in 2004 or Dole in 1996.

Yes. Things were much better in 2004 and 1996, though. And that might make the difference.

And you explain the scenarios that will trigger it, Brian -- $5 gas is quite possible and if Europe goes bad, unemployment will increase.

Brian said...

Absolutely. The economy (or more precisely, indicators thereof that the average person readily feels and can grasp) re-tanking changes everything in favor of "anyone but Obama".

I am left to wonder what that leaves the "anyone but Obama" crowd hoping for.

Mr. D said...

I am left to wonder what that leaves the "anyone but Obama" crowd hoping for.

I think the ABO crowd isn't "hoping for" as much as "bracing for." Obama can't cure the economy; if he could, he would. But he can make things more complicated, which has been his approach for the last 3 years. And he's hardly alone on that score; the Europeans he admires have driven their economies into the ditch pretty much completely. Romney won't solve the problem, either, but he's more likely to take the steps that a president can take to make things at least a little better. Whether he will is another matter.

Anonymous said...

I think the Obama campaign, aka ABC, NBC et al, have already "taken out" Romney. He can't win. Gingrich alone has shown the ability to take on the media that will probably be required to stay in the race. Whether all the other things about him make him a winner, I can't say, but without the first, any GOP candidate is toast.

J. Ewing

W.B. Picklesworth said...

I totally disagree that any Republican nominee is toast because of what the press will bring to bear.

The sitting president is a disaster. Everyone knows it. Surely the press will try to distract everyone from this very basic fact. But the fact itself is plain and pervasive. The evidence isn't complicated; it's been a part of everybody's daily life for his entire term. People who don't pay attention to politics know it.

Water is wet, the sky is blue, and Obama is a failed president. The Republican nominee wins. Whether or not that will lead to competent government is up for question.

Anonymous said...

Obama is a failed President?!?

This is coming from people who voted for Dubya twice.

Thanks for a good laugh.

At least the reality that Obama is probably gonna win this year is starting to seep in.

Rich

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Rich,

Failure. Big, stinking, pretentious, failure. Unemployment, debt, scandal, incompetence, Obama.

Brian said...

W.B.: Unemployment peaked 7 months after Obama took office, and has been falling since. After a massive upswing through the last year of Bush's term.

Data:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like Obama (as is your right.) But you can't hang unemployment on him.

The growth the of debt is a continuation of a massive expansion of spending increases and revenue cuts through the Bush years, as well.

I'd certainly like to see Obama do more to reign in the debt. However, if you care to look at the FY 2012 budget request for the Dept. of Defense:

http://comptroller.defense.gov/budget.html

You'll note that it represents the first net year-to-year decrease in quite some time. ($37.3bn less than FY2011. It's on page 7 of the overview.)

DoD is one of the big three budget items (the other two being Medicare and Social Security). It's a less than 5% cut, but that's more than anyone in the GOP race (except, as always, Ron Paul) has offered a concrete plan to do.

But I know I'm just pissing in the wind of your visceral contempt for the man. So have fun with that.

First Ringer said...

Wow, so nothing that's happened in the last 3 years is Obama's fault.

I'll keep that logic in mind for the first term of the Romney administration.

Brad Carlson said...

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like Obama (as is your right.) But you can't hang unemployment on him.

Yeah, actually you can. The drop in unemployment rate is deceiving because there are fewer jobs than when Obama took office. If the same number of jobs existed today as when Obama was inaugurated three years ago, the unemployment rate would be closer to 11%. Combine that with the fact that people who have burned through the maximum allowable period to receive unemployment benefits aren't even factored in to those who are "unemployed." But guess what? They still ain't workin'.

The growth the of debt is a continuation of a massive expansion of spending increases and revenue cuts through the Bush years, as well.

Again, B.S. You want to create more revenue? How about making it easier to create jobs? The current administration is the most business unfriendly Presidency in quite a while. But if it weren't so regulatory happy, more jobs would be created which would mean (you guessed it) more employees!! And what do employees pay? Taxes!! And what are taxes? REVENUES!! Yeah, we missed a golden opportunity with Keystone XL.

Now if we can just find someone willing to take a hatchet to the out-of-control entitlement spending.....

Brad Carlson said...

OK, fess up, Mark. This anon commenter signing as "Rich" is really a parody. He has to be.

Awww, you had me going for a while. Who knew you could you could skewer libs so well. Kudos, D!

Brian said...

Wow, so nothing that's happened in the last 3 years is Obama's fault.

Didn't say that. I was addressing the two points W.B. raised that are not entirely subjective: unemployment and debt.

Brian said...

Mr. Carlson,

When you're ready to answer data with data instead of assertions thereof, I'm happy to engage (and listen.) Really, I am.

Mr. D said...

Brad,

Nah, Rich is real. I've known him for 30 years now. We don't agree on politics (obviously), but he's a great guy.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Brian,

It's less contempt than it is unwillingness to engage in the whole, "Let's all look at the faults of the Republican candidates" game that will be going on until November. Not playing.

It's not that I think Republicans are guiltless or gilded or wonderful or any of that. It's that we have a sitting president who has done a piss poor job. Sure, that's an unsubstantiated assertion. But it's one I'm asserting everyone knows perfectly well in their gut and will act on in November. We'll see if I'm right if after months of intensely negative coverage, the Republican candiate (whoever he is) wins.

Brian said...

Sure, that's an unsubstantiated assertion. But it's one I'm asserting everyone knows perfectly well in their gut and will act on in November.

I gotta say: most people who think with their gut (i.e., most people) don't own up to it. I respect that you do, and won't bother you further.

Honestly, I'm ambivalent about Obama. I think if most people were honest with themselves about the politicians they choose to support, ambivalence would rule the day.

I'm just not ambivalent about facts and numbers that can be verified and measured. Occupational hazard.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Brian, it's not that I'm actually ambivalent to numbers. They can be very useful. But, as I'm sure you'll allow, they can be framed to create false impressions. Is the unemployment rate going down a good thing? One would think so, but maybe not, if it reflects fewer people working.

Defense appropriations. Are the two years of decreasing expenditures tied to the end of the Iraq War? If so, I wouldn't give the president a lot of fiscal credit for that savings considering that the drawdown was already planned (at least that's what I understand, perhaps I'm wrong.)

But broadly speaking, we've arrived at what seems like a crisis of debt and he doesn't seem to be serious about doing anything. Maybe it's too politically hard for anyone. I've been reading Asimov's Foundation trilogy and maybe the forces of inertia are just too much and we'll spend and pretend until we fall apart. In any event, it seems clear to my gut at least that he isn't up to the job. Our situation will only grow worse.

That said, it's probably pretty silly of me to think that a Republican administration will do anything serious about the problem. I need to go buy some canned goods.