Tea Party Debate

Again, I didn’t watch the debate live, but through the magic of Al Gore’s interwebtubes, I didn’t have to.

My assessments didn’t change much since the last one.

Perry admits that enacting mandatory HPV vaccines through an executive order was a mistake, but can’t seem to grasp that his excuse of “I’ll always err on the side of life”, to me sounds eerily like “I know what’s best for you, just shut up and do what you’re told”.

Not exactly what I’m looking for.

Also his defense of allowing in-state tuition for illegals falls very flat. To rationalize this policy, he relied on a false dichotomy: “we chose to provide them the opportunity to become contributing members of society rather than be on the government dole”.

This is a false choice for two reasons…the assumption that without a college education, one cannot contribute to society in a meaningful way…and that illegals should even have the OPTION of being on the “government dole”.

Problem with uneducated illegals eating up all your welfare and food stamp money?


This isn’t rocket science folks.

The previous Texas Governor who became President didn’t handle illegal immigration with any effectiveness and I don’t think this one would either.

Not impressed.

On the question of whether the prescription drug benefit to medicare should be repealed, Romney, Pawlenty, Perry and Paul, to a person, blinked.

“It was a mistake and we don’t think it should have been enacted….but we don’t want to say we’re going to repeal it…we just going to make it work.”


How – specifically? Magic fairy dust?

On Social Security, they all chickened out as well.

Perry thinks it’s a Ponzi Scheme, but it’s a good Ponzi scheme and those at the top of the pyramid can continue to profit from it. It’s all the suckers at the bottom who are going to have to continue to pay for the ones at the top…while at the same time, fund their own private accounts so that they’ll have something to retire on.

That’s what’s happening now isn’t it? I don’t think any of us are stupid enough to believe that when we’re 65 (or 75, or 90, or whatever the age gets extended out to), there will be anything for us to collect. So we’re already having to fund our own retirement accounts…while still paying into a social security program that we know darn good and well we aren’t going to “collect” from.

So, how are any of their “plans” different than the situation as it is?

Or are they somehow implying that the people who are collecting now, that are being guaranteed their benefits won’t be affected, are going to get their future Social Security checks from Unicorns and the Tooth Fairy?

We’re all for smaller government and reduced spending, but we’re not going to actually cut anything to get it done.


Hate to tell you this guys, but that money’s gotta come from somewhere.

And Newt…eliminating fraud and abuse would be a great thing. I just can’t wait to see your proposals to do that which don’t include vastly increasing the size of federal law enforcement. And we all know how sensitive to respecting citizens rights federal law enforcement are don’t we? Heck, just ask Randy Weaver and his Wife…oh…wait.

I can’t even begin to address all the ways that this is a bad idea in a reasonable amount of space. It would be easier to point out all of the federal enforcement agencies that have NOT become out of control, ridiculously expensive, overbearing behemoths. Lets do that:

Ok…I couldn’t think, of any, can you?

The Fair Tax was brought up and quickly dismissed with no follow up. Basically, Herman Cain is the ONLY candidate (among those who I’m still taking seriously, more abut that in a sec) who understands that our ridiculously complex and oppressive tax system needs to be completely thrown out and that we need to start over again with something fair, equitable and easy to understand.

The rest of them simply want to “reform” our tax code…which generally means make it even more complicated than it already is, while still enabling the rich and well-connected to escape it.

Put a fork in him…Ron Paul is done.

Strike one: The Jihadis attacked us because we were mean to them. Because everyone knows that fundamentalist Muslims have, throughout history, been a kind and peace-loving peoples all through history, right up until the United States deployed troops to Saudi Arabia.

or something.

Strike Two: We have troops in 900 bases and 140+ countries around the world. What would we do if China had troops stationed here?

Well…I guess it depends on whether we INVITED THEM or not. Most of those places in which we have a military presence don’t WANT us to leave. In fact, the only two I can think of in which we could even be remotely considered an “occupying force” is Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not too many years ago, the government of the Philippines asked us to kindly remove our bases from their territory. What did we do? We left.

Same thing decades ago when we were politely asked to remove ourselves from Libya.

Granted, it wouldn’t break my heart to see the number of foreign US bases greatly reduced, or possibly even eliminated, but to imply that we’re occupying those countries against their will is simply disingenuous.

Strike Three: Speaking of disingenuous…when Pawlenty rebutted the contention that the 9/11 attacks were our fault and laid the blame where it belongs: at the feet of militant Jihadists, Ron Paul constructed a fine strawman in retorting that America needs to stop trying to blame ALL Muslims for the attacks.

Bovine Manure.

That’s not what Pawlenty said and not what most Americans believe. Dr. Paul, if you’re going to respond, at least respond to what was actually said, not to what the voices in your head tell you other people are thinking.

He’s outta here.

If Ron Paul wins the Primary and is up against Obama, I’ll write in my dog’s name.

Roxy for President!!!!

Pawlenty: “Look how COURAGEOUS I am!!!111!!one11!”

Mr. Pawlenty, let me give you a tip: If the only way we can discern your courage is by you telling us about it, I’m thinking it’s probably not your most prominent feature.

He scored a few points, and probably did better this time than last time, but he again came across as someone out of his depth and trying desperately to be noticed.

The Jury is still out on Herman Cain. He’s got some good ideas and, although I like the Fairtax better, His “9-9-9” plan has some merit. Simplify the tax code, don’t continue to complicate it.

With that said, I’ll need to hear a lot more from him on his plans in other aspects of government before I can consider him a serious candidate.

I feel that Bachmann did a bit better this time. Didn’t seem as “off” as last time, although there was one time that she wandered off into the weeds and left me thinking “What the heck is she talking about???” I do think she’s too invested in this HPV vaccine thing. Yes, it was a mistake. No it shouldn’t have even been done through legislation, let alone an Executive Order. You oppose it. We get it. Move on already.

Beating dead horses and all that.

Huntsman…you’re not funny. Stop trying to be.

Again, his style would be well suited to speeches, but falls flat in a debate forum. Everything is too practiced and rehearsed. He comes off as a phony…which, based on what I know about his record, isn’t too far off. A commenter on one of the political blogs said “Isn’t he running in the wrong primary?”


The one person who I think really did a lot to help himself was Newt. By staying out of the infighting (which all of them claim they want to do, right before stabbing each other in the back), he’s coming across as the adult in the room…and he hasn’t said anything incredibly stupid.


Too bad he’s already proven himself to be a big-government Republican or I might have thought about jumping on the bandwagon.

None of them, so far, has jumped up and grabbed my vote, but I can say that I’d support any of them EXCEPT Ron Paul against Obama.

Again, not trying to influence anyone else, just spilling my impressions and thoughts out there for anyone who cares to discuss it.

I’m open to being convinced. If I’m reading something wrong or not considering some aspect or another, I’d be happy to hear about it.


4 thoughts on “Tea Party Debate

  1. While I like a lot (if not all) of Cain's domestic positions, his foreign policy stances can be…well, "insane" is the first word that comes to mind. And that's a shame, because I think most everything else about his candidacy would make him an excellent choice for the US.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.