2011 Iowa Republican Primary Debate

I wanted to post this on the night of the debate or the next day, but finals got in the way.  Even though the debate is well behind us and certain events have occurred which make writing about it now seem silly, I still wanna post.  Besides, I took notes and they should be put to good use.

The Winners

Mitt Romney

Let me be upfront: I don't like Mitt Romney.  To me, Romney associates far too closely with the political, who don't seem to fully grasp what's going on, let alone how to fix it.  I don't trust him to make principled stands when the going gets tough.

That said, Romney put up a good performance in the debate, and even though I don't like him, I had to admit that he came out of it looking pretty good.  RomneyCare once again proved to be his weak point, and he took a bit of damage when it came up, but in the end it wasn't enough to really turn the debate against him.  Indeed, while his competition fought and bickered amongst themselves or with the moderators, Romney stayed above the fray and kept his sights set on Obama.  Performance aside, Romney did better than was required.  As the "frontrunner", Romney doesn't need to win people over, he just needs to keep people from jumping over to another candidate.  I believe that Romney not only accomplished that, but may have persuaded some votes his way, or at the very least eased some conservative concerns over his candidacy.

Rick Santorum

Santorum isn't the candidate who gets a lot of attention (and he reminded us of this several times in the debate), but he capitalized on the debate and gave a strong performance.  He came across as a leader and a strong conservative who knew exactly what he was talking about.  His strong performance stands out all the more when compared to his previous, forgettable debate performances.  Just about every question he got asked got a good answer and his performance against Ron Paul was particularly satisfying.  It was refreshing to see a candidate getting just as riled up as I was when Paul blathered on about how Iran has every right to a nuclear weapon, and his reasoning for rejecting abortion in the case of rape was particularly good.  

Unfortunately, this probably won't change too much for Santorum.  He's not a particularly well known candidate, and at the end of the day the media won't give him much attention.  However, Santorum may not win the primary, but he certainly won this debate in my opinion.

 

Herman Cain

One of the complaints against Cain after the last debate was that he was offering a lot of what he had already said in the previous debate, and wasn't being specific enough on his policy.  He certainly had no problem with that this time around.  Of all the candidates on stage, Cain seemed to be the one most comfortable with the economy.  He spoke about the economy plainly and with ease, but out of all the candidates he seemed to be the one with the best understanding of it.  Being an incredibly gifted rhetorician only made him seem that much more competent and trustworthy.  Unfortunately, the ease with which Cain handled the economy was absent when the questions turned to other areas.  He struggled a bit in other areas, but it wasn't so bad that it truly dragged him down.  In the end, he was still an impressive candidate.

The Losers

Tim Pawlenty

Pawlenty came into this debating knowing that it was his last shot to make something happen, and he was clearly trying to make that something happen.  From the start, Pawlenty went after Bachmann hard, but instead of effectively dismantling Bachmann with intelligent and well thought out arguments, Pawlenty put on a show that was both pathetic and disgusting.  His attacks against Bachmann felt personal, desperate, and rude.  Worse, most weren't even good, and Bachmann took full advantage of that by countering and often times putting Pawlenty on the defensive.  Despite his horrific show, Pawlenty did manage to land a few punches, but wasn't enough to redeem this disgrace.  Pawlenty is done.

As a note:  This was my opinion well before Pawlenty announced this.

Ron Paul 

 I don't like Ron Paul.  I really don't like Ron Paul.  But in the last two debates, Ron Paul wasn't so bad.  There wasn't anything there to like if you came into the debates disliking him, but he did well enough that you could believe some people were impressed with him.  This time, however, Ron Paul put his crazy on full display.  To be sure, you'll probably be impressed with how he can seemingly fit withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan into so many answers.  In fact, Paul seemed more interested in going on his rants than he did in finding actual solutions to problems.  The below video shows it best, watch his reaction after the moderators repeats the question:

Paul's all time low came when he argued that Iran should be allowed to get a nuke, and suggested that we shouldn't worry about Iran making a few nukes since the Soviet Union had 30,000 of them.  The Paulbots ate this nonsense up, but if Paul is serious about winning this nomination then he needs to win new people over.  Rather than tone down the crazy, Paul let his loony rants drive people off.  Thank God.

Everyone Else

Michelle Bachmann

Bachmann came into the debate in a strong position. Before Perry entered the race, she was Romney's chief competitor, and was the frontrunner in Iowa.  Much like Romney, the status quo would be a sufficient enough victory for this debate, but she needed a win much more than Romney; especially with Perry's entrance.  Although Bachmann did well in her scrap against Pawlenty, she didn't walk away unscathed.  Most of Pawlenty's attacks were nonsense, but he did manage to point out that Bachmann doesn't have the most impressive record.  Indeed, one could argue that she's similar to Obama in 2008.  Bachmann didn't lose this one, but with Perry now in the race she will find herself in a precarious position.  At some point not-losing is no longer acceptable.

