Gingrich: Did well, particularly in making the distinction between law enforcement / criminal prosecution and prosecuting war. Don’t agree with Dana Loesch that his immigration position as articulated tonight will hurt him too badly with conservatives. It was a common sense response to a long-term hypothetical. Having said that, he should have simply echoed Rick Perry and made it clear that unless and until the border is secure all the other questions are no more than intellectual wankery. [update: or maybe Dana’s right after all]
Perry: I actually felt badly for the Governor tonight. He is trying so hard to get that resonating soundbite that it just comes across as strained — and none of what I’m certain he anticipated were applause lines garnered applause. In fact, I’m having a hard time remembering his getting applause very much at all. Throughout his campaign, he’s been hurt by his deficiencies as a debater, but in the end, it’s how he’d govern and what his policy positions are that should matter. I like his economic ideas; his foreign policy ideas show a conservative bent, though I expect a bit of naivety given that his major focus has been Texas and not national security from the standpoint of a federal leader. I’d have no trouble voting for him, but I don’t anticipate his making his way back to the top tier.
Romney: Romney has the campaigning and debating thing down. He was impressive with his answers once again, which has never been his problem, because he plays well to his audience. And yet, the fact that we know about him that he plays well to his audience is precisely why many of us simply don’t trust him. Romney believes in the power of government, and he believes in too many cases that government — even if he’s pitching a sleek and streamlined version to appeal to conservatives looking for certain buzzwords — is the answer rather than the problem. He didn’t harm himself tonight — and his move to get to the right of both Gingrich and Perry on illegal immigration could resonate. If people actually believe him.
Cain: Didn’t get much time tonight, it didn’t seem, but when he did, he showed — to me at least — what his strengths are: he thinks like a problem solver and an executive rather than as a wannabe-philosopher king. Targeted “profiling” is not the same as “racial” profiling, and understanding who your enemy is is crucial to protecting yourselves from him; aid to Africa as it is currently administered is only “good” to the point that it is being administered effectively; and support for Israel from a military standpoint would depend upon the strength of the plan. Cain doesn’t think like a politician. And that to me is what makes him a true outsider candidate, and one I could certainly vote for. A few weeks back, it was hip to chide Cain on Twitter for passing off a question to Gingrich during their Lincoln-Douglas-style debate. But to me, that was a moment of strength for Cain: he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, and he’s willing to pass off problems to those he believes know better — at least until he has a better grasp of what the problem in search of a solution happens to be. Others seem to want in their candidate someone who might perform well on a game show. I want a chief executive.
Bachmann: It’s a shame she hasn’t caught on. She’s confident, committed, and strikes me as a leader who would absolutely fight for principles. She has strong foreign policy credentials, and she’s been one of the few members of the GOP House to be consistently correct on spending and fighting the entrenched GOP power elite — even as she’s been consistently able to turn questions back to Obama’s failures. Another candidate we’ve allowed to be tainted by the establishment and the media, much to our own political detriment, it seems to me.
Santorum: Another candidate who is a strong and principled conservative. Gave a great answer I thought to Wolf Blitzer who tried to frame compromise as a willingness to meet the expectations of Democrats. Instead, Santorum was able to effectively articulate that it makes no sense to “compromise” if what you compromise on undercuts whatever gains you may have made in terms of long-term progress. Principle needs to be the guiding force. Selling those principles to the voting public is the challenge. And then once those principles prove themselves in effective policy, they need to become the centerpiece of the political party who has adopted them — not thrown away so that the political class can get back to the business of growing government in times of economic prosperity.
Paul: Expresses well many libertarian tenets, and inasmuch as certain of those tenets resonate with the TEA Party crowd, he did okay as a spokesperson for that outlying contingency. Still, he’s running as a Republican candidate for President. And while that doesn’t commit one to being a neoconservative, it also is a non-starter for someone whose foreign policy ideas mirror McGovern and Obama moreso than even Democrats like JFK.
Huntsman: Hokey and over-dramatic. He may be a bright guy, but who cares? It seemed to me he was given more time tonight than Herman Cain. Why? Is there a Huntsman surge I haven’t heard about? Early on the media placed this guy in the top tier. They still seem determined to push him there. It ain’t going to happen. He worked for Obama, for Chrissakes.
