- Keeping nuclear weapons out of Iran
- Bringing troops home from Afghanistan
- Working with Pakistan in war on terror
- Using torture to obtain information
- Killing American citizens without going through courts
- Dealing with China on issue of stealing intellectual property via cyber space
Finally, some stark disagreements among the candidates. In the past there were slight differences in position among all the candidates but not tonight. Unfairly I thought, but the candidates were not all given an equal opportunity to answer all the questions. Romney, Cain, Perry, and Gingrich received the most attention. Bachmann and Santorum were up next. Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman were too often ignored.
Cain, Romney, and Newt answered about the same on Iran and nuclear weapons, suggesting that they would do everything possible to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran but were willing to go to war if none of their solutions (funding political opposition, covert action, economic sanctions) achieved their purpose. The problem is that their solutions have already been tried, including economic sanctions, and have not worked. Ron Paul was in absolute disagreement. He pointed out, clearly, that we went to war with Iraq on the premise that it had nuclear weapons--it didn't, with tragic results. He also pointed out that declaring war is a function of Congress, not the President. Republicans love to evoke the Constitution when it's convenient and ignore it when it's not. Paul's answer was superior to the others but that hardly counts with Republican voters.
On Afghanistan, Perry, Bachmann, and Romney all disagreed in various ways with Obama's decision to bring home the troops. Bachmann has a habit of throwing out numbers to show that she's done her homework but doesn't really say anything you can pin down. Romney, as usual, disagreed with Obama's decision yet kept his options open for the general election and independent voters. He would bring the troops home in December, not in September as proposed by Obama. Apparently, four additional months is a crucial difference. Please!
For me Huntsman hit it out of the court on this one. He would keep a small core of troops and advisers in Afghanistan but would bring the general troops home (a good bit of applause so some in the audience agreed). As he pointed out, we should stop nation building overseas and start nation building in our own country. I suspect that even Republicans are tired of foreign wars, so we shall see if this position finally gets him into the top tier, probably not considering his later nuanced and moral answer on the use of torture. Why do Republicans love to hurt people? Is their DNA different from Democrats? Or is it learned?
On Pakistan, Bachmann was at her best and so was Santorum. Their answers were more nuanced than usual, particularly Bachmann's. Cain, Perry, and Gingrich were challenging Pakistan as our friend. Bachmann and Santorum acknowledged that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and, as such, we need to keep it as a friend.
On torture, Cain, Bachmann (and I believe Gingrich) advocated water boarding. Monsters! Huntsman and Paul pointed out vigorously that we must adhere to the law and also pointed out the immorality of torture and its likelihood of diminishing American's reputation abroad. How about at home?
Gingrich and Romney agreed with Obama (without using Obama's name) in his decision to kill an American citizen abroad who is alleged to have worked with terrorists. I disagree with all of them, Obama included.
On China and its cyber stealing and currency manipulation, Perry and Romney were ridiculously simplistic, as they were in the last debate--Perry, in particular, stating that China will wind up in the dustheap of history, using an old Reagan line about Russia. Is there something toxic in Texas water that destroys brain cells? China is a major trading partner of the U.S. and also the largest holder of U.S. debt. Their answers pander to the audience but defy reality. Huntsman took the reasonable approach (he was the U.S. ambassador to China) and also made Romney look foolish by correcting one of Romney's statements on currency manipulation. Why is Huntsman not moving up in the polls? Why do Republicans generally dislike intelligent candidates who have studied the issues? I really do want to know.
On the abstract question of how some candidates would make decisions, or if they would ever disagree with their advisers, Cain did badly, talking around the issue instead of answering it directly. He does this a lot, using sound bites to respond.
(Perry did rather well joking about his lapse at the last debate--he was funny and the audience was sympathic. Me too.)
Summary:
Romney--slick, always trying to find a way to answer questions that please the audience without saying anything to impede his electability in the general election. Would love to know if he has any values that are not malleable depending on the audience.
Cain--not at all knowledgable about the issues. Panders to the audience with Tea Party sound bites.
Gingrich--often avoids answering directly if he thinks it will get him in trouble but has a difficult time keeping his ego and mouth in line. He's so pompous that I find it difficult to believe that Republicans would accept him as their nominee.
Bachmann--throws out facts and figures but she doesn't answer the question. It's as if she memorized a bunch of stuff and is determined to use it wherever she can fit it in. Will not be the nominee.
Santorum--not worth discussing. He's not going anywhere.
Paul--has integrity, and I admire integrity. Not going anywhere.
Huntsman--great resume, integrity, good looking, solid debater, obviously intelligent. Republicans, you have a candidate that has a serious chance of beating Obama. Are you really going to nominate Romney or Gingrich?
Perry--not coming back. Did better tonight but so what. Horrible debater.
No comments:
Post a Comment