Election 2012: The Second Republican Debate

Brought to us by CNN this time (in their never ending effort to be the Igor to Fox News' Dr. Frankenstein)

Here's what you missed in 4 Minutes:

The 4 Minute version highlights just how stupid this debate became (especially with those "this or that" questions.  Come on CNN, this isn't a Miss America Pageant, it's the race for leader of the free world.  you might take it a little more seriously?).  Anyway, here is the full debate:

As expected the media tried to boil down the entire debate into the question of "who won?"  Obviously this is a gross (and I mean patently offensive to all well reasoned individuals) oversimplification, but let's see how it plays out:

CNN response was, with one exception, basically "Bachmann won because she showed up, spoke in clean sentences, and people saw her."  Wow CNN, thanks for that incredibly deep analysis of the issues.  I'm sorry but the fact that Bachmann didn't make a complete fool of herself is not a "win" in my book.  Leave it to CNN to completely ignore the issues, in favor of the politically safe "image win."  JFK would be so proud.

FOX NEWS responded with an article quoting Pawlenty's refusal to take a pot shot at Romney.  John King's attempts to bait him into reiterating his "Obam-ney-care" comment apparently failed to produce the political theatre for which both CNN and FOX were hoping.  Tragedy...

MSNBC does the best job of responding to the debate in a substantive manner (though obviously they have the audience to appreciate it).  Unfortunately, it was still couched in the terms of winners and losers.  Thankfully, they explained their reasoning a little bit, so it wasn't a complete waste.  They thought Romney and Bachmann were the winners (bachmann, again, because she showed up, and Romney because he didn't step on any landmines), while they down played Pawlenty's performance because (like FOX and CNN) they were disappointed that he didn't turn the debate into a fist fight by taking shots at Romney.  Nothing especially surprising there.  Though they did add that they thought the TEA Party won because all the candidates were talking from their play book.  A good point, that illustrates just how far the GOP has gone down the wrong road.  They also pointed out that the Economy was a loser last night because of how little time was spent on a substantive discussion.  Well said MSNBC.

UPDATE: Jon Stewart responded the next day in classic, hilarious John Stewart fashion.  Well played, as always, sir!

My Thoughts (Issue by Issue):

The Economy

Assuming for a moment that the economy will actually matter in 2012 (people almost never cast a vote based on their economic interests or based on an economic plan, which is how Pawlenty can get away with basing his entire plan on cutting taxes by more than 10% - 15% across the board... yeah right.), economics was basically a let's-bash-Obama-fest.  Not a single candidate talked about their economic plan, they just pilled up criticism on Obama.  Apparently he didn't do a single thing right (at least Ron Paul couldn't think of anything).  Pawlenty alluded to his plan, but we've already talked about what that was above, and it's not very detailed.  Bachmann whined about Obama's failings, while Cain tried to leverage his "I ran a company" cred.  Cain appeared to be the most thoughtful on the topic, but Pawlenty and Romney were in close pursuit.  The remaining candidates, as movement conservatives with little or no experience, just talked a lot of sweet conservative talking points, and wasted their time on the issue.

Bailouts were a mini-issue in the economy discussion (limited as it was).  All of the candidates expressed their rage against the Bush-Obama bailouts.  Romney patted himself on the back for an op-ed he wrote in 2008 criticizing the bailouts and recommending they go through normal bankruptsy instead.  Romney then got miffed when John King brought up another op-ed in which he predicted the auto-industry would implode under government control.  Ron Paul also jumped on bailouts, but added a criticism of the housing market.  He claimed, that we should let housing prices fall rather than artificially propping them up, so that we can "clear out" the market.  I agree, but I think we should have done that 3 years ago before people spent their life savings to survive this long.  At this point doing something like that might do more harm than good.  Either way, Ron Paul came out as the only sensible one on this discussion.  Everyone else just played the bailouts-bad card.

Another interesting side issue was NASA.  Gingrich spent a few minutes talking about how he wanted to privatize NASA, then when Pawlenty chimed in to say he supported keeping NASA as a federal program, Gingrich interrupted for an about-face that gave John King whiplash.

Finally, Romney got a question about FEMA, which he answered by saying "If we can drop a program down to the states, that's the right way to go, and if we can send it to the private sector even better."  Then he rambled on despite John King's mumbling attempts to first get him to actually talk about FEMA, and then finally to get him to shut up.  I agree with his position in so far as he recommends having the states do more disaster relief, however, there should still be a way for other states to help out.  It is also worth noting that states like CA (Earthquakes), Florida (Hurricanes), and Tornado Alley (Tornados) will end up having to spend more than states like Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, etc. who don't have natural disasters like that (or at least of the same magnitude).  The question is then, "is that fair or should other states have to help out?"  I think each state should have to pay for themselves, but that's just me.  As for dropping it to private industry, surely he isn't suggesting that insurance companies foot the bill is he?  they are not always reliable, don't always cover natural disasters, and no one likes them.  Thus, I'm not sure I agree with that part.

Health Care

Half of the candidates supported and defended the Ryan plan to cut medicare, while the other half, just kinda rolled on the issue.  No one liked the Obama plan, not even Romney who was for the plan before he was against it.  Gingrich back tracked on his criticism of the Ryan plan, in a long rant of gobbledegook.  Santorum and Bachmann (being the most conservative candidates) jumped on the Paul Ryan bandwagon without much fanfare.

The only candidates to do much talking about Health Care were Cain and Paul who both talked about needing to "restructure" the system.  Cain was at least honest about it.  He told someone in the audience "you're not gonna get everything we promised."  He doesn't want to JUST raise the retirement age, he also wants to restructure the system.  Paul did his usual Ron Paul dance criticizing big brother.

Perhaps the most shocking revelation came from Santorum, who criticized critics of the Ryan plan by stating "we want to replace medicare with something that is essentially the same."  How exactly you are going to fix a plan by replacing it with something "essentially" the same is not explained (I guess John King thought it was best to "leave it there").  This seems to be the usual Republican refrain.  "We hate Obamacare, but we either can't come up with anything better or we want to replace it with something basically the same but with our name on it."  Neither of those options seems to make much sense, but all the Conservative base seems to want to hear is anti-obama rhetoric, so the substantive plans don't seem to matter much.

Abortion

I love the new Republican talking point "I support the sanctity and dignity of life from conception to natural death."  I mean once you get past the fact that it's basically a pledge to kill mothers to save their fetuses and let people die horribly painful deaths rather than giving them the dignity of a painless death, it sounds just positively wonderful!  Bachmann, waffled the most on this point.  She was asked "do you support an exception for the health and safety of the mother or in the case of rape/incest?"  her response was to repeat the phrase "I am pro-life" in as many different combinations as possible (I support the sanctity of life, I support the dignity of life, I have lots of babies, I believe in adoption, etc.)  Of course, John King, in classic "we'll have to leave it there" CNN fashion, didn't press her to actually answer the question.  Pawlenty again pointed to his record "I have the most pro-life record in this field of candidates."  I didn't like the stuff he talked about, but at least he had something to say other than "I believe in the sanctity of human life."  Therefore, I think Pawlenty wins this topic, and Michele loses.

DADT

John King, in a rather shocking question, asked whether the candidates would seek to repeal the DADT repeal (starting to get dizzy on this issue?).  Most of the candidates dodged with the "I'd do what the generals tell me."  Gingrich made a complete fool of himself by saying, "I'd support repeal, because the generals were against the repeal in the first place."  Sorry Mr. Former Speaker.  They were, in fact, in favor of the repeal, because they thought the law was stupid.  In fact, more than 80% of the country thought the law was stupid.  Who exactly are you pandering to?  20% isn't a winning majority... Bachmann also jumped on that landmine by saying she supported a repeal of the repeal, though she at least had the decency of not lying. just just said she supported repeal. 

I'd like to take a moment and wonder what the F*** CNN was thinking when they asked this question.  This issue is more or less dead.  Polls show that more than 80% of respondents didn't think DADT was a good thing, and most politicians have jumped on board that bandwagon.  VERY few people at this point actually even think this is an issue.  So, why would you insert it into a campaign where it hasn't been an issue?  Are you trying to create controversy?  Are you trying to point out bad apples in the Republican field?  What exactly was your purpose?  It just came off as stupid to bring up such a politically dead issue.  That's all I'm saying.

DOMA/Gay Marriage

You can't have a Republican debate without throwing in a little fearmongering about the terrifying "gay agenda."  CNN jump right on board that joke of an issue by bringing up the Marriage Protection Amendment (which hasn't actually been an issue since I think 2005).  They even went so far as to ask Michele Bachmann if she would go into Massechussetts and try to overturn their law.  WTF?  Half the first appeared to want to leave the issue alone (to the states), while the other half wanted a federal amendment.  Obviously this is kinda ironic coming from the people who believe in small government.  obviously their small government rhetoric doesn't apply to social issues where they think we need a big government to act as the morality police.  Obviously this is a stupid issue, and thank your favorite heavenly deity that this issues is slowly becoming a non-issue.  CNN, please take the hint and stop bringing it up.  There are more important issues out there than fearmongering about the gays.

I was thoroughly impressed with Ron Paul's answer.  Ron Paul said "we shouldn't have group rights, gay rights, we should be talking about individual rights."  I couldn't agree more Mr. Paul.  The reverse is also true though, we should not be denied rights based on group affiliation either.  Individual rights should be just that, individual.  We should get them no matter what you don't like about us.  Now try explaining that to your party.  

Religion
This was pretty much a freebee.  John King asked about repigion and every candidate just spouted the same old crap.  Republicans want to be able to practice their religion in public and impose it on others while their doing so.  Ron Paul had an interesting take on it, but I don't think he went as far as I would have liked to see from a Libertarian.  He stated that the constitution doesn't allow a theocracy (duh) and something about freedom of religion and then something about christians being free to practice their religion in public, but I wanted him to talk about everyone being free to practice, not just christians.  Almost there Mr. Paul.

WHO WON?

Even though I hate this, and realistically I think all these candidates would make terrible presidents, I was most impressed with Pawlenty and Ron Paul.

Pawlenty: He proved that he is the only candidate (other than Romney) who has any experience whatsoever.  He answered every question with "I did that in Minnesota." I may not have liked what he did (like appointing conservatives to the SC of MN, or passing anti-choice legislation), but the guy does have experience and he proved it in this debate.  The guy also sounded like someone who could compete on the national level.  He wasn't talking in stories (like Gingrich), in abstractions (like most everyone else), or even in I-ran-a-business-isms (like Romney and Cain).  He was the one candidate who could honestly talk about the issues and point to a record.

Ron Paul: I find that the more I hear from this guy the more I like him.  He doesn't play games and he doesn't dance around issues for political gain.  He says what he thinks.  I like his "leave it to the states" mentality throughout the debate, and I was especially pleased with his comments about "I'm the commander-in-chief, I tell the generals what to do."  It may not placate the war-hawks of the far left, but thank god someone had the balls to say it.  If Ron Paul makes it to the Minnesota Primary I might register as a Republican just to vote for him.  He'd be the first Republican I ever voted for.

WHO LOST?

Bachmann: She didn't really answer a single question, and just showing up isn't enough to win anything.  Without something substantive, I would never vote for this candidate (even if I was foolish enough to vote Republican).

Cain: He got called out on a number of instances were he put his foot in his mouth (particularly with the whole Muslim issue) and he garbled out an answer that just didn't satisfy.  Then when John King moved on, he tried to correct himself, but that failed just as miserably and it made him look like a fool.

Gingrich: You lose automatically when you blatantly LIE in a debate! (The "generals" thought DADT was stupid and supported an repeal if Obama/Congress ordered it).  That was well covered in the media before the repeal.  You can't rewrite history in a debate, and attempting to do so makes you a LOSER!

Santorum: Santorum is a religious extremist and he reiterated that with his support of an "Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment."  While all the other candidates wanted to leave it primarily to the states, he sided unequivocally with federal intervention in marriage.  At least the rest of the field had the dignity of equivocating on the issue.

I give Romney a "neutral" for this debate.  He didn't do anything good, but he also didn't do anything stupid.  He was just kinda there... and unlike the media outlets I don't give points just for showing up.

So there you have it.  Everything you missed from the Republican debate, and unlike the media, you now have at least a basic understanding of what issues were discussed and how the candidates responded.  Congratulations!  you are now more informed than the 4 million people who watch the 3 major media outlets.

Common Sense