23 November 2011

Tuesday's 11-22-2011 Republican Debate on National Security // Analysis // I'll watch so you don’t have too

Tuesday’s Republican Debate Analysis, I’ll watch so you don’t have too.

The Debate topic was National Security
Let me start by saying all of these candidates save Ron Paul are more informed and better prepared  to defend the country than Obama.
However, I would very much like to see less people on the stage.  Another thing I would like to see is a random drawing for where the candidates stand on the stage.  Why is Mitt always in the middle?  It’s disingenuous at this point to put Mitt as the front runner.  Each debate up to now has Mitt anchored in the center and the also ran’s are shuffling around him.  Time to change it up to keep it interesting.

Michelle Bachmann
She a good night. She sounded confidant in her responses and had one of the best lines of the night.  She rightly stated that Obama has a cross your fingers and hope for the best foreign policy.
Which is true. However, she missed on trying to hit Newt with supporting amnesty. More on Newt and his new policy idea later . Will it change her in the polls…not likely but she has stayed consistent throughout all the debates. 

Herman Cain
He did so-so in my opinion. Months ago he started off strong but his weakness in foreign policy and lack of substance on national security is starting to become more and more evident.
He fell victim to Wolf Blitzer’s leading questions of would you support this or would you support that? Wolf was trying very hard to channel Obama when Obama divides up the country with his, “Are you for the billionaires or are you for the working class”.   Many of Wolf’s questions were of that nature and all save Cain didn’t take the bait.  Durability counts in a long term campaign and Cain may not have it.

Newt Gingrich
Newt did as well as expected last night.  The guy knows what he is talking about there is no doubt about that.  However, Newt may be his own worst enemy.  His going to have to balance his depth of knowledge without sound condescending. This may be a big problem for Newt but only time will tell on that one.  Newt explained in detail the difference between a terrorist and criminal.  It’s a big difference that needs to be explained.   The big bomb shell was Newt’s stance on long term illegal aliens. People who have been here for 25+years. Newt’s Idea is that they are afforded legal status without being classified a citizen.  How’s is that going to work?   He stated that long term illegal’s who pay taxes and are contributing members of the society should not be thrown out of the country.  There are many problems with this idea, like everybody who is illegal trying to fake that they have been here for 30 years or more the just to receive the benefit of legal status.  Mitt and Bachmann already jumped in the calling it amnesty.  Newt is going to have to spend a great amount of time explaining himself in order to maintain his lead in the polls.  But I think it was important to at least start the conversation.  Most republicans hold firm on the bus them all out policy so I give Newt credit on taking a different position.     It will also take away a Democratic talking point that the Republicans are anti Latinos should he become the Republican nominee. Newt may pay the price with the “base”, but he may be thinking long term.  I’m trying to picture which candidate I would like to see debate Obama and Newt is currently on the top of the list

 Jon Huntsman Jr
Give it up Jon,  It’s time to go home.

Ron Paul
I’ll sum up Ron Paul’s foreign policy and nation security stance.  Maybe if we mind our own business terrorist will not want to attack America. He really said we should mind our own business so the Taliban will leave us alone.  Oh and it’s our fault that we were attacked because America has a presence around the world. This man has no business being the President of the United States.  I hope he drops very soon, but I don’t see that happening.  My only fear is that he’ll go independent and mess things up enough to give Obama a second term.  I hope I’m wrong.

Rick Perry
Perry is getting his legs underneath him and is starting to get comfortable in the national debate stage. He has a strong America first policy that is refreshing to see.  Given Obama’s current policy of the world only likes America because I’m the President. Perry will be tough on national security and I like the fact the he’ll make the world earn our support before we just give billions away just because it’s the way it is.  If he can keep his head he may be able to hold his own against Obama.

Mitt Romney
Mitt is very good at redirecting the argument back to Obama failures. He is articulate and very comfortable on stage.  He had a very strong showing and Mitt has a clear understanding of the threats to America.  However, I am starting to wonder how this will play against Obama.  If Mitt can keep the pressure up and stay focused and hit (figuratively) Obama on his record he may stand a chance in beating Obama in the general.  But will last night performance give him a jump in the polls??  Not in my opinion.  Just the fact the Mitt has not jumped in the polls shows that conservatives are still out there looking for a candidate.  It also shows that we are not letting the media pick our candidate this election like we did with McCain.  Which is why the primary process is so important. 

Rick Santorum
I must admit I was impressed with Santorum.  National security is strong a suit but It may be too little too late for Rick.  He’s only going to amount to be Ron Paul’s sparring partner for the rest of the primary and not much else. Sorry Rick.     

More next time

America Prevails


Information Minister
Loyal Opposition

No comments: