the LYNCH report

The Power of Clear Insight

Las Vegas GOP Presidential Nominees Debate: Perry Falters; Romney Steady; Paul Strong

with 3 comments

Tonight’s GOP debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, between hopefuls for the GOP Presidential nomination featured lots of fireworks, stumbles by some candidates (most notably Governor Rick Perry, but Newt Gingrich too) and some significant differences on policy positions. Here’s an overview of how the candidates fared:

Rick Perry

Texas Governor Rick Perry has had a rough time in prior debates, and has seen his standing in the polls plummet rather dramatically, from an early, substantial lead, to currently out of the top three. Mr Perry needed a strong performance in this debate.

He didn’t produce it. In fact, his performance was so poor, the Las Vegas crowd booed him on several occasions. Mr Perry, it seems, has decided to focus on two things: answer as many questions as possible by working in the term “energy independence” (regardless of whether energy in any way relates to the question at hand), and attempt to attack former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

On this second point, Mr Perry adopted a strange strategy: clearly weakened by revelations in prior debates that, as Governor of Texas, he instituted a program whereby illegal aliens are subsidized by the state for post-secondary education (an illegal alien studying in Texas pays less than a visiting student from, for example, California or Illinois, with up to $100,000 less being the figure commonly quoted by Mr Perry’s adversaries), Governor Perry decided to level an allegation against Mr Romney that Mr Romney had previously knowingly hired illegal aliens and continued to employ them after learning of their status. This was not only effectively swatted aside by Mr Romney (as he explained it, a company he hired to tend to his lawn maintenance happened to employ an illegal alien, and fired that individual after Mr Romney objected, but subsequently hired another illegal alien), it allowed Mr Romney to make a point about his own plan for an electronic system which would permit employers to identify the legal employability status of employees.

On multiple occasions, Governor Perry repeatedly interrupted Mr Romney during Mr Romney’s answers, so much so that the crowd began to boo. Mr Romney effectively put Mr Perry in his place by suggesting that, as President of the United States, he would have to occasionally listen to other people without interrupting. And jarringly, Rick Perry repeatedly referred to Herman Cain as “brother”, which he did not do to any of the white candidates.

Mr Perry also suggested withdrawing United States support for the United Nations in its entirety. And Rick Santorum accused Governor Perry of writing a letter to Congress on the day of the TARP vote urging Congress to act (Mr Perry’s rebuttal was that his letter urged them to do “something”, but not what they did).

Governor Perry had a very poor outing, and it’s hard to imagine a scenrio whereby he recaptures the lead in the polls, or comes anywhere close to the Republican nomination. In each debate, Mr Perry has seemed vastly out of his depth, and increasingly relies upon repeating that his state has created the most jobs (notably absent from his claims, and not mentioned by the other candidates, is the fact that an awful lot of those jobs were in the state government: Governor Perry has increased spending 81.94% since he took office, as we previously reported in our article, “Perry vs Romney: Both Big Spenders, History Shows…“). It will be interesting to see how long Mr Perry remains in the race, given how poorly he has been performing, both on stage and in the polls, and it’s further hard to envision Governor Perry beating even the weakened President Obama. Mr Perry’s confidence and charisma have vanished; unfortunately it does not appear that leaves him with much to trade on in this race.

Mitt Romney

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had a generally steady night. Attacked early for his Massachusetts health care plan, and for prior suggestions that he considered such a program suitable for the entire country, Mr Romney fired back by proclaiming that the Massachusetts plan is right for the state but not right for the nation, and backed it up, as he has in the past, by pointing out that the citizens of Massachusetts favor his health care plan by a three to one margin. It’s an odd and difficult argument to make, because Mr Romney is essentially arguing that the merit of such a plan is a function of its scale: it’s okay at the state level but not okay (and, he claims, unconstitutional) at the federal level.

Governor Romney managed to very effectively silence Newt Gingrich by claiming Mr Romney’s plan took the idea for an individual mandate directly from Mr Gingrich. Mr Gingrich vehemently denied the charge, before admitting on a direct question from Mr Romney that he had indeed spoken out in favor of an individual mandate.

When Mr Perry attempted to cast Mr Romney as a “flip flopper”, Mr Romney responded by pointing out that Mr Perry previously chaired Al Gore’s Presidential bid against George W Bush.

Mr Romney’s strategy of avoiding specifics and masterfully directing many of his answers into, essentially, “This country needs jobs and I’ll give them to you!” played well: his style is so smooth that, unless listening closely, it’s easy to miss that he doesn’t actually say very much on any topic.

Ron Paul

Texas Representative Ron Paul had another strong showing: here is a candidate who doesn’t need to pause and calibrate his message into what a candidate is “supposed to say” – his positions are logically consistent (Governor Perry, on the other hand, appears as though he has had too many aides providing too many “positions” on too many topics, to the point at which they have overcome his ability to memorize his supposed positions).

Ron Paul scored with the audience when moderator Anderson Cooper listed off the federal departments Mr Paul would shut down: Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, etc. On the question of foreign aid, Dr Paul simply stated he would cut all foreign aid, and at one point had both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry telling the audience they agreed with Mr Paul. His message that foreign aid amounts to taking money from poor Americans and giving that money to rich people in poor countries resonated with the crowd, as did his message about bailouts, the economic bubbles and the inability of the federal government to “manage much of anything”.

On the issue of whether he is in favor of the federal government storing spent nuclear contamination in Nevada, Ron Paul suggested it is inappropriate for the federal government to forcibly dump the garbage of forty-nine states on one of the states, said he considers it a state issue, and mentioned that, at one point, he was one of three members of the House to vote against the measure, the other two being representatives of Nevada.

Perhaps the most striking contrast of the evening came between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul on the issue of cutting defense spending: Mr Santorum (clearly a hawk, who previously stated he would like to “go to war with China” but probably meant he would welcome a trade war with the Chinese) said he would not cut one penny of defense spending. Ron Paul, on the other hand, pointed out that the United States maintains bases in 150 foreign countries and that it was time to bring the troops home.

Herman Cain

Former Godfathers Pizza CEO, and Chairman of the Kentucky Federal Reserve, Herman Cain has seen his fortunes shoot skyward after strong prior debate performances. His “9-9-9” tax plan was a focus of much of the early part of the debate, as Mr Cain’s new found status as front runner in some polls served to increase the scrutiny of his proposals.

Criticism of his tax proposal centred on the sales tax portion of his 9-9-9 plan: a 9% sales tax on all retail sales. Michele Backmann, a former tax attorney, repeatedly referred to it as a value added tax (the difference between a sales tax and a value added tax is that, with a value added tax, each step a product goes through on its way to market is taxed on the difference between the input cost and the sale price – the “value added” is taxed), while Mr Cain explained it was not a value added tax. Mr Romney asked if this sales tax would apply in addition to state sales taxes, which Mr Cain attempted to deflect as comparing “apples to oranges”. Mitt Romney replied, “And I’ll have to get a bushel to hold all the apples and oranges”.

As a former central banker, Mr Cain argues that he was in favor of the bank (and other) bailouts, but not how they were applied. That’s a message that is unlikely to resonate with many Republicans (or independents, or Democrats, or anyone who isn’t a current or former banker or other of the “bailed out”).

Other candidates argued that it would never pass (Newt Gingrich), that the people will not accept a sales tax (Rick Santorum) and that it will inevitably rise (Ron Paul; Michele Backmann). Herman Cain, meanwhile, argued that it would eliminate all the invisible taxes while simplifying the tax code.

Moderator Coooper quoted a statement Mr Cain had previously made in which he suggested that if people weren’t employed and weren’t rich, they should blame themselves, which caused much of the audience to applaud. Mr Cain said he stood by the statement. On the question of the current “Occupy Wall Street” protests, Herman Cain suggested the protesters’ anger was misplaced, as the government was to blame for the financial downturn and not Wall Street. Ron Paul suggested Mr Cain was blaming the “victims”, in reference to the unemployed, while the government people in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as Wall Street participants, had yet to be held accountable.

On issues not related to his tax plan, Mr Cain seemed less confident and more as though he had been coached, and his answers to issues such as defense and immigration were far less compelling than his answers on matters economic.

Michele Backmann

Senator Michele Backmann had a generally strong performance, leveling several effective attacks on other candidates. Her positions on foreign policy were particularly strongly articulated, attacking Iran for their nuclear program as well as the purported assassination plot against a Saudi dipomat on United States soil. Mrs Backmann also came out heavily in favor of continued financial aid to Israel, “our closest ally” (the question of foreign aid to Israel drew strong contrasts between Michele Backmann and Ron Paul: Mr Paul argued in favor of withdrawing all aid to Israel).

Towards the end of the debate, on a question about the federal government’s role in housing, in light of the high number of foreclosures, Mrs Backmann made what seemed like an odd appeal to the “mothers out there”, and seemed near tears. It came across as a blatant appeal to female voters, and further, did not seem to resonate with the audience in the way Mrs Backmann no doubt intended it to.

However, Michele Backmann is a strong debater, and continued to find ways to insert herself into the conversation.

Rick Santorum

Essentially out of money and consistently polling in the single digits, former Pennsylvania Governor Rick Santorum started the night with an appeal to family values, and carried that theme on later in the debate, suggesting that “liberty” is founded upon families (at which point Ron Paul interjected, stating “I don’t think liberty comes in bunches”).

Mr Santorum, who often seems visibly pained by anything less than full militaristic support from the other candidates, attempted to insert himself into the debate with a spirited attack on former Governor Romney, attacking Mr Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan. He also successfully attacked Rick Perry’s support of the TARP bailout (see above).

Toward the end, Mr Santorum pointed to his record of having won as Governor of Pennsylvania, a swing state, stating that, “If we win Pennsylvania, we win the election!”

Given his lacklustre financial support and poor showing in the polls, expect Mr Santorum to drop out of the race after Iowa, at the latest.

Rick Huntsman

Former Governor of Utah and Obama Chinese Ambassador Rick Huntsman did not participate in the debate, ostensibly in order to boycott Nevada (which has changed the date of its primary to January 14th, in violation of GOP rules), but more probably because his campaign is in severe financial difficulty. Expect Mr Huntsman to withdraw from the race soon – after New Hampshire at the latest.

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. In Las Vegas last night the best yet presidential candidate’s debate, the sixth people standing behind their lecterns pledged a stand against the illegal immigration occupation. However, all the Republicans remained somewhat tough-tied, when it comes to an overall coherent agenda that could resolve most of this nation’s illegal alien issue.

    As in the statement by the pro-sovereignty organizations and restricting of legal immigration NumbersUSA site during this deep recession: The plan is simple, reasonable and equally achievable. Any candidate on the platform could win the hearts and admiration of millions of voters, including the tens of millions of Tea Party members by adopting this plan and learning to articulate its worth.

    This is a five step plan, to each of your favorite presidential candidates, which should include current President Obama. By going to NumbersUSA website you can study each grading for each potential personage. On the grid, you can click on any photograph to access the contact information.

    HERE IS THE PRINCIPLE ISSUES:

    1. By securing the border as addressed in the 2006 Secure Fence Act, which Michelle Bachmann outlined in the debate.

    2. A goal of reversing illegal immigration.

    The federal government’s goal relating to illegal immigration should be to reduce the number of illegal aliens in our country, over a period of time and in a orderly fashion using every means possible. Representative Lamar Smith’s LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT” is a great beginning and should be mandatory act.

    Halting illegal immigration as it now, isn’t enough. Securing the borders as it is now, isn’t enough.

    The US authorities have to affect 20 million plus foreigners, to return to their homeland. So instead of America becoming an importer of people, we have to append more resources to de-magnetizing the attraction and become a net exporter of illegal immigration annually.

    A conscientious approach to illegal immigration would seek to craft a program, a number of illegal aliens who leave the country annually greater than the number who enter the country–annually. Experts who study these policies judge that we could attain a net outflow between one million and two million per year by implementing or enhancing a handful of procedures that are already known to be effective, and in fact are largely premised on existing law. Namely:
    • turning off the jobs magnet by requiring workplace verification of legal status (i.e., requiring all employers to use the existing but not-yet-mandatory program known as E-Verify); Waiting for a floor vote, but held back by some Republican politicians.
    • turning off various other magnets such as in-state tuition, drivers licenses and birthright citizenship;
    • Building an effective, physical fence on the Mexican border; The 2006 Secure Fence Act planned as a double layer fence, stretching the majority of the border, with the top lined with concertina razor wire. Between fences a no-man’s land for use of mobile Border Patrol units and military troops.
    • deploying a reliable check-in/check-out system for visitors to the United States (i.e., fixing the current program known as US VISIT); and
    • Enforcing existing deportation laws to perhaps double the effect of current enforcement.
    These five measures alone should reduce our illegal alien population by half in less than six years. Let us consider each measure in turn.

