Tag Archives: Michele Bachmann

What's Kira Davis's Hangup with Glenn Beck!?

What is Kira Davis’s Hangup with Glenn Beck?!

I think I might be Kira’s newest stalker fan! I listened to her Internet radio show this Sunday after work, and I can’t wait to hear her again this Tuesday. Love her! However, she said something about my other media hero Glenn Beck that bears comment.

Kira apparently objected to a comment Beck made on his Internet show GBTV.  He made similar comments on Fox News Business to his old pal Judge Andrew Nepolitano. It’s no secret that Glenn dislikes Newt Gingrich as a candidate for president because of his alleged love of big government progressivsm. On his own and Napolitano’s shows, Glenn said that a choice between a Gingrich and an Obama is one between two big government progressives, so for the Tea Party to select Gingrich over Obama must be a matter of the President’s race not policy, since their policy views are virtually the same.

Wikipedia Image

I can see why this would be confusing for someone like Kira, an African American. The race comment is a little over the top, enough to get her ire I grant her that much, but the comment was meant to be nuanced. Glenn appears to be attempting to use his position of influence in the media to steer Tea Party folks away from Gingrich to a candidate more suitable to him, Santorum or Bachmann, either candidate would be suitable enough for me.

Here’s the problem. Tea Party people want to pick a winner who can beat Obama, and Gingrich has done extremely well articulating a Reaganistic “It’s Morning in America” conservative ideal. The Tea Party is well aware that Gingrich is a big government GOP establishment candidate, with deeply rooted personal foibles. They are willing to look past those flaws perhaps because of the deep seeded fear that another four years of Obama would spell doom for the country. Gingrich is first and foremost a politician who wants to be elected and may be able to be swayed against his big government agenda if conservatives keep the pressure on him. The Tea Party is good at applying that pressure. A lame duck Obama not seeking a third term and with nothing to lose would have carte blanche to do whatever he wants in his final four years, wrecking havoc with the constitution and our economy and driving us all off the proverbial cliff. This is the penultimate fear of conservatives and its why they may be inclined to pull the lever for Gingrich while holding their noses.

Poor Glenn, he can’t have the candidate he wants! That is the dilemma we all have to face, we may never have the prefect candidate. We can’t go the grave yard of conservative ideals and build us a Frankensteinian monster candidate from the pieces and  parts. A little Reagan here, a little GW there, a nice slice of Washington and of Lincoln, with just a dash of Jefferson and Adams. It’s not going to happen and it’s ridiculous to think that we could do it. Reagan himself, Ronaldus Magnus, was criticized by his fellow conservatives back in the day and he didn’t get everything he wanted to accomplish either. The fact is that the fickle electorate will never be a hundred percent happy with the selection regardless of who is elected. Conservatives would have problems with Jesus Christ if he were elected because he is too willing to help the poor and too good at pointing out everybody else’s faults. Sheesh! Can’t you lighten up a little Lord, I’m not that bad am I?

There’s still time for things to shake out amongst the candidates, and the electorate will make the best choice available. Either way, I think Obama is going to be handed his pink slip in 2012 and we’ll have a new Republican large R to contend with that might not trip everybody’s fancy. The important thing is to continue to elect Tea Party representatives and senators in order to keep the Republican large R from going too far to the left.

And for God’s and all our sakes, Ron Paulites must come to their senses. A vote for Ron Paul as a third party candidate would draw away precious votes away from our guy or gal and throw the election to the socialist Obama, a complete disaster!

We have to work with what we are given and have faith in the Good Lord above that all will shake out as it must.

As for me, I’m not choosing between my favorites, Glenn Beck and Kira Davis. I love them both for exactly who their are.

Find out if you agree with me that Kira is awesome! Catch her next show on ConservativeDailyNews.com this Tuesday on The Dark Side with Kira Davis, 10 p.m. EST, 7 p.m. Pacific.

 

 

The Basis Of Big Government?

Let me ask you, the reader, this question: What motivates a person to believe that a government which controls every aspect of your life, your business, your personal habits, and your body, is a good idea?
To answer the question, let me emphasize the word your. Your life, your business, your habits, your body. We all know that big-government proponents seek to exempt themselves from the same measures intended to restrict you and I.

The evidence of this is legion: Far-left celebrities who preserve their own wealth rather than redistribute it as they would yours; far-left politicians who evade taxes while insisting that you pay more; leftists who keep guns in their homes while seeking to ban you from having them.

This isn’t an attitude exclusive to the left, though. There are some on the right who also maintain this belief. Organizations like FreedomWorks are doing a good job ferreting them out.

So again I ask, why would someone adopt the belief that government should rule you? The answer is obvious: They believe themselves more qualified to make decisions for you than you are. To them, we’re simpletons, unable to make good decisions for ourselves. They see it as their divine obligation to protect us from ourselves.

When choosing a Presidential candidate, ask yourself this: Which of them is most likely to leave you alone? Which one will make government as inconsequential in your life as possible?

Or, which of them believes he’s “the smartest man in the room“?

Only One Candidate Can Name Their Favorite Supreme Court Justice (Sorta)

At last night’s debate, Megyn Kelly made what seemed like a simple request.  Name your favorite Supreme Court justice.  For some reason, only candidate (barely) was able to pull it off.

I mean, wouldn’t it have been awesome if each candidate just rattled off their favorite justice?  But, no.  They all had to get long-winded and then not even have the courage to just pick ONE justice.  Most of them hedged their bets with as many as THREE.

What do you think of candidates being so long-winded with what should be a “one word answer”?  And also, if you were on that stage what justice would you have chosen?  (and no, faithful readers, you are not limited to one word with your response)

Fox News GOP Debate Recap: Are You More Conservative Than a 5th Grader?

Fox News hosted yet another GOP Primary debate on Thursday night and the entire field was there…well, besides Gary Johnson, but is he in “the field” these days, really?  From the top the thing that interested me the most was that this debate seemed to be set up as the “are you conservative enough” debate.  I liked that.  I like to think the tea party has played a big role in making this election about conservatism more than any other in recent years.

Every question asked seemed to be tinged with the inquiry “Are you conservative enough?”  It was obvious Gingrich and Romney were the two candidates under the most pressure to answer that question with authority.  Gingrich spent a large amount of his time invoking Reagan and defending himself against the “lobbyist” label.  Not surprisingly, Gingrich did his best to remind voters that he basically forced Clinton to sign welfare reform in the nineties…and also he is the smartest candidate ever in the history of Presidential primaries.  In case you didn’t know.  But in all seriousness, Newt is the smartest guy in the room and it always shows.  Newt’s issue on Thursday wasn’t could he convince voters he’s smart, but could he convince voters he is a true conservative.  The jury is still out on whether he did that or not, but now that he has attained “front-runner” status, Gingrich is seeing an increase in attacks on his conservative credentials.  I think he maintained in this debate.  He did not do anything to worry his supporters but I don’t think he made many new fans either.  As with the debate last Saturday night, Americans will need to decide if they are satisfied with a Debater-in-Chief, or do they want more when it comes to a Gingrich candidacy.

Ron Paul started out very strong.   As always, he is masterful in his understanding of domestic economics.  It’s the spending, stupid!  Ron Paul was on fire Thursday night until it came to the foreign policy segment.  Then Ron Paul said something about warfare vs. welfare in Washington and how Iran would be totally willing to play nice if we weren’t so bossy and suddenly you could hear crickets chirping.  Even Paulbots seemed slightly subdued by his answers.  Perhaps they knew that even with so much support for his ideas behind him, Paul always manages to sound like a kook to the general audience when he starts talking foreign policy.  I’m sure he lost no support at all.  Paul supporters are nothing if not loyal (read rabid).  However, with surging Iowa numbers in recent days, Thursday’s debate was a great opportunity for him to seize the lead.  This performance was not his best, and will most likely not contribute to an Iowa lead.  If anything, Paul proved that all Obama would have to do in a general election is bring up Iran and foreign policy and that would be the end of a viable Paul candidacy.

Santorum and Bachmann were definitely the most solid in terms of conservative principals on the debate stage.  Santorum gets Iran.  It’s a shame the MSM (and many on our side of the media spectrum as well) has labeled him as the “social conservative”. I believe that label keeps people from really hearing his valid and dire warnings about the dangers of a nuclear Iran.  Rick Santorum gets Iran.  Whether we vote for this man for President or not, that is something that more Americans need to be paying attention to.

Bachmann was also very solid.  In her home state of Iowa she seemed comfortable, relaxed and she looked fantastic.  Did you know that Bachmann is 55?!  I’ll have what she’s having!  Bachmann doesn’t garner much mainstream favor with her Midwest accent and her Evangelical brand of Christianity, but the woman knows her facts and she is smart.  If voters are looking for a true conservative, she’s one to look at.

Even Perry did well Thursday, looking much more comfortable and even applying a little good natured self-deprecation.  Perry has many other qualities to recommend him to the position of POTUS besides his debating skills.  In our desperation to find a formidable debate opponent to Obama I hope we don’t overlook other important qualities for a good GOP candidate.

Should I mention Huntsman? Ok, fine.  Jon Huntsman was there. He talked.  He said stuff. He talked some more.  I wish he would stop doing that.

As the debate season rolls on and Republican voters duke it out for their favorite candidates, the process becomes more and more frustrating.  People are beginning to express election fatigue already, and are frankly nervous about selecting the right opponent to Obama.  That’s understandable. I share those nerves.  However, Thursday’s debate should be heartening to conservatives.  Oh, the battle still rages, but when the underlying question of a national primary debate is “Who can prove they are the most conservative candidate?”, that is a win for conservatism in general.

 

Diane Sawyer Impressed by Iowa Hicks and Their Book-learnin' : Debate Recap

ABC held yet another Republican debate at Drake University in Iowa Saturday.  Diane Sawyer moderated along with George Steph….. oh you know who he is, don’t make me spell the whole thing.  The GOP field is becoming smaller and it seems to make for a much more interesting debate process.  There was arguing, bickering and even a few jokes.  All the candidates seemed to appreciate the extra time less contenders in the field produced and they all took full advantage.

Cranky Uncle Newt showed up straight from the family Thanksgiving gathering where he spent the whole weekend cranking at cousin Jimmy for being a lazy, slacker, mama’s boy and fussing at Aunt Linda for being 40 years old and still single.  Newt has that air – he’s one of the most intelligent political candidates in modern history but he always sounds like he’s in a bad mood.  Personally I find it charming; some of my favorite relatives are cranky old people.  I don’t know how it washes with the rest of the electorate, however.  Also, there was the issue of Newt’s hair.  His typically well-groomed, silky white mane was looking extra helmet-y on Saturday.  It was strange and distracting for this blogger who is weirdly obsessed with presidential/political manes.  Is Newt auditioning for Galaxy Quest 2?

Newt’s hair aside, the Speaker’s Saurday debate performance was that of a man who know he is surging in the polls and understands the importance of winning in Iowa.  No doubt, Newt would kill Obama (metaphorically, liberals. Don’t get your chemical-free, dye-free panties in a bunch) in a debate, but do Americans want a Debater-in-Chief or something more? Time will tell.

I get tired of saying this about Romney, but he was quite polished, as usual.  Mitt Romney worked very hard to reassure voters that he is not the establishment candidate many conservatives are worried about.  He has a private sector record, didn’t you know?  Oh, yes…Romney worked in the private sector for 25 years.  Also, Romney was a private sector businessman for 25 years.  And don’t forget, for 25 years Mitt Romney worked in the private sector, that’s run privately, and not by government.  As always, Romney was clear and succinct and even got a few good-natured barbs in there.  He continues to lay out a platform for the general elections, should he receive the nomination.

Rick Perry seems much more relaxed in a debate setting where he is afforded more time to answer questions.  Perry is as solid on his positions as the day he announced, but the real question is this: Will Americans be more interested in his actual policy and political platform than his debate performances?

Ron Paul was there and so were many, many, many of his supporters – as usual.  Ron Paul wants to end the Fed.  He wants to end the Fed and American involvement in foreign issues of any kind, forever.  Of all the candidates I think Paul is the most consistent. He never backtracks and never changes his tune.  I may tire of hearing him talk about the Fed, but at least I know Ron Paul hates the Fed.  No one can lie or say otherwise.

Rick Santorum had a good night, but he continues to see less screen time than his opponents and have fewer questions directed toward him.  At this point Santorum is known as the ‘social conservative’ candidate and he seems comfortable with that.  Santorum had many good moments on Saturday night. One came when Diane Sawyer was becoming perturbed that none of the candidates would give a firm number on the amount of jobs they would create in their first term as President.  Santorum basically said its not the President’s job to make promises like that because the President can’t create jobs; private sector citizens create jobs and all the government can do is get out of their way.  I like that answer.  Government doesn’t create anything, Diane! Except red tape; they are good at that.

