Well, yesterday's Iowa straw poll results are in, and Tim Pawlenty, though finishing third, is already out.
Michele Bachmann took first by 152 votes over Texas Congressman Ron Paul in what was reported as the second-heaviest straw poll turnout ever.
Oh, yes, and Rick Santorum came fourth.
I hadn't written a post on the Republican Ames debates of last week because I personally found it so predictable. But I enjoyed Dick Morris' commentary about it on Fox News. How he called Gingrich 'cranky,' and Ron Paul a 'flake' who totally marginalized himself by declaring it okay to let Iran have nuclear weapons.
Thus, it shouldn't be too comforting to see Ron Paul run such a close second to Bachmann. There's reason to doubt the electability of either among independents, who will of course determine the 2012 presidential election.
Of the two, though, I'd have to guess that Bachmann is the more probable choice among independents.
Unfortunately, some credible stories have come out in the past two weeks depicting Bachmann as a media-seeking, publicity-crazed, rather unattractive person in private. And despite Bachmann's intentions, Pawlenty's criticisms were correct when he noted that for all her efforts, as merely one of 435 Representatives, her so-called 'leadership' against the TARP, the debt limit increase, and ObamaCare, came to naught.
And, of course, Texas governor Rick Perry's entry further complicates things. Romney didn't really take the Iowa straw poll seriously, leaving Bachmann, at best, nipping at Romney's heels. Perry's poll numbers put him among those two, but, then, he has yet to be seriously tested either by other candidates or the media.
My own hunch is that Romney is probably the conventional GOP favorite, sadly, along the 'it's my turn' line. Bachmann is probably more popular and trustworthy among independents.
And, of course, as I've written before, while Bachmann has plenty of passion and very explicit, desirable beliefs for independents, she also shares Wonderboy's lack of executive experience.
Romney is not trustworthy, too glib and a bit too distant and dispassionate, but has the credentials on paper to be a good centrist president.
From here, we'll just have to see which of the three GOP frontrunners capture the hearts of independents.
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Monday, August 15, 2011
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Ron Paul's Difficulties Understanding Financial Markets
I saw a very scary interview on Friday. Larry Kudlow Had Ron Paul on for a few minutes, after Friday's turbulent equity market performance.
First, I must confess, I don't know all that much about Ron Paul, and I'm not too sure I want to know more. Despite several veteran financial market commentators agreeing that Bernanke & Co. at the Fed had cleverly engineered a way to provide liquidity to the US equity markets without either lowering rates or using the discount window, Paul insisted that it had bailed out wealthy financiers and their companies.
No amount of explanation that the Fed had simply extended credit on securities pledged to it by various securities firms, a sort of repo swap, would convince Paul that Friday's actions by the Fed were not a bail out.
For me, this kind of lack of intelligence and perspective is awfully scary in a Presidential candidate.
It's the same sort of ineptitude and ignorance that led John McCain to believe he did something good with his co-authored campaign finance 'reform' bill some years ago. The thing's an abomination, and, as with all campaign finance 'reform,' created more problems than it solved. If it solved any. And then it impinged on First Amendment free speech rights in the bargain.
Nice going, John. Maybe stick to being a retired naval aviator?
But, back to Ron Paul. Beyond misunderstanding how providing liquidity through repo loans for the short term is not the same as simply bailing out a financial firm, he then went on to demand that such a 'bail out' should only go forward if homeowners were similarly bailed out.
This is too much for me. Not only is Paul economically illiterate, but he then behaves like a liberal Democrat, demanding that relief be ladled out for everyone.
I was unimpressed by Mr. Paul's interview with Kudlow. Yet another reason to favor a really long Presidential campaign season....
First, I must confess, I don't know all that much about Ron Paul, and I'm not too sure I want to know more. Despite several veteran financial market commentators agreeing that Bernanke & Co. at the Fed had cleverly engineered a way to provide liquidity to the US equity markets without either lowering rates or using the discount window, Paul insisted that it had bailed out wealthy financiers and their companies.
No amount of explanation that the Fed had simply extended credit on securities pledged to it by various securities firms, a sort of repo swap, would convince Paul that Friday's actions by the Fed were not a bail out.
For me, this kind of lack of intelligence and perspective is awfully scary in a Presidential candidate.
It's the same sort of ineptitude and ignorance that led John McCain to believe he did something good with his co-authored campaign finance 'reform' bill some years ago. The thing's an abomination, and, as with all campaign finance 'reform,' created more problems than it solved. If it solved any. And then it impinged on First Amendment free speech rights in the bargain.
Nice going, John. Maybe stick to being a retired naval aviator?
But, back to Ron Paul. Beyond misunderstanding how providing liquidity through repo loans for the short term is not the same as simply bailing out a financial firm, he then went on to demand that such a 'bail out' should only go forward if homeowners were similarly bailed out.
This is too much for me. Not only is Paul economically illiterate, but he then behaves like a liberal Democrat, demanding that relief be ladled out for everyone.
I was unimpressed by Mr. Paul's interview with Kudlow. Yet another reason to favor a really long Presidential campaign season....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)