-
Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks
June 18, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Do Beyonce & Jay-Z Understand The “Complexities” of Syria?
June 18, 2013 | 2 comments
-
What’s So Moderate About Iran’s New President?
June 15, 2013 | 9 comments
-
When Did The Obama Admin Know Syria Was Using Chemical Weapons?
June 14, 2013 | 15 comments
-
If Erdogan’s Hold On Power is Threatened
June 13, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Here is my candidate by candidate breakdown of tonight’s Tea Party Express Debate in Tampa Bay.
Rick Perry - Aside from his earlier exchange with Romney on the Texas economy (and to a lesser extent his comments on the Federal Reserve), Perry did not acquit himself well not only on the HPV vaccine but on the question of providing instate tuition to illegal immigrants which drew heavy jeering. He seemed unsure of himself and on the defensive. I don’t know if I would count him out but he’s definitely knocked down a few pegs.
Mitt Romney - Aside from his earlier exchange with Perry on the Texas economy, Romney acquitted himself well. I don’t think Romney necessarily won anyone over with his latest explanation of Romney Care but he didn’t hurt himself either. I also liked the fact he said he would bring a bust of Winston Churchill back to the White House. If Perry’s numbers drop because of this debate then look for Romney to be the chief beneficiary.
Michele Bachmann - She had a feisty exchange with Perry over the HPV vaccine and spoke passionately about repealing Obamacare. I’m not sure if this will result in a bump in her poll numbers.
Rick Santorum - The reason I say Bachmann might not get a bump is because Santorum had a very good night. Whether he was talking about Social Security, going toe to toe with Perry on the HPV vaccine and tearing into Ron Paul over blaming America the September 11th attacks he was a force in the debate. I think Santorum will get a second look.
Ron Paul - He deservedly drew derision from the audience when he essentially became an apologist for al Qaeda. Since when do we let jihadists dictate our foreign policy? Anyone who makes excuses for our enemies is not fit to be President of the United States.
Herman Cain - I think this was his best showing in any of the debates. He presented constructive ideas and did so without criticizing any of the other candidates. Of course, this might not help his poll numbers. But I think he made a really positive impression.
Jon Huntsman - He was constantly sniping at Perry and Romney. It came across as snarky. I mean even Perry managed to get some sympathy when Huntsman said that the Texas Governor had made a “treasonous comment” when he said he couldn’t secure the entire Mexican border with a fence. I also think Huntsman is the first person in human history to have ever likened Mitt Romney to Kurt Cobain. Aside from drawing applause for stating he would bring the troops home from Afghanistan, Huntsman did little to help his cause.
Newt Gingrich - He had his moments like when he said that President Obama was scaring people on a daily basis and when he placed scrutiny on GE after Blitzer tried to focus his attention on the oil companies. I also noticed that Santorum seemed particularly friendly towards him. But I don’t think these moments are enough to improve his fortunes.
In the final analysis, the biggest winners in the debate were Romney closely followed by Santorum and Cain. Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman were the biggest losers. Paul and Gingrich haven’t demonstrated the viability of their campaign while the jury is still out on Michele Bachmann. But a week in politics is a lifetime, never mind ten days when they converge again in Orlando.
View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/12/cnn-tea-party-express-debate-p
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Nite| 9.12.11 @ 10:58PM
Perry said that on the HPV vaccine, he should have gone to the Legislature instead of executive order. The parents all had an opt out as they do with all vaccines in TX. The Legislature did not pass it and the parents didn't like it so it was dropped. Bachman and Santorium got loud and shrill just as if Perry had not made a statement. They obviously thought they would get traction on this issue for their flagging campaigns. I don't think Perry did not bad. On the so called Dream Act. The TX passed it with only 4 no votes. Perry could either meet the will or the Legislature or veto it for his will alone. Governor Perry for the most part meets the will of the Legislature.
Sean| 9.13.11 @ 12:07AM
Most parents do not know of the opt out and the government makes it difficult for them to do so.
Mike| 9.12.11 @ 11:08PM
Bachman was a shrill - Merck is the only company that made the vaccine at the time. No one was force to get the shots. No little girls were tied down and stabbed with a needle. When people look you in the eye and tell you that they made a mistake and why they made the choice they did - do you then scream at them for ten minutes and not listen to the explanation. No votes here for the backbencher Bachman.
RJ| 9.13.11 @ 1:22AM
I saw it the same way. Bachmann hurt herself in my book.
Austin| 9.12.11 @ 11:15PM
Why are people booing the truth??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....ks#Motives
Ignorance is despicable.
Simon Templar| 9.12.11 @ 11:34PM
They are booing the "truth" because they are smart enough to not believe the propaganda of crazy people who drive planes with innocent people on them into buildings where other innocent people work.
Perhaps we should have accepted the reasons and motives that Hitler and the Nazi's had for attacking us and Europe.
Maybe they are also smart enough to figure out that they were attacking us when we had no troops on their soil and well before Israel even existed.
Ken is right again, you can not fix stupid.
Willful ignorance is worse.
