Thoughts on Tonight's (10/11) Bloomberg GOP Debate

[rockfan7224]

I was wondering what everyone else who watched the debate tonight thought. I particularly enjoyed the format, it was definitely one of the more entertaining ones.

Romney: He's in a different league, barring some catastrophic events, it's his nomination to lose. I thought he handled questions and criticism very well (particularly attempts from huntsman and perry) (Disclaimer: I am biased)

Perry: He's toast. Had a few missed golden opportunities (like being stronger on his supposed jobs plan and pushing romney on the mandate issue)

Cain: I've always been a fan of Cain's (not necessarily as a presidential nominee, though). His 9-9-9 plan is interesting, but I'd like to hear some other solid stuff

Gingrich: If only he didn't have all those Gingrich issues because he's had some fantastic answers in the debates

Paul: Again, has some interesting stuff to say, I just don't like him as a presidential candidate

Bachmann: Not as stupid as everyone likes to make her out to be, but she is all over the place (It was obvious Romney has a frontrunner strategy-i.e. his softball question to Bachmann completley overlooking Perry)

Huntsman: Him and Romney are by far the most articulate and well spoken. I liked his jab at Perry about religion.

Santorum: Is he done yet?

But like I said, at this point its a contest to see who will be Romney's VP. :pfft:

[visionary]

I expected a bit more from Cain tonight.

I thought he overplayed his 999 plan just a tad.

Gingrich sounded good.

Romney was like the globetrotters playing around with the rest of them.

Even though I still have severe reservations about trusting him to keep his word on positions and his tendancy to make up or exaggerate things in the last campaign, he seems infinitely more presidential than the rest.

Bachman had some good moments, but most of the time went on rants that were hard to keep up with.

Perry was less bumbling than before, but fairly unimpressive.

[PeterMP]

I'm not a big Romney fan, but he seems like he's winning. He seems to have a way to at least handle (if not really answer) every question.

Gingrich is probably really the most knowledgable, but he's really unelectable. He should give up running himself and take a role as an advisor. He'd still be able to influence policy.

Perry seems a lot like Thompson from 2008. He seems like he believed if he just showed up he'd be given the nomination. We'll see if he's able and has time to get things in gear.

I've always said I believed that Reagan was a better candidate and President for losing elections before 1980 (and Obama would have better off losing in the primary). I think Romney has benefited from his experience (still really can't see voting for him though).

Cain might be similar. I could see him coming back in 4 years as a much better candidate (I'd hire a Muslim spokesman if I were him).

[rockfan7224]

Romney was like the globetrotters playing around with the rest of them.

Even though I still have severe reservations about trusting him to keep his word on positions and his tendancy to make up or exaggerate things in the last campaign, he seems infinitely more presidential than the rest.

Agreed, and I loved the looks he gave a few people throughout it, haha.

I don't think his position changes is as much a serious issue as it's made out to be. People shouldn't forget just how blue Massachusetts is (New England in general, living in CT i know from experience), and he was running as a Republican in a deep deep liberal democrat State (you're not gonna end up with a Rick Perry type in that case). I think the general consistency from one presidential run to the next, is more telling.

---------- Post added October-11th-2011 at 11:18 PM ----------

Perry seems a lot like Thompson from 2008. He seems like he believed if he just showed up he'd be given the nomination.

I honestly don't know what Perry's deal is, his implosion has been surprising. I don't think it's the same as Thompson though, Thompson would've been a solid candidate but he just didn't seem to be putting 100% into the race; Perry is almost like a deer in the headlights

[twa]

Perry is doing things much differently than Thompson if ya look.

we will see who has legs as we go along,.....not a bad debate format(though I could do w/o the hack in red)

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Enjoyed, as usual, this debate play-by-play from Andrew Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/vicodin-live-blogging-the-bloomberg-debate.html

(Bottom, up)

Vicodin Live-Blogging The Bloomberg Debate

10.15 pm. One last thought from a reader that captures what I was trying to say earlier about their personal contempt for Barack Obama:

Here's an acid test for the GOP candidates: Name one thing Obama intentionally did that was good for America. As much as I despise Bush and everything he did (and I live in New Orleans), I can rattle off several things good about Bush. I can rattle off 50 more that was bad, but I see some things he did that made America better.

These guys couldnt do it if a gun was pointed at their head.

