Tag Archives: mitt romney

January 19, 2012 · 23:57

Republican Versus Republican: The South Carolina Showdown

 

Charleston Debate (CNN Photo)

The Republican campaign for the nomination is getting nasty.  These men do not like each other and for one man in particular, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich the battle is personal. Campaign ads, particularly those run by the various Super-PACS have been brutal on all sides because they have all mixed truth and fiction and quite often impugned the character of their opponents in addition to attacking policy differences.

The fact that our political climate is so volatile and filled with passion and emotion mean that the campaign will become filled with even more vitriol.  This week two more Republicans dropped out of the race after pledging in New Hampshire to see it through. John Huntsman dropped out followed unexpectedly today by Texas Governor by Rick Perry.  Neither had the support to do much in South Carolina nor the finances to go on. Huntsman endorsed Romney while Perry, Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin have  all endorsed Gingrich which was probably more important.

Perry saw the writing on the wall when a sizable number of Evangelicals and conservative Catholics through their support behind for Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who was certified as the winner of the Iowa Caucus after Governor Romney and the media declared Romney the winner.  Romney “won” by 8 votes with a total number less than he received in the same state in 2008.  However when Santorum was certified as the winner by 34 votes Republican Party officials in the state called it a draw with no clear winner.  So if Romney wins by 8 votes it is a “win” but if Santorum wins by 34 votes it is a “tie.”  Romney called his wins “historic” history has been revised.  I thought that Romney made a huge mistake when he made the claim and now he looks foolish for doing so.

Since New Hampshire the three factions of the Republican Party have fractured. Romney was anointed by the party elite as the “one that could beat Obama.” However after New Hampshire the fissures in the party between the Republican establishment represented by Romney, social conservatives championed by Gingrich and Santorum and Libertarians led by Ron Paul have opened wide. All claim that getting rid of Obama is the main priority but their personal dislike of the candidates for one another and their sometimes competing agendas have led to a deepening divide in the party.

Gingrich seems to have survived comments by his second wife regarding their divorce and his alleged desire to remain married by have an “open marriage” with the support of major hitters like Rush Limbaugh.  When asked about it by debate moderator John King Gingrich blasted King and attacked the media in an incredibly effective manner that ended the line of questioning.  Gingrich knew that the question would be asked and clobbered it like a power hitter slamming a hanging curve ball.

Romney didn’t make any great mistakes in the debate tonight but he muffed the question of releasing his tax returns in Monday’s debate on Fox News and tonight’s on CNN. He seems be unable to connect with people that don’t believe that over $300,000 in speaking fees is “not very much money.” It seems to me that he cannot connect with the populist parts of the Republican Party represented by the Tea Party. He is portrayed as a flip-flopper by conservatives and believe me there are many Evangelicals and others that will not support him or only give lukewarm support should he become the nominee because he is Mormon.  Frankly their trust of him deserved or not is only slightly better than the distrust that they have for President Obama.

I believe that Gingrich will win South Carolina and that both Santorum and Ron Paul will do better than expected. Santorum actually in my view handled the debate better and challenged Gingrich and Romney in ways that were effective and that I did not think him capable of sustaining. He could surprise especially with the endorsement of major Evangelicals but he is not a southerner and that counts for something in South Carolina.

From South Carolina the campaign goes to Florida and could continue throughout the spring as the factions of the party go all in for their candidates. It shall be interesting.

Peace

Padre Steve+

1 Comment

Filed under News and current events, Political Commentary

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 11, 2012 · 00:21

Party Like it’s 1996: Romney Wins the Granite State but…

Mitt Romney Unloved Frontrunner?

Mitt Romney as most believed won the New Hampshire primary by a comfortable margin and now the fight moves south to South Carolina where Romney will face a big challenge. Despite the wins in Iowa and New Hampshire most Republicans and Independents are not in love with him his record will cause him problems in the South, especially in regard to Romney’s record on abortion.

Romney is the first GOP candidate to win both Iowa and New Hampshire which many analysts are saying is significant. However I don’t see it as significant as some would. He won New Hampshire handily but against a significantly weaker GOP field than he and John McCain faced in 2008.  On the other hand Ron Paul polled nearly three times the number of votes that he received in 2008.  To further complicate the matter in actual number of votes cast the two social conservatives Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have more combined votes than 2008’s social conservatives led by Mike Huckabee.

