A Question of Priorities
Sep. 8th, 2011 10:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribI did not watch the Republican Party Presidential debate last night. I had more important things to do, namely attend an event in which this was served:
(Actual picture of actual desert, not resized or altered!)
So, I caught up with the debate via the after-debate news and analysis. One of the talking heads on one of the shows made a point to the effect that Rick Perry calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme made him unelectable in a general election. The talking head opposite him said that the Republicans went with the "electable candidate" in 2008 (John McCain) and look what that got them, so they may go with the feel-good candidate. It is, in short, a question of the voters' priorities.
I would agree, and add a thought - electability is the hardest thing to determine. I think John McCain was electible right up until the bank crisis of September 2008. His mishandling of that, and the mocking he got from Dave Letterman, cost McCain his electability.
(Actual picture of actual desert, not resized or altered!)
So, I caught up with the debate via the after-debate news and analysis. One of the talking heads on one of the shows made a point to the effect that Rick Perry calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme made him unelectable in a general election. The talking head opposite him said that the Republicans went with the "electable candidate" in 2008 (John McCain) and look what that got them, so they may go with the feel-good candidate. It is, in short, a question of the voters' priorities.
I would agree, and add a thought - electability is the hardest thing to determine. I think John McCain was electible right up until the bank crisis of September 2008. His mishandling of that, and the mocking he got from Dave Letterman, cost McCain his electability.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 04:03 pm (UTC)Bachman - stick a fork her she's done.
Paul, Cain, Santorum - likewise, but they were already deadmen walking anyway.
Huntsman - came across as sane, sensible and somebody I'd vote for. Sadly that probably rules him out of eligibility for the Republican nomination - but I think he'd beat Obama in a general at this point.
Romney - did what he had to. There's something I REALLY don't like about the guy, can't put a finger on what it is. He's my brand of conservative and I don't think I'd have too many issues with a Romney presidency, but I don't think the primary voting base will want him.
Perry - he did what he needed to do to get the nomination. But I also think he did enough to lose the general. The Social Security Ponzi scheme will be the headline, but the Science Question wobbled him badly - I suspect that his team had tried to tell him to tone that stuff down and he just didn't and had a brain fart. Likewise the Execution Question, sheesh, there's a lot of cases that are either looking like they executed the wrong guy, or had to let somebody go after decades on Death Row. That will come back and haunt him.
His responses were text book for his target audience but, looking at the Twitter stream, he was peeing off other republicans.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 04:05 pm (UTC)'nuff said.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 06:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-08 09:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-09 01:03 am (UTC)