United Liberty
Recapping the Iowa GOP Debate
Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:31am | posted by Jason Pye
If you bothered to watch the GOP debate last night, you caught the most entertaining show yet as candidates sparred over each others record and on certain issues. There were plently of questions about credibility and viability, most of which were entirely valid. But if you were looking for a serious discussion on the real issues the country faces, including dealing with entitlements, you were no doubt disappointed.
Here is the debate, in case you missed it:
As far as winners go, I’d say that Mitt Romney could be considered a winner since he came out unscathed, not because he offered impressive knowledge of the issues or gave a dominating performance. Michele Bachmann probably should be considered a winner as well because the sparring with Tim Pawlenty probably helped her more than it hurt her.I don’t know why any candidate would purposefully pick a fight with her and keep at it like that. It only endures her more to her base.
Who are the losers? Anyone that watched and Newt Gingrich, who spent part of the evening complaining petulant 10 year-old that the questions were unfair.
Michele Bachmann: Even though her numbers have dropped as Rick Perry has edged closer to entering the race, Bachmann is still pushing the narrative in the GOP race. Last night was no different. At two different times last night, she and Tim Pawlenty were trading insults. Bachmann was pointing out some past positions that Pawlenty has taken, including supporting cap-and-trade. Pawlenty in turn pointed out her credibility issues. It was probably the more entertaining part of the debate. More on that in a second. Bachmann also pointed out several times that she opposed the debt ceiling increase.
Herman Cain: Moderators asked Cain a couple of questions about divisive comments he has made about Muslims, including a call to stop the building of a mosque in Tennessee. Cain said he respected religious freedom, and tried to play to the misguided part of the GOP base that are concerned about the so-called “threat” of Sharia law. Cain also said he’d like to cut corporate income taxes and frequently said we need to get the “economic engine” of the country moving again. Cain said that he opposed raising the debt ceiling without credible spending cuts. He didn’t mention that he backed $700 billion unfunded Wall Street bailout in 2008. From what I’ve heard, his advisors realize that Cain isn’t going anywhere and are already looking at a statewide race (and they’e not ruling out a primary against a sitting Republican) here in Georgia in 2014.
Jon Huntsman: Yeah, he has no chance of winning and I think he is justifiably suspect on spending, but Huntsman contrasted himself from the rest of the field by supporting civil unions. But he didn’t really show much personality.
Newt Gingrich: Early in the debate, Gingrich took issue with a question from Chris Wallace on whether departures from his staff were the final blow to his campaign. Like it or not, it was a valid question because of how far he has fallen since mid-May. Gingrich, who backed TARP and the Wall Street bailout, essentially said that defense spending cuts should be off the table, leaving me to wonder what exactly he would be willing to cut if elected. He also joined Cain in fear-mongering over Muslims. Frankly, I’m not sure why people continue to hail him as intellectual leader of the conservative movement, unless they’re admitting that conservatism is statism.
Ron Paul: I don’t say this to insult Ron Paul, but it was he typical debate performance. He made some excellent points, but they were so scattered that most of them didn’t sink in with the crowd. His sparring with Santorum over Iran was entertaining. In case you missed it, Paul rightly said Iran isn’t a threat to the United States. That caused Santorum to turn into Rudy Giuliani and go off on a tangent. But when it comes to discussing the economy, Paul continues to give lectures on monetary policy. Kudos to him for realizing the fault of these policies, but they are points that only a fraction of voters understand.
Tim Pawlenty: A lot of people were saying after the debate that Pawlenty did well. He certainly presented himself better than he had in first two debates, but I wouldn’t label him a winner. The sideshow debate between he and Bachmann was largely pointless since all attacking her does is gain her more support, as valid as the criticism may be. He finally decided to point out the similarities between RomneyCare and ObamaCare, but it was so telegraphed that Romney was well-prepared.
Mitt Romney: He had to answer for RommeyCare, which became the blueprint for ObamaCare, but he was mostly untouched during the debate. Romney also gave a nod to Cain during the debate, noting they both have business experience. This obviously prompted speculation that Cain could be a choice for Romney’s running mate.
Rick Santorum: Honestly, I don’t have anything good to say about Santorum outside of the fact that last night was his best debate performance, though it won’t be good enough for him to be a real factor in the race. Santorum lectured the about the need for leadership, knocking Bachmann and Paul in the process. Of course, his definition of leadership is apparently voting for big government programs and expanding entitlements, which is exactly what he did in Congress. He also discussed, as noted above, the threat Iran is to the country and noted how the regime robs its citizens, including women and gays, of rights. That’s sort of odd coming from someone that uses divisive wedge social issues to gain traction.
Finally, and interesting debate. Everyone’s talking about Pawlenty vs. Bachman, which was good, but Newt ate his Wheaties and the real fireworks were between Paul and Santorum.
