Open thread: Who’s up for a Saturday night GOP debate on foreign policy?

posted at 7:15 pm on November 12, 2011 by Allahpundit

Yes, this is really happening. 8 p.m. ET on CBS. As a concession to how low public interest is likely to be, especially head to head with Oregon/Stanford, CBS won’t carry the whole debate. It’ll run for 90 minutes but they’re cutting out at 9 p.m. for … a re-run of “NCIS.” If you want to watch the last half hour, switch over to CBSNews.com or National Journal. Perfectly fitting treatment for a key policy subject that’s been mostly an afterthought this year.

In lieu of a “Quote of the Day,” here’s your thread to follow along. National Journal’s compiled “dossiers” on each of the candidates’ positions, but realistically, casual viewers are watching this for three reasons — to see if Gingrich challenges Romney, to be there in case Perry or Cain commits another brutal gaffe, and to enjoy the fireworks from the inevitable Ron Paul/Rick Santorum argument over whether Iranian archterrorists with nuclear missiles is something we should worry about. I’m actually less curious about their answers than I am about the priority of the questions. Do you start with Iran tonight or with the Eurozone meltdown? Do you tempt the field to dump on Obama for ordering a pullout from Iraq, knowing that fully 77 percent of the public supports that decision? And how long do you wait before the inevitable softball about The One and Sarkozy badmouthing Netanyahu? Newt, for one, is itching to swing at that pitch.

To get you warmed up, a vignette from the campaign trail earlier this afternoon:

Donning a rhinestone “PERRY 2012″ pin on her sweater, Anita Perry knocked on doors on the tree-lined Fairlane Drive here in South Carolina this morning, pressing residents to consider voting for her husband in this presidential election…

“Maybe he won’t stumble tonight,” [a local] woman told Perry as she walked down the steps of her home.

“I hope not,” Perry answered with a laugh.

“That’s OK, that was quite fun. I think it showed he was human-like,” the woman said.

And how is the human-like candidate himself “preparing”? Here’s a photo. Dude, I’m nervous.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 13 14 15

With enormous sadness and regret, you lost it on this one. The entire article is a leftie smear, with no reality or logic, or not a smidgeon of truth in it. I’m very sorry for you Knuck. You have become a parody which moved from Perry to Cain. I’m very, very sad to see this becaue you have one of the better brains around, are quick. That you don’t see that Perry would never include Israel in the zero baseline is a sad moment to witness. We need no enemies from the left. We have them within.

Oh yes, you can spew back if you wish. I will continue to admire you for your general wit and wisdom, but I will look for you to talk to yourself. Otherwise there is no hope for way too many.

Schadenfreude on November 13, 2011 at 12:13 AM

Gee, I guess I didn’t really hear Rick Perry say “Everybody getting foreign aid goes to zero including Israel” and you have a problem with me saying that wasn’t the smartest thing in the world to say and your offended because of the link I posted? Go ahead do a search, it’s all over the internet and twitter, I just used a link that was already here.

Am I not allowed to make my own decision that Perry’s idea is not good one for a variety of reasons? Get off your sanctimonious high horse and stop trying to change the way I think.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 12:38 AM

BTW, to sort of change the topic. Perry is supposed to be the one going after Mitt; though, in my opinion, he isn’t up to the task.
Are we going to hear him go after Mitt’s bit about China stealing our jobs? Mitt’s veiled threats at a trade war? I mean, aren’t Perry and Mitt both disciples of Friedman?
MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:31 AM

According to Perry’s campaign they’re running on the TX SuperPAC money now, individual donations have all but dried up. Mitt is trying to get Perry to spend his money going negative against him (or Cain or anybody). But Perry does even worse than usual when he goes negative, so he’s held back from falling into that trap. Perry has to spend all his time and money in an attempt to prove he’s not an idiot instead, anyway. So he’s in a damned-if-ya do/don’t situation. Go negative & lose or repeat “I’m not an idiot” ad infinitum & lose.

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 12:39 AM

We should all be in this together to defeat the One.

txmomof6 on November 13, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Indeed, but good luck.

