-
Elijah Harper, R.I.P.
May 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
That’s a Lot of Caca in Caracas
May 16, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Canadian PM: Keystone XL Pipeline “Absolutely Needs To Go Ahead.”
May 16, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Has Obama Done Sufficient Damage Control With The IRS?
May 15, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Liberals Surprisingly Re-Elected in British Columbia
May 15, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Tonight, I watched the CNN-AEI-Heritage Foundation GOP Debate and here is my evaluation of each candidate.
Jon Huntsman - This was probably his best debate. He had a strong exchange with Mitt Romney over troop levels in Afghanistan. Huntsman also made a salient point when he said that sanctions against Iran wouldn’t work as long as China and Russia weren’t going to play ball. However, he spent much of this time talking about domestic affairs in a foreign policy debate. Huntsman has New Hampshire on his mind.
Michele Bachmann - She continued her polite disagreement with Rick Perry over our relations with Pakistan and also had an interesting exchange with Newt Gingrich on immigration. Bachmann also took President Obama to task for giving Iran “the luxury of time” in developing a nuclear weapon. Although she acquitted herself well I don’t think she gains much from this debate. However, I think she will be guns ablazing in the next televised GOP debate in Iowa next month.
Newt Gingrich - He had an exchange with Ron Paul over the Patriot Act at the outset of the debate. But for the most part he maintained his posture of remaining above the fray. He could have been in a vulnerable position when the discussion turned to illegal immigration. When Gingrich argued in favor of allowing illegal immigrants who had been in the country for 25 years who had committed no other crime and belonged to a church instead of pulling a Perry and criticizing his rivals for having no heart, he made the case it would be a pro-family immigration policy which drew strong applause. It was a very deft reply.
Herman Cain - Unfortunately, I don’t think he did anything to change the perception that foreign policy isn’t his strong suit. When he was asked a question about Rick Perry’s proposal for a no-fly zone in Syria, Cain ended his answer by saying how “we need to grow our economy.”
Mitt Romney - This was a so-so debate for Romney. He spoke in platitudes and seemed to be going through the motions.
Rick Perry - It was his second straight good debate. For a moment there, I thought he was going to get into it with Romney over immigration but in his better judgment refrained from doing so.
Ron Paul - Although I have been critical of his foreign policy, this was by far Paul’s best debate. Usually when it comes to foreign policy, Paul will say something that draws jeers from the debate audience. That didn’t happen this time. He held his own with both Gingrich and Romney and advanced his case. If anyone benefits from this debate, it is Paul.
Rick Santorum - A solid, snark-free debate performance. He’ll need one next month in Iowa.
Speaking of which, the next televised GOP debate takes place on December 10th at Drake University in Des Moines. It will air on ABC at 9 p.m. EST.
View all comments (25) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/22/cnn-aei-heritage-foundation-go
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 11:35PM
A good honest job of reporting Mr. Goldstein. Maybe their is hope for you yet.
Jack in Wi| 11.23.11 @ 11:51AM
I take it back Arron.
After your latest rant you should just go and hide You will never be anything close to an objective reporter.
Mike Rogers | 11.23.11 @ 3:33PM
Aha! A liberal Paulbot troll!
Honest reporting is fine as long as it's not goring your ox. Hmmm.
Interested Conservative| 11.22.11 @ 11:39PM
I have a completely serious question - why is Gov. Huntsman still in these debates? Other than MSM wanting him hanging around, what does he bring? All the others have at least one, if not more criteria - polls, money, unique or persistent support.
What distinguishes Huntsman from Johnson, Roemer, even McCotter (I understand he dropped, but still).
It's not a preference issue. Huntsman seems very capable and so on, but if simply declaring is a criteria, any number of others would want to make an debate appearance or two.
I just don't see the rationale.
Dan| 11.23.11 @ 7:57AM
Huntsman has something of a blood feud going on with Romney, the origins of which, back in the day, remain quite murky.
Good looking wife though, good looking daughters too.
Brendan| 11.22.11 @ 11:43PM
My wife loves him. Luckily, she is eastern european and hasn't decided to get her citizenship yet (its hard for her, since she was a diplomat). She thinks Newt is evil, and gets disgusted when I say, "Newt completes me!" She says I am evil too.
But of course!
Mimi| 11.23.11 @ 12:06AM
I have watched all the debates...I have got to say in every one our guys got better than ever each time.
