mycatharsis.com

Much like Romney himself, I’ve found myself with multiple, conflicting, opinions.  He’s spent the entire campaign pandering to the basest instincts of GOP voters,  and seeing the GOP voters reject him and what he’s representing is pretty satisfying.  On the other hand, I can’t escape the thought that with his public and private sector executive experience, and with our economy looking extremely precarious, he has a lot to recommend himself as the right man for the country right now.  There is a major disconnect between who he says he is, and who he was  and really is.   He became a panderer, sold off all his old positions like a stock that wasn’t profitable anymore, and tried to be who he thought the voters wanted him to be. And apparently misjudged badly.  I find it more than a little ironic that his newly strident position on immigration may have hurt him enough in Florida among Hispanics to cost him a shot at the Presidency. More than a little satisfying, too, to be honest.  Even for the GOP voters  in Florida for whom illegal immigration was the MOST important issue,  McCain pulled around 25%, only 10-15 percentage points behind Romney.  Meanwhile, Romney’s nativist tone killed his popularity with enough other voting blocs to perhaps cost him a chance at the nomination….

Only caught a few minutes of it last night after grabbing some beer at the Great Dane.  Is it just me or is Fox News not even really trying to give a semblance of so-called ‘fair and balanced’?  It doesn’t seem that long ago I used to watch and really appreciate their network, but boy, either I’ve changed or they have, or, most likely, we both have.

There is NO way I believe that Luntz’s focus group was made up of undecided voters.  Of course, maybe it wasn’t, I didn’t catch the beginning, so I don’t know who Fox claimed these guys were.  But they usually claim it’s undecideds in the focus group, so I’m making an assumption.  No way in hell.  First question out of the chute, the group can’t do enough to praise Fred Thompson, using more political buzzwords than you’ll hear on a Chris Mathews show.   “He’s hit his stride”, he sounded “forceful”, basically all the useless stuff political wonks focus on when they’re not talking issues.  They sounded much more like campaign workers or a political junky like myself than undecideds.  Of course, being a fox show, they couldn’t talk to this group without getting them to chorus that Ron Paul was the worst of the night!

Paul’s exchange with Romney, I think, is a seminal point in this campaign so far.  Paul has rightly come down hard on the other Republicans for pushing us into war with Iran.  As he said, are we really so worried about a couple speedboats playing tag with U.S. Navy destroyers that we’re ready to go to war over it?  Romney tried what McCain, Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney himself have all tried before, using humor to dismiss Paul.   Usually humor that falls flat, too.  (McCain tonight tried it as well, and frankly, looked really bad smirking while Paul railed against the casualties that are piling up in the middle east. )  Either way, Romney then launched into his own speech on Iran, and proceeded to make Paul’s point by pushing that aggressive policy against Iran! The GOP now knows, they can’t say they weren’t warned …

Speaking of Paul, that newsletter business, with racist attacks in a newsletter bearing his name, was pretty depressing and revolting to read.  I definitely do not believe those were his words, for many reasons.  Didn’t sound like him stylistically (one paragraph called the LA race riots the most severe problem facing this country, something I just cannot see an economic-minded libertarian such as Paul saying), he had already run for President in 1988 on a semi-major ticket where you think those views would have been previously revealed, either by him or the media (and, I think, he was completely open-borders back then as well, which would not go over well with a racist crowd), and as much as I’ve heard him speak over the last year, what I read does not jive with this man at all.  Still,  if my names plastered on a newsletter, I’m going to make darn sure that what’s in it does not conflict with my beliefs.  If he could get himself to a point of being a serious candidate for the nomination, this scandal will come back and probably would be a fatal blow, unfortunately.  But Paul is still having a great impact on this race.  He is the face of the conflict within the Republican party among neo and paleo conservatives.  Even if he just stays at 5-10% throughout every state he competes in, he will show the GOP there is a significant contingent among their ranks that still care about small government, the Constitution, and personal freedom.

Among these guys, my thinking is I would definitely vote for Paul,  and would consider McCain and Huckabee.  Still, I think I’ll vote for Barack Obama over any of these guys, Paul excepted.  Frankly, those two sometimes seem to be the only adults running this year …

After sitting thru the entire debate last night, I have to admit to myself what a huge political geek I am!  That said, it WAS a lot of fun to watch.

A spirited and lively debate. The format is, I think, a big winner. I love a debate with tough questions, and Anderson Cooper was as effective as any moderator I’ve seen at keeping the candidates on topic and answering the questions they were asked. Mike Huckabee’s eloquence really impressed me. His answer regarding illegal immigration was excellent in turning away the nativist wing of the party. I’m slowly becoming comfortable enough with him to consider voting for him if he’s the nominee.