Killing bin Laden doesn't count, especially if you make a point of saying that it was really only a military achievement and required no commander-in-chief to insist on, authorize, overhaul and oversee the whole thing. Think they could praise him for tax cuts? Never.

10.00 pm. One last thought. I think Cain won this debate and Perry lost it. A mixed bag then. I wonder: has anyone this outside the political class ever led the polls in October in the year before an election? My mind goes back to Ross Perot - and Cain has a similar businessman's belief that he can do anything and a great, simple, effective sales technique. I've under-estimated him. The voters haven't. But can he actually win the nomination nationally? And beat Obama? I daren't predict, and won't.

9.52 pm. I suppose there were some encouraging things tonight - tax reform, cutting red tape, investing in education. But I have to say the level of debate, the other-worldly discussion in which so often up is down, and white is black, and our urgent priorities today are to ensure that 40 million people lose their health insurance and that Wall Street be deregulated more thoroughly than in the 2000s ... well it's disorienting. The cure for spiraling demand is to cut more now, not later.

I really don't know what to say to this. I find it surreal. I'd like a minimally intrusive federal government, and lower, flatter taxes, so why do I feel so detached from this debate? I think because I respect the president and have some sympathy with the appalling legacy he was bequeathed, because I still believe the GOP has responsibility for that legacy and it would behoove them to figure out where they went wrong rather than insist on doing all the same things again; and because, as I argued earlier today, 2011 is not 1979, and repeating Reaganism is simply not attuned to the times, when revenues are in the toilet, debt and the threat of deflation are omnipresent, and corporate profits are enormous.

Huntsman I can understand and appreciate. Perry is an empty bad suit. Romney lies with such facility it unnerves me. Bachmann is a fanatic, as, although I am extremely fond of him, is Ron Paul. Santorum just seems like a lost child from the 1950s, trying to have the campaign he dreamed about when he was ten. Cain is an egomaniac businessman with a talk show host patter and a mild wit. Gingrich is a giant, gaseous *******.

Thank God for painkillers.

9.44 pm Perry's entire answer to the growing inequality in America is that it is entirely the fault of Barack Obama. Entirely. They have constructed a version of the president that is completely of their own imagination. I mean: tax increases. Since Obama became president, he's raised taxes, they claim. Really? And when Obama actually cut Medicare, Romney criticized him for it! This party desperately needs to lose the next election if it is going to regain its sanity.

9.43 pm. Romney is saying that the stimulus package made no difference to employment. That's a lie. But he's right that we need a long-term shift in taxation, infrastructure and education as well.

9.41 pm. I wish I could parse what Gingrich just said, after we watched Bush endorse federal support for mass home-ownership. But I can't.

9.38 pm. Perry is incapable of answering complex questions. He's backed crony capitalism in Texas but opposes it when it' actually less crony but just as risky as Solyndra. But even if you agree with him, his affect is so laconic and lazy and his temperament seems snarly.

9.36 pm. Again, re-regulating Wall Street seems sane after 2007 to most of us. But in fact, what we should be doing, according to this crew, is deregulating Wall Street even more than it was when the crash came. Yes, the Vicodin is making all of this easier to digest.

9.33 pm. Is it me or is Romney returning to the middle classes? He embraced the notion earlier that the rich have done perfectly well these past few years, when defending his $200,000 income level on tax cuts.

9.30 pm. Cain endorses Greenspan. Santorum is gleeful. Ron Paul goes for the kill. But it's just weird to hear warnings of dire inflation in a recession in which deflation is a threat.

9.28 pm. Perry is talking healthcare. Tort reform and er, that's it. Good riposte from Karen on waivers. Perry cannot be persuading anyone with these lazy, meaningless cliches.

9.23 pm. Cain is oddly commanding. I still think it's the setting - the corporate table. But he is able to speak candidly and clearly, even when he's spouting nonsense. And he's right about the necessity for simplicity, transparency and clarity in taxation. Complexity is the tool of the corrupt and the rich. Transparency helps restore the connection between government and people. And a tax code that does not pick and choose which activities to tax distorts the market less.

If Cain can ride this theme further, he'll keep surprising us. And if Obama wants to regain the initiative, a radical simplification and reform of the tax code should be front and center.

