Of course the debate had to kick off with introductions. Like we had no clue who these people on stage were or why they were there…
My first thought: I cannot believe anyone but Huntsman has a serious chance. My second thought: There’s no way anyone but Huntsman should be anywhere near the nuclear football. Shit, Huntsman is the only one who can properly pronounce “nuclear” with consistency.
Herman Cain got hardly any questions, and completely, utterly boned the questions that he did answer. So much for the Cain train, folks. Cain claimed our national security has been downgraded. Obama sighed and reminded Cain about this one dude named Bin Laden. He claimed we couldn’t bomb Iran because it has mountains(?), and that if we left Afghanistan, they’d suddenly become BFFs with Iran. Further, he said we must cut off foreign aid to Africa unless we see results. Not too controversial until you place it in context - he was talking about foreign aid for prevention and treatment of HIV. He also managed to fumble Wolf Blitzer’s name, calling him “Blitz.” In short, he knows nothing about national security, places with mountains can’t be bombed because reasons, and fuck people with AIDS in Africa.
Michele Bachmann went off again about the ACLU controlling CIA interrogations under Obama. Rep. Bachmann, the ACLU would like to have a word with you. Then she launched into a strange point about terrorists and technology changing. Basically, when we first thought about terrorism, phones were attached to the wall with wires and now terrorists have cell phones. Whatever that means. She then claimed Pakistan and the Middle East have seen six attempted terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities. Bachmann also called Perry naive and claimed Obama is threatening national security by canceling the Keystone Pipeline. It’s not cancelled - the U.S. State Department ordered a new route be found for it. Plus, the governor of Nebraska called for the delay, not Obama. Yep. She kept babbling about magnets in regards to immigration.
Shorter Bachmann: Magnets. How do they work? Fuckin’ miracles. On Iraq, she claimed “We need to remember, we won the peace in Iraq. And now President Obama is intentionally choosing to give that peace away.” Uh-huh. Her true gem was when she said she knows all about existential threats. I’m sure Bachmann knows all about existential threats. I question her existence as a serious candidate often.
Jon Huntsman came out strong. He was emphatic that the military buildup overseas and defense budget we are currently running is unnecessary and repeated that any nation building must first begin at home. Huntsman also said strengthening the PATRIOT Act is not the best national security policy because it involves forfeiture of liberties at home - a point introduced by Ron Paul. He called for negotiation with both allies and enemies. Huntsman also ripped Romney a new one after Romney accused Huntsman of wanting America to fail because he suggested drawing down troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to Huntsman, indefinite war is expensive and makes us no friends. Who knew? Essentially, his opinions were well-reasoned, thought-out policy positions versus talking points, and he’ll never succeed in the polls with the current GOP. He has the best quote of the night:
“I have to say that our biggest problem is right here at home. And you can see it on every street corner. It’s called joblessness. It’s called lack of opportunity. It’s called debt, that has become a national security problem in this country. And it’s also called a trust deficit, a Congress that nobody believes in anymore, an executive branch that has no leadership, institutions of power that we no longer believe in. How can we have any effect on foreign policy abroad when we are so weak at home? We have no choice. We’ve got to get on our feet here domestically.”
Newt Gingrich bloviated whenever the camera was on him. His speech was slurred and he lost his train of thought a few times, but compared to Perry, etc. he was put together. Personally, I thought Newt looked exhausted or ill. He finally found his pet moderator, Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer kissed his ass several times, with questions like, “Mr. Speaker, I remember you and Reagan did x…” and turned to Newt for historical “fact” - until Blitzer led him into the minefield of immigration. Suddenly, friends off. Gingrich posited a fairly reasonable solution (compared to others) in regards to immigration, though after reactions from other candidates, he became slightly incoherent. His idea was that immigrants found to be undocumented, who have close ties to the U.S., would not necessarily be deported. Slightly less radical than Cain’s electric fence. The other candidates pushed him off the moment of compassion, and as soon as CNN started their post-debate coverage, he was all about take-backs with his immigration stance. He also made an odd point about defeating Nazis with our natural resources like oil and our confidence. Gingrich called Ron Paul “my friend” and I think Paul nearly came over the podium.
Ron Paul continued his powerful performance in the debates. He unequivocally opposed the extension of the PATRIOT Act and said we need to get out of the conflicts we’re involved in due to expense and the fact that we’re not directly threatened by any countries with which we’re currently engaged. Paul stated the PATRIOT Act undermines liberty and when several candidates endorsed profiling Muslims (really) Paul just about lost it. He emphasized white people, specifically, American white people, have committed acts of terrorism as well. Remember Timothy McVeigh? Ron Paul does. He also refused to pander to the pro-Israel folks, saying Israel can stand on its own and if it attacks other countries, it should pay the price like any other nation. Paul also said we should end the war on drugs immediately, particularly for medical marijuana patients. Too bad his compassion doesn’t extend farther. Say what you will about Paul, at least he’s consistent. Then he went all Grampa Simpson and said we should export the free market to Africa. We did. It’s called exploitation.
Rick Perry got little airtime. He had the same night Cain did. Perry kept harping about sanctioning Iran’s bank, which the Obama administration stopped just of doing recently. He criticized the Obama administration for being ineffective, yet praised “our security forces” in regards to stopping recent terroristic threats. Apparently, he’s forgotten Obama is still the commander-and-chief. He finally said that intelligence under the Obama administration has been a failure, apparently forgetting about Osama bin Laden. Perry wants to make TSA more effective by privatizing it, because TSA’s main problem is unions. He endorsed racial profiling like nearly every other candidate. He also said Obama’s debt committee failure was because of the trigger (a republican measure - remember Boehner said they got 98% of what they wanted). His explanation:
“So the idea that you can’t sit down and work with people on both sides of the aisle, but just to, you know, throw us into — into that briar patch at this particular point in time and say, what would you do — we would never have gotten into that situation if I were the president of the United States. I’d have been there working day in and day out so that we had a budget that not only — I’ve laid out a clear plan to — flat tax of 20 percent; cut the spending; and put a 20 percent corporate tax rate in. And, as a matter of fact, they ought to make the legislature, the Congress, part-time, and that would make as big an impact in this city as anything I can think of.”
So yeah, if you can parse that, more power to you.
Mitt Romney was slicker than usual. He didn’t have the tousled hair of a few debates ago. He looked like a presidential Ken doll. Romney suggested TSA needs to be more efficient with pat downs and that some folks could go through faster than others. Oh, and maybe we don’t need to do pat-downs but whatever, sure, next talking point. This caught my attention (emphasis mine):
We need tools when war is waged domestically to ensure that as president of the United States you can fulfill your first responsibility which is to protect the life, liberty and property of American citizens and defend them from foes domestic and foreign. That means yes we’ll use the constitution and criminal law for those people who commit crimes but those who commit war and attack the United States and pursue treason of various kinds we will use instead a very different form of law which is the law afforded to those who are fighting America.
What law? That’s called the Geneva Convention first off - and Romney’s endorsed torture. This is some serious pandering. What about Americans suspected of terrorism? Is that the same as treason? Scary shit, folks. Romney also mispronounced “modernity” multiple times and I feel that says a lot about the GOP. He pointed out America’s approval rating in Pakistan is 12% and we should work with them. I don’t see why Romney is too worried - that’s three points above Congress in a recent CBS/New York Times poll.
Rick Santorum is batshit. Period. I’ll just give a sample of what he said…
On profiling: “Well, the folks who are most likely to be committing these crimes. If you look at — I mean, obviously, it was — obviously, Muslims would be — would be someone you’d look at, absolutely. Those are the folks who are — the radical Muslims are the people that are committing these crimes, as we’ve — by and large, as well as younger males. I mean, these are things that — not exclusively — but these are things that you profile to — to find your best — the most likely candidate.”
On holy war: “We are not fighting a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. We’re fighting a war against radical Islam.”
On redefining geography: ”Africa was a country on the brink. On the brink of complete meltdown and chaos, which would have been fertile ground for the radical Islamists to be able to — to get — to get a foothold.”
On alliances: Well, I’ve spent a lot of time and concern — and Rick mentioned this earlier — about what’s going on in Central and South America. I’m very concerned about the militant socialists and there — and the radical Islamists joining together, bonding together. I’m concerned about the spread of socialism and that this administration, with — time after time, whether it was the delay in moving forward on Colombia’s free trade agreement, whether it was turning our back to the Hondurans and standing up for democracy and the — and the rule of law. And we took the side with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro for a corrupt President. We’ve sent all the wrong signals to Central and South America.
Winners: Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Magnets, the ACLU, Barack Obama
Losers: Brown people who wish to fly without being profiled, liberty, Americans living in poverty, Herman Cain
Here’s my comments during the debate:
How do you say idiot in American? “999!”
First answer of the night. Want to discredit an opposition movement? Have the US sponsor it. That won’t bring back any memories to Iranians, will it?
Since the news first broke last month that GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain had been the subject of at least two sexual harassment complaints while he was working at the National Restaurant Association, the right-wing establishment has come swinging to his defense. They’ve called Cain’s accusers humorless kvetchers who overreacted to Cain’s harmless if gregarious behavior. They’ve suggested that sexual harassment doesn’t exist. Rush Limbaugh even said that if women wanted to be left alone, they should don burkas.
But all of this chatter about whether women take sexual bawdiness too seriously obscures a critical point about the nature of sexual harassment: It’s not about sex. It’s about power.
The original Politico story about Cain’s past made clear that if the allegations were true, Cain wasn’t just some rich horny guy looking to get laid or a charismatic extrovert with a misunderstood sense of humor. He was someone who had seriously abused his authority, a much more serious problem for someone seeking the nation’s highest office.
I’m not surprised that right-wingers are trying to smear the women who’ve come forward to charge Herman Cain with sexual harassment. This is what they do. Remember Graeme Frost, the 12 year old boy who spoke out on behalf of the Child Health Insurance Program in 2007 and wound up under attack by Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin for faking hardship to get government help? Or Ty’Sheoma Bethea, the young South Carolina girl who asked President Obama for funds to rebuild her crumbling school and got trashed by the Washington Times for grubbing for federal handouts? In fact, remember Anita Hill?
Now Herman Cain and his supporters are trashing Cain’s accusers, with a Web site devoted to “debunking” their claims, CainTruth. But Friday they hit a new low. Cain Truth now features as its top story a charge that’s been making the rounds on the right via Glenn Beck and Mark Levin: that Sharon Bialek, the Chicago woman who claims Cain groped her when she asked him for help finding a job, has an unsavory sexual past of her own.
Apparently CBS’s Bill Kurtis, who should be ashamed of himself, went on Chicago’s WLS Monday and smeared Bialek, who had worked for a CBS Chicago radio affiliate in 2006 and 2007. From what Kurtis heard “on the elevator” at work, Bialek had a “track record” and a “history.” While he wouldn’t specify what this history involved, Kurtis shared this tidbit: “Let’s put Herman or Sharon in the car and say their roles may even have been reversed, given her track record here.” Having already trashed Bialek’s attorney Gloria Allred, Kurtis added, “I really haven’t confirmed it, and I don’t want Gloria to come after me.” But he confided that after the story broke, he wanted to call the Cain campaign and advise them “don’t do anything rash.”
Got it? Bialek has already been trashed for going from job to job, and for financial troubles. Now we’re supposed to believe she’s some kind of sexual predator, maybe even a sexual harasser, based on “elevator” talk at CBS in Chicago. I’d like to call Bill Kurtis and advise him: Apologize. Now. Whatever you heard in the elevator at work, you smeared this woman without any evidence. Apologize to Bialek, and to your audience for your admitted solicitude towards the Cain campaign.
I can’t understand anyone who would vote for this man. He’s showing an uglier side of him each day and the right-wing media is acting as if this is perfectly normal. Do any of the women on the right think for a second just how badly they are damaging themselves and their daughters? Their contributing to a culture that makes it okay to mock sexual harassment and trash any woman who claims her boss harassed her. It’s mind boggling how misogynistic the right is.
Interesting take on the Herman Cain debacle. It certainly explains a lot of the discourse that’s happening on the right.
Rush Limbaugh on why the Cain accusers are having a joint conference
This is the modern GOP.
After listening to Cain’s speech and analyzing it, Ward said there is no doubt, Cain is innocent.
“When he directly talks about the allegations against him there is no high risk,” said Ward. “It is low risk, which tells me he is being truthful in his conversations to the public.”
Some days, life just gives you a gift. Today is one of those days. The investigator used a “software program” that analyzed the TV broadcast to determine Cain was telling the truth and Bialek was lying. This is on Herman Cain’s official site for defending himself. This is literally the best they can do; some piece of crap software that “analyzes” voices. I can’t stop laughing.
Oh, and the best part? Turns out this PI also is a Herman Cain donor.
Rush Limbaugh, keeping it classy while describing Cain’s newest accuser Bialek.
Does anyone wonder why women don’t want to come forward to accuse Cain? They’re going to be torn apart by creeps like this in the media. Seriously, at what point will everyone realize how disgusting this guy is and turn on him? Does he have to actually kill someone on the radio?
I saw a report that one of the now 3 accusers doesn’t want to go public because she doesn’t want to “become another Anita Hill.” That’s one of the real effects of the Anita Hill hearings. Women are now afraid to come forward to accuse powerful men of sexual harassment because there is an entire political party devoted to slut shaming, slandering, and destroying any woman who does so.