Red Phillips | 9.13.11 @ 12:04AM
Simon, you and others like you can't see logic because you are blinded by your emotion. The purpose of terrorism BY DEFINITION is to influence policy by means of terror because you lack the means to do so by regular tactics. Why on earth then would they lie to us about what policy it is they want changed? To what end? That makes no sense at all. That they are upset about our foreign policy is simply not deniable by reasonable people. You can argue that our foreign policy is essential and should be continued DESPITE THE FACT that it engenders anger, but you can't reasonably deny that it is a factor. To do so is either ignorant or demagoguery.
Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 1:33AM
"Why on earth then would they lie to us about what policy it is they want changed? To what end? That makes no sense at all."
You can not really believe the ILLOGICAL drivel you just wrote? Did you watch the news tonight?
What were they shouting in London as they were burning the American flag. Down with freedom! Down with Democracy! You will pay USA!
You know I think I would rather debate troll DRED, at least he has a toehold in reality and at least he has a coherent although incorrect view on reality. Reasonable people do not make idiotic statements like you just wrote and claim it is logical.
One of the basics for sound mental health is accepting and living by the notion that you are not responsible for other people's behavior, actions, and emotions and you can only be responsible for your own. You talk like a codependent enabler.
People who strap bombs on their children and then send them out to kill other children and go around telling other people they worship death over life are not people that hold too much credibilty in the area of rational thought, integrity, honesty, or sanity. I tend to not pay to much attention to their supposed motivations and their propaganda. Nor do I put much stock in people that call for the genocide of a whole people. You can not deny that whatever foreign policy we had they would still hate us and seek to dominate or destroy us.
Ignorant or demagoguery. Exactly describes you. And that is being kind. You make no sense at all.
Sean| 9.13.11 @ 1:50AM
We really wouldn't be much of a target. Most of these threats can be solved simply by not allowing immigration or visas from extremist countries and protecting our borders. No need to go around the global fighting against two bit dictators.
Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:20AM
Simon's NeoCon Faux Conservative Party Line IS That All Of Us Great Unwashed ,Who Don't Agree With His Pseudo-Intellect Elitist Agenda Are Stupidly Crazed Riff Raff.
" Michael Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”
Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement."
Red Phillips | 9.13.11 @ 12:11PM
Simon, you are thinking with your emotions, not with your intellect. I'm trying to help you out here so you don't say something completely foolish, so you should take what I'm giving you.
That our policies are at least part of what motivates the terrorists is simply not a debatable issue. They are. This is akin to asserting that grass is green. It is an obviously, indisputably true statement. Please don't tell me you disagree with it, or go ahead and do and completely discredit yourself.
You can argue that our policies are not alone a sufficient cause of 9/11 and other acts of terror and that the terrorism is also the result of the context of Islam and a particular Middle East history, and I would even agree with that although I would likely identify the mix differently than you. But that is a different thing from asserting that our policies have nothing at all to do with it.
The purpose of terrorism, by definition, is to achieve a goal. If it is not to achieve a goal then it is just violence. OBL was clear about what his goal was. To get us out of SA and to disengage us from Israel. Now he might have had broader goals or motivations- the destruction of the US, the establishment of a Caliphate, Western degeneracy or whatever - but he had an immediate impact he wanted to make on our policy. Why would he lie about what he wanted? That doesn't make any sense. It is not in the best interest of achieving his goals for him to do so. Likewise, the Palestinian suicide bombers you mention have an obvious impact they would like to make on Israeli policy. This is just common sense.
In the past, we had a terrorism problem with Puerto Rican nationalists whose goal was independence for Puerto Rico. Were they lying about that? Did they actually have some secret goal other than independence that they weren't telling us? That is just silly. It would defeat the purpose of terrorism.
What I suspect you believe is that our foreign policy is necessary and good and should continue in spite of the fact that it engenders hostility. That's fine. I disagree. I think our foreign policy harms us, and I think assigning to America some special burden for world stability is an essentially leftist ideological imposition. But we can have that debate. But you simply can't argue that our policies have nothing to do with it. You are reacting emotionally when you hear that because you believe what I wrote above, not because it isn't true.
Cris Worth| 9.12.11 @ 11:16PM
I haven't chimed into this blog in a long time. So debating time has begun and when you debate in the age of television facial expressions tell all. Romney, unfortunately had command in this debate. Romneycare is an abysmal policy that threatens personal freedom and drives up cost of medical care. But Romney effectively defended his policy and didn't concede one lick. Perry on the other hand became discombobulated over a vaccine and disintegrated over illegal immigration. The Republican Party/Tea Party won't permit another presidential candidate like W and McCain who suck up to Hispanics. He’s on the right track concerning Social Security and has shown guts in defending his viewpoint but the vaccine debacle started the avalanche and illegal immigration has ended his campaign. The pain in Perry’s face told the story. He knows he’s beat.
Simon Templar| 9.12.11 @ 11:26PM
Post mortem. That is a good name for it.
Because all the leading candidates were wounded badly and were played very well by Wolfy Blister. The idea was to inflict as much damage on the frontrunner and diminish the rest. Mission accomplished.
Gingrich and Cain were the only ones that stayed above the fray, did not take the bait, acted like statesmen, communicated their ideas well, and did not get played.