Wild Card: Ron Paul and his True Believers

Despite his success in New Hampshire Romney may have great difficulty in the south. Many Republicans, especially those of the Tea Party and Libertarian factions may see Romney as someone that might be able to defeat President Obama but may not want to surrender their party to a man that they really do not trust for the next 8 years.  That is something that I do not hear many people saying.  Buying Romney now means buying him until 2020 and I do not think that Tea Party, Libertarian or Social Conservatives will be willing to do that even if it means 4 more years of Barak Obama. They can run against Obama but once Romney is President it will be much harder for them to get him out.

This could well be like 1996 where the Republicans nominated Bob Dole but despite their hatred of Bill Clinton and desire to see him defeated could not rally behind Dole.

Romney has not helped himself with numerous gaffes and comments that are easily taken out of context and have been put into sound bites by his opponents in the GOP and will be by the Democrats when the battle is truly joined.  He sounds great behind the teleprompter but not very good in the moment. In that aspect he is much like President Obama in style.

No one is leaving the race and all the candidates are heading to South Carolina which is much more a predictor of the eventual nominee than either Iowa or New Hampshire. This is Republican campaign is going to be bloody as it is personal especially for Gingrich who now has massive amount of money to spend and willingness to use it to sink Romney. Romney has a comfortable lead in the last poll over the divided social conservatives in South Carolina and probably wins the state. This will probably take out one or more of his opponents but could lead to the social conservatives to unite behind one candidate, most likely Rick Santorum but possibly and this is a stretch Rick Perry.

I believe that Ron Paul and his supporters will leave the party because they are in no mood to compromise with Romney who they see as “Obama Lite.”  Social conservatives  especially Evangelicals that in their hearts believe that Romney’s Mormon faith makes him a cultist may sit out the election or support Paul or splinter social conservative parties such as the Constitution Party.  This weekend the most prominent of the social conservatives are getting together to see if they can find a conservative alternative to Romney.

When all is said and done I do think Romney wins South Carolina and will get the nomination. Some of his opponents in the GOP will fall in line but ideology matters now in the GOP whether it is social conservatism or libertarianism. However he will look like a ship that survived a Kamikaze attack. He’ll survive but he will be so wounded that he will lose in November despite the weaknesses and unpopularity of President Obama.  The question will be will the GOP galvanize itself behind a candidate that few really like and many view with great suspicion and distrust on a multitude of issues to defeat President Obama?

Back to the Future? Bob Dole and Jack Kemp in 1996

A few months ago I thought that Romney was sure not only to win the nomination but to go on and defeat President Obama in the fall but while I’m pretty sure that he will win the nomination I can easily see him now going the way of Bob Dole.  Party like it’s 1996 because it could be back to the future.

Peace

Padre Steve+

2 Comments

Filed under Political Commentary

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 3, 2012 · 23:59

Iowa Caucus: Media Feeding Frenzy Looking for the Un-Mormon Anti-Mitt

The votes are still being counted and with about 96% of the votes counted it will be a photo-finish between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum with Ron Paul just a bit behind in third place. The race between Romney and Santorum  It is so close that at least one network is predicting that it may not be able to call the race until the last vote is counted.

Reporters, pundits and pollsters are trying to sort out what this means but the reality is that three quarters of Republicans in Iowa don’t want Mitt Romney as their nominee.  Romney has the money, organizations and old line GOP support to run the table if he wasn’t viewed as the member of a religious cult by half the GOP and as a out of touch rich Massachusetts flip-flopper without John Kerry’s medals.

The fact is that if you add the non-Ron Paul “Conservative Christians” Santorum, Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann together they come in at at about 53% of the total vote. This is important because Romney has to win in the South and Midwest where the conservative Evangelical and Catholic vote has to be won to win. That demographic favors whoever is the Un-Mormon Anti-Mitt.  Many of Romney’s “supporters” close to 40% have reservations about him.

