23 November 2011

My Thoughts re. November 22, 2011 Republican National Security Debate

Tuesday night's National Security Debate was held at 
historic Constitution Hall, Washington, D.C.

Newt Gingrich made the big splash, unfortunately for him to the negative as he was smacked-around a bit by the other candidates for sounding soft on amnesty for illegal immigrants...

I myself am convinced the Obammunist media want Romney to run, and are afraid Obama would be shredded in the debates if facing Gingrich. Therefore expect that they will be trumpeting this narrative throughout the day today to make sure it's Obama vs ObamaLite, as serves their purposes best in 2012.

But while I would have preferred to hear something different from Gingrich -and agree with Bachmann's critique- in all fairness Newt did say no path to citizenship, while he would only allow those to stay on a 'red card' who have put down roots paid taxes and had jobs over a period of decades. I ask Cain supporters how different this is from his position, really.

Even Romney sounded better on the amnesty issue than Newt this time, but I will say that the former House Speaker has a point that this country will never garner the political will to deport 25M people... although I don't need to told I'm not "humane" if I don't like them staying, Newt.

On key defense issues they were there to discuss, Gringrich earns 100% rating with me last night.

But what about what Trump said earlier this year: no need to wait for a wall, militarize the border (we're being invaded, duh!) and the immigration AND drug trade would stop overnight- makes sense to me, I wish somebody else would pick up that ball and run with it.

Early in the debate, Bachmann succeeded in making Rick Perry look stupid(er), this time on Pakistan- her experience on the House Intelligence Committee had him back on his heels and leaning towards simplistic populism. Must admit I'm shocked at the how weak a candidate this guy turned out to be.

Most of what he says is right, but once he lost his white hat aura I don't think he's coming back no matter what he says or does... not at the top. Current polls indicate to me that he'll quit after Iowa or New Hampshire, and that's what I'd expect now... unless he really pulls something out of that big ole hat.

As for Michele Bachmann, she acquitted herself well. It is indeed her platform I prefer above all others... simply put, this woman is a brave and principled conservative. Bachmann positions on Iran and China last night superb last night, imo.

Not sure what she has to do to revive her moribund campaign, but I found it amusing that Dick Morris envisions a not totally unlikely scenario in which Michele could come roaring back... stay tuned!

Why do they let John Huntsman talk so much- there's no reason I need to hear any more from this guy than I already have.

Rick Santorum is slightly more relevant...  but his chance of winning the nomination approximates the odds of the moon landing in my yard tonight.

Mitt Romney really is sounding close to my defense positions these days- too bad I can't stand him and don't trust him an inch. 

Besides security issues , like most GOPers I consider spending cuts imperative, with repeal of ObamaCare key to everything in a way.  Since Mittens never once said RomneyCare was a mistake/failed experiment (and considering that he's an unprincipled chameleon with zero core beliefs) I sure don't see any reason to believe his pledges to repeal ObamaCare- there's a distinct lack of zeal... I'm not convinced he even wants to do it.

Herman Cain for the most part made sense, but of course it seems like he's been cramming- which I'm sure he has. But I get the distinct impression that Mr Cain is not really that interested in foreign policy and/or wishes to avoid being pinned down on issues he's ill-suited to address at this time. 

And thus is the problem with this otherwise fine TEA Party candidate, we need for a sharp international strategic mind in such trying times, and on a shrinking budget. I see John Bolton advising Rick Perry now, so maybe that highly beneficial opportunity has already been lost for Mr Cain.

Ron Paul's fake eyebrows looked even stranger this time- something I hadn't considered possible. His argument that our justice system (sans Patriot Act) "handled Timothy McVeigh OK" (after he blew up a building full of people!) saw him savaged by the others, and is precisely the reason I would never feel safe with Ron Paul as Commander-in-Chief. 

I did like what he said re. security's dependence on the health of our economy. As right as he is on many fiscal and constitutional matters, he's completely wrong on a few things that mean a lot to me. His voice adds a new dimension to the debate to be sure, but at this point crossing over into more of a distraction for the GOP, and often simply wasting time on his pet, fringe issues.

CNN debate moderator Wolf Blitzer was a boring drone, and the technical staff -who seem to have trouble operating microphones- are unprofessional at best. Once again I'm reminded why it is I never watch this crap network.

