He also thought that a radio interviewer made a funny joke when he brought up his ancestors might have owned Cain's ancestors.... because that's apparently something you laugh and joke over.
The Rise of Ron Paul: the Latest Republican Debate October 19, 2011 Jacob Heilbrunn So much for the famous 11th commandment of the GOP—thou shalt not criticize another Republican. The candidates in Las Vegas last night may aspire to become Ronald Reagan, but they flouted his injunction. The sniping that characterized previous debates turned into a full-scale barrage, which was both entertaining and instructive. In foreign policy, it was Ron Paul who spurned what has become a stifling orthodoxy among Republicans. Nothing seems to faze Paul; in fact he may revel in being the fellow who gets to blow a loud raspberry at his fellow candidates. He announced that America was an empire with several hundred bases around the world. Why is America helping to subsidize the German social-welfare state, he asked? Why is Israel so dependent on America? Michele Bachmann would have none of it. Israel, she said, is "our greatest ally." No question: Israel is one of America's closest allies. But its greatest? What happened to the special relationship with England? Or ties to Germany, one of the leading industrial powers in the world? The only issue on which Paul and the rest of the field seemed to agree was foreign aid, which—let's face it—is the cheapest of cheap shots. The State Department and USAID disburse about $37 billion a year abroad, a paltry sum. Paul's more trenchant point was whether the aid, which has gone to corrupt kleptocracies such as Egypt, is actually effective—or whether it boomerangs, creating more animosity towards America among local populations who resent our support for homegrown dictators. The real fisticuffs came between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. It's a good thing that Romney is so tall because otherwise you have the feeling that Perry would simply like to slug him. Romney's contempt for Perry—and much of the rest of the field—appears to be quite genuine. Perry was almost visibly and audibly gasping for breath as he tried to come up with passable answers. At one point he literally looked to the heavens, paused, then referred to the 10th amendment. Perry was his usual bellicose self, urging that America "defund" the United Nations, as though that would somehow solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He came across as a bargain-basement version of George W. Bush. And he was, at best, fibbing when he denied to Rick Santorum that he had signed a letter urging Congress to pass TARP in 2008—in Perry's construction the letter really just was an innocuous exhortation to Congress to pass economic reform. Uh-huh. Speaking of floundering, pizza magnate Herman Cain was all over the place on the issue of whether or not America negotiates with terrorists. Rick Santorum, who came across as seasoned and alert, said he would never do so. Cain opened up a can of worms for himself by announcing what seems like a contradictory policy. As far as it was possible to make out, he seemed to be indicating that: 1) he would announce a policy of never negotiating with terrorists; and 2) he would negotiate with terrorists if necessary to rescue an American soldier. Of course, it was a trick question, but Cain's inexperience was painfully apparent. How could he have let himself be trapped into stating that he would release Guantanamo prisoners to free an American hostage? Of course America's greatest ally has just concluded negotiations with some of the worst elements in the Middle East to extricate Sgt. Gilad Shalit from captivity, releasing more than a thousand Palestinians to Hamas. What kind of a precedent does that set? Would America negotiate with al-Qaeda? The truth is that the sainted Ronald Reagan did go down that path with Iran, even if he could never quite admit it to himself. He was negotiating with terrorists. Later on, George W. Bush cut a deal with Libya's Muammar Qaddafi. So much for all the huffing and puffing about never treating with terrorists. Once again, Romney was in command. But the most visionary of the candidates acutally appears to be Paul. He sounded like a prophet as he warned that America was living beyond its means, not only at home but also abroad. The debt bubble, he said, would make everything else look like a sideshow. What if Europe goes bellyup? Let's hope he's wrong. Even if he's right, a Pauline conversion may not take place among voters. But it would certainly boost his standing in the GOP. The true struggle that may loom in the GOP may not be between Perry and Romney, but between Romney, the establishment candidate, and Paul. Until now, Paul has been shunned and scorned. But the coming year may show whether or not his political program ends up having real legs. Of course Paul himself will never amount to more than a gadfly. But it will be intriguing to see if an older Republican tradition of restraint makes a comeback or whether it is as dead as the dodo bird. With Jon Huntsman, the most measured of the candidates, apparently fading into oblivion, there really is no Republican candidate for the presidency other than Paul arguing for change in American foreign policy. http://nationalinterest.org/node/6034
