Tuesday's Debate: I Ask Again, Is This The Best We Got?

Gary Johnson isn't even invited.

Huntsman is reduced to wisecracks.

Bachmann joins him.

Santorum said all the right things in such a forgettable way that he's still complaining about being ignored.

Perry has the stage presence of a wet noodle and, seemingly, a brain to match.

Even though he is philosophically sound and the candidate I would vote for, Ron Paul continues to whine, ramble and impersonate Prof. Irwin Corey.

Gingrich continues to trash the press to no avail.

Which brings us down to the current frontrunners: Cain and Romney.

I like Herman Cain. He tells it like he sees it, with little if any spin. He talks to the people rather than other politicians, the Washington cocktail party set and the press. He gives the impression of being honest...and naive. I still think he has no clue about what he would be up against in Washington. He would be eaten alive by both the ruthless opposition and the stone-headed bureaucrats.

Why?

Because Herman Cain is a fixer, a problem solver. He wants to fix the Fed, fix Medicare, fix Social Security, fix the tax system, fix the bureaucracy and so on and so on. The problem is that you can't fix stupid. Some problems don't require fixing; they require eliminating.

I looked up Cain's economic advisor and the chief architect of Cain's 999 plan, one Rich Lowrie. I've never heard of him, but so what. Anyway, I discovered Mr. Lowrie is a former advisor to a group called "Americans For Prosperity." This seems like a smart group. At the top of its legislative agenda are spending cuts, REAL spending cuts. The group recommends closing five federal Departments (Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy and Housing and Urban Develop, plus the FCC) for a total immediate savings of $3.1-trillion.

The point is Mr. Lowrie's pedigree is laudable, but why not encourage Cain to adopt this government cutting strategy, rather than a tax strategy aimed at funding the federal government?

Mr. Cain needs to team up with Ron Paul.

Herman! The goal is to reduce government, not fund it. The goal is to eliminate the Fed, not fix it! The goal is to cut taxes, not figure out ingenious ways to keep paying more!

And now to Mitt Romney, the favorite of the press, liberals, Democrats and the Republican establishment.

Mitt is one slick dude. He knows how to shade the truth with the best of them. But what is this guy REALLY made of? He talks a good game, but what does he believe?

Here are some clues:

Tuesday night Mitt said:

And so if I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that's the middle class. I'm not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine. The very poor have a safety net, they're taken care of. But the people in the middle, the hard-working Americans, are the people who need a break, and that is why I focused my tax cut right there.

You see? Mitt believes, as Obama believes, that our tax dollars are the "precious" property of the federal government and that these "precious dollars" should only be spent in the cause of income redistribution. Mitt, like Obama, is into federal "safety" nets for the poor and token givebacks for the "hard-working" middle class. Mitt has no apparent belief in the sanctity of private property, in not taking people's property in the first place. No, he believes in the principle of government knowing best, first and foremost.

Do you think I'm being harsh or unfair? Consider this from Mitt last Tuesday as he defended his signature accomplishment as Governor of Massachusetts: RomneyCare.

And the problem was that we had a lot of kids without insurance, a lot of adults without insurance, but it added up to about 8 percent of our population. And we said, you know what, we want to find a way to get those folks insured...

Romney, like Obama, believes it is government's job to provide health insurance to citizens.

Romney, like Perry and George Bush, is a "compassionate conservative." He has no problem robbing Peter to pay Paul so long as in his measured, moral judgment, Paul is deserving of the loot.

Give me a break.

Romney does have one disagreement with President Obama. He believes we should punish China.

I will label China as it is, a currency manipulator. And I will go after them for stealing our intellectual property. And they will recognize that if they cheat, there is a price to pay. I certainly don't want a trade war with anybody. We are going to have a trade war, but we can't have a trade surrender either.

In his inimitable, mushy-eloquent style Romney has succeeded in having it both ways. He will "label" China a "currency manipulator" but what will he do about it? Does he support the current Senate bill aimed at preventing "currency manipulation?" We don't know. Mitt didn't say.

Mitt wants China to pay a "price" if they "cheat." What price? We don't know. Mitt didn't say.

Mitt doesn't want a trade "war" but he doesn't want a trade "surrender" either. What does that mean? We don't know. Mitt didn't say.

Dear Reader, if you are a Republican voter and you want to put another big government, compassionate conservative into the White House, vote for Obama-lite: Mitt Romney.

Look, there is a reason why Republican ears perked up when guys like Perry and Christie and gals like Palin thought out loud about running for President. There is a reason my ears perk up when guys like John Bolton speculate they might run.

No candidate in the current Republican field is satisfactory. Those who are sound on the issues (Paul, Bachmann and Johnson) come across as clownish. Those who have personal appeal are deficient on the issues.

I'm sick and tired of supporting Anyone But Obama. I want substance and appeal.

We keep hoping that another Reagan will come along at the last minute, don't we?