Insert Gambling Pun Here

This is the first presidential debate of the current election season that I've been able to watch so I can't say whether they've all been this spirited, but oh boy this was a wild one. Bachman made the "whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" joke right off the bat in her opening remarks, so if you had 8:14 EST in your office pool, then congratulations. To start things off, the other candidates all took turns attacking Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan. They all insist that the math doesn't work and you'll end up paying more. Cain insists it does work and that Americans should do their own math by visiting his website. I'm sure that's the most unbiased place to visit. I suck at math, so I don't trust mine. Everyone I've heard that's actually done the math (including the non-partisan Tax Policy Center) says it'll raise taxes on the middle class. Maybe Cain is right and all of the experts are wrong, but it's hard for me to see how the middle class and the poor would come out ahead. The bigger issue is that, no matter what math you use, it means creating a sales tax for states that don't have a sales tax currently and greatly increasing the sales tax in the states that do. I completely get that he's getting rid of other taxes so theoretically you'd have more money to spend, but it's hard to figure out how much my paychecks would go up. It's a lot easier to imagine paying an extra nine cents on every dollar I spend and that's not something I relish. Then of course there's the criticism that the other candidates have made that once you create these new taxes, the next Democratic president and congress that came along could simply raise them to 10-10-10 or 12-12-12. I guess that's a legitimate concern. On the one hand, it's not like liberals can't raise taxes with our current tax code, but it does seem like it would make it a lot easier to enact dramatic increases quickly. It may not be the best criticism of Cain's plan, but it's something to think about.

The next really interesting moment in the debate came during the section on illegal immigration. Rick Perry claimed that Romney had hired illegal immigrants in the past and kept them on the pay-roll even after a newspaper brought it to his attention. I haven't fact-checked the story, but Romney explained that he had hired a landscaping company to mow his lawn and they had illegals working for them. He found out and asked them to dismiss the illegals. He thought they'd done so, but later found out that they hadn't and was forced to fire the landscaping company because of it. I really don't understand how that's an issue. Maybe you could twist the story and get it to play in a negative campaign ad, but with Romney there to explain the story, it just seemed like a silly, petty attack. On top of that, Romney's explanation took three times as long to get out as it should have because Perry kept interrupting and calling him a liar. It was extremely rude and reflected very poorly on Rick Perry's character. I often get heated when I debate things so I understand his impulse, but in a moderated debate where the other person has an allotted amount of time to speak, how can you not give him or her time to respond? I had an admitted pro-Romney bias coming in to the debate so maybe it didn't seem as awful to the Perry fans watching, but I thought it was bush league. Very unbecoming.

The crux of the real immigration argument came down to whether we should build a fence or not. Bachmann wants a fence across the whole border. Because Bachmann doesn't believe in nuance and her neither does her base. Cain said the fence should be electrified maybe. Possibly. Because he's still figuring this stuff out. He and Romney and Perry all agreed that we'd be better served combining fencing with technology. Seems likely. Ron Paul said the main issue was getting all our troops stationed overseas back so they can watch the border. Because he's Ron Paul and doesn't believe we should have any troops overseas ever. We knew that already. To me, the most interesting and substantial moment actually came from good ol' Newt. He spent his time telling the American people that the GOP is only against illeal immigration, not all immigration. It definitely needed to be said because it's been way too easy in the past for those on the left to paint the right as the party of racism because they want to get tough on illegals. As Lawrence O'Donnell likes to tell us in his MSNBC bumper, immigration is the life-blood of America. The problem is that illegal immigrants are placing an undue burden on our society and often creating their own little niche communities instead of attempting to integrate. A few of the candidates rightly pointed out that there are millions of people trying to get into the country legally and we want to make it easier for them so that life-blood continues flowing.

There were several other issues brought up and lots of good points made by all the candidates. I thought the section on the Occupy Wall Street movement was interesting and I liked Ron Paul's comment that we don't want to blame the victims and Cain's comment that they should be marching at the White House instead. I don't remember all that was said during that section, however, and I don't want to do a complete blow-by-blow, so allow me to close with a few final thoughts. First of all, I realize that unemployment is a huge issue right now and it's something that the president is going to face. That being said, I'm sick of hearing about it. Endless bickering about who has created more jobs in the past and who knows best how to create jobs in the future is pointless and doesn't tell me anything. The only way to literally create jobs is to spend a bunch of money hiring people to pave roads and fix bridges, which all the candidates say they're against. Beyond that, a president can do lots of things to encourage job growth on the macro level, but I wouldn't call it creating jobs. Those things may be very important and helpful, but they're too complex to discuss in a 30 second debate answer so the candidates should just shut-up about it and let me dig into their websites if I'm really interested in the minutiae.

To finish up, I'm going to pretend my hypothetical reader cares very strongly about my opinion and give some quick summary thoughts on each candidate and their performance.

Bachmann: She really hammered home the "I'm a mom and I want to help moms" thing. That's great if you're running for president of the moms, but that's not the office we're trying to fill. I'm not marginalizing her because she's female. I'm marginalizing her because she didn't speak with any depth on anything that was brought up. Not interested.

Santorum: His big talking point was that he's the family values candidate. I do find it strange how little we've heard about social issues during this election cycle. Maybe it will come up more in the general when it's easier to make a contrast. Personally, I'm much more of a fiscal conservative than a social conservative, so his claims to family values supremacy didn't really do much for me. If this were 2000 or 2004, he might be on the right track, but the economy and the job market are too awful for anyone to buy what he's selling this year.