What I really believe will happen is that the vote will be so close that Romney’s campaign will lose momentum no-matter how well he does in New Hampshire where as of today polls give him a commanding lead. The real test will be South Carolina where if Romney sputters despite the support of Governor Nikki Haley the race will go on for a long time.  I think that Romney probably will still win the nomination but he will be damaged goods.  Some Tea Party leaders say that they would never support Romney, influential Evangelical pastors saying that Romney is “not a Christian” while others call support for Romney an endorsement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Mormons.

The scorched earth tactics of Romney’s Super PAC will not endear him to the supporters of some of his opponents. Newt Gingrich has called Romney a “liar” and as the campaign progresses the Romney campaign tactics will alienate more of the people that he needs to win in November. Romey’s PAC will turn its guns on Santorum and Gingrich will blast Romney in the next debate. It will get nasty.

The effect of Ron Paul and the Libertarian wing of the GOP cannot be underestimated, most Paul’s supporters would not support Romney.  Paul is well funded and will not go away and because many of the delegates won in the primaries are now awarded on a proportional basis if he hangs around he can collect enough of them to be the fly in Romney’s ointment at the GOP Convention.

I expect that Michelle Bachmann is not planning to end her campaign simply just yet but  her closing speech was as anti-Mitt as it was anti-Obama.  However her campaign is toast, even Sarah Palin has counted her out. Rick Perry is reassessing his campaign and going back to Texas.  But Newt Gingrich was not completely destroyed by Romney and will live to fight another day and will have an impact in the South where he will along with Santorum and Paul will bloody Romney significantly.  Gingrich’s closing speech tonight showed that he is going to go after Romney and pretty much leave Santorum alone.  Expect Bachmann and Perry to back Santorum if Gingrich falters.

Look to an unexpectedly long and interesting campaign for the GOP nomination. That is my take on Iowa.

Peace

Padre Steve+

Leave a comment

Filed under leadership, Political Commentary

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 2, 2012 · 23:16

Back to the Future in Iowa: A Bloom County Redux

The more things change the more they remain the same. Since I grew up during the 60’s 70’s and 80’s I have see a lot of change and even have a few dollars of it in my pockets right now.  But I digress.

It just seems to me that I have seen what I am seeing in the GOP Iowa Caucus before and when I look back at old Bloom County Comics I find that I am right. Simply change the names and the dates and the comics though over 20 years old are current. You would think that Berkeley Breathed had drawn them yesterday.

Change the Names to Romney, Santorum and Gingrich 

I have no idea who will win the Iowa Caucus but I am happy that a few candidates might end their campaigns in the next few weeks, or maybe not. I cannot and should not  misunderestimate the power of the absurd.  However it is quite probable that no matter who wins that Mitt Romney will be in the campaign for the duration fighting off whoever survives as the “Un-Mormon anti-Mitt;” Santorum, Gingrich or Perry as well as Ron Paul who will not go away quietly even if he fractures the Republican Party in the process.

Talk Radio Hosts

Yes it is possible that the Republicans will unite behind a candidate to defeat President Obama but the way that things are going with the personal nastiness and real ideological divisions between the various camps of the GOP I become less convinced of that every day.  These guys hate each other and and don’t seem to care that they are crushing every one of their chances to become President.

Occupy Movement

Tomorrow night I will do an analysis of the Caucus and what I think will follow in the week before New Hampshire votes but until then I think I will leave you with some of my favorite Bloom Country strips dealing with politics and elections.

Every Campaign needs Money

Experts and Talking Heads

Sincerity

Traditional Values

Catering to Special Interest Groups

Now tell me…is this timeless or not?

Peace

Padre Steve+

1 Comment

Filed under Political Commentary

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 2, 2011 · 23:40

Sex Sells the News: The Cain Scandal and what is says about Us


 

“A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will in time produce a people as base as itself.” Joseph Pulitzer

“News is something somebody doesn’t want printed; all else is advertising.” William Randolph Hearst

Well let’s see what’s going on in the world, seems such a boring day for news don’t you think?

In world news somewhere across the sea close to 100,000 American servicemen and women are still battling the Taliban or hunting down Al Qaeda terrorists.  Old news, only interests people with relatives and friends in the military.

Wait, stop the presses there are reports that the Israelis might be getting ready to whack the Iranians.  Forget that until the missiles start flying its just foreplay.

But then there is the Arab spring which seems to be continuing to churn along, Gaddafi’s dead? Old news, forget it.