Michele Bachmann gave a very good performance Saturday as well.  Iowa is her home state and she certainly looks at home when she is campaigning there.  As a former tax lawyer and IRS employee, Bachmann has a very unique position.  She’s been on the inside of our tax code and she knows how devastating it is for working families.  She knows the dangers of Obamacare and Obama’s tax policies in general.  Bachmann is extremely intelligent.  Those Americans that live on the coasts may feel she is dumb because her A’s are flat and she talks like she’s from Iowa. I think those people should stop being such snobs.  Quit listening to her (very American) accent and listen to the content of her words.  Bachmann may have a very slim chance of winning this primary, but she seems more than qualified to be in this race.  Her experience as a midwestern girl on the inside of Washington makes her one of the more genuine candidates, in my opinion.  The Iowa primary will be very telling for Bachmann.  If she does not do well there, its likely her campaign ends.  Bachmann did manage to salute her tea party compatriot, Herman Cain.  As she said, its just not a debate anymore unless someone mentions 9-9-9.  I agree! I missed the Herminator.  I did not miss Jon Huntsman.

Sawyer and George (sorry, I just can’t type that whole name) did a satisfactory job moderating, although Sawyer was very condescending when she opened with a comment to Iowa voters telling them how IMPRESSED she was at how seriously they take their primary process.  Imagine that, Diane! A bunch of mid-west country hicks who don’t shop designer stores or have issues with trans-fats actually like to take part in the political process.  How cute!  Yes, Diane – Iowans vote.  They love to vote. They love America and they care about what happens here.  Shocking news to an East coast elitist, mainstream media diva, I know.

Iowa GOP Debate Recap… Kinda

It has been awhile since I recapped a debate. Mostly because of that pesky drinking rule that came with “9-9-9″, but since it was only invoked two or three times tonight, I am still sober enough to present to my twelve loyal readers a recap of the debate @GaltsGirl style! If you are interested in what people other than myself think about the debate, (unlikely, I know) you can search the twitter timeline for the finally settled on hashtag #IowaDebate or check out @VodkaPundit’s ever entertaining live drunk blog of the whole mess here.

Without further delay, some of my favs from the night:

No Johnson. No Huntsman. #GOP2012

Sawyer says “Jobs in America” like it’s a mythical unicorn… wait…

Paul on Jobs: Know why we have a recession, and yanno…correct and don’t repeat. Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble!

Santorum on jobs: I campaigned EVERYWHERE in Iowa. There are no jobs… I double checked

Romney: See Newt’s big gov’t record. Gingrich and I disagree: like Moon Rocks! Children as slaves! Eat the rich!

Newt Rebuttal to Romney: You lost to Kennedy in ’94. So you had to get a real job. #FACT.

Paul on Newt: Single Payer, TARP support. Freddie Mac (hiiiissssssss) , and how’s that taxpayer dividend working for ya?

Newt to Paul: Heck yeah, I wanna audit the Fed. And yeah… I advised Freddie. It was a J O B. .. now let’s break em up!

Bachmann: Im 55 and a Constitutional Conservative ( nevermind me getting into your bedroom and marriage! )

Bachmann: Newt wanted Obamacare before Obama did. Romney did Obamacare! Newt / Romney are our problem **Kudos here to Bachmann for creating the fastest meme in history

( there was some #debatepillowtalk in my timeline here… also, I think I poured drink #4 about then)

Romney: I’m not Newt! But I play him on the campaign trail!

Romney to Perry: You’re kinda right, except where you aren’t. Obamacare is FAR worse than Romneycare! So there!

Santorum: I’m a leader… just dont check the polls!

Ron Paul: I take my oath(s) very seriously. Seriously enough that I sometimes end up voting by myself. Jerks

Gingrich: Yep, Ive made mistakes, and I go to God for forgiveness. So there. **This was on the fidelity question. Smart play by Newt, because … who is gonna argue with God?

Dear Ron Paul: Mitt Romney just expressed your FP in 30 seconds… please, tell me you took notes! ** To recap here.. I agree’d with Mitt!!! The stance on standing by our allies but not speaking for them was pretty gutsy by Mitt.. even if Paul has been saying it since the wheel was invented.

Romney: I didnt grow up poor, but my Daddy was. So, I am not a witch, I am you!

Romney: “States can do whatever the heck that they want to do.” *** Yes, that is an actual quote. Which rocked.. then he started talking about RomneyCare and I kinda zoned out a little.

And then, somehow, ABC decided that a debate should be a love-fest and tried to make each of the candidates say something nice about the other candidates. Ron Paul got lots of love.. and then Bachmann trotted out the 9-9-9 one final time. It was all really kinda of gross and not informative. I also may have gotten my last drink at some point here.

ABC commentators called Newt as the winner almost immediately. I’m not 100% sure I agree. Santorum did pretty well here ( it is, after all, time for his 15 minutes and I am doing my part) and Romney scored some points with me on his foreign policy statements. Ron Paul got the most applause, as usual. His people where there. Of course!

So that’s it, folks. Only 343,994 more debates to go… or something.

Bachmann and Perry Join Group of "No" for Trump Debate

Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have decided that two days after Christmas they have better things to do than show up for a debate moderated by Donald Trump and produced by disgraced CNN chief Eason Jordan.

Bachmann and Perry join a growing list of candidates that don’t see Trump as a serious political figure and have doubts over his ability to deliver a presidential debate.

Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul had previously declined the invitation to the December 27th event and only Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have accepted.

Remaining to respond to the request is Gary Johnson. So the tens of Americans that will try to find the debate on the fledgling ION network will either be treated to a 90 minute 3-way between Newt, Huntsman and Trump or Gary Johnson will jump into the fray to make it.. a four way?

 

Obama Admits to Affair with Rosie O'Donnell: why you should read more than the headline

What’s in a headline?  In this day and age, a lot.  Internet, smart phones, Twitter, Facebook- all of these world-changing advances have also left us with a shortened attention span.  Web magazines and iPads have begun to replace the traditional forms of print media.  For many, the headline of a story and perhaps the first paragraph is all they will read.  “Headline readers” rarely dig into the meat of an article, let alone take any time to investigate the claims made in the body of the text itself.  Journalists and opinion writers struggle with this phenomenon. A headline should grab a reader’s attention, but should it do so dishonestly?

A friend who despises the “social conservatives” in the GOP primary race sent me a blog post recently.  The title – “Three GOP Candidates Sign Pledge to Investigate LGBT Community” .  How alarming! My friend was making the point that social conservatives are crazy, and here is a blog that has revealed the true depth of their depravity! It was certainly a disturbing headline, but my citizen journalist brain knew better than to trust that.  I read the entire post.  I wanted proof. Here it is, beginning to end:

Get ready for another round of McCarthyism. Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum have all signed a pledge to form a commission to investigate the LGBT community if elected President.

This pledge was created by the National Organization For Marriage, and they have a history of extreme views against homosexuals and anyone who votes to extend marriage rights to them.

The pledge reads as follows.

I, [candidate name], pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will:

[…] establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.

In other words, the extreme right wing is going to persecute homosexuals on a whole new level if they have power after the 2012 Election. Homosexuals and supporters of marriage equality will be intimidated, interrogated, and stripped of their right to speak freely. The religious right wing has been allowed to push their un-American and unconstitutional agenda for far too long. Americans must push back. If we continue to do nothing, we could all be persecuted by this fanatical group. -Stephen D. Foster, Jr.

Mr. Foster’s headline was based on quite a few shoddily built bridges.  Of course this pledge said nothing about investigating homosexuals, throwing them in jail or stealing away gay people in the middle of the night to imprison and torture.  Foster’s first bridge is built on the fact that the pledge was developed by the National Organization for Marriage.  His opinion is that they hate homosexuals because they advocate for traditional marriage.  So it wouldn’t matter what the wording of the pledge was, simply signing it makes you a hate-monger.

Foster’s second bridge to nowhere connecting homophobia to the candidates comes when he takes the phrase “investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed” for their views and opinions to mean homosexuals everywhere will be thrown into dank, dark dungeons never to be heard from again. His language is so alarmist and desperate its laughable.  Is this reporting?  The pledge does advocate the desire to protect the very first amendment rights Mr. Foster so desperately decries will be stripped from the homosexual community.  He may not realize that advocates of traditional marriage have been threatened, had their personal voting and financial records released and have been specifically targeted.  When citizens are specifically targeted and threatened for holding opinions, that is a threat to all Americans.  NOM feels strongly about protecting that right, and that sentiment should be supported by all Americans, regardless of opinion. If Foster was so terrified homosexuals losing their freedom of speech he might rethink this entire piece.

