Heading into the Republican debate at Dartmouth College, several key storylines had taken root. For Rick Perry, it was a need to counteract his ineptitude in previous debates. For Herman Cain, it was an opportunity to capitalize on recent gains in the polls. For Mitt Romney, it was sustaining the presidential aura that has allowed him to dominate these Republican primary debates without breaking a sweat.
At the end of the Dartmouth debate, here's what we know: Rick Perry neither stumbled nor shone. Cain basked in the spotlight but ultimately did not have much to say. And Romney maintained his status as alpha dog of the 2012 Republican field.
• Rick Perry: Expectations for Perry were so low that all he had to do in this debate was avoid babbling like a fool. He did not babble like a fool, but neither did he dispel the doubts that have arisen about his seaworthiness as a presidential contender. Perry spoke more in platitudes than specifics, and he was strangely unwilling to offer details about his economic proposals, even though economics was the theme of the evening. Perhaps because of excessive pre-debate coaching, Perry's personality seemed more restrained than usual, and though he survived the debate intact, what he really needed was a reversal of fortune.
• Herman Cain: Cain's newfound second-place status brought one visible change: a more prestigious piece of real estate on the debate stage. Wedged between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, Cain came across as more of a major player than in previous debates, and his "9-9-9 plan" received plenty of air time. Yet he does not appear able to advance his rhetoric beyond the bumper sticker level. The appeal of Cain's candidacy hinges in large measure on his ability to talk common sense to people who want to hear a simple, reassuring message. By definition, however, this also means painting in excessively broad strokes. If Cain is to advance as a serious contender, he needs desperately to widen -- and deepen -- his repertoire.
• Mitt Romney: At Dartmouth, Romney turned in yet another solid performance. Romney's fluidity in the debate arena ought to be giving the White House pause. Romney knows how to turn the live nature of these events to his advantage, as illustrated by a couple of off-the-cuff quips he made at the moderator's expense. Furthermore, he can deliver a line like "I'm not worried about rich people" with a straight face, even though everything about the man reeks of Wall Street.
Unlike previous Republican debates, the Dartmouth encounter focused exclusively on jobs and the economy, which lent the program an air of respectability that has been absent from the past few gatherings. In fairness, it must be added that this debate was also a lot less lively than its predecessors. Another difference: this time the participants were seated around a large table alongside moderator Charlie Rose and two co-questioners, not isolated behind individual lecterns. Romney, in particular, seemed comfortable in this milieu, though with eight candidates and three journalists the table felt awfully crowded.
Bottom line: Rick Perry needed a big night and he didn't have one. Cain needed to push his message beyond the 9-9-9 plan but he couldn't do it. Romney needed to maintain the status quo -- that he managed, and then some.
Christie Endorses Romney Ahead Of GOP Debate | Fox News
GOP debate: Winners and losers - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Perry and Romney lock horns at GOP debate - politics - Decision ...
CNN New Hampshire GOP Debate: Join in now – CNN Political ...
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
As a Canadian viewing the blatant media discrimination of Ron Paul it becomes all the more clear that in the USA today "the medium is the message". A sorry legacy for a once great profession and a sad commentary for the future.
More troops are being killed and the money spent is ridiculous.
But we keep up with the Kardishians and learn how rich some people are.
Are we waiting for legislation to take money away from the rich and distribute it evenly among the rest of us.
Even 60 plus percent of registered republican voters are now for this according to every credible poll and it's not a theory........it's been proven to work. Also employed people, whether employed by the government or private industry, pay taxes and keep the dollar circulating. Keep drinking the kool-aid if you want but most of the country is finally coming around on this.
In the end, none of the differences between these "clowns" (to quote one of your commentators) matter much, regardless who ends up being the annointed one.
However disappointed progressives may be with our excessively cautious and centrist President, there is no alternative to re-electing him.
As I write in my 10-point plan to fixing America: The country's economic problems begin, end, and are entirely due to the Republican Party in its entirety.
Tom Kando
http://european-americanblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/fixing-america.html
Presidents have the bully pulpit but congress controls the cash
Romney appears to be leading in all the Polls – but has he ever made it past 30%?
What happens if part of the GOP goes for Romney and part goes for “any one but Romney”?
Ten people equal the US economy. They trade with each other, and continue to grow their economic wealth by those actions.
They then purchase goods and services from outside the five people. So money begins to leave the pockets of these five people. Pretty soon one of the 10 people no longer has a Job. (Ten percent unemployment)
This is what is happening in the US economy for forty years.We are purchasing more goods and services from outside our economy. It is free trade, & we are losing money because we purchase more than we sell.
The numbers that support this: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/trad_time_series.xls.
Money is being lost from the US economy. Money equals jobs. Over the last 10 years we have lost $5.61 Trillion. A huge Negative Stimulus for the Economy. So reduced employment reduced tax base for the government. Our economy is shrinking by $561 Billion each year. versus a zero balance of trade.
Over the last Forty years this is $8 Trillion. And another $565 Billion in 2011.
So what should our government do??? GET CONTROL OF OUR BALANCE OF TRADE!
The simplest way to do this is an information campaign that tells the American public how important it is to Buy American. (An example of this is the ABC news article about the value of increasing the $ content of American housing to US produced materials by 5%.)
I thought the US tried this tactic once and it failed miserably
I'm a progressive/socialist who voted for Obama last time but that is not an option for 2012 given his record.
I plan to vote for a socialist candidate because we need a credible 3d party.
But maybe I'll vote for Ron Paul. He would get us out of all these stupid, expensive wars and seek to repeal the Patriot Act. That is more than any of the others would do. And it might be worth watching Paul blow up the Fed just to watch the Wall Streeters run for cover.
And once Ron Paul's conservative economic policies crash and burn the stage would be set for a real change - from capitalism to what works for the people.
All three conditions are met, so, China's going to continue to ream us, trade-wise, for quite a while. Mercantilism is inferior to free trade because it leads to a negative feedback loop - if nobody else responds negatively, though, you just WON.
China's real trade issue isn't going to hit for about 40-50 years, when they have our Baby Boomer issue times fifty. Years of having huge families suddenly switching to having ONE kid = Problem. Most families choosing that one kid to be male and thus diminishing their family prospects = Problem. But these are long term problems and don't have to do with their trade policies.
The democrats had control of congress during the bailouts, the wars, and the 2 billion spent on Libyan conflict.
Not to mention all the money given in foreign aid. Even to countries that hate the US which seems to be all of them.
Just wait til we all have to buy health insurance or go to jail. That will be the govt's jobs plan in action., Build more prisons and hire more guards.