Schadenfreude on November 13, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Actually Cain’s answer is pretty good on that question. Would we rather have a terrorist’s lawyer decide such things or our men & women in uniform (who have to actually handle the terrorists)?

whatcat on November 13, 2011 at 12:09 AM

I want policy on this matter, as on all matters, decided by appropriate civilian authority. Apparently ol’ Herm would just rather let the generals do his thinkin’ for him…

JohnGalt23 on November 13, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Approach is like Perry would. Make them prove they’ve earned this subsidy.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:19 AM

Are you related to csdevin?

Vince on November 13, 2011 at 12:42 AM

I want policy on this matter, as on all matters, decided by appropriate civilian authority. Apparently ol’ Herm would just rather let the generals do his thinkin’ for him…

JohnGalt23 on November 13, 2011 at 12:40 AM

I would prefer policy too, BUT Herman’s answer is safer in that a lot of people don’t want to hear him say he thinks water boarding is wonderful and a lot of people don’t want to hear him say he thinks water boarding is torture. He walked a tight line.

Now, if you want to hear policy; ask Michele Bachmann more about how you can help her get rid of the Great Society crap. :D

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:43 AM

And, may I add, get a reasonably conservative guy/gal nominated. Someone that knows the issues and can defend/promote them.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:37 AM

That would be ideal, but looking at the OWS crowd, I am thinking this country needs anyone on the stage more than Obama. This divisive &$##! cannot go on with the seriousness of our problems. Bachmann said it best tonight, 203 Billion more to the Debt in October alone compared to 160 Billion for the last year Republicans were responsible for the budget. The country has to have all the rowers going in the same direction to get going forward again.

txmomof6 on November 13, 2011 at 12:43 AM

Careful there. Not all of us can attain True Believer status on the interwebz.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Unfortunately, Knucklehead has reached that stage.

I will give anything for unseen and some of the old Palinistas, who have been missing for a while, to resurface and point out Knucklehead’s hypocrisy to her.

It will be sweet, I tell ya, it will be. :)

TheRightMan on November 13, 2011 at 12:44 AM

Are you related to csdevin?

Vince on November 13, 2011 at 12:42 AM

I don’t think so.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Dear Knucklehead, it’s all over the “internets” that Cain harassed women. I don’t believe a word of it, unless proof is provided.

With best regards and good to you, always.

Schadenfreude on November 13, 2011 at 12:46 AM

That would be ideal, but looking at the OWS crowd, I am thinking this country needs anyone on the stage more than Obama. This divisive &$##! cannot go on with the seriousness of our problems. Bachmann said it best tonight, 203 Billion more to the Debt in October alone compared to 160 Billion for the last year Republicans were responsible for the budget. The country has to have all the rowers going in the same direction to get going forward again.

txmomof6 on November 13, 2011 at 12:43 AM

I’ve said here multiple times that if Hillary Rotten Clinton had the best shot of defeating Obama, running as a socialist, I would support her. Anything to shake up the system. I still want a reasonable conservative, though.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:46 AM

Dear Knucklehead, it’s all over the “internets” that Cain harassed women. I don’t believe a word of it, unless proof is provided.

With best regards and good to you, always.

Schadenfreude on November 13, 2011 at 12:46 AM

There’s a difference discussing one’s policy and allegations made from apparent bimbos.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Night all. Early morning coming cuz the youngest is singing at Mass in the AM.

txmomof6 on November 13, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Unfortunately, Knucklehead has reached that stage.

I will give anything for unseen and some of the old Palinistas, who have been missing for a while, to resurface and point out Knucklehead’s hypocrisy to her.

It will be sweet, I tell ya, it will be. :)

TheRightMan on November 13, 2011 at 12:44 AM

I’m sure that unseen will emerge at any moment to point out Knucklehead’s unreasonable hate towards the hearty Rick Perry.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:49 AM

BTW, to sort of change the topic. Perry is supposed to be the one going after Mitt; though, in my opinion, he isn’t up to the task.

Are we going to hear him go after Mitt’s bit about China stealing our jobs? Mitt’s veiled threats at a trade war? I mean, aren’t Perry and Mitt both disciples of Friedman?

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Why? Are you starting to face up to the reality that the stupidity of some conservatives might lead to Romney as the nominee?

Perry is supposed to be the one going after Mitt? Sorry, I guess he got the memo that was circulated to the other candidates that no one should attack Mitt but suck up to him.