 

Jon Huntsman

Huntsman is odd.  I'm not quite sure why he's in the race to be honest; it seems like a waste of time for himself and for his supporters.  However, I will say that Huntsman put up a pretty decent show in the debate.  He wasn't the most memorable person stage, but then again he's not a "serious" candidate.  I came away thinking that Huntsman wasn't so bad, and I was especially fond of his stance on Civil Unions and Gay Marriage since it utilizes the same logic as my own.  It was nice having him there, but it'd be better if he wasn't there so other candidates could get more time.

Newt Gingrich 

Gingrich went into this debate as a man with nothing to lose, and acted like it.  When Gingrich didn't like a question, he went after the moderator, and he invoked the image of Reagan whenever he could.  He was angry and passionate, and it played pretty well.  A lot of people came out of this debate with him as a winner, but I couldn't put him in that column.  For one, I found his arguing with the moderator to be off putting.  I think the moderator has a valid question in asking Gingrich about his staff leaving him; after all, if you can't organize and run your campaign, how will you run the nation?  Gingrich could of scored some points if he handled it gracefully, but instead he decided to make it clear that he wasn't happy with the question.  He was later asked another question he didn't like, and went after the moderator again.  This time he seemed a bit more justified, but the act wore thin the second time around.

All of that aside, I really like angry Newt.  I don't think Newt stands any chance at all of winning the nomination, but I do enjoy his contribution to the debates.  

 

Thoughts

Romney is thinking about Cain for VP

One of the reasons I felt that Cain deserved to be listed as a winner was because of the rather odd boost he got from Romney.  At the start of the debate, Romney twice used Cain's name, and both times he was speaking positively and trying to make a distinction between them and the rest of the field by playing up their business experience.  I had previously wondered if Romney would select Cain as his VP since Cain is a favorite amongst conservatives (while Romney is not), Cain is popular in the South (while Romney is not), and Cain is an incredible speaker who would be an effective weapon in a campaign against Obama.  It seemed like that much more of a natural fit when you consider how attractive a businessman/businessman ticket would be in an election all about the economy.  This is just speculation, and Romney saying his name twice isn't a lot to go on, but it did reinforce my belief that Romney is strongly considering Cain for his VP choice should he win the nomination.

Pawlenty backing Romney?

During the debate Pawlenty was given another chance to attack Romney over ObmneyCare.  When he was last given this chance, he declined with catastrophic results.  This time around, he took it, but his attack was so soft that he seemed like he was a small child caught up in Romney's glory.  His behavior was all that much more noticeable when put beside his vicious attacks on Bachmann.  It seems pretty clear to me that Pawlenty really likes Romney.  With Pawlenty now out of the race you have to wonder if he'll endorse Romney. Of course, he could end up backing Perry for the same reasons. Regardless, there's no solid reason to think he will, but it's an interesting thought.

Reminder: Defense spending remains necessary

The war for Taiwan starts in the early morning. There are no naval bombardments or waves of bombers: That's how wars in the Pacific were fought 70 years ago. Instead, 1200 cruise and ballistic missiles rise from heavy vehicles on the Chinese mainland.

Taiwan's modest missile defense network—a scattered deployment of I-Hawk and Patriot interceptors—slams into dozens of incoming warheads. It's a futile gesture. The mass raid overwhelms the defenses as hundreds of Chinese warheads blast the island's military bases and airports. Taiwan's air force is grounded, and if China maintains air superiority over the Taiwan Strait, it can launch an invasion. Taiwanese troops mobilize in downtown Taipei and take up positions on the beaches facing China, just 100 miles to the west. But they know what the world knows: This is no longer Taiwan's fight. This is a battle between an old superpower and a new one. Ever since 1949, when Nationalist forces retreated to Taiwan following the Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War, Beijing has regarded the island as a renegade province of the People's Republic. Now, in 2015, only the United States can offer Taiwan protection from China's warplanes and invasion fleet.

The article, titled "What a war between China and the United States would look like", paints a vivid image of a war between the two powers over the Republic of China (Taiwan).  It describes how the Chinese, using a mixture of modern tactics and technology, surprise and defeat the United States in the Pacific and take control of Taiwan.  At the end of the article the US officers discuss and revise their strategy, and replay the simulation, this time managing to defeat the Chinese and save the tiny, island republic, but the disturbing feeling of a Chinese victory - and rise to superpower status - is not washed away.  And for good reason.

Ten years ago RAND published a study which showed to the United States winning an air war over Taiwan easily.  Today that battle would end in defeat according to the study, and since that study the Chinese have announced their newest weapon to counter America: Anti-carrier missiles.

Nothing projects U.S. global air and sea power more vividly than supercarriers. Bristling with fighter jets that can reach deep into even landlocked trouble zones, America's virtually invincible carrier fleet has long enforced its dominance of the high seas.

China may soon put an end to that.

U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).

While the United States flounders in areas of cyber warfare the Chinese are creating an army of hackers.  While Americans downplay the idea of any nation would dare think to challenge American military supremacy, both the Chinese rhetoric and actions continue to be both bold and disturbing.  And while America struggles with its own debt and tries to maintain it's superpower status, there is an effort to cut US military spending.

Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) are urging lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to push the President's Commission on Deficit Reduction for cuts in military spending, as they seek signatories to a letter  circulated Tuesday.

...

The commission released a report  in June, outlining how to cut $1 trillion in defense budget and reduce the deficit over the next decade, without compromising national security.

People like Barney Frank and Ron Paul represent the new American isolationism, a belief which paradoxically believes that we can maintain our level of prosperity while sacrificing the role in foreign affairs that has helped lead to it.  This isolationist view ignores a world full of dangers.  When North Korea attacked the South, their response was "Keep America out of it".  When Russia invaded Georgia, they wanted none of it.  And when China makes it's move for Taiwan, they will ask "Why should Americans die for Taiwan?  This is a Chinese dispute".  The isolationist ignores that these views have died repeated deaths over the last 70 years, as the world has shrunk and a world power (let alone the sole superpower) cannot ignore events that happen half way across the globe any more.

So is it any shock that they would buy into the belief that you could cut an average of 100 billion a year from defense - without compromising national security - when we've fallen behind with increased spending over the previous ten years?  For them the rise of China is a mere inconvenience, one they would either rather ignore, or pretend it does not hold negative consequences for America, but one the which cannot be allowed to stand in the way of their illogical ideology.

To be clear:  I most certainly believe that trimming the defense budget is necessary, and I also believe that we can maximize our money by reviewing what we're spending our defense dollars on, and adjusting it as necessary.  But ultimately I believe any mass cuts in defense spending should be reserved as an act of desperation.  Though such acts may save us from complete collapse, it would be a phyrric victory.  The United States that would remain would be a shadow of its former glory, and our age would truly be over.  The American people need to think hard about everything going on in the world today and ask themselves if they as individuals, and our nation, is ready to see massive cuts in defense spending.

For further reading I recommend this excellent article.

Why does Ron Paul hate freedom?

I recently asked, on facebook, "Why does Ron Paul hate freedom?".  It was, of course, a rhetorical question, intended to be bring grins or fury depending who read it.  But under the rhetoric is a disturbing trend - a trend which, in may ways, validates the question.  Why DOES Ron Paul hate freedom?

In 2009 Iran was rocked with mass, anti-government, pro-democracy protests following the fraudulent election results.  Hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of Iranians took the streets and their roofs and streets, and the government in turn unleashed their thugs upon the democracy activists.  The following Green Protests were followed all around the world, and united both the left and right in their sympathy for the protesters.  We saw dozens of images and videos of defiant protesters being beaten, chanting with bloodied faces, and in once case, dying on the street.




Neda died on June 20th, 2009, shot by a Basij thug at random.  One day earlier Ron Paul was the sole member of the House to vote against a resolution which expressed "support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law."  Here is his statement on why he voted no:

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

Dr. Ron Paul's reasoning here is about as sound as a sinking ship.  In fact sinking is exactly what he's doing here.  RP works off the foreign policy belief in non-intervention, which is really just isolationism, but him and his followers try hard to pretend it isn't.  However I don't see how you can interpret what he says as anything other than a cheap cop out.  RP focuses his reasoning around the basis that the US has no right to "meddle" in the affairs of other nations, ignoring the fact that a condemnation isn't really so much meddling as it is a strongly worded letter.  If sanctions or military action came from this resolution, then perhaps Ron Paul would have a valid point, but it doesn't.  All it does is condemn violence against pro-democracy activists, and applaud the activists for their bravery.  Where exactly is the harm in that, other than to our relations with that nation?

Relations with a nation is exactly where Ron Paul takes this argument next, pointing out our citicism is based largely on pragmatism. America doesn't want to piss Saudi Arabia off, so it doesn't condemn it's human rights record, but because we don't like Iran we're eager to jump down their throats.  That may be, but what does that have to do with anything?  Are you somehow morally superior than the people who pretend to care about human rights - but ignore abuses in countries they want to curry favor with - by ignoring all of the instances of abuse altogether?  Why RP decides to bring up this point after clearly stating that he doesn't want to "interfere" in the internal affairs of any foreign nation is beyond me.  He clearly doesn't care to condemn the abuses in Saudi Arabia any more than he could care to condemn the abuses in Iran, so what purpose does this point serve?

Commenting on the internal affairs of foreign nations also exposes Ron Paul for the hypocrite he is.  On April 6th, 2006 he had no problem getting involved in Romania's policy on intercountry adoptions and how they treat orphaned children.  In June of this year, he had no problems condemning the Israeli raid on a flotilla trying to break through the Gaza blockade.  But six days ago he couldn't vote yes on a resolution to congragulate Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese democracy advocate who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ron Paul is creating a habit out of condemning those who yearn for freedom and democracy, and use peaceful means to try and attain it.  This behavior isn't exactly uncommon from him, and any clear thinking individual who watches Ron Paul for any decent amount of time will realize that the man is, at best, a bit extreme.  At worst he's down right insane.  So again, I ask:  Why does Ron Paul hate freedom?