NB Chat: South Carolina Tangle, Part Deux

R- Debate (01/19/12) “The Official Grump-Analysis”

Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 1:44pm.

Source: “The Grumpy Center for Advanced Studies (GCAS)”

Motto of the GCAS: “Yesterday is today what peels are to bananas” – And if anybody can figure that motto out: Feel free to chime-in because I only write them – not understand them.

OVERVIEW: The Thursday evening debate was held in Charleston, South Carolina and was sponsored by CNN, The Wall Street Journal and the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.

THE MODERATORS/QUESTIONERS: John King (CNN Chief National Correspondent) ‘moderated’ the debate and he turned in a performance that was second only to almost everything. The sad thing is that John King is the best CNN has… which tells us a lot about CNN. Thankfully, he got his head (and CNN’s collective heads) handed to him with the first question (a despicable, vulgar, and feeble question about Newt’s ex-wife ramblings and ‘controversy’ on ABC). The follow-on questions were just more of the same old ones that have been hashed over in almost every debate.
By the way, did anyone notice how distracting it was for King to keep wandering across the stage, blocking the view of the candidates as they were answering the insipid questions?

PERSONAL NOTE: Because we are down to four candidates and we have already heard most of the talking points This time around, The Grump-Analysis will focus on a single theme: “Does the particular candidate have the wherewithal to get their proposals, solutions, and visions actually passed into legislation – Or are they just spouting ‘Hot air’ (“Conservative Hope and Change” without the ability to make it happen).”

As we are focusing on the single idea of a leadership ability to enact conservative principles: We will skip the normal snide remarks directed at the ‘moderate-candidate’ Romney and the ‘Libertarian-candidate’ Paul… No, my friends, you will not hear (or read) any dismissive remarks towards those two egomaniacal non-conservatives who pretend they are each the complete and perfect Republican candidate. Instead our efforts are to concentrate on why each of those two ‘Everyman’ do not qualify - (note: One an arrogant, trust-fund, dilettante with a phony smile and lack of core values who will say just what you want him to say or anything he needs to say to get himself elected and the other a ‘public minded hermit’ who is more akin to a cult-leader and one who really has no clue as to how things work in the real world, yet wants to ‘change the government’ overnight, and is only supported by a fringe-group of zombie-like minions who also do not understand the practical realities of our situation (and reject such mundane concepts such as: “Reason”) to help him achieve his vision).

Let us take the ‘High Road’ instead:

PARTICIPANT ANALYSIS: (listed alphabetically)

1. Newt Gingrich – As much as the other candidates want to dismiss Newt’s history of legislative accomplishment and influence on conservative principles, he once again proved he has what it takes to guide the nation to a better future. That does not mean that he is the panacea of conservatism – but it does mean he has the resources (practical experience, bold ideas, and fundamental vision and knowledge) to make things happen. In this last debate his performance was superior… he refused to play defense and concentrated on what he considers legitimate campaign and national issues. Most importantly (IMO) was his clear call for the need for a Republican House, Senate, and Presidency to begin to reverse the decay and corruption brought upon us from the contemptible ideas and policies of Obama and the Democrats at large.

2. Ron Paul – The plain fact of the matter is that despite his image as the ‘family member’ who no one wants to mention… He does have a couple of good ideas when it comes to domestic policies and the need to take the 10th Amendment seriously. The problem is that Ron Paul has no history of being able to put any of his ideas into practice… His fellow (R) Congressmen , (after his 24 years in the House) still have not given him a leadership position on any committee – What do they know that we don’t? IMO it’s that Paul is not a ‘team-player’ Now that ‘team-player’ stuff does not mean that one has to betray their core-values and principles… It does mean that you can’t play politics by the “My Way or the Highway” method… and that is what Paul does 23/7 (he is after all one hour short of a full day (Sorry, couldn’t resist one more little dig)).

3. Willard “Mitt” Romney – There is no doubt in my mind that Mitt accomplishes things by using one two methods in any given situation:
1. A cut-throat approach when he is in complete charge (i.e.: the “Me-First” approach (see his ‘Super-Pac’ statements) – or:
2. An approach that compromises with the opposition on everything (even if it means compromising on his [less than defined] ‘Core Values’).
My evidence from last night’s debate was his rope-a-dope answer about releasing his tax forms prior to the SC primary… in this case he used the ‘compromise-approach’ by basically saying. “While I have nothing to hide – You will just have to wait until April to see.” Why does that remind me so much of Pelosi’s grand statement: “We just have to pass the bill before you can see what’s in it.” No Mitt, this time around you won’t be able to blame your true wishy-washy vision and accomplishments on having to deal with a “D – Legislature” … You’re on your own, and I have serious doubts you are up to the challenge to remain even slightly conservative.

4. Rick Santorum – Paraphrasing Rick’s own words about himself from last night’s debate: “I’m not flashy…don’t get the laugh lines… but I’m solid.” He was right… there is something solid about him. He has fought the legislative battles and he has accomplished much for the conservative cause. There is no doubt in my mind that he would make a fine President. His strength lies in the fact that he is more an “Eisenhower Republican” – one who gets things done without a lot of fanfare… I like that.

- Grump :o)

• Login to post comments

GCAS*

Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 1:55pm.

Excellent as always grumpy.  

As much as I regret saying this,  I am starting to like Newt G....

• Login to post comments

No open thread today?

Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 7:53pm.

Anyway, RIP Ms. Etta James

• Login to post comments