The Euro is about to be fried inGreeceas the Greeks seem to have re-discovered democracy at the expense of the great financial houses ofEuropeand neither the French nor Germans seem very happy about it. Boring….

In this country we are still dealing with record long term unemployment and the ongoing financial crisis are causing us to lurch along while the so called “Super Committee,” Congress and the Administration dither along figuring out ways to blame each other for the problems rather than working together to fix them….yawn….

But these are kind of old news or just boring; despite how important they are they lack the one important thing to make them interesting, a political sex scandal.

Let’s face it, sex sells advertising and the media no matter what side of the political spectrum and that is why all this other news that in one way or another will effect all of us is on the back burner until something really hits the fan.  I suppose if German Chancellor Angela Merkel was caught in a tryst with the Greek Prime Minister that might get the top spot in the day’s headlines but what we seem too really like in theUnited Statesare the good old fashioned political sex scandals.

Fortunately it seems that we may have one, I’m sure that they media would have rather had it involve President Obama, Speaker Boehner or Representative Pelosi or Cantor but we can be choosy can we? After all does it really matter who it involves so long as it involves political scandal and sex? Not to the media because they, especially the Cable news types at Fox, CNN and MSNBC have to find a way to fill 24 hours or programming and what would you rather watch cerebral analysis of complicated issues, tragedies involving blimps and kittens or the visceral hatred engendered by partisan political sex scandals?

Yes it is the latter and the mainstream and the alternative media both have their Jockey’s in a wad about a possible sexual harassment scandal regarding Herman Cain.  The sharks of the political media complex are circling and Cain is fighting back even getting a bit testy in the process. It’s great, if somewhat nauseating theater.  It has all the tawdry elements that we love and right now the cool thing is that they are all speculation based on accusations that we don’t know any details about.

What do know is that the Politico dropped a bombshell on the Cain campaign that seems to have caught both the candidate and his campaign flat footed. We know that in east one case that the National Restaurant Association made some kind of financial settlement that involved a confidentiality agreement. The campaign’s responses to the yet only speculated charges seem confused or evasive and seem to me to be rather amateurish.

We also know that the flying fickle fingers of blame are pointing at a number of different suspects. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are blaming the Liberal media and now the accusations are flying that this was a political hit job put on by Cain’s GOP opponents.  Cain’s campaign Chief of Staff has blamed the Perry Campaign which in turn has blamed the Romney campaign and the Romney campaign hasn’t figured out who to blame yet.  Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann are tossing in their two cents to pile on Cain.  Others in the GOP and even a conservative talk radio host inIowaare stirring the pot as well just to make it fun.

The sad thing is that for all the chumming of the water which is feeding this frenzy none of us as of tonight really knows anything. We have not heard any details and maybe we shouldn’t.  I know that I really don’t want to hear them but unless I decide to move to theCongoI probably will hear more than I want. Already there are people in the conservative media attempting to smear the accusers even without knowing who they are or what they charged.  To me the whole thing seems to be a ready made diversion from the things that are really bad.

Now as far as the Cain campaign and the charges leveled against him I would rather that things were handled maturely by all involved.  I hope that whatever the truth is that it will be shown and people can then make up their minds as to whether they want to support Cain or not based on the strength of his ideas and character.  If the allegations are true and his denials are lies shame on him.  If they are not then shame on those that have whipped this up and a pox on them. Regardless of how much importance our partisans on both sides of the aisle ascribe to it, the story will play out in due course and Cain’s candidacy will survive and grow stronger or come crashing down with the result that another Republican candidate will gather up at least some of Cain’s support.

We deserve better from those that aspire to lead us and those that have the duty to inform us.  They should know better and we should too.  Maybe it is also shame on us for indulging in the tawdry and dishonorable spectacle that passes for news and our tacit approval of those decide what stories get told regardless of their ideology or political spin on the events that we call news.  But then sex sells the news even better than blood.

