Wednesday, November 23, 2011

2012 GOP CNN Debate 11-22-11 – Debate Winner - Newt Gingrich - Bachmann Holds Own on National Security - Overview, Analysis – Full Video


Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, during the singing of the National Anthem CNN GOP Debate 11 22 11, image: The Hollywood Reporter



The 2012 GO National Security Debate was held last evening on CNN and co-sponsored by the the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. CNN made the broadcast available on the Armed Forces Network, CNN en Español, CNN International, CNN Radio and CNN.com. A full video appears below. It was without a doubt, along with the debates on the economy, one of the most important debates for the candidates to not only do well, but also to express their views on the protection of the nation, as well as how one would face the challenges that might arise now and in the future. Of all the candidates on that stage, the most qualified was apparent from the moment he took the first question, and that on individual is Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was steady, clear, precise, and above all, not over reactionary. He answered each question specifically and without rhetoric, which was perhaps, on points, the most measured responses from a candidate to date in this most interesting and qualified field. Surely in second place was Michele Bachmann, the Congressional Representative from the Minnesota 6th District and a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was also clear in her responses, it was the gravitas displayed by Gingrich that gave him the clear lead. In this arena it was clear that Gingrich and Bachmann, were the the two who hold the most credentialed experience in national security.

The balance of the candidates:

Dr. Ron Paul, Congressional Representative, Texas, was true to his pure Libertarian ideology, which, in this debate arena, placed him at a slight disadvantage, he performs the best in debates on economics, as does Herman Cain, Businessman and CEO, who was clearly out of his depth in this arena, Jon Huntsman, Governor of Utah, understands China, perhaps better than the other candidates but is limited in his approach in the debate arena, focusing on that nation, and repetitious in his responses. Rick Santorum, the Senator from Pennsylvania who is most enthusiastic, also looks to his past in each answer, which, normally begins with (paraphrasing) “I’ve already done such and such…” (Wrote a piece of legislation or was part of a committee, etc.). To his credit, he is one of two that answered the following question, not only in a response as asked, but clearly and with accuracy. The Question (again paraphrasing: refer to video) what national security issue was not addressed in tonight’s debate? Santorum, the first to answer, brought up the clear and present danger in South America – Santorum, should the Republican Candidate be successful in the 2012 campaign, be assigned to a position that is most suited to his expertise – it would be a shame to waste that type of talent. Herman Cain answered pointedly but did not expound, and Newt Gingrich gave a clear three point answer to the question, as with all questions, leaving no doubt as to this meaning or intentions.

Mitt Romney, who is seen by some as the front runner and eventual nominee, was simply not prepared for this forum. He was too busy campaigning against Obama in his answers rather than clearly stating his positions. In addition, he made a few mistakes as to the state of certain nations (specifically Indonesia – where the security of that nation is at risk, especially from radical Islamic forces, so much so that it is in turmoil – see strategypage.com article from the 12th of November, 2011.) That said, other than getting tongue tied during an answer (which, one would not want to see in a debate against Barack Obama even though the current President had done the same in the past, during the 2008 Democrat primary), Romney stayed on “campaign”. This is something one should notice about Romney that perhaps has not be brought to light, however, the man is a patriot, one has to look past the clips of campaign Romney, or economic Romney, to the opening of each debate where the national anthem is played. Romney gains points for his appearance and his singing along (silently or otherwise) with passion and pride, one might add, to the National Anthem. That penchant to sing (or lip sync) the National Anthem is one thing noticed and noted, he truly loves this country. That is not to say the other candidate do so no more or no less, but in last night’s debate, one is remind ended of former 2008 Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, who was caught on tape, singing along to the national anthem. It was a move than endeared her to those who value the nation and what it has to offer, and care less about a public display. Her critics were first to note her ability to sing, rather than praise her for her obvious patriotism. That said, Romney’s performance overall left him in the Perry category. Perry, also a patriot, was more out of his debate depth than Romney, and clearly not up for a national security debate.

This is one of two debates where it the answers are critical, the stance on the issues at hand should be measured, not reactionary and that clearly places on individual ahead: Newt Gingrich.

The tension: Where Newt gave the answer in a clear and specific manner, on illegal immigrants, and his heartfelt, and Catholic (Universal) view of compassion when it come to the family that has been in this nation for 25 years, has an extended family, and attends church, pays taxes, et. al. Gingrich proposes allowing them to stay in the United States and giving them a legal status (not citizenship), in addition, when one is in this nation illegally and joins the armed forces, that person should be allowed a path to citizenship. This is something that happens consistently with nationals from other nations who are here on visa’s, of any type. His answer was quickly seized upon by the other candidates as “amnesty”, yet, Gingrich held firm. It is without a doubt, a red meat question, when it comes to what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants living and working in our nation. It is without a doubt, the last “problem” any candidate has yet to give an answer to, and or if an answer has been given, has done anything about once installed in the Oval Office, and this is a failing of Presidents on both sides of the aisle, and goes back beyond Ronald Reagan. It was, as one of this blogs more right of center peers stated, a problem for Conservatives, and yet, what amazes this individual of Spanish decent, nothing is ever done, especially from those who spout the most vitriol against those here in our nation illegally. Therefore, the answer given last night by Gingrich, clear, fair and one which could be easily implemented would appeal to most moderates, those compassionate conservatives, and the Hispanic/Latino Community.

From a true left of center independent, watching this debate, Gingrich stood above the rest, in terms of intellect, and has now become “human”. Someone who is likable when need be and one who is tough as the occasion demands. The second choice – startling to this blogger was Bachmann. Startling because of the choices – in the conversation was the following that should give Gingrich the biggest boost. (Paraphrasing) With today’s economy and the state of the world, Gingrich is the best choice to lead the nation, I would not have thought so ten years ago, or ten months ago, but after seeing him in several debates, he is clearly the smartest in the room, and we need someone who is smart.
What might be most interesting about the two responses, one is an avowed Massachusetts Right Voting evangelical, the other, a New Yorker, who more often than not, votes along the alternative party line.

