Another day, another debate
Will you be watching tonight?
I have debate fatigue, myself. I’ve become convinced that the main function of these debates is to collect the largest possible assortment of gaffes with which to (a) destroy each front runner in turn; and then (b) create sound bites against the eventual nominee. It may only be political junkies watching now, but the MSM and later the campaign ads can use all this material as fodder for negativity.
On the other hand, best to find out now who can survive the onslaught and who can’t. If you can’t stand the heat—get lost!
This is actually one I’d like to watch, but I doubt that I can stay awake all night. It will be interesting if Heritage and American Enterprise can up the level from gotchas. If so, the really weak candidates may drop out, make their endorsements, and allow the people to concentrate on substance. The party needs to start coming together to focus on Obama’s failures.
Despite Democrat Party hack and spinmeister, Donna Brazille’s spinning in an article today, listing Obama’s supposed “many foreign policy successes, Obama’s chaotic, clueless, and reckless “foreign policy”–if such a shambles can even be dignified by that title–has been one disastrous unforced error, and stumble after another, and a general retreat by the U.S. from power and influence in the world.
Thus, the Republican debate tonight on the subject of Foreign Policy is especially important and, if their past performances are any indication, has the potential to knock Paul, Cain, and, perhaps, Perry out of the running.
Yes, watching. Linking to livestream, and whoever is live-blogging it.
It does matter. And, really, people should appreciate the wide-ranging discussion, the new energy and new ideas, and the variety – that the republican field has to offer. Despite the meme, this is a pretty accomplished group, and Gingrich is right, any one of them will make a better president than Obama.
Don’t tune out – tuning out means apathetic voters – it is essential to be engaged in what is arguably the most critical of battles. This one is for the heart and soul of the nation, and may determine whether the republic survives.
I cannot watch the debates. When you see who is on the panels for these debates and hear the stupidty and duplicity of the questions, it makes me think that these candidates are not smart enough to be our president. Why would they allow the very people who hate them and hate conservatives frame the debate?? It would be like a man choosing Bella Abzug as his judge in a divorce case.
We just saw the Republican House get tricked into giving Obama a HUGE debt ceiling increase and in return the Democrats gave us the Super Committee that would “fix” our spending problem. So what did we get? Another couple of trillion in debt, no solution from the super committee and who could have seen this coming???
The problem as I see it is the conservative politicians (at least most of them) are weak and unorganized and the opposition is a lot better organized, a lot stronger and dare I say a lot smarter. Before Obama ends his first term he will have handed us $7 trillion in debt and a poison pill in the form of Obama care that will guarantee our bankruptcy. And given the track record of conservative politicians it is quite possible that Obama, arguably the worst and most anti-American president in our history, will be re-elected.
Nah, I’ve got to trim my fingernails. Or clean the bathtub.
Aah, who am I kidding? I’ll just drink beer and goof off as usual.
OT: About a month ago or so neo-neocon wrote a post rightly praising Democrat Artur Davis who now favors voter ID laws.
He gave an on camera interivew about the subject to The Daily Caller and he also levels charges that Democrats routinely engage in voter fraud in his state (without naming names, unfortunately. Still, it seems like pretty damning stuff.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/21/democrat-says-democratic-party-bosses-use-voter-fraud-video/
I actually woke up in the middle of the night and watched the last half of the debate. I thought the audience questions were good. At least they showed the kind of problems that conservative feel are important and that there are real conservative thinkers with more substance than most Dems in office. I liked Marc Theissen’s question about future problems and Santorum’s answer about Latin America. Even our third tier beats Obama in understanding the world.
The candidates did pretty much as I expected: Gingrich and Romney at the top, Cain at the bottom, and Ron Paul on another planet. Huntsman obviously knows some things about foreign affairs, but they sure don’t connect to form a policy that I could support.
What expat said.
Neo, these debates serve an important function aside from winnowing out the candidates. Those candidates who have survived so far are getting noticeably better [except for Cain, who won’t survive much longer]. The candidate who eventually emerges will be far better prepared for the challenges of the presidential campaign than he or she would have been sans debates.