Peace

Padre Steve+

1 Comment

Filed under Political Commentary

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 8, 2011 · 19:37

The Pejorative use of the term Cult by people that should know Better: Reverend Robert Jeffress and Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney: According to some unfit for office because he is a Mormon

“In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to Liberty.” Thomas Jefferson 

Cult: cult/kəlt/  Noun:  1) A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.  2) A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

A prominent pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention made a political endorsement the other day.  Dr Robert Jeffress pastor of the venerable and massive 10,000 member First Baptist Church of Dallas endorsed fellow Texan Rick Perry. In doing so he said “Rick Perry’s a Christian. He’s an evangelical Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, Mitt Romney’s a good moral person, but he’s not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. It has always been considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity.”

This is not new for Jeffress who back in 2008 made a similar comment at the Religion Newswriters Association annual meeting “I believe we should always support a Christian over a non-Christian…The value of electing a Christian goes beyond public policies. . . . Christians are uniquely favored by God, [while] Mormons, Hindus and Muslims worship a false god. The eternal consequences outweigh political ones. It is worse to legitimize a faith that would lead people to a separation from God.

While the view that Mormonism is “outside mainstream Christianity” based on its doctrine of the Trinity and understanding of the Godhead is correct, it should never be labeled as a “cult.”  Mormons like a number of other splinter movements that have their roots in Christianity and even hold to some orthodox Christian theology would be more correctly labeled a heretical church.  The term heresy is a theological term and has been used by various churches to label others as such since the early days of the church. It describes people, groups and doctrines that are at variance with established religious beliefs and the adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.

Every religion has their heretics and since the genus of Mormonism was Joseph Smith’s dissent from Evangelical Christianity and his new revelations that he claimed were delivered to him by the Angel Moroni it is better to describe Mormonism as a heretical form of Christianity.  The use of the word cult by Jeffress and others is sloppy theology and even worse public policy in a nation where religious liberty is enshrined in the very first amendment to the Constitution.  The use of the word cult to define Mormonism is prejudicial because the same word is used to describe Satanists and splinter groups where members are based and controlled by a “cult” leader who demands their unconditional submission, devotion and obedience.  Although Mormonism has its own core “orthodoxy” there is a wide variance in the practice of faith in that church.

I actually expect better of Baptist leaders because the irony is that at one time Baptists were considered a heretical sect by Anglicans, Catholics and Lutherans.  In fact if the term cult had been used then as it is today that is what those groups would have labeled Baptists.  In earlyVirginiathe Anglican Church was the state church and because the landed gentry were Anglicans they were the government.  The Anglicans made their church law apply to the civil realm which of course had an impact on Baptists and others that settled in the colony. Virginia’s General Assembly protected the established church in law. It enforced laws that penalized dissenters: for example, requiring all officeholders to be Anglican. When theUnited Stateswas founded Anglicans inVirginiawere pressing to retain their religious control over the society.   In the Constitution there was no guarantee of the Freedom of Religion until the Reverend John Leland of the Virginia Baptist Convention pressed James Madison on the issue.  The result is that that the right of Free Exercise and the corresponding Non-Establishment clauses were written into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights along with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association.

My concern is that many Evangelical Christians are doing the same thing that the Virginia Anglicans did; they are trying to impose their beliefs as the law of the land.  The tragedy is that most Evangelicals hail from groups that have all been labeled as heretical or cults by other more powerful churches.  The descendants of persecuted religious minorities are now flexing political muscle backed by a militant understanding of a dominant Christian Church in a way that would have made their ancestors shake their heads.

We can all debate and decide who is and who is not a Christian based on the teachings of our church.  Christians simply do not agree with each other on many points of doctrine.  Some place an emphasis on one belief or practice that if not followed damns those that do not believe to hell.  Others are very open in their understanding of what constitutes the church.  Do all of us have values and even theological opinions that inform our life to include our political beliefs? Of course we do.  As Americans we live in the tension created by the fact that we live in a pluralistic society where all citizens have an equal right to practice their religion and equal rights as citizens to participate in the political process.  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made the comment that we should judge people by “the content of their character.”  I believe that such a belief is exactly what our founders meant when they enshrined the rights of the Free Exercise of Religion and the non-Establishment clause together with the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly in the Constitution.

The fact is that there are many conservative Christians who in their fear of secularism and humanism have decided to create a “Christian” theocracy and are quite militant in how they will establish it and who is not included.  Those that embrace Dominion or “Seven Mountains” theology believe that there is no middle ground, even among Christians that do not believe like them.  It appears that Reverend Jeffress seems to agree.

