I concur with the Rush's initial comment on last night's debate: Huntsman and Paul should quit the GOP and run against Obama for the Democrat nomination! Ron Paul was great on many of the questions...until he deviates toward his anti-military, 'blame America first' stance that he can't help himself with. Huntsman is simply an annoying and smug imposter. So that's that...moving on to the remaining 6 candidates...
This was probably the best debate thus far, but despite the pollsters and what the media pundits are disseminating about a two-man race, it concerns me that neither Romney nor Perry are living up to their frontrunner status. In all honestly, I'm left with wanting more. It's my honest opinion that Bachmann, Cain & Gengrich shined in this debate. Santorum was also very impressive, but I think his problem is getting past the 'look at me' factor. Nevertheless, it troubles me (even with Newt's baggage, because both the frontrunners have their own) that the media punditry and pollsters, the same outlets who have not only been wrong before when it comes to presidential politics, but most of which display an obvious bias towards the current resident in the White House, these entities have virtually written the others off, and that is very unfortunate.
Another unfortunate is although Wolfy didn't blitz the whole thing and did a fairly decent job at moderating (btw, thanks CNN for no annoying time dings), probably one of the best thus far, the pinpointed battles that are somewhat helpful in differentiating the candidates, also work to provide a distraction from the overarching issue of Obama's economic destruction, particularly in hampering private sector job creation. These instances are of course expected, but function as somewhat of a double edged sword when attempting to oust a sitting president, particularly a radical one with radical policies.
So let's get into the debate...
With the concept of social security as a Ponzi scheme, which has been a discussion abuzz in both mainstream and alternative media, particularly since the last debate, and commented on by both Limbaugh and Levin prior to last night's debate, it was no surprise that this was the first question...
I believe this was the only question that Wolf asked all 8 candidates to participate in, and I generally agree with the arguments made by Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gengrich and Santorum. Of course the pivotal point that many were waiting for was the showdown between Perry and Romney over this issue...
...but I think, once again, Newt brought this argument back under the umbrella of placing the target squarely on Obama and ironically Big Government, as well as his thoughts on saving social security...
Let me try to speed this post up by rattling off the rest of the questions with some brief comments...starting with a great response from Bachmann, laying down the law on personal responsibility...
...and the same can be said of Gengrich's distinction that the American People create jobs, not the government...
On the Economy - I thought Perry, Bachmann, Cain and Gengrich provided the best answers. And the soundbite from this section had to have been from Perry, "People are tired of spending money we don't have on programs we don't want."
On executive orders - Here's one where I completely agree with Paul (it's not a legislative tool). Also on this topic, Bachmann and Santorum skewered Perry on the Gardasil inoculations in Texas. I agree with Bachmann's liberty argument that the way he went about it was wrong, which Perry admits to (as well as the order having an opt out), but any damage this might cause to young girls is unsubstantiated; in other words, there are pro and con arguments to this medicine's effectiveness. In the end, I don't think this is an issue that's going to bury him, because it was an error that he admits.
On reducing healthcare costs - Cain's right, Romney keeps defending Romneycare and Perry gave his two cents on it, another one Paul was pretty right on, and Bachmann not only was right, but called both Romney and Perry's commitment into question...
On illegal immigration - Santorum, Bachmann and Romney are right on this one. Santorum and Bachmann busted Perry on in-state tuition for illegals, and Romney joined in (as well as disagreeing on Huntsman's driver licenses issued to illegals). This, much more than Gardasil, is the issue that could snag Perry. Governor, folks don't want ANY benefits given to people who'd break our laws by illegally entering our country, refuse to assimilate, and then attempt to sponge off the government, whether on a local, state or federal capacity. Thwarting our sovereignty is lawlessness.
(P.S. Huntsman's idiocy can be FF'd)
Throughout the debate a few of the candidates received individual questions directed by the moderator. Gengrich gave a great answer when asked about how much pay we should be allowed to keep, hammering Obama's cronyism...
Likewise, the questioning ended with Cain addressing his plans for energy independence, Newt addressing spending on security, and Santorum exposing Paul's anti-military, 'blame America first' stance (and Paul was finally booed for it!)...
For this debate to be more substantive than the previous ones was great, but wouldn't you know that CNN would have to go and end it, not with serious closing statements from the candidates, but with this minutiae...oh well, that was it.
My final thought concerns conservative consistency. By all means, Perry or Romney would be a vast improvement over Obama. But when watching these debates, the more consistent conservatism, minus the libertarian and the imposter, appears to lie within the four remaining candidates (despite any past baggage). So are the pundits, pollsters, and particularly those being polled, watching the same debates that I've been watching? Just saying...
ADDENDUM: Leave it to Rush to bring some perspective to the debate's outcome...