9.18 pm. Sorry for the delay. Grabbed some food. The candidate exchanges are excellent. I'd say Bachmann scored some points against Perry, who seems unable even to articulate the simplest of responses. And Paul got some populist points against Cain. The Perry-Romney spat was a draw, but Romney's ability to lie still galls me. Obamacare also tackled only the uninsured like Romneycare - and left everyone else with existing insurance in eaxctly the same place. Romney was rattled enough to lie. Score one for Perry who is otherwise flailing badly.

8.59 pm. A reader sends a graph that illustrates how higher revenues were when Reagan backed a tax hike:

Revenues are waaay lower now. Yes, spending is now far higher and should be cut. But Reagan backed a tax increase when revenues were at 33 percent of GDP and we're now around 30. Logically, we have more space for tax increases than when Reagan backed them. Yet now they are unthinkable in this dogma ridden sect posing as a political party.

8.55 pm. Obamacare kills jobs. But massively increasing healthcare costs from private insurance companies is just swell. Head thumps round wooden table.

8.52 pm. Perry is still there. And completely incoherent. He needs no plans, no tax reform, no economists - who on earth is the other Rich Lowry by the way? - just a good old plan to get more oil out of the ground. At this rate, he's toast. And sure deserves to be.

8.49 pm. Huntsman is so obviously smarter and more able than all the rest of them put together. And for that reason he cannot get any traction at all. Lumping Romney with Donald Trump was an elegant stiletto.

8.47 pm. Bachmann calls the 999 plan a detailed 666 plan. But she's smiling.

8.39 pm. Bullseye - Reagan saying exactly the same thing as Obama. And Perry really had nothing to say in response, except that he doubted the tax increases were balanced by spending cuts. Romney doubles down on no revenue increases ever. Then Gingrich hammers "unilateral disarmament" because it is a stupid way to cut the debt. Somehow forcing these people around a round table where we're used to hearing complicated thoughts or ideas puts a massive drop-shadow behind their eccentricity.

8.36 pm. A reader channels my thoughts:

This has been quite literally the most insane 20 minutes of "economic" debate I've ever seen. The utter lack of understanding of how markets work, what caused the crisis and the role of the fed is astonishing and irresponsible.

Even as someone who works on Wall St., I would never be so blind to the failings of the private sector that contributed to the crisis. And Romney's answer on Euro banks is also bordering on irresponsible as he should know better - a euro debt crisis would be good for the dollar at the expense of a global financial meltdown that would make 2008 look tame.

None of these people seem close to grasping the reality of the last four years. And yet they talk as if it's self-evident that the president is completely out of his depth. The sheer contempt for Obama is staggering to me. He really is a "boy" to them.

8.32 pm. Charlie Rose actually asked Ron Paul what he thought about federally subsidized housings. I've sometimes wondered if Charlie is a closet Paul-fan. That was a lame-ass question - but all of them are more intelligent than any of the previous questions in previous debates.

8.30 pm. Bachmann's pearls become her. Ditto the new hair. But hasn't she stolen you-know-who's look?

8.26 pm. Romney won't answer anything on the European debt crisis ... but then backs the TARP. He's sane, but it isn't going to help with the base. Perry seems a complete bystander, by the way, swallowed up by this format because he can't have his rooster strut and demagoguic style.

8.23 pm. I'm loving Huntsman's tax reform pitch. But here's something about Herman Cain at this table. He seems much more dominant than in the past. I think it's his executive experience sitting at these kinds of discussions and dominating them as the CEO. He has certainly dominated the debate so far.

8.18 pm. Gingrich is now attacking a highly measured, scholarly advice on prostate cancer screening as a big government plan to kill more people; and now Bachmann is claiming that Obama wants to abolish Medicare and turn everything into Obamacare. They never addressed the basic issue of enormous costs in care at the end of life, which is essential to curbing healthcare costs and the debt.

It's an interesting moment when the pro-life fanaticism meets budget-cutting goals. The pro-life fanaticism doesn't even address budget cutting. It just ignores that question.

8.17 pm. I bet Republicans are hating on Karen Tumulty. Good question though.

8.15 pm. Huntsman stole my line about the gas industry. His best joke so far in these debates, but the bar was not high. So far, I have to say I hear more about "plans" rather than the details of those plans.