    THE 5 STEPS

    turning off the jobs magnet.

    By far the most significant means of reversing illegal immigration is to stop illegal aliens from holding jobs. Without jobs, most illegal aliens will find it difficult to support themselves and will return home.

    Candidates would do well to endorse House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith’s Legal Workforce Act (Bill H.R. 2885)because it accomplishes more than required E-Verify for new hires and sets up systems for identifying and firing illegal aliens who have obtained jobs with stolen identities. If you want to free fax, go to NumbersUSA or please call Washington at 202-224-3121 and ask for your U.S. Senator or Representative’s office to urge action on mandatory E-Verify.

    We need to hear candidates pledge as President to fully enforce every aspect of this legislation.

    Turning off other magnets.

    For the same rationale the jobs magnet should be turned off, so too should all the other magnets. One example is in-state tuition (Dream Act) for illegal aliens. There are others such as the current privilege of not paying for health care in hospitals. The biggest, however, is birthright citizenship: the granting of American citizenship to a child merely because he or she was born here, even if to illegal alien parents. The later is by far the costliest taxpayer support mechanism, as misinterpreted in the 14th Amendment.

    Building an effective, physical fence.

    Effective, physical fencing along the Mexican border (i.e., a wall where that is fitting, or a double-fence with a barrier road between the fences where that is appropriate) is a well-established and bi-partisan idea. Congress has already authorized the building of an effective, physical fence along about 700 miles of the 2000-mile southern border. Building that 700-mile stretch of fence is a good start. An even enhanced policy would build 1,000 miles of effective fencing encompassing the entire 800-mile ground border between San Diego and El Paso, plus another 200 miles of the most desirable river border in Texas. As a practical matter, most experts believe it is not necessary to fence the entire 2,000-mile southern border, but that theory can be tested over time. If 1,000 miles of fencing proves insufficient, we can build more.

    And to be effective, fencing must have the appropriate level of Border Patrol and detection technology.

    Deploying a check-in/check-out system.

    30-40% of illegal aliens first enters the United States on legal visas and then overstay. Although Congress authorized a check-in and check-out system in 1996, no President has fully implemented it. It isn’t working and so we need an efficient method of tracking foreign nationals. The current US-VISIT system, for example, makes virtually no effort to have the 45 million foreign visitors each year check out. And Congress exempts most Canadians and Mexicans. The problems with US-VISIT can all be fixed without undue expense or genuine controversy.

    Enforcing existing deportation laws to perhaps double the effects of current enforcement.

    Deportations reduce our illegal alien population directly. They also discourage illegal entry into the United States in the first place, and they encourage illegal aliens already here to leave voluntarily. As of now, we deport less than 4% of the illegal alien population each year (despite 100% of that population being legally eligible for deportation). Under current policy, large numbers of people who are identified by law enforcement as probable illegal aliens are never placed into deportation proceedings. THEY WALK! And large numbers of those who are subjected to proceedings and ordered deported abscond or are otherwise allowed by the federal government to avoid their deportation orders. A President could perhaps double the number of illegal aliens who leave the country as a result of existing detection without any change in law by Congress by increasing cooperation between local law enforcement and the feds, by reducing the opportunities for illegal aliens to abscond after deportation orders and by requesting that Congress provide more funds for ICE agents, immigration judges and detention capacity.

    WE NEED AN ALERT CONGRESS TO RECOGNIZE ILLEGAL ENTRY AS A FELONY, MAKING FOREIGNERS HESITANT BEFORE ARRIVING THROUGH WHATEVER MEANS? 2 to 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT WOULD BE AN INSTANT DETERRENT TO THE ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION.

    This spreading illegal population problem will stop over time and the $113 Billion Dollars, taxpayers spend to subsidize these people.
    One Old Vet saying, “Stand next to me and you’ll never stand alone.”

    Dave Francis

    October 19, 2011 at 4:24 pm

  2. […] is because he has raised an awful lot of money. He is not a serious contender, and never was (as we previously noted, “…it’s hard to imagine a scenrio whereby he recaptures the lead in the polls, or […]

  3. […] of Godfather’s Pizza Herman Cain had his weakest outing of all the debates thus far – as we previosly noted, he seems far out of his depth on matters outside the economy, or when retreat to his “nine […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: