Republican National Security Debate

[fraga]

I think some of these guys done fucked up by actually taking a side on Racial Profiling...the media is gonna have a field day with this...

[Pelicans78]

Thought Ron Paul took a hit with his Timothy McVeigh comment. Newt nailed him on that one.

[fraga]

Santorum has been doubling down on his Radical Muslims...

[Pelicans78]

I think Perry has had his best debate, but that's not saying much. Still not a strong debater.

Paul needs to use his big picture message more when it comes to foreign policy. He hasn't done that yet. Getting involved in narrow points which lets his competition off of the hook.

Newt is towing the party line and doing it calmly. I think he will get a big jump from this debate.

Bachmann does her usual campaigning while making a point. Annoying and cumbersome. Time for her to get out of this race.

Not much from Romney tonight. Didn't do enough to blow the lead yet.

Huntsman is basically a younger Ron Paul.

Cain hasn't done much to impress. His lack of experience shows.

I think Paul will take a hit in the polls unless he finds a way to counteract Newt. That's his big competition for number two.

[4>0rings]

Holy crap if I was Perry I would punch that stupid smirk off of Mit's face everytime Perry talks.

[DJ Mbenga]

its like romney didnt exist for a while. he has really fallen off he didnt get much questions. paul just made his fans happy but thats about it. surprised newt moved away from the right on immigration. maybe this is the 2nd place gaffe that has haunted the past candidates. the tea party side of the party will not stand for that type of language, perry got booed when he tried the same. romney is all in on the right on immigration.

[fraga]

I'm not going anywhere!!!

http://twomadqueens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/michele-bachmann-crazy-003.jpg

[Pelicans78]

I agree with DJ about Paul just appeasing the fan base. I think the Patriot Act part will hurt him more than anything else. Also, he really needs to bring more substance now instead of just his usual Libertarian stuff.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i don't really see what more Paul needs to say. His foreign and monetary policies are pretty straighforward. By voting for Paul you are voting disestablishment about as clear as it can get.

Huge reductions in domestic subsidies, military, foreign, and law enforcement spending. The dissolution of most major federal institutions including the fed, fda, dea, nasa, ss, and medicare.

We know exactly what Paul wants to do. Can you say anything remotely about the other candidates?

[Pelicans78]

i don't really see what more Paul needs to say. His foreign and monetary policies are pretty straighforward. By voting for Paul you are voting disestablishment about as clear as it can get.

Huge reductions in domestic subsidies, military, foreign, and law enforcement spending. The dissolution of most major federal institutions including the fed, fda, dea, nasa, ss, and medicare.

We know exactly what Paul wants to do. Can you say anything remotely about the other candidates?

Rick Perry = GWB. I think he will do basically what his hawkish advisers tell him just like Bush did.

Bachmann. Tows the social conservative party line. Not sure what else she stands for.

Gingrich changes his mind often. Unpredictable.

Cain has no clue. That's what he stands for.

Huntsman is similar to Paul for the most part other than some foreign policy issues.

Romney. I think he's similar to most Republicans now, but probably a better candidate and the one who has the best chance to beat Obama. Still, not sure what he really stands for.

[LnGrrrR]

i don't really see what more Paul needs to say. His foreign and monetary policies are pretty straighforward. By voting for Paul you are voting disestablishment about as clear as it can get.

Huge reductions in domestic subsidies, military, foreign, and law enforcement spending. The dissolution of most major federal institutions including the fed, fda, dea, nasa, ss, and medicare.

We know exactly what Paul wants to do. Can you say anything remotely about the other candidates?

Here's what I don't get... why do conservatives think Ron Paul is crazy? He's for reducing the debt, and he's for doing that by gutting numerous government institutions. What don't think like about him?

[LnGrrrR]

Romney's for whatever you're paying him to be for today.

[ElNono]

Here's what I don't get... why do conservatives think Ron Paul is crazy? He's for reducing the debt, and he's for doing that by gutting numerous government institutions. What don't think like about him?

That he'll probably try to tear down Medicare, SS and the Military. Obviously, it will never happen with Congress in his way. But let's be frank here, when it comes to cutting spending, the GOP is just as averse to touch those programs as much as the Dems.

[baseline bum]

That he'll probably try to tear down Medicare, SS and the Military. Obviously, it will never happen with Congress in his way. But let's be frank here, when it comes to cutting spending, the GOP is just as averse to touch those programs as much as the Dems.

Huh? The GOP loves the idea of taking down Medicare, as long as it doesn't touch the baby boomers.

[ElNono]

Huh? The GOP loves the idea of taking down Medicare, as long as it doesn't touch the baby boomers.

There's always a "but". Which is the reason they're all talk but no walk when it comes to voting. I also think Paul is simply for completely getting rid of it, no exceptions.

[baseline bum]

The Ryan plan passed the house by a huge margin.

[ElNono]

The Ryan plan passed the house by a huge margin.

Well aware it wouldn't pass the senate.

Here's the problem:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265169/gops-poll-problems-andrew-stiles

I thought WH posted a similar poll not that long ago.

[baseline bum]

Well aware it wouldn't pass the senate.

Here's the problem:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265169/gops-poll-problems-andrew-stiles

I thought WH posted a similar poll not that long ago.

What the people want doesn't matter an ounce in this country.

[ElNono]

What the people want doesn't matter an ounce in this country.

That I agree with :lol

But back to the point, Paul scares people on the right as much as anywhere else in the political spectrum.

[JoeChalupa]

Huntsman won the debate last night, IMO. Newt's stance on immigration isn't going to go over well with conservatives. Bachman did well and put Perry in his place. Cain is lost and will soon be forgotten and the Secret Service can protect a legitimate candidate. Paul was libertarian all the way. Perry didn't make up any ground. Santorum was almost forgotten.

[Winehole23]

Well aware it wouldn't pass the senate.

Here's the problem:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265169/gops-poll-problems-andrew-stiles


It certainly is a myth that Republicans lost in 2006 or 2008 because they were too big government, but small-government ideology, which was neither preached nor practiced then, can hardly be blamed either. Lest Ponnuru forget, the doomed Republican Congress in 2006 staked its re-election on a bundle of legislative nonsense called the “American Values Agenda (http://articles.cnn.com/2006-06-28/politics/mg.thu_1_marriage-amendment-items-expression-of-religion-act?_s=PM:POLITICS),” which included attacks on online gambling and homeowners’ associations that limited displays of American flags. The GOP wanted a replay of 2004 — dupe the evangelicals and values voters (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/republicans-and-christians-a-marriage-of-convenience/) into supporting the party of war and Wall Street.


The truth that hardly gets spoken is that certain Republican pundits who consider themselves social conservatives have a vision for this country that amounts to a hybrid of European-style Christian Democracy and Chilean semi-privatization of the welfare state, along with a values-hyping foreign policy delegated to outright neoconservatives and a managerial-therapeutic approach to the poor. The Bush administration, especially in its first term, was the closest these pundits ever came to getting what they want. And it was a strategic, fiscal, and moral disaster for the country.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2011/11/22/rameshs-right-wing-social-democrats/

[boutons_deux]

The Ryan plan passed the house by a huge margin.

aka, Repugs' polling problem. Killing Medicare and/or SS to hand their $Ts to for-profit scammers is extremely unpopular.

[Winehole23]

...even with self-styled conservatives.

[Agloco]

Herman Cain's performance in a nutshell:

















Perfect summary IMO.

Perry strikes me as a Bush clone. As someone else said, he will do whatever is handlers tell him to. Scary. Romney still comes across that "The guy I'll vote for if there's no other clear leader.". Paul is a bit too honest for most peoples tastes. I think his message is a bit too edgy as well. I like most of his points tbh. Bachmann? lol

Newt has the inside track I think. I do think he will blow it though, much like I knew Cain would eventually. If he can avoid too many "WTF" moments, he might have a shot.

