If you haven't watched it, I recommend you to give a try:
YouTube: 8 parts, 15 minutes each (in Reagan's Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California)It seems to me that Rick Perry has defended his frontrunner status – and the left-wing alarmist Guardian recommends the world to prepare for a climate skeptic in the White House – but exactly when I wanted to say that Romney is the new Kerry in this primarily Perry-Kerry battle, he made a pretty funny comment.
For example, in the first part, Romney had to face Kerry's successful job creation record in Texas. So he said that Texas was a great state, with oil and zero income tax, but even Perry doesn't believe that he introduced these great things. It would be like Al Gore's claims that he invented the Internet. ;-)
Very funny but Romney is still no natural entertainer.
Christian Science Monitor has a useful summary. They claim that Romney won the debate and Perry will have a problem with his opinion that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
Well, I don't really think it's a problem. Everyone who pays some money to it is annoyed and the only people who consider Social Security a holy cow are those who are getting paid from it or extreme ideologues.
Such a debate finally taught me who Jon Huntsman is "in practice".
Weeks ago, I used two left-wing people's love for Jon Huntsman as one of 30 arguments that they had to be the same person. Today, I understand that it's not a big coincidence that both Capitalist Imperialist Pig (a blogger, now known to be Ed Measure) and Kevin Cahill think that Jon Huntsman is the best GOP presidential hopeful. However, this match has a simple explanation: Huntsman is the only left-winger (and the only alarmist) among the GOP candidates.
These two people converged to the same remarkably identical answers to so many seemingly bizarre questions because they were the most left-wing answers they could find and these people belonged to the most left-wing 0.1% of the population. So it's no coincidence, the "criteria of identity" were not independent of each other, and my calculation of the 15-sigma evidence that they had to be the same person was flawed.
Some comments of Huntsman looked like self-parody to me. For example, we were assured that the Americans are the most optimistic nation on Earth which should naturally make them express their excitement about our friends in the Communist Party of China. Long live, comrade Hu Jintao! Or his comments about the "fragility of the private sector", holy cow.
Herman Cain and Ron Paul were saying nice and wise things. What's missing is the natural capacity for "flock building", the ability to sell themselves as mainstream folks or natural leaders. Michele Bachmann said many valid things as well but she was still presenting herself as a mom and small business owner – a strange perspective a year before the presidential elections.
Newt Gingrich's answer whether he's a big Perry supporter or proxy because he wrote a foreword for Perry's book was funny. "What it means that I am ready to write another foreword to another book." :-) Gingrich gave a good lesson to the journalist who wanted to make the candidates fight each other about the ObamaCare. He said that everyone one the podium understands that the ObamaCare is a catastrophic pile of sħit. Applause. We're a team committed to defeating Barack Obama. Another applause. :-)
Perry has memorized my comments that Obama has learned some things about the economy, against the will of his base, and presented them in a concise way. He has also praised Obama for having killed Osama. Otherwise Obama got a bad rating. According to Romney, he's a nice guy who has no clue about running the country. ;-)
I haven't mentioned Rick Santorum because I didn't find his answers too relevant for the current problems.
Reagan's left-wing daughter Patti Davis was disappointed not to have found her father. I find her article in the Time Magazine kind of... pathetic. She's just a daughter of Reagan who moreover didn't inherit his values which doesn't seem to be a key to promoting herself to a voter-in-chief. Moreover, her arguments that Reagan would surely support the most left-wing candidate because he would only cared about the unemployed don't have much to do with reality. It's also untrue that Reagan would avoid snarky soundbites. But there you go again, Ms Davis. Of course, the Carter-Reagan debates were more hostile but we will have to wait for the GOP_nominee-Obama debates to compare...
It's pleasant to watch it because you see that the GOP hasn't stopped thinking and it offers some good candidates for the White House. Still, I was sometimes annoyed that the candidates avoided the question. For example, Bachmann was asked whether she wants to quite the W's policy of removing the dictators. No clear answer. It looks like she doesn't know the policy or haven't thought about it. Some candidates may think that it's great if they avoid questions – they don't antagonize parts of the electorate – but be sure that such avoiding will be found annoying by other big parts of the electorate, too.