I think that Reverend Jeffress those like him and the politicians that enlist their support need to really ponder what Thomas Jefferson said before they make political decisions solely based on their theological and religious beliefs and that enlist or commandeer the government to accomplish goals that they have been unable to achieve by persuasion and witness. To me that is not the mark of people confident in their faith but people reacting out of fear.  Such seldom bodes well for any free society. Jefferson wrote:

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” 

His words are truer now than when he wrote them.  If a preacher or politician wants to call those that believe different from them to be a cult that is his or her right, but to blindly assert that those that believe different than us are unfit to govern because of their religious beliefs is ignorant and foolish and demonstrates a profound sense of insecurity on their part. Reverend Jeffress should know better, he should have taken at least one course in Baptist History in seminary….but wait, he didn’t go to a Southern Baptist seminary until he did his doctorate, I guess that he didn’t take the class.  By the way, I went to the seminary where he received his doctorate and although I am not and never have been a Southern Baptist I do know Baptist History and it stands against what Reverend Jeffress preaches in regard to politics.

Peace

Padre Steve+

2 Comments

Filed under film, History, laws and legislation, Political Commentary, Religion

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 22, 2011 · 22:20

Yet another Meaningless Debate and Looking back to the Best Debate Parody Ever

Tonight is yet another in a series of rather meaningless Presidential debates for the Republican-Tea Party.  It should be relatively predicable unless Rick Perry was to draw his gun and shoot Michelle Bachmann.  Apart from something like that it should be about the same as the last two debates.  Everybody will attack Perry and Perry will shoot back hopefully in a figurative sense and beat on his chest about all of his Texas accomplishments while painting President Obama as a Commi Pinko Socialist who needs to face some Texas justice.

The rest will either be variations on the theme “Obama is evil and I am less like Obama than the rest of these dumb asses” or “if you elect me President I will wear a tri-corner hat at my inauguration and usher in utopia.”

Let’s face it, the debates we have now are simply time for every candidate to create his or her truth and sell it to us even if it is a complete lie. But then to quote Seinfeld’s George Costanza “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”  This is true of the candidates of both major parties.  Right now it just happens to be the Republicans in the spotlight.  However the title could be the 1992 same as the Saturday Night Live 1992 Presidential Debate “The Challenge to Avoid Saying Something Stupid”  and we know that is always a distinct possibility.

Of course there is the hope that Michelle Bachmann will say that Rick Perry supports illegal immigration which benefits Herman Cain’s Godfather’s Pizza chain and that Ron Paul sells marijuana to debate newcomer Gary Johnson from an illegal lemonade stand outside of Rick Santorum’s house while Newt Gingrich ogles her ass even as he accuses Mitt Romney of secretly wanting to marry John Huntsman in Massachusetts in a ceremony presided over by Barak Obama or something like that.

Unfortunately none of that will happen and we will be treated to the usual just on a different channel than last time.  For that reason I have my television on the MLB Channel and probably will put on season four of Boston Legal where Rick Perry’sBoston alter ego Denny Crane is played by William Shatner. As or the debate itself I will simple catch the lowlights later.

Unfortunately I cannot find the video of the 1992 Bush-Clinton-Perot debate anywhere on the web I will post the script here.  As you will see it is far more entertaining than anything that will be said tonight.

Saturday Night Live Debate ’92

Jane Pauley…..Julia Sweeney
Bernard Shaw…..Tim Meadows
Sam Donaldson…..Kevin Nealon
Bill Clinton…..Phil Hartman
President George Bush…..Dana Carvey
Ross Perot…..Dana Carvey (on tape)

Announcer: NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” will not be seen tonight, so that we may bring you this NBC News Special: “Debate ’92: The Challenge to Avoid Saying Something Stupid”. And now, here is your moderator, Jane Pauley.

Jane Pauley: Good evening. I’m Jane Pauley, and welcome to St. Louis for the first in our series of three presidential debates. Tonight’s debate among President George Bush, Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, and diminutive Texas billionaire Ross Perot will begin in just a moment. But first, let me introduce my fellow panelists, CNN anchor Bernard Shaw and ABC News political correspondent Sam Donaldson. Now, let’s meet the candidates. Gentlemen. [ the three candidates enter the arena and stand behind their respective podiums ] The first question will be asked by Sam Donaldson.