Perry is busy telling voters what he will do as President. Voters can choose to vote for him or go with Mitt. He can return to his job and later retire in peace.

So you can go look for another candidate that will attack Mitt.

TheRightMan on November 13, 2011 at 12:53 AM

There’s a difference discussing one’s policy and allegations made from apparent bimbos.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Evidently so, especially when some people are afraid to poke their heads from under the covers to defend someone against bimbo smears but miraculously appear to point out that we’re wrong in discussing policy issues/statements and have bought into the liberal talking points.

I need to check my hearing aid, maybe the battery is dead.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Why? Are you starting to face up to the reality that the stupidity of some conservatives might lead to Romney as the nominee?

Why? Isn’t he supposed to make the TV’s bleed? Or was he just bullshitting again? See, everyone but poor Rick Perry is Mitt’s stalking horse – right? If you don’t slam Mitt Romney, you secretly want him to win, right? But what do we get from Perry? Nada.

Perry is supposed to be the one going after Mitt? Sorry, I guess he got the memo that was circulated to the other candidates that no one should attack Mitt but suck up to him.

I’m just repeating the talking points ;)

Perry is busy telling voters what he will do as President. Voters can choose to vote for him or go with Mitt. He can return to his job and later retire in peace.

OK, and I don’t like what he would do as President :D

So you can go look for another candidate that will attack Mitt.

TheRightMan on November 13, 2011 at 12:53 AM

So you admit that Rick Perry is Mitt’s stalking horse!!! /derangedPerrysupporter

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:57 AM

Evidently so, especially when some people are afraid to poke their heads from under the covers to defend someone against bimbo smears but miraculously appear to point out that we’re wrong in discussing policy issues/statements and have bought into the liberal talking points.

I need to check my hearing aid, maybe the battery is dead.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 12:54 AM

I’ve yet to hear a substantive defense of his Foreign Aid policy and his China policy. Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised, because there wasn’t much substance in his answers tonight.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:00 AM

BTW, to sort of change the topic. Perry is supposed to be the one going after Mitt; though, in my opinion, he isn’t up to the task.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 12:31 AM

What exactly is the point of attacking Mitt? Conservatives aren’t sold on Romney, and he’s only falling in the polls (ex: down to 15% in the latest CBS poll, down from 21% on Oct. 21). For the moment, none of the not-Romneys need to focus on Romney, they need to make the case for their own candidacies. The current frontrunners (first Cain, and now Gingrich) have earned their leads with positive messaging. I think the message is clear that Republicans do not want the debates to turn into circular firing squads.

Lawdawg86 on November 13, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Look there are several points.

1) This is bigger than Israel. What happens to Taiwan, South Korean, Japan, European nations, &c? Are they all on the same playing field? The same field as Pakistan?

2) As someone that is pro-Israel (though, Judaism isn’t my religion, so I can’t claim the Jew badge), I find Perry’s approach troubling. He wants to sound like he’s cutting waste … but then so much as admits he wouldn’t touch our “real” allies. It’s a mushy plan at best. Plus you and I know he won’t cut aid to Pakistan on day one.

MeatHeadinCA on November 12, 2011

Perry’s answer was perfectly stated for the 30-second soundbite debate format. You and your sock puppet knucklehead have all night to string out the nuances of the issue on board like this one. In a quick-snap debate, especially one as shoddily run as this one, the Candidate needs to put out clear messages. The main message of Perry’s statement is that we (the US) are fed up with the utter wasteland that pretends to be our foreign aid program, where our enemies get billions. We are going to put a stop to that system. When making that sort of statement you can’t equivocate around the margins and do the John Kerry nuance dance. In an interview with extended remarks, sure. In this sham of a debate format? No way.

Perry’s statement is what I want to hear from a Conservative candidate in these types of debates.

JonPrichard on November 13, 2011 at 1:01 AM

What exactly is the point of attacking Mitt?

To prove one isn’t a stalking horse?

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Perry’s answer was perfectly stated for the 30-second soundbite debate format.

He would have been fine (though still sort of dodging the question) had he simply said: I think we need to re-evaluation foreign aid and that will include cutting foreign aid to nations that aren’t acting in our interests.

MeatHeadinCA on November 12, 2011 at 10:48 PM

You and your sock puppet knucklehead have all night to string out the nuances of the issue on board like this one.