POLL: Who won the debate in Iowa?
Vote: http://www.wepolls.com/p/1823034
I voted for Huntsman because he seems the most sensible.
I think Huntsman is trying to improve his name recognition and is planning on running in 2016
The debate in Ames is in the books and now the attention of the … Pawlenty: Live from the ‘spin room’ · Five things to watch in the Iowa GOP debate …. ‘Project Runway’ recap: Living under ‘a black cloud
Why was Rep. Michele Bachmann exempted from being asked questions on illegal immigration? Her stance on this issue is far above the rest who stood behind their dais in Ames, Iowa? Was this leaving Bachman out of this social issue premeditated? Whether this was the case or not, she strands strong as this uncontrolled illegal immigration invader problem has been ignored by administrations for years. Bachmann will not tolerate any form of Amnesty as President. Every Sanctuary City and state that does not comply by cutting of these ordinances will lose federal funding. It’s been said many times before, that American cannot afford to subsidize Mexico, Central America, Europe, Pacific Rim or other nation; its inhabitants impoverished and desperate illegal immigrants anymore? This illogical problem is crippling America’s economy by the massive payouts for families, which have migrated illegally across our sovereign border.
Of course open border disciples, business lobbyist will deny the obvious, that this illegal incursion is drowning us in debt—with no end in sight. (FAIR) American Federation of Immigration Reform that of 2009, reported that overall costs to subsidize the illegal alien household was calculated through, federal, State, County and Municipal sources that it was a $113 Billion dollar problem. Federation for American Immigration Reform issued a report in which they estimate the total annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level is estimated to be $113 billion combined. The states are bearing the burden of the costs; while the government share is nearly $29 billion, it escalates to $84.2 billion at the state and local level. The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The state-by-state breakdown begins on page 4 of this report at: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921
Education for the children of illegal migrants and immigrants constitutes the sole largest outlay to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Virtually all of those expenses are absorbed by state and local governments. At the federal level, only about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs is allied with the illegal immigration occupation and recouped through taxes collected from illegal nationals. Nearly all illegal aliens do not pay income taxes; only those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal immigrants when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resultant in payments from the U.S. Treasury. Please note this is not a static expenditure, but these dollars amounts are raising all the time.
Ask yourself, why the Grand Canyon State of Arizona had not choice, but to clamp down against the massive dollar amounts spent to appease illegal alien homesteads How can a small South Western state that is mostly desert, afford to pay out $2 Billion dollars annually for foreigners? Then again— how can Leftist legislators in Sacramento, California, justify taking taxpayer’s money and giving it to illegal aliens when these persons truly don’t exist, other than in ICE enforcement records or Homeland Security? HAS ANY READER THOUGHT OF CHECKING THEIR STATES PAYOUT TO FOREIGN NATIONALS? Although they come here through the magnet of jobs, welfare and each year bring their children. The estimates of 300.000 babies enter via a broken, intermittent border fence, that can no-way be fully enforced without the deployment of troops. Instant citizen for babies is above most payments, is an incredulous cost forced on taxpayers by Liberal judges legislating from their gavel.
Because entering America without papers is not a—FELONY—it is essentially a giant hole in the wall, which imports not only millions of illegal aliens, but a massive population of criminals; bringing death, mayhem and ID theft on the unsuspecting citizens and residents. As I said in my commentary yesterday, the only way to sever the incentive of jobs (which I never thought I would admit) is issuing every citizen and legal resident a government ID CARD. This could be used to get employed US workers. (8 million illegal aliens have stolen jobs from mostly low income Americans according to reputable sources.) The same official ID card could be presented for voting; instead of the mess we have now, with convicted felons, deceased and illegal aliens, fraudulently using the election process to alter an elections direction.
You would also use this federal ID CARD to be checked against other data bases, official birth records to see if you have the right to be issued a driver’s license, vehicle insurance, welfare or other Public entitlements. I shouldn’t gloat over the welfare payouts in California, but it is a self inflicted wound caused by the Liberals in the capitol. California, the Godfather of Sanctuary State has a $19 Billion dollar budget gap, with a staggering cost of $21 Billion $ according to the National Conference of State Legislators in 2009. We must wonder how the welfare costs have escalated in two years in the once Golden State?
MY EARLIER BLOGS: http://brittanicus-enoughisenough.blogspot.com/
No Copyright. Distribute Freely.
The agitation in Ames is in the books and now the absorption of the … Pawlenty: Live from the ‘spin room’ · Five things to watch in the Iowa GOP agitation …. ‘Project Runway’ recap: Living beneath ‘a atramentous cloud
wow ,,,I really like your website and this post,thank you for the good sharing all the world ,
Post new comment