Debate Stardate 39583.4614

If you think Ron Paul made good points in last night's CNN debate about our national security, you might be a liberal, or if not a liberal, a Libertarian, or you might be an Idiot. I don't mean to sound redundant, but if you don't see the current danger with Iran's nuclear proliferation, you just might have serious denial problems. 

Overall, I think CNN (which is an acronym for "Certainly Not News") did a good job. Wolf Blitzer, who cannot speak an entire sentence without pausing for a breath, was reasonably good as a moderator--he didn't get anal about time, and unlike CBS, NBC, or ABC, he didn't ambush the debators. So I give CNN kudos for this one--I hope that this becomes a trend, but I doubt it.

One can understand why CNN allowed Ron Paul to speak on security issues for as long as they did.  Paul is the GOP foil to common sense when discussing security issues. Ron Paul believes that we have no right to intervene in the nuclear exploits of Iran, or any other nation for that matter, even when those exploits have been clearly undertaken to destroy Israel and eventually the United States. Paul says the Patriot Act goes against our civil liberties, in spite of the fact that Newt made the clear distinction between those Americans who are tried for criminal acts, versus terrorists who are at war with America. After hearing Paul's pacifistic arguments, it became clear that his ideas are good on paper, but not in the real world; not in a world where Islamic nations see Western nations as infidels who must be converted or killed in the name of Allah. 

The Constitution will be useless if there are no Americans to enjoy its tenets, and if we allow Iran to continue on its present course, that is exactly what will happen--Iran said so and I see no reason to not believe them. They want the Jews and Christians dead because their 'holy book' calls for death to the infidels.

Did Jon Huntsman impress you in this debate? He impressed me, mostly as an arrogant liberal RINO. Like Obama, Huntsman says nothing better than anyone else. He almost never answers the actual questions he is asked.  On Greta Susteren, Martha MacCallum, (who was filling in for Greta), asked him how he felt  about those who are campaigning that have little or no experience (read Herman Cain), with foreign affairs. In answer to the question, Huntsman spoke about the glory of America and yadda yadda, and hit his talking points like the martian he appears to be. Even Martha tried to get him to focus on her question, but Huntsman, ever the politician, skirted it with the adroitness of a ballerina.Thus, one can be certain that a vote for Huntsman is a vote for something, I suppose, but maybe not.

The only problem Newt had in the debate was with his response about immigration. He seems to have softened on the idea of deporting illegal aliens, and his reasoning, while rational, will not bode well for him in Iowa where they are tough on those who enter our country illegally. Newt was being humane but sounded too liberal to those on the right who are fed up with having their tax money go to programs sponsoring these people. I think Newt was trying to appeal to the greater majority and to the notion that deporting millions of illegal aliens isn't practical, and this is the only area where I generally agree with Ron Paul., who feels that if you take away all of their benefits and employment opportunities, they will leave on their own. Call it the Field of Dream Acts gone home.  But everything else about Paul rubs me the wrong way--even the way he stands at the podium, like a boy who just had his lunch money taken from him by Rick Perry. He definitely has his fans in the audience-and by fans, I mean fanatics--they cheer on his every word like he was a rock star. For me, I suspect there's a reason he's no longer practicing medicine, and that is probably a good thing to those who might have used him as a physician.


Herman Cain sounded like someone who was briefed about foreign policy but cut the class a little too early in the semester. He appeared to run out of knowledge too quickly, and tended to repeat himself on issues. You can't cram for president, I believe. But Herman remains likeable and this is more important to those of us who know little about current events and more about lunch and recess. Pizza for lunch is always welcome.


Mitt was, well, Mitt. His answers were relevant and conservative, although he has conservatives worried that if elected, he might teeter to the left.  I like that he is clear in his stand on seeing Israel as an ally, and how we cannot be friends with our foes and foes with our friends. I appreciate how Mitt seems clear about going against the current presidential policy of being a jerk to Israel and buddies to Islamic theocracies that oppress everything from women to gays. Well, they don't actually oppress gays, they just kill them. He is also quite clear about intervening with Iran if they get a nuclear weapon.


Rick Santorum always sounds okay but looks like Dudley Dooright with intestinal cramps. He always seems to strain with every question and labor with every response. He will never get elected and neither will Jon Huntsman, who, I might add, speaks Chinese (how inscrutable).

So, who won the debate? Who knows?  It's up to the majority of us who saw it. For me, I like Newt, and I don't care that he has a sordid past. A president isn't a Sunday School teacher, although you wouldn't know that if you came from Mars, like Huntsman. I also like Bachmann because she knows a thing or two about defense, spending for defense, and the purpose for our foreign aid to Pakistan and others. I don't fully disagree with Perry who would cut all money to Pakistan, because we do use them for intelligence to some degree. But giving foreign aid to China and Russia is unconscienable, and probably something Ron Paul would do out of the kindness of his heart .  .  .  if he only had a brain.

Tweet