November 22, 2011

Tonight's Republican debate.

I'm watching, but too tired to live-blog. My son John is live-blogging, and maybe some readers here will add comments.

24 comments:

Bob Ellison said...

If I'm not watching, who is? [n.b. - I'm a political junkie]

traditionalguy said...

There was plenty of good argument.

The downer was having to listen through the continual whines coming out of the three females: Bachmann, Santorum and Paul.

michaele said...

Huntsman's preening reasonableness consistently annoys me.

Writ Small said...

Watched.

I see Blitzer's (Blitz's?) strategy for dealing with Gingrich's media criticism. All questions are being asked by conservative lulminaries from AEI and Heritage. Not one gotcha or a please-attack-so-and-so question as a result.

My take: Gingrich is supremely confident but surprisingly (to me) advocates amnesty. I didn't realize that was his view. He states the case so eloquently, the others appear to struggle to engage. Paraphrasing Newt: The pro party family will not tear a family apart and 25 years here means you get amnesty.

Cain is a bit weak in the foreign policy realm. Many answers are along the line of "I would appoint a commission" or "I would study it and make an informed decision."

Santorum is angry. Bachmann has that whine to her voice.

Perry is pretty good - a bit more relaxed (resigned?).

Romney is strong. He and Newt are the most impressive debaters.

Paul is passionate and interesting, but his ideas - pro drug legalization and anti-war - sort of rule him out.

Less fireworks than normal. No circular firing squad this time. Good debate.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
somefeller said...

Cain is a bit weak in the foreign policy realm.

Yes. Just a bit.

caseym54 said...

Paraphrasing Newt: The pro party family will not tear a family apart and 25 years here means you get amnesty.

It is almost as if Newt was looking towards the independents and the general election. Needs to keep eye on ball. Two hands.

edutcher said...

Agree that Newt may have hurt himself on the amnesty issue to the point his numbers may dip, but, besides that, no big disasters.

Everybody knew Ron Paul wasn't dealing in the real world on foreign policy.

AllenS said...

If anyone has DirecTV, on channel 278 there is a program on right now called How Beer Saved the World.

This has been a public service announcement.

Seven Machos said...

The typical conservative view of kicking out illegal immigrants is exactly analogous to the left-liberal view of taxing the rich. Both just know it will work but have never bothered to think through the implications -- economic in the case of the goofy left-liberals, and moral and practical in the case of the goofy conservatives.

If we want to keep illegal immigrants out of the country, we have to build a real, actual wall between the United States and Mexico. Al wall like the Great Wall of China. We cannot morally ruin the lives of people who have lived here for a long time and didn't fill out the right form five years ago. It's a repugnant idea. It's also practically impossible.

John from Pomeroy on the Palouse said...

Romney is strong. He and Newt are the most impressive debaters.

but it feels like (without measuring) that both Newt and Mitt are getting less time than I would have expected.

Paul's facial expressions have been a bit distracting

WV: belogmer: someone who blogs about the seas?

John from Pomeroy on the Palouse said...

Sorry, nothing to post but the wv.

wv: groac: Valentine Michael Smith with heartburn

Fen said...

My take: Gingrich is supremely confident but surprisingly (to me) advocates amnesty. I didn't realize that was his view. He states the case so eloquently, the others appear to struggle to engage. Paraphrasing Newt: The pro party family will not tear a family apart and 25 years here means you get amnesty.

That, along with AGW alarmism, is usually a non-starter with me.

But I'll compromise this one time:

Newt, you secure the southern border you can do all the amnesty you want.

Its alot like the current debt crisis - its not that we're unreasonable re more taxation, we just want all the government spending curve reversed.

So if you're not going to protect our borders from illegals, then any talk of amnesty is moot.

Are you listening? You replaced your campaign staff to go with a less traditional "internet" route to reach the voters. Are you savy enough to have one of them listen to us?

Its not like Althouse is some obscure blog.

Fen said...

If we want to keep illegal immigrants out of the country, we have to build a real, actual wall between the United States and Mexico.

That and much much more.


We cannot morally ruin the lives of people who have lived here for a long time and didn't fill out the right form five years ago.

Their lives are only "ruined" because we are denying them access to a higher quality of life - better health care, better jobs, better education, better social services.

Its like saying my lunch was "ruined" because security threw me out on the street for crashing the penthouse suite.

Hey, I don't like their lives will be diminished. But there are consequences for breaking the law. And even greater consequences to us for allowing our laws to be broken.


It's a repugnant idea.

"We cannot ruin the lives of people who didn't fill out the right form five years ago" he begged the IRS. And his loan officer. And his recruiter. And his partners in his law firm. ad naus...


It's also practically impossible.

Actually, no. As we've seen in Alabama and Maryland, the mere threat of enforcing immigration law creates an exodus of illegals.


Look, I appreciate where you are coming from, but there are now No-Go Zones in Texas. Places you can't go if you aren't Mexican. If we don't get a handle on this, none of the other issues will matter anymore.

Fen said...

Do you guys get that we don't have control of our southern border?

Do you know that Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah have set up training camps in Venezuela?

Seven Machos said...

Fen -- I also appreciate where you are coming from and I guess what it amounts to is a difference of philosophy of law.

I see a visa as a fairly trivial document -- like a marriage license. I add here that I have given them out (which cuts both for and against me). You seem to see a visa as much more than a mere document.

I also imagine that we have different views about the goodness of having immigrants (legal or not), and that colors our arguments.

I do think you gloss over the practical issues. We really won't know the effects of these state laws for awhile. Have the immigrants really left, for example, or are they just concealing themselves? And will they come back? As a comparison, I remember when the federal government passed a law about spam email. It was a glorious time for my junk mailbox for awhile. But not any more.

I also think you hit upon something important: the federal government should leave this issue to the states. Build the fence and patrol it but let the states deal with illegal immigrants and not preempt the states to the greatest extent possible. If states want to commit whatever resources to the issue, fine. If they don't, that's also fine.

Seven Machos said...

Fen -- Re: terrorism, that's why we need the wall. People think I am somehow joking about the wall. I am most assuredly not.

Roger J. said...

OT: John from Pomeroy on the Palouse: I know exasctly where Pomeroy is- Did by any chance your wife play adult coed soccer in Yakima in the late 1970s? If so, tell her Roger from Picatti Brothers soccer team says HI.

Browndog said...

The Jon Huntsman Show was met with rave reviews on MSNBC this morning.

Scarborough nearly certain it will propel him to victory-

phx said...

"I don't see how the -- the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century," Gingrich said.

"And I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families."

Psychedelic George said...

Did you know that Mitt's first name is not Mitt.

His first name is Willard.

His middle name is Mittens.

You cannot make this stuff up.

warlocketx said...

Wall, yeah, right.

I used to visit East Germany occasionally, back when there was such a place. There are probably quite a few people in Leipzig, Eisenach, and similar places who'd be glad to come out of retirement to consult on such a project, but I really don't see it as a winning issue for Republicans.

Regards,
Ric

MadisonMan said...

Why is Rick Santorum there?

What kind of fool (who is parted soon with his money) is sending a Santorum campaign money?

The mind boggles.

machine said...

Newt said something "humane" and reasonable about immigration...good bye Newt...

the party will not stand for this...Newt may have a seat next to Mr. Cain and Gov Perry right over there in the corner...