8.11 pm. Gingrich wants to throw Chris Dodd and Barney Frank in jail. And then he's railing against Ben Bernanke's "secret power." Wow. You begin to see the entire alternative universe. The federal government created credit default swaps and the recession. So far, this is actually an interesting conflict between the liberal intelligentsia of Bloomberg and the WaPo meeting ... well, aliens. The questions keep referring to a world that the candidates do not believe exists.

8.08 pm. Oh boy Karen thought she was going to get Bachmann to deal with reality. But the financial collapse had nothing to do with the banks at all. Just the federal government.

8.07 pm. Perry's not telling us what his plan is - except drilling for oil and cutting regulations. Basically: Texas. Not a very encouraging start.

8.05 pm. Romney actually said that Obama had divided the country and blamed other people. I feel sick. That's such a huge ****ing lie, such a grotesque distortion of the last three years, it reminds me why I can't stand the guy. A Ken doll capable of saying anything.

8.04 pm. Perry wants to drill, baby, drill. Basically, tear up the country and its seas for more oil.

8.03 pm. Man, Charlie made Herman Cain boring.

8.01 pm. I forgot. Two hours on the economy alone? Deep breath.

7.59 pm. So this is a Charlie Rose format and a host who looks like a parody of a New England professor. "Perfect weather in Dartmouth!" Spiffing, in fact.

7.58 pm. Ok. So did I just hear a drum circle? What is this Occupy Bloomberg?

7.57 pm. Some home news. I had a nasty tumble on my bike on Sunday and I toughed it out (or rather stayed in denial) till today, when I went to the doc and an x-ray showed a fractured elbow. I can still type although I can't write with a pen. I'm telling you this because a) I'm pathologically indiscreet and because I popped a Vicodin a couple hours ago and this GOP debate might get a little loopy.

Or it will finally make total sense.

---------- Post added October-12th-2011 at 12:50 AM ----------

A clear majority of Freepers think Gingrich won the debate. Followed by Cain. They really don't like Romney. And when Freepers have turned on Bachman, well you know she's finished.

[ThePreciating]

I live in CA, with 8.5% sales tax. Under Herman Cain, I'm spending 17.5% on sales tax.

I think I'd rather have the income tax.

[mistertim]

I agree with Andrew Sullivan about Romney. The guy really gives me the slick, sleazy used car salesman vibe. He is just so natural and smooth at lying that, as AS said, it is unnerving.

[SnyderShrugged]

I was wondering what everyone else who watched the debate tonight thought. I particularly enjoyed the format, it was definitely one of the more entertaining ones.

Romney: He's in a different league, barring some catastrophic events, it's his nomination to lose. I thought he handled questions and criticism very well (particularly attempts from huntsman and perry) (Disclaimer: I am biased)

Perry: He's toast. Had a few missed golden opportunities (like being stronger on his supposed jobs plan and pushing romney on the mandate issue)

Cain: I've always been a fan of Cain's (not necessarily as a presidential nominee, though). His 9-9-9 plan is interesting, but I'd like to hear some other solid stuff

Gingrich: If only he didn't have all those Gingrich issues because he's had some fantastic answers in the debates

Paul: Again, has some interesting stuff to say, I just don't like him as a presidential candidate

Bachmann: Not as stupid as everyone likes to make her out to be, but she is all over the place (It was obvious Romney has a frontrunner strategy-i.e. his softball question to Bachmann completley overlooking Perry)

Huntsman: Him and Romney are by far the most articulate and well spoken. I liked his jab at Perry about religion.

Santorum: Is he done yet?

But like I said, at this point its a contest to see who will be Romney's VP. :pfft:

Good post! The Paul statement that you made perplexes me some though, If you like what he has to say, why in the world wouldnt you like him as a candidate for you to vote for personally?

[rockfan7224]

Good post! The Paul statement that you made perplexes me some though, If you like what he has to say, why in the world wouldnt you like him as a candidate for you to vote for personally?

I like what he says on economics, I don't like his foreign policy views. He seems a little to reactionary for me, and being that he's so rigid in his views I don't see how effective he'd be working across party lines (which we desperately need in a President)

[PeterMP]

Perry is doing things much differently than Thompson if ya look.

we will see who has legs as we go along,.....not a bad debate format(though I could do w/o the hack in red)

I watched Charlie Rose after the debate last night. They were talking about how a year ago Perry was saying that he didn't want to be President and he didn't like Washington.

They were then suggesting that was why he was doing poorly. They went as far to say the lesson from his campaign might be that if you have to be talked into being President you really fit to run. You REALLY REALLY have to want to be President.

Now, I know that there aren't a lot of Republicans out there watching Charlie Rose on PBS, but these were people from the Washington Post and Bloomberg, and if they are saying and thinking it, other people are.

If this idea that he doesn't really want to be President slips into the general electorates minds, he'll have HUGE problems recovering. He needs to get out in front of that right away.

[Kilmer17]

Romney is close to wrapping it all up.

And Gingrich is still the smartest and most qualified candidate on either side.

[HBnotBlades]

I was actually at the debate last night, so I thought I'd chime in with what I saw.

First of all, Herman Cain really seemed to control the room when he spoke. I'm not sure how it came across on TV, but he really seemed to dominate the conversation when he wanted to.

Romney is very polished, but also disturbingly orange in person. It was a bit off-putting. Also, Michele Bachmann is much shorter that I imagined.

When Cain was discussing how he thought Alan Greenspan performed well as the Fed Chairman, Ron Paul became visibly agitated and fidgety. I thought it was hysterical when they gave him a chance to respond and he immediately blurted out "Alan Greenspan was TERRIBLE!!!".

I had some trouble following the conversation due to being at the very back of the room. The "sitting around the table" format made it tough for me to see how the candidates were interacting with each other, I'm sure it would be different if I had a better seat.

[twa]

Peter if ya want someone that out Romneys Romney maybe that is true....is that what you are really looking for? (Romney certainly wants it bad,and is qualified)

Perry is hustling on the ground game and in the trenches unlike Thompson,we will see if people look past the surface and the press bs.

Cain is the most interesting of the group to me,but whether style translates into substance is still open.

[SnyderShrugged]

I like what he says on economics, I don't like his foreign policy views. He seems a little to reactionary for me, and being that he's so rigid in his views I don't see how effective he'd be working across party lines (which we desperately need in a President)

He's worked across party lines more than most on that stage. Not sure what you mean by reactionary?

[PeterMP]

Peter if ya want someone that out Romneys Romney maybe that is true....is that what you are really looking for? (Romney certainly wants it bad,and is qualified)

Perry is hustling on the ground game and in the trenches unlike Thompson,we will see if people look past the surface and the press bs.

Cain is the most interesting of the group to me,but whether style translates into substance is still open.

You can't win a national election by only working the trenches well. The country is to big and there are to many people. You have to have some sort of television presence. You have to be able to show up at something like a televised debate and at least appear you have some passion.

[Gator Bait]

so with the 999 tax there would be no capital gains tax....which means the middle class would pay a higher effective tax rate when considering all three. The "Super Rich" make the majority of their money off selling stocks/bonds/property (capital gains)

I like the idea of the sales tax, but only if the income tax was simplified (no deductions or credits at all...a simple x % of everyone's income) and capital gains needs to be considered income, not "capital gains"

[rockfan7224]

He's worked across party lines more than most on that stage. Not sure what you mean by reactionary?

Just my personal feelings, I would support him if he got the nomination, just not my first (or second) choice

[Tulane Skins Fan]

so with the 999 tax there would be no capital gains tax....which means the middle class would pay a higher effective tax rate when considering all three. The "Super Rich" make the majority of their money off selling stocks/bonds/property (capital gains)

I like the idea of the sales tax, but only if the income tax was simplified (no deductions or credits at all...a simple x % of everyone's income) and capital gains needs to be considered income, not "capital gains"

No capital gains tax at all? Interesting... as a part owner of my business, I guess I'll just stop paying myself a salary and take only dividend disbursements. Nice.

[Wrong Direction]

I've gone out of my way to watch these debates. My general impression continues to be mixed. In no particular order:

1. Cain has a short window to win me over. He's likable and successful, and I do root for black Republicans because I think the political/race divide in this country is terrible. However, he needs to come with better substance to get my support. His 999 plan does open a new revenue stream to the federal government. I understand his ultimate goal is to even get rid of 999 for a consumption tax, but he's almost certain to fail in achieving that goal anytime in the next 40 years. Also, his answer on choosing a guy like Greenspan and his lukewarm at best support of auditing the fed are both likely toxic among tea party voters. Without a major gaffe, I actually think he got destroyed last night. I predict his poll numbers have hit their peak, though my mind is still open (for a while).

2. Romney's best answer of the night (to me) was probably missed by 98% of the audience. On the fed question, he said he wants someone who simply targets an inflation rate (paraphrase). This isn't politician-speak, it's wonky insider economist speak, and it's a position consistent with Milton Friedman, not the Austrians. I think he answered Cain's question about simplicity well, though he should have started with "Obama ran on Hope and Change. Pretty simple message. How's that working out?" This man is on top of his game. I do wish someone would ask him a much more direct question about his mandate though, and also about premium hikes in Mass. Also, his answer on China is controversial. I don't actually know how to think about it, but I know it comes with risks. He's the favortie, but not without vulnerabilities.

3. Huntsman has some nice answers, but he comes across as swarmy and unnatural with some of his digs. The Perry thing came so far out of left field I think he had to pass Manny Ramirez in the bathroom to deliver it. Interesting guy, but a failure as a candidate this time around.

4. Santorum continues to surprise me more than anyone because he's actually pretty darn likable when he's not talking about gays or abortion. No chance in hell, but he's acquitting himself very well, IMO.

5. Paul is incredibly useful. I like that he's there and vocal, but I could never support him as president.

6. Bachmann was quite effective taking on Cain's plan for a sales tax, but then she drops lines like "turn 999 upside down." Really lady? Oh, and I don't want to hear about your 600 foster children anymore. We know. Likeability is not on her side, so she'll never win.

7. Perry was apparently there last night. Someone earlier called him an empty suit. Well, if the suit fits...

8. Newt was impressive as always. I predicted a surge for him after the last debate, only to be surprised by a surge for Cain instead. I still think there's a place for an anti-Romney candidate, but Newt really isn't that guy on substance. However, if my predictions about Cain above are true, and Perry continues to be an empty suit, then either Newt or *gulp* Santorum are the next man up. I guess I can see a way for him to be the main competitor to Romney in the end. It probably should be that way, based purely on substance and preparation.

---------- Post added October-12th-2011 at 12:22 PM ----------

No capital gains tax at all? Interesting... as a part owner of my business, I guess I'll just stop paying myself a salary and take only dividend disbursements. Nice.

I'm a Republican, but this is a position that needs to be pressed in these debates. Are they really suggesting that day traders who do nothing but buy and sell stocks, often making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in a year, shouldn't be taxed at all? What about people like yourself? That's how it comes off.

This is an issue that Ron Paul needs to be more vocal on. R's and D's in the late 90's created this mess in the first place when they dramatically lowered capital gains rates. That had a major role in creating the stock bubble. They've incented certain types of earnings over others. This is exactly the type of thing Ron Paul needs to hit them hard on.

[rockfan7224]

Great assesment WD!

[SnyderShrugged]

Just my personal feelings, I would support him if he got the nomination, just not my first (or second) choice

Thats cool man, didnt mean to sound adversarial earlier either, more curious as to what drove the feelings.

[rockfan7224]

Thats cool man, didnt mean to sound adversarial earlier either, more curious as to what drove the feelings.

Oh no, not at all! Sometimes you just can't explain them

[twa]

I must be losing it since I agree with the NewYork review

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/perry_survives_craziness_aboun.html

Mitt Romney hewed to his constant strategy of turning every question into an over-the-top attack on President Obama, while limiting his exposure to unpopular policy proposals. Romney's theory is that Republican primary voters are angry but uninformed and thus that the extreme conservatism they have displayed since 2009 reflects primal rage rather than any coherent worldview. He believes he can mollify them by satisfying their emotional animus toward Obama, while continuing to advocate policies that, in many cases, are identical to the president's.:pfft:

Once again, Romney defended his Massachusetts health care plan by citing its reliance on private insurance, and the way it was designed to cover the uninsured without changing health care for the already-insured. This is exactly what Obama did, too. But, of course, by describing his plan in reasonable terms, Romney realizes that Republicans will conclude it must be different from the hated Obamacare, which is based on socialism and death panels. Romney's contempt for his electorate continues to endear him to me.

[Wrong Direction]

I think that's the narrative the left and farther right want to pin on him. Unfortunately for both sides, he's slippery. The media needs to do a better job of calling out his healthcare plan if they want to get traction on it. Maybe they're just waiting for the general election.