Sam Donaldson: Governor Clinton, let’s be frank. You’re running for president, yet your only experience has been as the governor of a small, backward state with a population of drunken hillbillies riding around in pickup trucks. The main streets of your capital city, Little Rock, are something out of L’il Abner, with buxom underage girls in their cutoff denims prancing around in front of Jethro and Billy Bob, while corncob-pipe-smoking, shotgun-toting grannies fire indiscriminantly at runaway hogs.

Bill Clinton: I’m sorry, Sam, do you have a question?

Sam Donaldson: My question is: How can you stand it? Don’t you lose your mind living down there?

Bill Clinton: Sam, you must have watched too many of my opponent’s TV spots. I’m tired of the Bush campaign trying to portray my home state as some sort of primitive Third World country. The fact is, Arkansas did have a long way to go, but we’ve made progress. When I started as governor, we were fiftieth in adult literacy, and last year, I’m proud to say, we shot ahead of Mississippi. We’re #49, and we’re closing fast on Alabama. Watch out, Alabama – we got your number!

George Bush: Can I say something here? Two years ago, I went on a fishing trip in Arkansas with Baker, Fitzwater, Quayle, myself. We were chased and assaulted by a couple of inbred mountain people. I was sworn to secrecy as to those events, but suffice it to say, they felt that Dan Quayle – and I quote – “sure had a purty mouth.” Now, if that’s the kind of progress Bill Clinton brought to Arkansas.. I don’t think we need it in the White House!

Bill Clinton: That’s not fair. Just this year we passed Mississippi to become 41st in the prevention of rickets.

Ross Perot: Can I jump in here? Why are we talking about Arkansas? Hell, everybody knows that all they got down there is a bunch of ignorant inbred crackerheads! Peckerwoods, catch me? now, can we talk about the deficit? While we’ve been jabbering, our deficit has increased by half a million dollars. That’s enough to buy a still and a new outhouse for every family in Little Rock!

Bill Clinton: Will you shut up!

Ross Perot: Hold it there, cracker boy, I’m not finished!

George Bush: See that right there? Kind of makes you wonder whether these men have the temperament to be president. Would you tell Prime Minister Major to shut up? Would you call Boris Yeltsin a “Crackerhead”? Who wouldn’t you tell to shut up? Because you see, this election is about who can take the heat, who you want there when that secured phone in the White House rings at 3 AM. Do you want someone who will answer the phone politely: “Hello, this is the President. Speak slowly and clearly and tell me what the problem is.” Or do you want someone who’s cranky, who says, “This better be important,” or “Do you realize what time it is?” or simply says, “Shut up!” hangs up the phone and sleeps like a baby while the world burns!

Jane Pauley: Thank you, gentlemen. Now, Bernard Shaw has a question for Governor Clinton.

Bernard Shaw: Yes, Governor Clinton. If Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor the death penalty for her assailant?

Jane Pauley: Mr. Shaw, really. You don’t have to answer that, Governor Clinton.

Bill Clinton: No, no, I’m happy to answer that. Obviously, none of us want to see Kitty Dukakis raped and murdered, but if she had to be murdered I would hope it would be in Arkansas – because no state is tougher on crime. Last year we passed Florida to become #2 in executions by lethal injection, and first in crushed by heavy stones.

Jane Pauley: Mr. Perot? Rebuttal.

Ross Perot: I was hoping we’d get into the issues, but if this is the way the game is played – fine. So, if somebody were to lay a finger on Kitty Dukakis, I wouldn’t kill him right away. That’d be too easy. I’d wait for a hot Texas day, see? Tie him to a stake, get an ant trail going. You know, Texas red ants, inch long! Just love to bite into human flesh, catch what I’m saying here? See, they’re eating him alive, nice and slow like. And I’d sit with him in the shade under an umbrella, maybe with a lemonade, sit back and say to the fella, “How do you like them apples?” And he’ll be screaming, “When am I gonna die?” and I’d say, “I don’t know exactly, and frankly, I resent your question.” Catch my drift?

Jane Pauley: THank you. Now, let’s turn to the deficit. President Bush, during your term, the deficit has grown by over a trillion dollars.

