The crowd never roars for Romney

If anybody won my vote in last night's debate, it was that great, rowdy and rambunctious crowd of conservatives in South Carolina. Wow. It made me want to move there!

Now before I go read any outside commentary, I'd like to jot down some of my impressions from the debate.

I thought Perry came out of the gate strong, and had great rapport with the audience. A friend has already written me that his gong comment was "priceless." I thought he made an important point, too, when he reminded us that we won't be able to fire our nominee in September; it will be too late.  The question is whether it's already too late for Perry to stage a comeback. Certainly, South Carolina will make or break him -- and that seems fair enough to me.

 

Try as they may to get only the most unflattering photos of Rick Perry, once in a while dhimmedia slips up. This shot was taken during a campaign stop in Blythewood SC, Jan. 12th (al-Reuters via daylife).

 

Gingrich had good moments and in fact got the only standing ovation I've ever seen in a debate like this.  I thought he had a rather mixed night. When Newt's good, he's very very good and when he's bad, he can be awful.  He was by no means awful last night, but Santorum and Romney were somewhat successful in their efforts to paint his ideas as craziness when it came to the Chilean model for social security.  A little doubt can go a long way, even in the face of Newt's protestations that he balanced the budget four years in a row. It's a shame, but facts can seem to fade away when it's two against one. Having said that, it did strike me as pure politics when Romney said, "Rick's right." Given a choice between the Gingrich and Santorum plans for social security, Romney moved to damage whoever represents the greater threat to his campaign, or so it seemed.  Maybe that tactic would work for him against Obama, but it doesn't make me appreciate him.

 

 

Santorum's presentation has improved in general (I thought he was excellent in the forum at Duncan SC), and I think he is especially impressive on foreign policy... but I am hard put to remember a single specific remark he made last night.

 

 

Romney was Romney. There was a lot of energy in the crowd and it seemed to work for different candidates at different times, with one exception. The crowd never roars for Romney. And that worries me. Who will make the phone calls, knock on doors and get out the vote? I'm not convinced that the anti-Obama sentiment, as strong and widespread as it is, will be enough in and of itself to carry Romney to the White House -- especially if Obama keeps up this pose of being more Republican than the Republicans, wanting to shrink government and the like.

I want, as do most conservatives, a champion for our cause. Not a deity or a messiah, but a champion, a fighter, a knight on a white horse. I'd even settle for a knight on a brown horse, or a cavalry bugler. Mitt Romney may be the most inoffensive offering in the field, but that hardly speaks of championship. The only positive scenario I can imagine for Romney is that of the tortoise and the hare; I'm just not sure it will work. (What if Obama won't play the part assigned him?)

 

 

 

And finally, I have to note - for the record, if nothing else - that Ron Paul basically promised to take the income tax rate back a full century, to zero.  

C'mon, can anyone believe that even as president he could actually accomplish such a thing? And if not, what's the point?

 

 

 

 

.... The origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913; however, its history actually goes back even further.

 

 

During the Civil War Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 which included a tax on personal incomes to help pay war expenses. The tax was repealed ten years later. However, in 1894 Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.

The 16th amendment, ratified in 1913, removed this objection by allowing the Federal government to tax the income of individuals without regard to the population of each State.

For additional information on taxation in the United States, see the section on taxes on the web site of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

 

Comments

[Mannie Sherberg]

I saw things a bit differently. I didn't see the same old Romney -- I saw a new Romney, a guy who's easily flustered, rattled, and discombobulated, a guy with a glass jaw. The Romney we've typically seen is stolid and composed; what we learned last night is that he's stolid and composed only when nobody's throwing punches -- but once the punches start coming, he stammers and sputters and loses coherence. He proved, to me at least, that grace under pressure is not his thing -- hardly a reassuring disclosure in a man who wants to be our commander-in-chief. As for Santorum, his biggest problem is that he gets lost in the weeds. He gives us too much detail, too many numbers, too much technocratic jargon. That's why it's so difficult to recall anything he says. He has yet to learn the basic principle of all spoken communication: whatever is addressed to the ear rather than the eye must be kept simple. That's a principle Gingrich not only learned but mastered long ago -- and that's why he was so effective last night. He has a remarkable ability to bring complex subjects down to earth by personalizing (and thereby simplifying) them, as he did last night with the "highway of shame" and with the story of his daughter's first job. Gingrich and Perry -- yes, Perry! -- gave the rest of the candidates free lessons in public speaking last night -- and were, I believe, the clear winners.

