Last night's debate and the President's job speech tonight -- that's a lot of fodder for pundits and writers and such to be sure.
Let me add my two cents -- first with tonight's job speech by the Prez.
Talk about same old, same old -- tax the rich and bring back the good ole WPA. What is this, 1911 or 2011?! Does anyone really think we need more roads and bridges?! Are we really short on infrastructure in this country?! And how long will those jobs last? Through the election, perhaps? Come on, talk about transparent.
Oh and how are we going to pay for all this? According to the Prez, just pass my bill dammit and come back in two weeks and I'll let you know how we'll fund the darn thing! Seriously?! This has to be a first in my lifetime. I cannot remember any President putting forth a bill or program via the installment method. Although this is similar to the Obamacare debacle, where Nancy Pelosi said they'd have to pass the bill to see what was in the bill. Maybe the Prez thinks everyone has forgotten how that worked.
Here's hoping the Republicans laugh this joke of a plan out of Washington and propose something that actually makes some sense.
Now, as to last night's debate:
If there was a winner, I'd say it was Rick Perry only because the entire debate seemed to be focused on destroying him, and he came through pretty well. He made a crack at one point about feeling like a pinata with everyone taking shots at him. And I thought it was glaringly obvious that the moderators were trying to pit everyone against him.
Sort of played right into the hands of those who've complained that the liberal media is out to knock Perry off.
I liked that the Texas gov. wouldn't back off his criticism of Social Security even when the moderators basically lined everyone up against him and let them tee off. Perry stood his ground and I'll be interested in seeing all these conservative bloggers who've been griping that no one will speak out on entitlement reform back him a little now instead of shrieking Gardasil at every mention of his name. I also liked his smackdown of Karl Rove. Got to hand it to the guy, he comes across as in charge and confident.
Mittens did a decent job, took the bait when offered him and attacked his main rival Perry at every opportunity. I appreciated that he stuck up for Perry over the above mentioned Gardasil situation.
Michelle Bachmann did okay for the few times they let her speak. She had her "deer in the headlights" moment when MSNBC's token hispanic threw a gotcha question at her about illegal aliens already in the country. She recovered well and danced around it better than I would have.
If Ron Paul didn't kill his election hopes with his loopy comments about the border fence, I don't know what his supporters are smokin'. Dude is a nutbag and I liked that Perry gave him a good smackin' when they traded barbs about letters each had written in the past.
Newt's going nowhere, but he ate that Politico guy's lunch over his support of a school choice bill back in Reagan's day. Why these guys try to trip Newt up over history is beyond me. For all his faults, Gingrich has an encyclopeadic knowledge of this country's history and the memory of a super computer.
Cain, Huntsman, and Santorum just seemed to be filling out the stage. And that's pretty much what they're doing in the election.
As to the debate itself -- I don't know if it's because the Prez is not being primaried or maybe I'm just noticing it for the first time, but I'm getting a little tired of the moderators spending all their time trying to get the candidates to attack one another. Newt cracked about it at one point, and he's right -- they're up there to make sure Obama is a one term president period. There are enough policy issues and troubles with this country, what voters want to hear are the candidates positions on them and their plans for our future. Not what Jon Huntsman thinks of Rick Perry's stance on man-made global warming.
As an aside -- I don't watch much MSNBC, 'cause I have taste and intelligence, but one thing that struck me were a couple of the commercials during the broadcast. The one from a California citizen's group that wants to curtail legal immigration to improve the job market in California.
I'm just sitting there staring at the tv going , wtf was that? Do they run nonsense like that all the time?
And the one with pseudo-intellectual Rachel Maddow (but she's a lesbian wearing manish clothes and geeky glasses, she has to be smart!) using a dam as a backdrop to talk about big project abilities of this country. Yeah? Think they could build a dam like that nowadays? With all the eco-hysteria in this country? There could be a raging river ready to wash away New York City and Maddow and her flannel wearing hipster doofus eco pals would be chaining themselves to trees and shrieking about some squirrel that was going to lose it's home and blaming . . . someone . . . probably conservatives, for building the city where it is anyway.
Sheesh. No wonder that network only has three viewers. Who watches that crap?