You have to love the media, sticking to the important issues. There is no media bias. Las Vegas Republican debate: Winners and losers By Chris Cillizza, Published: October 18 The eighth Republican presidential debate — and fifth in the last six weeks! — is over. LAS VEGAS, NV - OCTOBER 18: (L-R) Former CEO of Godfather's Pizza Herman Cain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry participate in the Republican presidential debate airing on CNN, October 18, 2011 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images) We liveblogged the whole thing but also made time to scribble down a few of the best — and the worst — moments of the night. Our take is below. Have thoughts of your own on the debate? The comments section awaits. WINNERS * Mitt Romney: It wasn’t his best debate but, as usual, the former Massachusetts governor found ways to come across as forceful and presidential. Romney was clearly put on defense on health care — by former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum of all people! — and was on the verge of the sort of “gang up” moment that he had successfully avoided in the debates to date. But Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann threw him a lifeline by changing the focus from Romney’s health care plan to President Obama’s health care law. (She wants to repeal it, in case you were wondering.) Romney’s answer on his Mormon faith — and religion’s broader role in the political space — was an absolute masterpiece. Romney didn’t coast in this debate as he had in the few that had preceded it. But he managed to navigate most of the rough patches with minimal damage done. * Rick Perry’s aggression: The Texas governor made up his mind that after several dull and uninspired debate performances he was going to come out with both barrels blazing tonight. And, boy did he. At times, that change in style worked in his favor — particularly in the first 30 minutes or so of the debate when Perry delivered a cogent, energetic answer on energy and jobs. But, aggression giveth and aggression taketh away. (See below). * Anderson Cooper: Moderating any event where two or more politicians are gathered on stage is difficult. Moderating a presidential debate with seven candidates is next to impossible. Cooper deserves tons of credit for keeping the debate lively, asking open-ended questions that invited interesting responses from the candidates and knowing when to step back and let the likes of Perry and Romney simply go at it. Job well done. * Debate lovers: Overall, a terrific debate. As we have said many times before, elections are about choices and the best way for voters to make an informed decision is to watch the candidates not only make a case for themselves but against the other guys (and gal). Back and forth exchanges are a good thing. And there were lots (and lots) of them tonight. * Food imagery: Apples! Oranges! Cakes being baked. The Fix needs to not watch these debates on an empty stomach. LOSERS * Herman Cain : For the first ten minutes of the debate, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza was under near-constant attack over the specifics of his “9-9-9” plan. For the rest of the debate, he was almost nonexistent. Cain’s attempts to dismiss criticism of “9-9-9” — the apples, the oranges — weren’t terribly convincing and are ripe (wink, wink) for follow-ups in the coming days. And, when it came to foreign policy and national security, Cain seemed distracted at best and totally out of his depth at worst. His answer on the Guantanamo Bay prison was, um, not good. * Michele Bachmann: Almost every answer the Minnesota Congresswoman gave was the dictionary definition of a non sequitur. Bachmann seemed intent on proving to anyone watching that she, more so than the other candidates on stage, really doesn’t like President Obama and wants to undo everything he has done. But, Bachmann seemed so intent on hitting her lines — she threw in the “we are going to make Barack Obama a one-term president” bit in a head-scratching coda to the debate — that it left the impression that she was participating in a conversation entirely apart from the one happening on stage. Just odd. * Rick Perry’s bullying: Measured aggression in a political debate is a good thing. Unchecked aggression isn’t. And there were several times when Perry came dangerously close to stepping over that fine line. His repeated attacks on Romney employing illegals at his home were decidedly personal — although he did force Romney into an explanation of exactly what happened. Perry brought his swagger tonight but he may have applied it a bit too liberally at times. * Ron Paul’s suit jacket: The Fix is, admittedly, a bit of a clotheshorse. But, anyone who has ever worn a suit could see that the Texas Congressman’s coat was at least two sizes to big. The ill-fitting coat made Paul look tiny, never a good image to project when you are running for president. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rs-and-losers/2011/10/18/gIQABiZzvL_blog.html
Why it would help to get elected a person who favors the policy of one of our worst periods in American History. I'm referring to the fact that he likes policies that are the same as the Robber Baron period of history.