[hater]

I saw a few minutes and read the summaries:
- papa newt - acts like he don't give a fuck, so sure of himself. did pretty good except amnesty shit won't fly with tea baggers - B
- Mitt - his head shakes like he got parkinsons when someone is bitchlapping him. and he got bitchslapped by Hunstman in a big way. Why does he look at Perry with a shitty smirk everytime Perry talks? Perry needs to deck that niga - C
- Hunstman - doesnt get his due because he is not as radical. best performance yet. B
- Perry - He is like the dog that everyone kicks and laughs at. sad. D
- Paul - the most black and white guy out there. never backtracks, never fails to answer the question - B
- Santorum - angry radical nutbag. which means he'll win points with tea baggers - C+
- bachman - angry radical nutbitch. extra nut this night which will boost her base. - C+

I heard the pizza delivery man was present last nite but I did not see proof.

[Winehole23]

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann serves on the House Intelligence Committee, so her comments on Pakistan’s nuclear program represent either a news-making leak of previously unknown classified information or another in her recent series of seemingly-random, and highly inaccurate, public comments. During the CNN debate, Bachmann said that 15 Pakistani nuclear sites were vulnerable to jihadist attacks, and that six of the sites had previously come under some form of Islamist attack. U.S. intelligence and military officials believe that Pakistan has 15 nuclear sites, but no U.S. official has publicly said that all of the sites were vulnerable to militant attack or confirmed that any of them had previously come under any form of jihadist attack.http://www.nationaljournal.com/fact-check-how-serious-is-the-threat-to-pakistan-s-nuclear-program--20111122

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Herman Cain's performance in a nutshell:














Perfect summary IMO.

Perry strikes me as a Bush clone. As someone else said, he will do whatever is handlers tell him to. Scary. Romney still comes across that "The guy I'll vote for if there's no other clear leader.". Paul is a bit too honest for most peoples tastes. I think his message is a bit too edgy as well. I like most of his points tbh. Bachmann? lol

Newt has the inside track I think. I do think he will blow it though, much like I knew Cain would eventually. If he can avoid too many "WTF" moments, he might have a shot.


Newt Gingrich symbolizes political greed in my book. just looking at his track record during the early 1990s should be enough. He was constantly being brought up on ethics charges because he was constantly trying to implement the spoils system in the House. Him in the WH....

[Winehole23]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/fact-check-how-serious-is-the-threat-to-pakistan-s-nuclear-program--20111122


So the most logical explanation is that her staffers prepped her for the debate using language taken directly from the Goldberg/Ambinder article, whether or not she had been briefed on the threat to Pakistan’s nukes originally.


All that said, such an obvious explanation begs the question of why Ambinder’s colleague, Yochi Dreazen, had this to say (http://www.nationaljournal.com/fact-check-how-serious-is-the-threat-to-pakistan-s-nuclear-program--20111122) in a fact check of Bachmann’s comment.

During the CNN debate, Bachmann said that 15 Pakistani nuclear sites were vulnerable to jihadist attacks, and that six of the sites had previously come under some form of Islamist attack. U.S. intelligence and military officials believe that Pakistan has 15 nuclear sites, but no U.S. official has publicly said that all of the sites were vulnerable to militant attack or confirmed that any of them had previously come under any form of jihadist attack.
Sure, no US official has publicly said that all the sites are vulnerable or that 6 had come under attack. But the National Journal (in partnership with the Atlantic) has said it, presumably based on the anonymous leaking of at least one US official. And why suggest Bachmann’s statement was inaccurate when NJ itself had first published the information?


Taking the NJ’s comments together, we ought to assume Bachmann’s comment was, generally, accurate, but the NJ doesn’t want to take responsibility for having published what Bachmann has now magnified by using it as a debate zinger.
http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/11/23/michelle-bachmanns-nuclear-theft/#more-23214