TKO

Pat Buchanan said late last night that Mitt Romney won the first Presidential debate in a walk, “If it were a 16 round boxing match, Romney won 13 rounds.” I agree and I would even expand on his metaphor … it was at least a Technical Knock Out (TKO) for Mitt. In particular Romney said three things that caught my attention … and often went against his own self-interests:

1) Reluctant as he was to provide details about his proposals to broaden the income tax base, Romney did suggest one possibility … cap total itemized deductions at something like $25,000 or $50,000. This is a brilliant solution that primarily would impact the very wealthy and does not target any specific itemized deductions (which would create a political firestorm). For instance, Romney’s million$ of charitable deductions would no longer help reduce his income tax burden as in times past. To me this shows the level of true statesmanship from Romney … showing his rabid commitment toward reducing our nation’s deficits (and mimics my previous tax proposals ... see: Taxing Ideas).

2) When discussing what was wrong with the Dodd/Frank bill, Romney said that it did not get rid of “too big to fail.” This he said was a gigantic “kiss” to the five biggest Wall-Street banks (see: Huffington Post). What?!? Romney is conspiring against the gang that couldn’t shoot straight and that did a lot to cause the financial meltdown in 2008. He, of course, was right and I think it showed great courage to dis what is some of his financial support.

3) Even though Romney said he loved Big Bird and Jim Lehrer, he said he would nevertheless stop federal funding of PBS in order to help reduce government spending. I concur. Our government now gives this network close to a half billion dollars a year and this is supplemented by private donations; annual week-long auctions of donated goods; foundation and corporate largess; and now even actual ads of increasing length. Basically PBS is now a fully commercial network and Romney (and I) think that it is now time for our government to back away. Perhaps this would mean that some of the producers and personalities on this network would take a hit to their high six-figure take-homes (see: Big Bird Dollars), but I believe that they will easily survive.

I now look forward to the remainder of these debates with greater optimism.

The First Joust

Tonight is the first Presidential debate and, according to the Main Stream Media's narrative, one of Mitt Romney's last three chances to overcome his lagging poll results. The moderator of this first debate, Jim Lehrer of PBS, is not exactly the most unbiased referee who could have been chosen.  But then neither was moderator David Gregory of the recent Scott Brown/Elizabeth Warren debate at UMass/Lowell.  After an initial leftward list, David Gregory did manage to steady his tilt before the end of that joust.  Let us hope that Jim Lehrer can also approach this standard.

This first Presidential debate is to take place at the University of Denver in Colorado.  In fact, all the major debates this election year will take place at venues obviously favorable to Democrats ... universities (see: Debate Venues).  However, that aside, the real challenges to the Republican candidates are the questions they are to be asked ... as are the optics surrounding these contests.  Regarding these questions, previously on this blog I have already constructed ten questions I would like to have asked of each Presidential contestant.  For those who don't recall them, these queries are repeated here: Obama Queries and Romney Queries.  If Jim Lehrer (or possibly the audience) asks anything like these questions, I think this first joust could turn out to be a reasonably-fair contest.

I can't predict the optics, but I bet it will include the candidates's beaming wives and families ... but probably not any horses.

What did he say?!?

Mark Shields was doing his regular end-of-show commentary gig on the PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer last Friday ... along with David Brooks.  They were opining on the Herman Cain sexual assault innuendo scandal ... and comparing it with Bill Clinton's similar travails before the 1994 elections.  Mark Shields then actually said that, back then, Clinton "was smart enough to lie" about his peccadilloes with Monika Lewinsky.  David Brooks did not blanch.  Jim Lehrer, in disbelief, did not ask for Shields to repeat himself.  This was all on a nationally televised, presumably well-respected, news program (partially paid for by U.S. taxpayers.)

I guess this vignette, as much as anything, typifies the degree of moral degeneration to which this country has sunk.  What comes next ... Caligula?