Paul: Even if you don't agree with the man, you have to admire him for sticking to his guns. He's a dyed in the wool Libertarian and he's willing to take his beliefs to their logical extreme even if that means admitting that sick people without insurance may have to die. I'm sure there's a lot of Americans that would agree with him that, as he stated tonight, we should end all foreign aid. I just don't think there's enough people behind him to make any of his radical goals actually happen even if he were somehow elected president. If things keep going how they're going in this country, we could be ready to blow things up and start over in a few generations and Ron Paul may be seen as a visionary. Maybe someday but not in 2012.

Gingrich: He's a dinosaur. And I'm not talking about his age because Ron Paul is older. I mean that his time in the spotlight has come and gone. He had control of the party at one time. He was the guy. But that time has long since past and it feels almost pathetic that he's out there trying to compete with the new guard. On top of that, he's got lots of personal baggage and he's a career politician at a time when politician has become a dirty word. He's a really smart guy who's forgotten more about politics than I'll ever know, but it's not going to happen and he knows it too.

Perry: I just don't find him likable at all. I'm a firm believer that issues are more important than appearances, but I'd like to respect the man I vote for. From what I've read about the previous debates, he sleep-walked through them and seemed unprepared. Tonight, he seemed more on his game, but he came across as petty and childish. The way he kept interrupting Romney and getting irrationally angry made me worry about how he'd act in office. If he can't even get along with fellow Republicans during a two-hour debate, how would he deal with democrats in congress as president and ever hope to get things accomplished? The folksy drawl and  down-home diction play well with a lot of Republicans, but they don't do a thing for me. He also recently became the first candidate to run negative ads about his competitors. His people put together a well-made but ridiculous attack ad where Romney's face turns into Obama's in the mirror. As the immigration attack tonight showed, he's not afraid to play in the mud and he'll use every trick in the book to win. He's a player. A pro. The personification of everything I hate about politicians.

Cain: I want to like Cain. I really do. But the 9-9-9 thing is a killer for me. I appreciate that he's willing to take a stand for a radical solution, but you have to make sure the math adds up before you put something like that out there. He kept going back to this "apples and oranges" metaphor tonight when he was getting attacked and he was clearly sinking before the debate moved to another topic. That being said, I think he's a principled man with a lot going for him. He just isn't quite ready to face the intense glare of being a front-runner as evidenced by all of his recent flubs. I think he could make a really strong VP candidate for someone but I can't imagine him beating Obama next year and becoming president.

Romney: If you've read this far, you're well aware that I like Romney. I came in already rating him as my favorite candidate and he didn't disappoint tonight. He seemed cool and under control and he easily repelled all of the attacks that came his way. He hit back when hit, but mostly tried to stay above the fray and attack Obama rather than the other candidates as a true front-runner should. I understand that he has a lot of detractors, however. If you came into tonight liking Romney, he seemed smart and calm. If you came into tonight, disliking him, he may have seemed smug and cocky. I'll agree that his past stances on some things are a bit worrisome. I'd like to believe that he's truly changed his opinions on some things over time and isn't just floating along the prevailing winds. In fact, I'm willing to give Rick Perry (Texas chairman of Al Gore's 1988 campaign for president) the benefit of the doubt as well. People grow and change and I want a president who's willing to change for the better and admit past mistakes. As for the Mormon thing, it's clear that that shouldn't be an issue. All of the other candidates took the high road in that regard tonight and made me proud.  Gingrich said it well that a president should have faith and that faith will, no doubt, be a part of his decision-making process, but we should look at what that faith teaches about morality rather than worrying about an individual's path to eternal salvation.

Despite recent surges by Perry and Cain, this still looks like Romney's race to lose. The question is whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing. I refuse to join the crowd that says this is a lackluster field. There were a lot of great things said tonight and I think that there's something we can take from each candidate's approach even if only one of them can be the nominee. If conservatives really want to represent America then the Republican party has to be a big tent party that makes room for Bachmann and her Tea Party, Paul and his young libertarians, Perry's establishment Republicans, Santorum's Christian Conservative base, Gingrich's think-tanks, entrepreneurs like Cain, and moderates like Romney. There are some things we'll never get all of those groups to agree on, but each should have a voice. The left isn't the enemy either. They genuinely want what's best for this country too. But there's a fundamental difference in opinion over the role that government should play that actually is important. If the Right has any hope of convincing the undecideds out there to value less government over more, then they have to start by presenting a united front and end the schoolyard squabble over who's a "real" Republican.

New Blog

The title of this post has two meanings. First of all, this is a new blog. Sort of. It's actually the old blog, but I wanted to shift it from my secondary Google account to my primary so I moved all the posts over here. The second reason fot this post is that I've started a new collaborative blog called Crowd Source. Each post will center on a different topic and feature writing by me and friend who either has intimate knowledge or strong opinions on the subject. The first post went up today. Check it out and let me know if you have input or would like to contribute.

Quick thoughts...

For every successful preacher out there, there are scores of "Christians" attacking him and calling him a heretic. If someone is truly a false teacher, then that will come to light in God's time. Ripping each other apart over doctrinal disagreements hurts the entire body. I'm all for open discussion of doctrinal issues, be they major or minor, amongst the body, but terms like "heresy" and "false teaching," while they may be technically correct, imply that a preacher is deliberately and maliciously distorting scripture. Often, the false statement is simply based an incorrect interpretation of a few key verses. The preacher who made the statements should be gently corrected in private rather than publicly lambasted. Or conversely, we can share our thoughts on specific teachings without openly mocking or deriding those who spread them.