Regardless of Foster’s personal sentiments and the candidate’s own positions on the issue, the point is that his headline was not only misleading and alarmist, it was false.  My bone of contention is not with his opinion but with his false reporting.  Personal opinions of gay marriage notwithstanding, the pledge used no strong language, inappropriate terms or hateful rhetoric. Foster “proves” it is hateful simply by saying so.  He caps his post with a dire warning: “...we could all be persecuted by this fanatical group“.  As a blogger, I find Foster’s  dishonest attempt to garner readership despicable.  If you are going to report, report the facts as they stand.  Give your opinion in the body of the post, of course.  However, don’t lead with a headline that sets up a lie, then use your opinion as proof of that lie.  Its tacky.  Unfortunately, the Stephen Foster’s of this world count on the short attention span of modern Americans. They count on the hope that most readers won’t read beyond the headline, or bother to investigate arbitrary claims made by opinion bloggers.

Why do we hate our candidates so much?

When it comes time for the general elections, we’ll all be moping about and complaining that we only have a choice between the lesser of two evils. Why?

It could be that we focus a large portion of our efforts during the primaries bashing every candidate but the one for which we intend to vote.

Gingrich is too much of a politician, Perry is too stupid, Ron Paul is too crazy, Michele Bachmann is too .. Bachmann-y .. well, you get the point. We don’t seem to be for anyone but instead be against everyone except who we deem to be the least undesirable candidate.

Maybe we need some type of relationship counselling. Between twitter, facebook, everyday conversation and reading political opinion outlets of all sizes and shapes, it’s obvious – we don’t know how to love our candidate.

Our candidates are trying. They’d buy us that dinner, take us to a show – whatever it took to secure our vote. In our vetting process though, we’ve decided that only the negative aspects of their pasts, their debate gaffes and other faults matter. Oddly enough – they’re all human.

Even when someone has chosen a candidate, they tell us why their candidate’s negatives aren’t that bad. That’s not exciting – it’s downright depressing actually.

Perhaps it’s because we haven’t yet really picked our favorite horse in the race. I’m in that court. In the general, I would vote for any of the remaining candidates against our current President and there are still three candidates that I would be happy to vote for in the primaries.

I am intentionally trying to focus on the positive aspects of the candidates as we close in on the January primaries. Can’t we ask “What reasons does this  candidate give me to vote for him or her” instead of stating the reasons we hate the others?

Honestly, when was the last time you went to the refrigerator and picked out something to eat by first finding something you didn’t like about every other item in the fridge?

I have not been sniffing the blessed fart of the Utopian unicorn, but I plan to vote for someone because of what I like about them – not because I hated (almost) everything else about the others.

GOP Candidates Finally Say The Word "Muslim"

For me, this by far has been the best debate. It’s about time the candidates had the courage to say words like “Muslim”, “Islam” , and *GASP* “Jihadist”.

Gingrich and Santorum win as the the most informed regarding the threat of Islam against United States.  Romney gave his usual slick answers, however I’m not convinced that he will do everything he says given his flip flop record. Bachmann, never scared to mix things up, told it like it is. PLUS, she gets major cool points for being willing to say “Jihadist” first. Herman Cain, has a bold plan… And then there is Ron Paul.

I’m not really sure exactly where he stands. Initially, I thought he was a Muslim sympathizer and completely ignorant of the Jihad threat. However, after speaking with a rational Paul supporter, whose opinion I respect, I may possibly take a different stance. I don’t consider myself a Libertarian, but do share their Constitutionalists views. It IS a slippery slope when it comes to singling out a specific ethnic group. Unfortunately, history is not on Muslims side when it comes to the benefit of a doubt. So they get none from me.

I am going to contact Congressman Paul’s office myself and see if I can determine his stance on hardcore and stealth Jihad.

CNN Republican Debate Recap: Debate Fatigue and Box Wine

I have a confession to make.  I was really bored by Tuesday’s Republican debate.  I know, its shocking.  Somebody found a primary debate boring? Quel horreur!  It is my job to comment on such things and I watched it eagerly, but as I was writing my traditional recap I realized that I just wasn’t that excited about what I had seen.  It’s not that the candidates weren’t interesting or capable.  Actually all of them seemed more prepared then they have been in the past. There were no major gaffes or senior moments.  The topic of national security is certainly engaging enough as debates go, but still that wasn’t enough to raise my excitement level.  Everyone did just fine.