George Bush: I know.

Jane Pauley: Honestly now, don’t you feel some kind of tax hike will be needed to reduce the deficit?

George Bush: Jane, the answer is no! I will never raise taxes again! Never, ever, ever, ever.. never, ever again! And I mean never, ever, ever, ever, never ever..!!

Jane Pauley: Thank you, Mr. Presi..

George Bush: Never, ever, ever!

Jane Pauley: Mr. President, please..

George Bush: Ever, ever again!

Jane Pauley: Sam Donaldson, with a question for Governor Clinton.

Sam Donaldson: Governor Clinton, this week the big story has been your 1969 trip to Moscow, and your involvement in antiwar activities. Some have ven suggested that while in Moscow, you had meetings with KGB agents. Isn’t it fair to say that you haven’t really told the American people the full story?

Bill Clinton: Sam, this kind of attack shows how desperate the Bush campaign has become. Yes, I did go to Moscow by train in 1969. And while on the train, I struck up a conversation with a man in the seat next to me. He gave me a package to take to Moscow and instructed me to leave it folded in a newspaper in a kiosk across from Lenin’s tomb. I’ve explained this many times. Yes, the KGB did subsequently pay my way through law school, but that was the last contact I had with the KGB until years later when Hillary and I were having problems, and it was a KGB agent, Nikolai Kuznetsov, who let me stay at his place for a while until we patched things up.

Sam Donaldson: But isn’t it true that during one of the peace demonstrations you burned an American flag in Red Square?

Bill Clinton: I tried to burn an American flag once. I didn’t like it. It gave off toxic fumes, so I didn’t inhale.

Ross Perot: Can I say something here?

Jane Pauley: Mr. Perot.

Ross Perot: I think that’s just sad.

Jane Pauley: President Bush?

George Bush: Once again, it all comes down to trust. Who’s been there? I’ve been with Mitterand, I’ve met with Major, I know the White House. I know the door outto the Rose Garden doesn’t lock unless you pull it. I know the toilet in the Lincoln Bedroom will run all night unless you jiggle that handle. It’s not enough to flush it, you’ve got to jiggle it! I know Air Force One. I know that seat 8G does not fuly recline. If we are flying the Prime Minister of Canada to a trade conference, I alone can say, “Mr. Mulroney, seat 8G does not fully recline, I suggest you use another!”

Jane Pauley: All right, Mr. Bush, our time is up. Each candidate will be allowed a brief closing statement. Governor Clinton?

Bill Clinton: Thank you, Jane. We’ve talked about many issues tonight. But this election is really about one thing – change. Over the last twelve years, more and more Americans have found themselves working longer and harder for less and less. [ President Bush glances at Clinton and sees the vision of a hippy standing behind the podium ] We need to invest in our people again. Because together, all of us, pulling as a team, we can do it! Thank you.

Jane Pauley: President Bush?

George Bush: My fellow Americans, this election is about leadership and trust. Now, our opponents have tried to portray us as the party of the rich and privileged, ignoring the fact that our economic program has created more opportunity for more Americans than in any twelve-year period in history. [ Clinton glances at President Bush and sees the vision of an old lady standing behind the podium ] Well, let me tell you something: I’m not worth $3.3 billion, and I wasn’t educated at Oxford. But I know how to lead this country to victory in the Persian Gulf, and I can do it again here at home!

Jane Pauley: Mr. Perot?

Ross Perot: This whole thing fascinates me, really. See, you don’t have to be a Ph.D. at Harvard to know that our kids are going to inherit a $4 trillion deficit, and that’s just a crime. [ Clinton and President Bush glance at Perot and see the vision of a munchkin from “The Wizard of Oz” ] Now, if I’m president, we start cleaning up this mess on Day One. It’s gonna take some sacrifice, no doubt about it. But I know the American people are ready to sacrifice as long as it’s fair. This is your country, let’s take it back.

Jane Pauley: Thank you, Mr. Perot, don’t you have one last thing to say?

Ross Perot: No, I can’t. I’m on tape. [ looks at Bush ] Why don’t
you do it, live-boy?

George Bush: “Live, from New York, it’s Saturday Night!“

2 Comments

Filed under Just for fun, Political Commentary, purely humorous

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,