There you have it. Agree, disagree, ignore. Those are my thoughts at first blush.
I fear most Americans won’t have the wit to notice the difference Cain presents for what it is in itself, taking the easier course to follow the “opinion” makers and hipsters who seem to relish making sport of him for purposes of self-aggrandization. Maybe I underestimate my fellows though, and they’ll surprise by paying closer attention and drawing more honest assessments.
I noticed Huntsman got more time than Cain too.
Despite Huntsman consistently polling at the bottom, and Cain being in the top three for a month st least.
What’s up with that?
CNN seems to have a thing for Huntsman, broadly speaking, though I’ve no way to demonstrate that made a difference in his allotment. Still, I had the same impression as you guys, Huntsman was dealt the bottom card.
I was a little taken aback at the hostility for Pakistan at the jump. I mean, maybe I’m still thinking pre-dead OBL times, but Huntsman, Romney and Bachmann seemed very undiplomatic when discussing a key ally in the war on Radical Islam.
It’s hard to look at Pakistan as an ally, if they ever were (and really, they weren’t). I mean, even under Musharraf we couldn’t trust ’em any further than we could throw ’em. The landlocky nature of Afghanistan being the rub, squeezing our logistics with full Paki knowledge of same. I thought we had a short window during Bush’s last term to do better across the Caucasus and through one or two of the ‘Stans to the north, but Bush didn’t pull it off, whether for lack of funds, lack of trying, or what? But we’re stuck for now, so long as we intend to keep any significant presence in A’stan.
There were a number of observations on the #cnndebate thread to the point that Huntsman and Paul seemed to be getting more questions and time than their combined 6% polling would merit.
OK, yeah, ally might not be the right word, but still. There’s no up side to treating them like enemies. Limited co-operation is better than outright hostility.
That’s why they’re such a tough nut to crack, the Pakis. We have to smile and pretend to mean it while they’re picking our pockets and shooting out people. It’s fucked up having to lie to ourselves that way. But too damned expensive to give them what they deserve.
our people, I mean.
Without nukes Pakistan would be much more solvable. Thank you so much dear President Clinton. You foreign policy master, you…putz.
“Without nukes Pakistan would be much more solvable”
Like Iran now?
Obama, you Putz…
Something in the Democratic water leads to Putzdom or is that spelled Potsdam?
Ron Paul needs to be off that stage … did no body catch that he thinks the Taliban are a country? And that if we just leave them alone in their “country” they’ll leave us alone?
Haven’t you guys heard? Paul is viable contender. He leads in all the polls. He already won in Iowa. He’s the only true conservative. He is like a God on earth.
Sorry, I’m channeling Paulites from the Daily Caller threads- they’re like a really annoying chattering lying swarm. I don’t like them. If Paul ends up running as a third party and Maobama “wins” a second term, my tolerance for crazy Paulites will be at an end. Boots to asses. Alot of it.
Huntsman needs to not be invited to any more of these things.
Pakistan is a tough one… some of their Army is really interested in making sure that they play ball with us. Squashing the Talib, Haqqani and other asshats would let Pakistan actually run parts of Pakistan it has never been able to before.
But the ISI and some other parts of their government are all caught up in the jihad stuff and will not stop undermining their Afghan neighbor. I blame Durand, m’self.
Personally, I’d hope all our drones, spies, spooks and the alleged experts at the State Dept would concentrate on running the ISI into the ground. That, or India gets pissed off enought to run over the Paks, again. Problem being it might get a bit nuke-y for everyone’s taste.
I sure hope the next POTUS gets some good advice on this one…
The Deciders decided.
Something in the Democratic water leads to Putzdom or is that spelled Potsdam?
I think it was originally spelled Y—A—L—T—A.
This post needs a little bump – and I haven’t used that phrase since the 80’s.
You can tell it was a good, substantive debate last night that demonstrated the superior ideas and thinking of the Republican candidates as compared to Alfred E. Obama from the silence of the journolists. Nothing on Memeorandum yet from the usual assortment of asshats.
The Silence of the Journolists. They rub the lotion.
I agreed with Gingrich on his notion allowing long-term illegals to be subsumed into a new caste of not-citizens. Of course, the caveats would need be restrictive (no voting, srry, Dems).