Herman Cain is doing his homework, as always.  It’s one of the things I really appreciate about him as a candidate.  He is obviously weak on foreign policy and security issues.  Of course he is; he’s a business man.  He does not have the advantage of being privy to the tidbits of information and exchanges that result from working inside government.  Cain has to develop his foreign policy and domestic security stances just like the rest of us – by studying and employing old-fashioned common sense.  It puts him at a disadvantage, no doubt; but Cain has proven he is up to the challenge and he always seems to go into every debate knowing more than he did the last time.  Cain is what it looks like when a regular, average Joe runs for President.  Some people don’t like that, but I think its kind of neat.

This was the first debate that didn’t turn into the Mitt Romney show.  In fact, Romney probably got less camera time on Tuesday night than he has in any debate so far this year.  It was refreshing.  That being said, he (predictably) made the best use of every second. He was confident and assured in his answers.  Romney said nothing out of line or out of order or out of Romney.  Even his hair was on board. 

Maybe that is my problem with this debate.  It was predictable.  Everyone performed according to their character descriptions in the GOP Primary Field Handbook.  Cain was weak but adequate in his depth of knowledge on the subject.  Ron Paul gave his typical RonPaul-y answers about minding our own business as a nation and if we would just be nice to the terrorists they would stop hating us and leave us alone in peace.  Predictably there were more than a few Ron Paul fans in the audience.  Santorum stayed true to form: feisty, with a touch of whine but bolstered by his strong conservative stance on social and security issues alike.  Jon Huntsman was…there.  His daughters graced CNN with an appearance on the debate pre-show.  They were way more interesting than their father and they seemed like lovely young ladies.  I didn’t care for their lipstick, though.  The shade of red made me suspicious.  Rick Perry was just fine, but I always feel like I’m holding my breath when he speaks.  He seems like a nice man and I hate to see him struggle up there, which he does all too often.  But Tuesday he was fine.

Perhaps the only two people who really interested me in this debate were Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann.  This was Newt’s first debate as a “front-runner” and it remained to be seen how his platform/performance would change in light of that.  It didn’t really change at all which is a good thing, I suppose.  Newt was simply Newt, the smartest (if not crankiest) guy in the room.  Newt knows his stuff…and Newt does not like gotcha questions.  For the most part I believe Wolf Blitzer behaved accordingly.

If anyone “won” that debate it was Michele Bachmann.  Bachmann has a seat on the House Intelligence Committee and she is obviously privy to some very sensitive information.  She knows what she is talking about and when Bachmann speaks on foreign policy, security and Obamacare she sounds more competent than any of her compatriots on the stage.  In fact, it infuriates me to hear people refer to her as an idot, a la Sarah Palin.  I don’t know how you can listen to her speak of the nuances of foreign aid and intelligence and conclude that she is dumb.  You may not care for her social stances or her tea party label, but the woman is wickedly smart and deserves respect for that.  I really feel we need a woman like Bachmann in the House for as long as possible, but if she were our President, I have no doubt she would fight for this country every day she was in office.

In the end, the predictability was my problem.  No one came out with anything new or different.  Everyone pretty much held the line on the stances they have developed throughout this process.  There were no surprises; besides a couple of small differences on withdrawing troops and securing the border the candidates pretty much in line with each other and the Republican outlook on such issues.  Except Ron Paul, of course…but there’s an “except Ron Paul” implied in every line I write about these debates.  I know, ultimately it is a good thing that there were no fireworks.  Its important for the people to see the candidates lay out their positions logically as much as possible.  Its good that they were predictable because it helps us feel confident about how they will behave in the general elections.  But it makes for boring television sometimes.  I admit, debate fatigue is setting in.  There are at least four more debates to go.  I think I’m going to need a bigger box of wine.

 

November 22nd Republican Debate on National Defense [Full Video]

On Tuesday, November 22nd at 8pm EST, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and CNN will present a GOP presidential candidate debate on national security and foreign policy. The twitter hashtag for the debate will be #CNNDebate

Moderators/Panel

To be announced.

Debate Prep

AEI scholars discussions

Who Will Be There

Complete Debate Video:

« Older Entries Recent Entries »