This night showed absolute excellence by all of them. I could not help thinking the Country will be in good hands if the GOP can win in 2012. I could see America in great hands, and maybe a place for all in that administration
Obama looks like 3rd grade against our crew of PHD'S just to compare the depth of distance between their knowledge, Patriotic committment, maturity, leadership and volumus of IDEAS and willingness to ..."SERVE" this nation, its people and not politics....Also their seeming ability to put themselves last...knowing the country is floundering and problems complex.
We have some remarkable talent and they are appreciated for what they do!!
RJ| 11.23.11 @ 12:44AM
I think the GOP found an excellent debate format - let CNN et. al. broadcast the debates but have the questions asked by conservative, or at least objective, activists and policy experts. It was great to see people like Ed Meese ask questions that we care about rather than media "gotcha" questions.
Clint| 11.23.11 @ 6:09AM
" The New Hampshire Gazette
The Chickenhawk Hall of Shame
name:
Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
June 17, 1943
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
preferred activity:
Attending grad school
occupation:
Congressman
A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn't want to get too close "
Dan| 11.23.11 @ 8:03AM
Well, if only those who fully and entirely upheld the Decalogue in all respects were entitled to open their mouth about it, - there wouldn't be many people able to speak about it, now would there?
That a sinful man should speak publicly about the virtues of morality doesn't immediately disqualify him from high office.
Nor does Newt's non-service during Vietnam.
GW maneuvered himself into the Texas Air National Guard, {though there are reports that he subsequently volunteered for duty in 'Nam}.
And what of Cheney? Did you excoriate Cheney as you just have Gingrich?
And what of Cain?
You just repeated the accusation against Gingrich that Lawrence O'Donnell launched against Cain!
And where was Romney by the by?
Regardless, none of our candidates has been a devotee of "the down low," like the Democrat standard bearer has been.
Clint| 11.23.11 @ 9:07AM
The New Hampshire Gazette
The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame
name:
Willard Mitt Romney
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
March 12, 1947
home state:
Michigan
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
excuse:
None to speak of
preferred activity:
Trying to talk people into becoming Mormons
occupation:
Climbing ambition's greased pole
When your daddy's a Governor and a Cabinet Secretary, it's amazing how your odds of being drafted diminish
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.23.11 @ 7:01AM
The candidates all looked good even when looking bad. Why? They share American ideals. Huntsman is a liberal at heart but even he looked decent. By comparison the Democratic leaders (Think Fifth Column) who appear on MSM now look whiny and recalcitrant.
As soon as the MSM figures this out they will come up with some angle to try to trash future Republican debates.
Solo| 11.23.11 @ 8:16AM
I agree with others up-thread who offer that all of the candidates looked good, or at least better, than the current occupant of the White House.
Regarding the format of the debate;
Yes, this format played a large part in allowing the republican contenders showcase their knowledge and address the questions that republican voters find interesting.
You can bet your last dollar that CNN will never allow THAT to happen again!
Red Phillips | 11.23.11 @ 8:25AM
Aaron, while I appreciate the fair assessment of the debate, using emotion laden terms like "submissive" to characterize non-interventionism is not being critical, it is rhetorical bomb throwing. Why can't the merits of interventionism vs. non-interventionism be argued on their merits without all the hysterics?
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.23.11 @ 1:28PM
Maybe it's because Paul's foreign policy is isolationism, masked as "noninterventionism", coupled with unilateral disarmament and appeasement of America's enemies?
Paul's loony policy of isolationism is a fringe policy not acceptable to us mainstream conservatives.
PS: Has no one sectioned you, moron?
Red Phillips | 11.23.11 @ 2:14PM
ZM, that non-interventionism is not "acceptable" to "mainstream conservatives" is testimony to the fact that what constitutes mainstream "conservatism" these days is not really conservative. As I have pointed out over and over, American style interventionism is a radical Jacobin like position. It is not conservative in any way shape or form. Starting from philosophical first principles this is not a debatable point. Many interventionists blow hards flaunt their radical Jacobinism but are too ignorant to understand that by so doing they are establishing that they are NOT conservatives.
"Has no one sectioned you?"
I have no idea what that means? Sectioned me?
Paul Bot| 11.23.11 @ 4:04PM
"...using emotion laden terms like "submissive" to characterize non-interventionism is not being critical, it is rhetorical bomb throwing."
"Many interventionists blow hards flaunt their radical Jacobinism but are too ignorant to understand that by so doing they are establishing that they are NOT conservatives."
Lets not do any of that rhetorical bomb throwing. Red, you have some Obama-like qualities that are not endearing. What a submissive twit!
Red Phillips | 11.24.11 @ 1:54AM
"Submissive" is an emotion laden-term intended to push buttons and belittle.
Jacobin is a specific term with a specific history and meaning and assumes a certain amount of education on the part of the person being so charged. It is certainly not the same thing as calling someone loony or a nut or wacko or whatever. The way to respond to the charge of Jacobinism is to try to demonstrate why what you believe is not Jacobin like. Well have at it. (That's a challenge - not something submissive people do.)
Solo| 11.23.11 @ 6:12PM
What a steaming pile of crap, Red!
Your attempt to imprint your own isolationist tendencies onto conservatism's "first principles" is either an attempt at blatant deception or rank ignorance.
You PaulBots simply cannot lay claim to sole possession of the Mantle of conservatism.
All you can claim is a radical sub-set of "conservative" principles completely detached from historical evidence or contemporary Geopolitical realities.
No! Conservatism, as it relates to foreign policy, is about seeing the world as it is. Not as we might prefer it to be.
Sometimes, under some circumstances, it is best to remain neutral and to not act.
Under other circumstances, it is in our best interest to proactively "intervene" on our own behalf. Even if that means leaving our own shores (Heaven forefend!).
It has always been so, as it is today and as it always will be. Hunkering down in our "Bunker America" will not "make the world go away".
Red Phillips | 11.24.11 @ 1:42AM
Solo, you and your fellow interventionists don't see the world as it is. You exaggerate threats because it is ideologically necessary for you to have them. You warn that Russia is on the rise again, yet they have only one aircraft carrier and are, sadly, demographically imploding. You warn of the growing Chinese military menace yet they too only have one aircraft carrier, and it is brand new. I can't tell you how many times I have been told that we will all be bowing to Mecca unless we fight the Muslims "over there." This is farcical on its face. As I said before, we could easily repel any Muslim invasion with an average Fall Saturday allotment of deer hunters.
Your vision has nothing to do with actually defending this country. Your intent is for America to continue in its role as world hegemon and ideology enforcer.
This is why American interventionism is fundamentally Jacobin. You don't see your country as a country like all others. You, like your French Revolutionary (and Soviet) comrades, see your country in ideological terms with a burden to bring enlightenment to the rest of the world.
The ball is now in your court Robespierre. How then is what you advocate not Jacobin?
Izee Aneeokhan | 11.23.11 @ 9:04AM
Firstly, thank you for a nuance of objectivity in this article. Secondly, would you still have problems with Paul's foreign policy if it didn't involve Israel and Iran?
North Korea allegedly has nuclear weapons and they have threatened the destruction of America directly. You seem to have forgotten about that and have no qualms about it. Iran has zero nuclear weapons, you see how your logic is faulty?
http://www.spacewar.com/report.....he_US.html
Dr. Paul clearly defeated your poorly laid out thesis of him being "submissive". How submissive is it to look the American public in the eye and boldly state that "Israel can take care of themselves?"
Dai Alanye | 11.23.11 @ 11:46AM
How bold is it to ---...boldly state that "Israel can take care of themselves?"---
Ron Paul is "bold" when he declines to defend a useful ally? If that's a standard to uphold, perhaps America should have "boldly" declined to fight Naziism in '42. Perhaps we should have "boldly" refused to defend South Korea in '50.
This all goes back to Vietnam, doesn't it? Back when Ron Paul "boldly" refused to move to Sweden when inducted into the Air Force, and was forced to participate in a war of liberation Democrats managed (or mismanaged) to lose.
Clint| 11.23.11 @ 2:32PM
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
The Tea Party Steps On The Israel Firster Propaganda Squad.
martin j smith| 11.23.11 @ 10:50AM
Maybe Ron Paul understands that saying certain things will be costly in an election so he may have elected not to say these things. But thena again, who is Ron Paul: Which One is the "real Ron Paul" and I would say the same for every candidate. Hiding your real positions because they might cost you politically is exactly why we have a problem now. Its time to end the BS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clint| 11.23.11 @ 2:34PM
Dr.Ron Paul, " I Would Ask Congress For A Declaration Of War Against Iraq, If Necessary.
Imagine The President Abiding By The Constitution.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & In Iowa.