Why do we Republicans have to put up with such amateurish debate management... just for the privilege of dealing with disingenuous, biased liberal hacks as 'moderators'-? Somebody in the GOP needs to get off their fat duff and see to it that future debates -if not serving the Republican Party's interests like they should- are at least fair and free of the appalling manipulation we've seen this cycle.

Meanwhile, Trump is threatening to make a move again -here-


Zilla/MJ said...

If the GOP weren't such self destructive jackasses, they'd bypass the leftist media and let CONSERVATIVE BLOGGERS moderate a debate, put Stacy McCain in charge, he's actually a real reporter (a dying breed). How about having someone from the counter-jihad ask nationa security questions of the candidates? NOT ONCE did any candidate or anyone else in the debate utter the word that represents the greatest threat to our national security: JIHAD.
How about asking Rick Perry if he still thinks "islam is a religion of peace" as he has himself said before?
What about the fact that we have Muslim Brotherhood in our nation's highest offices? How about the fact that we're brining in muslim "refugees" by the tens of thousands while turning away Christians who are at very real risk of being murdered simply for not being muslim?
I have been a registered Republican all of my voting life and was conservative politically even as a young child, but I am absolutely disgusted with the modern limp wristed dhimmi GOP.

andy42302 said...

Zilla, there's several reasons why the GOP can't bypass the "leftist media". Mainly, they can't depend on Fox News alone to carry them to the WH. Fox News (aka GOPTV) has it's loyalist and obsessive Obama bashers so they're not likely draw extra vote there. GOP candidates already seem to have unlimited free prime time there so they have to broaden their their audiences.
In today's times, you're just not going to compete on the national stage with softball questions from right wing bloggers. Rhetoric, spin, and dishonesty may help to an extent but eventually, one's argument's will have to stand up to scrutiny. That's really not offered in your proposal. When you run with the big dogs, that delusional bubble no longer protects you.

Woodsterman (Odie) said...

Happy Thanksgiving Dude!

Reaganite Republican said...

Bachmann strong on the issues that concern you here, Zilla- jmho

And Happy T-day, all!

Steve Dennis said...

Newt's immigration stance bothers the hell out of me and I feel by using the "humane" argument he pulled a Rick Perry "heartless" moment. And while he did not say he would grant them citizenship it will only be a matter of time before a liberal is president who decides it isn't fair for a person who Newt granted "legality" to not to have the right to vote. We will be headed down the path to granting these people the right to vote.

Maggie@MaggiesNotebook said...

RR, I missed the debate and still have only heard snippets. I so hated to miss it as I've watched all of the others. When I first heard of the Newt incident I bounced from "well what do you expect with his history" to "why would he do such a dumb thing?" Then today I heard the exact clip and the words "legalization" but "no path to citizenship." I think this is the way to do it. We need worker visas, and we will never send everyone home, and we are kidding ourselves to think we will. We have to start someplace and that's with those working, those never in trouble with our law, etc., etc. We need more details from him, but in theory, I think it is a road we must travel - and I am an immigration hawk. But first, build the fence and put guns on the borders and keep every single illegal out of the Arizona parklands.

Bachmann is the single person who has it it all, and her integrity cannot be questioned - as well as her votes. She is the real deal. She will never be president.

I heard a Romney 1-hr interview with Sean Hannity and he came off sounding very good. Dittos to all you said. I don't believe anything he utters.

Great analysis! And thanks for linking.

Reaganite Republican said...

I feel very much as you do on this issue in general, Steve- but I have been giving it some thought, and as I wrote above we are NEVER going to send 25M people back- 'Operation Wetback' in 1958 only sent back 3-4M, and that was in way different times- and all of them in CA/AZ.

So what to do if they're here? Newt offers a more elegant solution than any other I can conceive. But yeah- the dems will try and give them citizenship later probably, what can you do... we need to try and draw a line in the sand somehow, perhaps serious border enforcement could offset the magnet effect of granting Red Cards like Gingrich proposes

Reaganite Republican said...

Agreed with all Maggie, EXCEPT that Bachmann will never be president!!!

If not now... she'll be back!

Post a Comment

The Reaganite Republican welcomes your comments...