I really enjoyed watching Romney and Giuliani go after each other, if only to see them tear each other down. Romney seemed as slick as always to me, but not nearly as charming. His answer on his abortion flip-flop was quite good, but was also neutralized with me by his ineffective attempts at explaining another flip-flop on the issue of gays in the military.  By the way, the hullabaloo over the Brigadier General being a Hillary Clinton plant is a non-issue with me. The gay General who asked the question was quite clearly biased, and was the low point of the night for me, as he was obviously a shill pushing an agenda. I tuned out his post-answer rants, and figure most people watching this debate may have as well. And frankly, dedicating as much time as they did to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ was ludicrous, with so many other important issues ignored, such as the plummeting dollar. Giuliani, on the other hand, did quite well, I think. I still am least comfortable with him above all others, but I respected his answers on abortion and New York as a ’sanctuary city’. He seemed to try to answer as honestly as possible, unlike Romney, who seemingly would not let a word escape his mouth that might possibly upset the far right. Giuliani even mentioned states rights a time or two, although unconvincing, it’s reassuring to know he’s at least aware of the concept.

Ron Paul was amazing, which was all the more impressive because of the ridiculous nature of the questions asked of him. The first had to do with the Council of Foreign Relations, and that tells you pretty much all you need to know. I am a huge fan of Paul and his views, but have long wondered if he is more of a policy wonk than an effective campaigner. But his answer to this attempt to portray him as a conspiracy nut was BRILLIANT, deftly turning away any insinuation that he has tinfoil hats in his closet, while directly answering the question that was asked, in an honest way, no less! For political and rhetorical skill, it was an amazingly effective answer. He also deftly turned away McCain’s attack, again having to repeat that simply because he doesn’t want to bomb everybody doesn’t make him an isolationist. McCain’s attack is a good sign for Paul, a sign that his views are finally being heard, even by deafest Republicans of all, many of whom, unfortunately, happen to be running for President. He also had the second or third to last question of the night, asking him to run as an independent. Again, his answer showed a skillful political touch, answering the question while also giving himself a chance to tout his fundraising prowess and the excitement building among his supporters, and doing it all in a humble manner, expressing simply that he’s lucky ‘to be a part of it’. A huge part, Mr. Paul!

McCain did quite well, I felt, although Paul did get the best of him on their exchange. I missed most of Romney’s hemming on torture, but McCain’s answer was quite good. I also liked his answer on the role of the Vice President, and got the feeling from him that, ever so slightly, he is trying to return to the agitator role he had in 2000. He seems like a natural fighter, politically speaking, and it’s a horse race between him and Huckabee for number two in my book (behind Mr. Paul).

Mitt Romney has been defending himself recently from charges that one of his appointed judges allowed a murderer ‘walk’, a murderer who recently has been accused of killing again.  From what I had heard on the news and talk shows, I had assumed the judge let him walk on some sort of technicality or appeal.  Not the case.  Actually, he had already finished serving his sentence, and the prosecutors were trying to keep him in prison by bringing up new charges.   After reading this piece on solitary confinement that includes an interview with him, I can’t say I really blame prosecutors for trying to do just that.

While in the DDU, Tavares has had many disputes with officers, some of them physical, which have resulted in repeated extensions of his DDU sentence as well as the loss of radio and television. Tavares, 37, has a graying, thinning crewcut and jagged teeth. He talks slowly and deliberately, and behind heavy eyelids, he seems to struggle to contain his anger. Prison officials view him as a troublemaker.

It sounds like everyone knew this guy was trouble.  Nonetheless, any blame to be laid at Romney’s feet should be minimal, at best.  First and foremost, those of us who believe in personal responsibility have to first lay the blame at the feet of the dirtball who did the killing.   Yes Romney appointed the judge that let him go, and it could be argued that her appointment was based as much on a need for ‘diversity’ as anything else.  She did, though, require him to check in with a parole officer three times a week, but he probably got lost in the system when he stopped doing just that.   While I stridently oppose mandatory minimums and feel that sentencing for most crimes, in general, is overly harsh, the fact is that this guy served only 16 years for killing his own mother.  That is what seems most out of whack to me.

The legal system is complex, and every person and case in that system is unique.  Criticism of it is most often leveled at it with the benefit of hindsight, a benefit the system itself does not have when it actually has to make these decisions.  I do have to think, though, that if we stopped locking up nonviolent offenders and stopped worrying about behavioral crimes like drugs, prostitution, etc,  that the corrections system in general would have a lot more time to dedicate to worrying about those we want them to worry about.