The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Debate Wrap

Text Size

Debate Wrap

By W. James Antle, III on 11.22.11 @ 10:38PM

The big question coming out of tonight's debate: Will Newt Gingrich's immigration answer hurt him? In an otherwise dominating performance during which he, not Mitt Romney, seemed like the frontrunner, Gingrich appeared to endorse DREAM Act-like indifference toward sympathetic subsets of illegal immigrants and Michele Bachmann called him out on it. A similar position got Rick Perry into serious trouble just as his presidential campaign was taking off.

Gingrich has two advantages here. One is that he articulated his immigration position much more skillfully than Perry did, which is no surprise. The other is that he did not call people who disagreed with him "heartless," though there was a slight hint that they may not be very bright. It is the hostility toward anti-amnesty conservatives that rankled many Republicans about Perry, George W. Bush, and John McCain. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out going forward.

Romney mostly phoned it in tonight, sticking to crowd-pleasing lines and playing prevent defense. Michele Bachmann had a strong answer on Pakistan and "too nuclear to fail," but other than that only made an impact during her immigration exchange with Gingrich. Herman Cain didn't do anything to help himself or hurt himself. Ditto Ricks Santorum and Perry.

Jon Huntsman had his strongest debate yet. He outlined real differences with Romney -- though I thought he might actually mention the George Romney "brainwashing" comments on Vietnam -- and displayed much more fire than before. The question is whether Republican voters have already started tuning Huntsman out. If not, he may finally get a second look.

Ron Paul manfully defended his foreign policy views in front of a mostly hostile Heritage/AEI crowd, though he did have some supporters applauding. Calling the drug war a failure also seemed to go over well. The gap between him and most other Republicans on major foreign policy issues showed, and could be problematic in his closing comments about the Taliban. Some commentators speculated Paul would pivot and talk about domestic policy, where his positions are more popular with rank-and-file Republicans. But there was no chance of that, as Paul is in the race to get noninterventionist arguments a hearing in mainstream conservative debates.

View all comments (18) | Leave a comment

Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 11:32PM

Ron Paul went in the den and slew the dragon. The seven dwarfs with their endless talk of war in Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Afganistan and staying in Iraq are losers who could never beat Obama. 75% of the people want out of foreign aid and foreign wars. The main threat to the security of this country is the collapse of this economy. Newt Gingrich with all his other baggage sounded like a fool on immigration and most other subjects. He could not lead a blind man across the street much less lead a country. I said weeks ago that the debate was down to Willard Romney and Ron Paul. Ron Paul leads in the latest poll, in Iowa, with 25% followed by Cain and Gingrich. In New Hampshire he is in second place behind Romney. the debate was civil tonight and the questions good, if as usual Middle East centric. Well what do expect at these 2 think tanks.

Clint| 11.23.11 @ 5:59AM

The Taliban & Al Qaeda Are Two Different Groups. al Qaeda Attacked Us.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 8:17PM

Uh huh. The Taliban hid Bin Laden. That's why we went after them.

Oh, well, Ron Paul will lose, and then maybe you clowns will go away for 3 years, or move to Iran.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 8:22PM

Burton K Wheeler, from Wiki (the data is accurate from independent sources--OT)

During World War IIAs tensions mounted in Europe, he became a supporter of the anti-war America First Committee. As chair of the Senate Interstate Commerce Commission, Wheeler announced in August 1941 he would investigate “interventionists” in the motion picture industry. Jewish studio heads were of particular concern to him. Wheeler questioned why so many foreign-born were allowed to shape American opinion.[4]

After the start of World War II in Europe, he opposed any aid to Britain or the countries involved in the war. On 17 October 1941, Wheeler said: "I can't conceive of Japan being crazy enough to want to go to war with us." One month later, he added: "If we go to war with Japan, the only reason will be to help England." The United States Army secret Victory Plan was leaked on 4 December 1941 to Wheeler, who passed the Plan on to three newspapers.[5][2]

Wheeler did not, however, vote against America's participation in World War II after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, saying the only thing left to do was "to lick hell out of them".

Except for the "lick hell out of them," this sounds a lot like Ron Paul, doesn't it, both his good traits and his idiotic ones.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 8:23PM

It should be noted that Wheeler lost his Senate Seat shortly after the war ended. Paul is retiring from his, as well, thank the L--rd.)