[Joel]

Santorum came across as whiny and unlikeable.

[Walt Gottesman]

Missed seeing the debate but my wife and I watched part of a CafeMom forum, broadcast on C-SPAN from Myrtle Beach, with Perry and his wife Anita. We were impressed with his (and her) articulate and detailed answers to questions from the moderators, Lindsay Ferrier and pollster Frank Luntz, and from moms (and one smart ten-year-old boy) in the studio audience, about education, border security, freedom from voluminous federal regulations, etc. (tuned in late so didn't catch it all). We sensed a solid core of character in both Rick and Anita Perry. Perry spoke simply and well, with quiet strength, wit, and confidence in the Constitution, his achievements in office in Texas, and in the conservative values of most Americans. Go Gov. Perry!

[Elan]

I agree with all of you. First impressions are important, and Santorum made a big mistake by leading off with the burning issue of “why won’t this man tell his Super-Pac to stop lying about my record on felons; I don’t want them to vote until AFTER they get out of jail” -- so far into the weeds even Santorum couldn’t remember whether it was after parole or before it. Perry had a good night, but you know the old saying – “you can’t overcome a bad first four impressions.” Too bad, he coulda been a contenda, if he had spent a little more time at the gym before stepping into the ring. Gingrich proved, in case there were ever a doubt, that he is a fearless debater, but after paling around with Pelosi, stabbing Paul Ryan in the back, and doing a Michael Moore impression on Romney, he’s had three strikes. Ron Paul is like the crazy uncle in the attic who came down for dinner and won’t leave – Romney needs a Sister Souljah moment with him, except you know what Romney’s thinking: wouldn’t be prudent. That’s why Romney had such a convoluted answer on his tax returns: he’ll “probably” be the nominee by April, so he’ll “probably” release his returns then, but it probably wouldn’t be prudent to release them now. So he stammered through a long answer about the history of when tax returns are released. He’ll be more like Bush 41 than Bush 43, but when the choice is Bush 41 or Michael Dukakis on steroids, it will be an easy decision.

[Yael]

Thank you, Walt, for bringing our attention to the CafeMom forum. I hadn't seen it. For anyone who wants to watch, it's at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Cafem

[Yael]

Elan, I know you meant to be reassuring but I don't want Bush 41. I want someone for THESE times. Perhaps we are not at a unique point in history, but it sure feels like it. One of the better things that can be said about Romney,though, is that the very blandness I now complain about would be a relief after Obama. Btw, why do they call him 'No-Drama Obama'? I think his presidency has been one High Drama after another...

[yeshiva son]

If those three things are the only problems with Gingrich, that's not bad. If you strip away the hyperbolic language you use, those are issues of only marginal relevance.

[yeshiva son]

Also, I think that Gingrich was extraordinary. He expressed conservatism in such an incisive, clear, appealing and straightforward way.

[Yael]

I'd LOVE to see Gingrich beat Romney in SC but if he doesn't, then Romney will have won all three states in a row. The fact is people would see that as making it "unanimous." South Carolina should have the "Live Free or Die" slogan... and then we could tell Florida to remember the Alamo. Or something like that...

[Yael]

A good read on the debate by Jay Nordlinger: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288297/latest-debate-jay-nordlinger

[yeshiva son]

I don't quite understand the "if you win three states no one else can beat you" thing. I'm not saying it's not true - it may be, but I don't understand why. There are 47 more states, no? I s it just a money issue, that the other candidates don't have enough money to keep going?

[yeshiva son]

Also, saying he won Iowa is technically true, but only technically. I just heard on Hannity that he has sources saying Iowa may actually go to Santorum.

[Yael]

YS, others probably know more and better than I do, but I'm guessing the three state thing is mostly about perception. A Romney win in SC would add to the already widespread perception that his nomination is inevitable. And sadly, people have a very strong sheep-like tendency to go with the herd. As that momentum builds, it becomes more and more difficult to change direction. This is one of many reasons that choosing a leader is so terribly important.