Two do not make a poll obviously, however, if the smartest man in the room, is the choice, even despite a disagreement on an answer on immigration which was immediately misquoted by candidates on stage, of two so diverse political voters, one has to ask, take away the party purists from the Democrats, and those left, are most likely leaning with Newt. Those on the right, are most likely forgiving Newt his past, and looking at him as the one to trounce the President in the debate arena, and in the polls (this is yet to occur, however as Romney has been given the most media attention as the “eventual nominee”, and polls are now just beginning to show Gingrich equal to or above Romney”, a first look by many will clearly move those numbers in Newts’ favor should his debate performance remain constant going into the Iowa primary.

The next debate will be held on December 10, 2011, co - sponsored by the Des Moines Register and the Iowa Republican Party and broadcast on ABC News at 9:00 PM eastern.

The Iowa Caucus is the first 2012 general election decision made, followed by New Hampshire, the first primary in the nation. Both will take place in early January, just six weeks or less from today.

CNN Debate Video

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

This entire article is complete "establishment" propaganda. Ron Paul was the unquestionable winner of the debate. He completely schooled Newt and Romney on every issue that came up mainly because Ron Paul is the only one who actually stands for the constitution where as the rest of the candidates (except for Huntsmen) are all neoconservatives.

HampersNationWide(China) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tina Hemond said...

Part I
Dear Deluded but Enthusiastic Anonymous Ron Paul Supporter: first with all due respect, this is not an "establishment blog" if you read anything other than this particular post - it is, if anything anti-establishment and with all due respect to Dr. Paul, he's a genius when it comes to economics, foreign policy and national security - are where he goes off the reservation - in my opinion - I have, on these debates, and from the beginning, given credit where credit was due, regardless of whether I personally liked the particular candidate, therefore, trust me, if I thought that Ron Paul was on target on these issues, then he would have been seen as the winner in this respect - as to the constitution on foreign intervention - or domestic for that matter, it is quite clear without need to interpret. - Ron Paul is a pure Libertarian, it is admirable that he sticks to his convictions without wavering and has done so, however, this is a Republican primary and one would anticipate that a Libertarian might not exactly be appealing to a broad base of Republican's and or Moderate Conservative Independent Thinkers.

Tina Hemond said...

Part II
If there were a Democrat Primary there would be a post here as to who did what (see Hillary Clinton 2007 – 2008) If Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, John Huntsman or the flipping moderator debated well (even tone, no hysteria, no losing site of the original question, keeping within time, etc.) they would then win the next debate in my opinion. It could even be Ron Paul - but this debate was on national security - not the Fed and one can argue that the economy affects national security (obvious), however, it is there that one must have a strong defense, closed borders (for both isolationist and those who would prefer not to have bombs come across the border along with gun toting Mexican Drug Lords (another can of worms). In addition, it behooves us, as a nation to have allies and support those allies both financially but with military intervention, should the need arise. Being a first generation of Spanish/Austrian decent, of an age where immediate family members had been affected by the Spanish Civil War (family pulled into street, along with the religious, shot, and left for dead in a ditch on the side of the road – women, children, men, no matter) as well as the war in Europe (Those members that were sent to the gas chambers and those that sent them) – with a President in office at the time, who hesitated to a)condemn, b)sanction and c) intervene until it was far too late for millions of Jews, Catholics, Romany, etc. Frankly, as a mother, I am not thrilled to think we, as a nation, would go to war, but I would hope that the individual who takes the helm, quite bluntly, “has a pair” and is willing and able to craft a message, that is neither concerned with what the press nor some foreign dictator thinks. A Leader that will bring the Congress into the debate, but insure that any vote to war, is a Congressional vote to war, with or without the blessing of that most ridiculous body – the United Nations (who should be paying some hefty rent).
Therefore I am certain you might see where I do not agree with Dr. Paul in this instance and if you understood the debate arena, then you would see how it was that in my opinion it was determined who won and who did not – and why.
Here’s another thought for you – as much as this blogger would love to see the emergence of a true strong third party or possibly fourth – the process take years to develop, and there must be, for the sake, of nothing but silly “recognition” by the public, the means to hold a convection, hold debates with members of that party, that are aired on national television, and to hold primaries. There is a process for this. There is also a Libertarian Party; however, it is not stronger than the Communist and or Socialist Party. The Socialist of course, realized the fact that they could both save money and time, by running as Democrats (thus the term Progressive Democrat), but it takes away from the purity of the debate for each political ideology. As it stands now, should a third party candidate (or what would be an independent candidate, meaning independent of a party) emerge – that individual would not garner enough of the votes, in a three way split, to win, rather the risk would be that David Axelrod’s dream scenario would arise, (See Massachustts gubernatorial race of 2009), where a third party candidate peeled just enough votes away that Deval Patrick , (Axelrod’s gift to Massachusetts and literal “guinea pig” when it comes to “how to reelect Obama), won by 1 point, one point. (and that’s with the requisite number of illegal ballots, trolling nursing homes for votes, the dead voting, telling union members that they must vote, and then give their ballots to the union boss, you know, the way things are in a state full of political criminals. Therefore, beware of the Trojan Horse, and woe to the arrogant and ignorant that runs as an independent in this election, for they will hand the office to someone else. It’s like a ticking bomb waiting to go off – it would be nice, if the reality was different, but it simply is not.


Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address
Subject
Message