Is it necessary to point out that this was hardly the format used by Lincoln and Douglas in 1858?
I was hoping for a little more candidate and a little less moderator, as advertised.
Be that as it may, the "debate" was cordial, substantial and non-confrontational, which was somewhat of a problem in that I got the feeling that this was not a debate between men who have honest differences, but an audition of a possible Republican 2012 ticket. Gingrich and Cain agreed on 99.9% of the issues.
If the only primary contenders were these two gentlemen, voters could flip a coin. Although they agree on their general approach to issues, Gingrich still dismays me a bit. He has a lot of Washington policy wonk in him. He recommended that the federal government eliminate waste and fraud by updating the bureaucrat's technology. He wants Washington to track Medicaid recipients and mandate that unemployment recipients receive training. This doesn't sound like a man interested in divesting Washington of money or power. He reminds me of the type of politician who thinks the bureaucracy might run more efficiently if he were there to manage it.
I prefer the Ron Paul approach: cut unconstitutional government handouts, eliminate the federal bureaucracy completely, starting with five Cabinet level departments and allow individuals to keep their money and do what they wish with it.
Herman Cain leaned in the Paul direction and gave me reason to believe he was a true believer in the free market. However, I still suspect there is too much "problem solving" instincts in him. We don't need a President who will help the federal government solve problems. We need a President who will return power to the people by allowing them to keep resources they are now sending to Washington.
Cain did advocate block granting Medicaid and Medicare back to the states. He did advocate privatizing Social Security. I would have preferred that he advocate eliminating these programs. However, if I had to choose between the two "debaters," I'd choose Cain, simply because he truly understands and believes in (I think) the free market. Newt talks a good game, but I'm left wondering.
I do like the format. Eliminate the moderator and replace him (them) with a time-keeper and I'd like it more. Obviously, I like it best if Paul, Romney, Perry and company participated. I'd love to see Ron Paul paired against Newt.
1 comment:
To be hones, I completely forgot about the debate taking place. It does sound like it was much more cordial and at least they discussed the issues. The other debates have all been attack, attack, attack.
I actually like a lot of what Newt Gingrich says, but I find it very difficult to trust him. His baggage is enormous and like you said, he reeks of policy wonk. I would love to see him paired with Ron Paul in another debate of this style. It would be interesting.
Post a Comment