Regarding the questions — they were terrific. There were some real heavyweights out there in the audience and their questions showed it. I wasn’t bored at all, but then I was out of the country for some time and mercifully missed most of the earlier efforts. Rather than tuning out I’m just tuning in and I like what I see.
Not so bad as all that, “Gone with the Wind Says:” Not so bad as all that. For instance, you’re here and part of the reformation. You’re obviously a stalwart tea party person and that is good and enough.
There is always this to remember: Guile and vice are brittle and when pressed, shatter.
Rickl:
You can also organize your sock drawer.
I found it hard to find anything but sound bites from the Republican presidential debates on foreign policy/national defense of last night–sound bites that don’t adequately inform without the context within which the questions were asked and the dynamic of the debate itself. Here is a link to a video of the entire debate (http://www.therightscoop.com
/8pm-watch-live-cnnheritage-debate-tonight/).
My view is that viewing the entire debate leaves a much different impression that just viewing a selection of sound bites–sound bites that were, after all, selected by a MSM that is actively and virulently hostile to conservatives, to Republicans and to their ideas.
My impressions:
Cain–he was asked few questions, was particularly weak on this subject and obviously way out of his depth, and generally offered canned, generic responses–i.e. “I would study the problem”
Perry–OK, but not particularly confidence inspiring–I get the feeling that he has memorized a bunch of positions put together by his team of “experts,” but enunciates them, not because he truly believes them or has thought them through, but because he believes enunciating them will lead to the presidency; a Yahoo.
Paul–more crazy uncle stuff, totally Isolationist foreign policy, no friend to Israel or national defense and the military, and he totally misunderstands Islam and the nature and gravity of the very real and immanent terrorist threat, as President, just a disaster waiting to happen.
Bachmann–OK and–as a member of the Intelligence Committee– with a very good command of specifics
Santorum–very conservative, but just not Presidential timber this time around
Romney–polished as usual, but still plastic
Huntsman–a windbag in a three hundred dollar haircut and a two thousand dollar suit who is very pleased with himself, and likes to hear himself talk
Gingrich–the most impressive of the lot, serious, decisive, in total command of the issues, and he offered many more specific policies/ideas than the others, and still–by far–“the only adult in the room.” I was particularly surprised by his gutsy call for not deporting illegals who “had been here for twenty five years, had children and grandchildren, who had paid taxes, and belonged to a church” but, instead, giving them some sort of legal status, but not citizenship. On the other hand, Newt said that those illegals who arrived here recently or who had not ties here should be deported.
Thanks for the summary, WD.
P.S.–This “twenty-five years in this country” example strikes me as arbitrary and highly artificial and a little too facile. Of course–you probably think–if someone has been here for twenty five years and observed all the other rules, they should be cut some slack, but where is the line to be drawn, 20 years in this country, 17, 15, 10?
Then, there is Newt’s idea about the equivalent of local WWII draft boards–staffed by prominent local people-who would determine who should be allowed to stay and who deported.
This was the way it worked in WWI and WWII, but they were vastly different times, especially in terms of the national Zeitgeist; a much smaller, much less alienated, cynical, and anonymous but more compact social structure in terms of inter-personal and neighborhood relationships, much less “questioning of authority” and more deference to it and, moreover, the assumption of such draft board’s integrity, wisdom and rectitude, and many more small towns and neighborhoods in which people knew and were known by their friends and neighbors. Moreover, not anywhere near such as litigious a climate as today, in a which organizations like the ACLU flourish and have great influence.
Wolla:
Ace says that this will lead to amnesty for the vast majority of illegals, because these local boards will be staffed by people who reflect local attitudes about amnesty. Conservative areas will tend to be anti-amnesty, while liberal areas will tend to be pro-amnesty. Thus illegals will have every incentive to flock to liberal areas in advance of their “hearing”. Once legalized, then nothing can stop them from traveling anywhere in the country and settling in conservative areas if they so choose, where they will then be able to vote.
Oops, forgot the link:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/324019.php