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 8:24PM

Sorry, should be (Paul is...

somnolence| 11.22.11 @ 11:37PM

Wrong. Cain did better than ever in this debate. You certainly weren't listening very well.

Dai Alanye| 11.23.11 @ 12:24AM

Santorum and Bachmann improved themselves. Huntsman was better than usual, but who cares - snarkiness is not a Presidential quality. Romney's performance was in line with his previous debate, again coming across as a genuine person rather than a virtual construct. Cain did fairly well considering his weakness in the areas of military and foreign affairs. Perry was a bit smoother but still leaning toward doofishness. Gingrich's immigration answers are the sort that might yet make me vote for Romney. And The Elfish One was as elfin as usual.

If Santorum's new persona is permanent he might well yet get into double digits.

RJ| 11.23.11 @ 12:38AM

Newt's answer to illegal immigration sounded reasonable and practical to me, while others were mischaracterizing it as amnesty for all 12 million illegals.

Rock| 11.23.11 @ 2:02AM

I thought newt was weak on illegal immigration; he is pro amnesty, wants to give tax monies to illegals for college tuition.

Has no thought to closing down the border.

I was disappointed that know one brought up fast and furious or GE moving jobs to China.

Clint| 11.23.11 @ 5:55AM

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 to it himself. "

Dai Alanye| 11.23.11 @ 12:02PM

Ron Paul is unwilling to stand up for any good cause outside US borders, nor for many good causes within the nation. I suspect the man is rather gutless, and hides his cowardice by sheltering behind the Constitution.

Just think if someone identical to Ron Paul had been elected President in 1860 - the US today would be but a shadow of itself. Or if he'd been President instead of Jefferson - the Louisiana Purchase is nowhere authorized in the Constitution. The man is either timid or completely lacking in vision.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 8:18PM

Dai, tell me something---does Paul resemble Burton K Wheeler to you, too?

Oh, and HAVE A GREAT THANKSGIVING! Your posts are much better thought out than mine, and much more entertaining. G-d Bless.

bluecollarbytes| 11.23.11 @ 7:56AM

What's so galling to people about amnesty is that it is unencumbered by a serious, simultaneous, effort to control the borders and control immigration. Do we not have a right to control the borders? Amnesty also fails to distinguish between contributing illegals and those who live off American welfare. Amnesty boosters never make a distinction between these, implying we are obligated, that we have no choice, but to support all of it.

There is a big difference as well between illegals brought here as babies and toddlers, and the rest who knowingly come here illegally to gain access the American dream (whether work, welfare or crime). Being expelled to Mexico after waking up every day in America as far back as one can remember sounds like nothing short of a nightmare.

It's not practical to round 'everyone' up and kick them out, logistically or politically. It's not really what Americans want anyway. Citizens want politicians to defend the borders from the millions who enter and for the illegals to become legal by abiding by American immigration law- which requires a selection process. We Don't want 'everybody'. This is our right, which politicians disregard.

martin j smith| 11.23.11 @ 8:08AM

If Ron Paul went into the "den of the dragons" then he is in the wrong Party. Perhaps Obama's Socialist Party would feel more at home ? Pivoting from one subject to another helps no one. Voters are sick of BS--and privoting is BS. The voters views are fluid but they I suspect have a general sense of what they do not like and that is Obama II ( Paul ),Phonies like Huntsman and they also want a candidate who acts Presidential and this is not just an ACT, this is the real deal. Being forthright except for national security considerations is important.

William R| 11.23.11 @ 9:22AM

Martin, they don't make em any dumber than you. I suspect you think the founder of modern Conservatism Russell Kirk is a liberal.

http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html

Derek Leaberry| 11.23.11 @ 8:46AM

Gingrich is about as pro-Third World immigration as is the Bushes, Perry, McCain, Ted Kennedy and the bulk of the Democratic Party. He will not get my vote in the Republican primaries or against Barack Obama. The sole virtue of Obama is that he is an economic incompetent and thus discourages immigration by his foolish policies.

martin j smith| 11.23.11 @ 10:54AM

William R : I have no idea of what you speak. But if some one like you is insulting it means they have no substance. So that is what I think of you. No substance. So if Paul belongs in the Republican Party he should not be in the " Den of the Dragon" he should be right at home if that were the case. Right ?