Couple more of these 'great historical debates' moderated by the opposition and Obamy will sail right back into office...nice and smoothly.
If you think I am being too pessimistic, let's see where the polls are in the next 6 days with the candidates stacked against Obama Hussein.
Take any bets?
Aloysius| 9.12.11 @ 11:48PM
Re candidate Paul, is it really the case that a critique of US foreign policy is an apologia for our enemies? Is Paul really alone in giving this sort of critique? Do you remember candidate Bush? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc
Simon Templar| 9.13.11 @ 1:42AM
Now that is convenient, you forgot the rest of Ronnie Pauls remarks. You know the part where the audience in unison booed him. He should have shut up while he was ahead and not have blurted out his real thoughts on the matter and the real basis of his foreign policy positions.
C Bowen | 9.13.11 @ 6:50AM
Simon;
Weren't you just saying you were scared of Saddam?
Are you really fit to be making comments on foreign policy?
Red Phillips | 9.13.11 @ 12:07AM
"Since when do we let jihadists dictate our foreign policy?"
We should change our foreign policy because our current foreign policy of interventionism and meddling is not in our best interest.
Sean| 9.13.11 @ 12:09AM
Santorum believes they hate us for our freedoms.
Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:26AM
Our United States Warriors Are Not To Be Used, As Cannon Fodder, To Forcefeed Democracy Around The Globe And Police The World.
Notice, How Candidates Want Us Out Of Afghanistan. Lybia,Etc.
And The Candidates Are Catching Up & Parroting Dr.Ron Paul On Social Security & The FED Too.After Dr.Paul Has Spoken About These Issues For Years.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Jim| 9.13.11 @ 2:25AM
Re: the debate between 'Simon Templar' and 'Austin'-
No, we shouldn't let jihadists dictate our foreign policy, though that's a straw man argument.
Rick Santorum's assertion that 'they hate us for being teh awesome' is just as silly, and almost childish.
I'm not saying that we should shrink from foreign responsibilities, but let's not ignore the fact that there is such a concept as blow-back, as a result of, say, occupying foreign lands (Ron Paul, though usually kooky, was right with his 'What if' analogy. What we would do if a foreign power, decided to install permanent military bases on our lands? Let's be honest about that, instead of clinging to comic-book fantasies about the world that we tell ourselves.
Aloysius| 9.13.11 @ 1:01PM
Just so. Ron Paul does seem believe that, in a sense, America is partly culpable for the attacks of 9/11. At one point I too found this repugnant, but I have now come to agree with him. To oversimplify the matter, we were not attacked "for our freedoms." We were attacked in response to our military and political interference in the affairs of Middle Eastern nations over many decades. Consider how many regimes we have almost singlehandedly toppled in that region (often by going back on commitments we had made to those regimes — i.e., breaking our word and betraying alliances we had made); consider how many bombs we have dropped and how many non-combatant civilians we have killed in the last fifty years; consider how our policies have had the effect of devastating the Christian community throughout the Middle East. By what standards can this be called "just war"? Can we really imagine that the living and holy God is apathetic about, let alone on the side of, such things? Yes, the terrorists were radicals and criminals. They attacked us and it was right and necessary to retaliate and defend our own citizens. But this does not justify our own sins. Nor does refusing to repent but rather perpetuating our own sins make for a true solution. By speaking of "blow-back", Paul seems to hope to expose the fact that if our foreign policy wasn’t so imperialistic in practice these attacks would not have happened. He seems to hope to call us back to a truly conservative, constitutional, non-Wilsonian foreign policy. At least, that's what this Republican hopes for.
aware| 9.13.11 @ 6:26AM
Why watch a debate? Everyone has a record for all to see. Many here are too partisan to accept this. The "front runners" are making excuses and claiming "they would do it differently" next time around. What does this tell you? It tells me they will say(and have) anything to be elected. It also says the bane of the last century, the professional politician, is alive and well. Debates(what a joke!) are just a way of distracting you from the ugly reality while you look for "gotcha" moments.
By next year the only thing that will matter is the economy, excepting false flags(and don't underestimate this). The "front runners" accept State run, centrally planned economic madness, they only want to "manage" things differently. This does not alter the dire straits we are in. We are being buried by a sacred cow stampede, as seen even here with the "fix Social Security" mirage. Or the ever popular "waste, fraud, and abuse" crap. If you ended these you would end government itself.
The real fixes will be very unpopular(see Greece for a primer) and nobody gets elected being unpopular. The winner will be the one who continues the bread and circuses while promising to make them "sustainable". In other words, a can kicker. 60 years of can kickers has us pretty far down the road to serfdom.
It's not morning in America anymore, its twilight and a very dark and stormy night is ahead of us. It will take more than flag waving and emotional nostalgia to see us through. Entitlements must be cut and eliminated. Same with military commitments. But both sides of the false Left/Right dichotomy are firmly against this, so it will proceed to the final act of this drama. What comes after nobody can tell.
LiveFreeOrDie| 9.13.11 @ 11:16AM
I'd like to see Herman Cain get more traction in his campaign. Perry is not electable (my opinion) even though he seems to be the favorite around here.