JonPrichard on November 13, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Whoa … I guess you’re going to be upset when you see the media is actually pursuing this perfectly reasonable policy response.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:05 AM

All the more reason to nominate Ron Paul.

MeatHeadinCA on November 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM

I have to admit I’m starting to relish the thought of promoting Ron Paul above the rest of the establishment by making him President. While I think Newt would be better than Romney, I still fear that he’ll also partner with a RINO congress and nothing much will change. At least with Ron Paul you know there will be a change for the better domestically even if there is a period of isolationism while the country gets it’s act together and balances the budget and pays down the debt. Ron Paul is the only one I have absolute confidence in that he’ll try his best to cut spending and give us our freedom and liberty back.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:11 AM

I should say relative isolationism.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:12 AM

To prove one isn’t a stalking horse?

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:02 AM

You have it all wrong, Rick Perry got in the race to pave the way for Palin or something like that.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Ron Paul is the only one I’m sure will check a runaway RINO congress.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:15 AM

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:11 AM

There is definitely a case to be made for the idea of a Ron Paul presidency. I tend to disagree with him when he starts talking about what motivates the terrorists; but as you point out, the pandering would completely stop. You’d basically have Paul v Congress v the courts. *shrugs

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:16 AM

You have it all wrong, Rick Perry got in the race to pave the way for Palin or something like that.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:14 AM

If Cain and Newt hadn’t bumped up in the polls, I have to wonder if Palin would have decided to jump back in.

I’m just shocked. Perry was supposed to be this big anti-Romney guy and he can’t even pull that off.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:18 AM

I had to go out tonight…

… Is there a link to the replay?

Seven Percent Solution on November 13, 2011 at 1:20 AM

I’m confident Bachmann would check a RINO congress too.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:20 AM

I’m just shocked. Perry was supposed to be this big anti-Romney guy and he can’t even pull that off.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:18 AM

Well my TV hasn’t started bleeding yet, but what do I know, I’m just a lowly sock puppet and a cultist.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Ron Paul is the only one I’m sure will check a runaway RINO congress.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:15 AM

So what about this idea. Nominate someone with some energy behind them. Cain? Gingrich? Someone that will get the grassroots people to come out. Then push some serious conservatives into the House/Senate.

I know this much, Mitt is going to have a hard time winning against Obama and he’s not going to help get a more conservative Congress.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM

Well my TV hasn’t started bleeding yet, but what do I know, I’m just a lowly sock puppet and a cultist.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Don’t try to force Perry to take Mitt out! He’s content in the 5% range, mkay?

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:23 AM

To prove one isn’t a stalking horse?

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Right, but isn’t Gingrich’s method of drawing a bright contrast with Romney and then inviting voters to discern the differences accomplishing the same thing without incurring the voter wrath that comes with going negative?

Furthermore, I think Gingrich is in the polar opposite position of Pawlenty. People were already concerned about Pawlenty’s toughness (see: “too Minnesota nice”), his failure to repeat his criticism of Romney cemented that image. Gingrich’s pre-existing condition is the opposite of Pawlenty– he is seen as an arrogant, bombastic loose-cannon with a tendency to inflict collateral damage on his own team. Deferring to the judgment of voters while refraining from attacking his own side is exactly what Gingrich needs to do– it shows me that he has matured some and can learn from his mistakes. I think that’s what a lot of people are seeing in his debate performances, and its why they are giving him a second chance. Everyone knows Newt can go on the attack, what they want to see now is that he can hold himself back.

Lawdawg86 on November 13, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Lawdawg86 on November 13, 2011 at 1:31 AM

You won’t get much argument from me. Perry was supposed to be this guy that was just going to take it to Mitt. Everyone else was Mitt’s stalking horse. Well, Perry failed to rake Mitt through the coals. Newt and Cain both are positive and are giving Romney a run for his money. See how that works?

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:34 AM

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM

You can’t change congress unless you can throw them all out at once.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:34 AM

You can’t change congress unless you can throw them all out at once.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:34 AM

I disagree. Many of the people that got elected as a result of the Red Wave have been disappointments, but there are some good people out there that are fighting to stop the madness – Rand Paul for example. Elect 5 more Rand Pauls to the Senate and things really start getting shaken up.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:35 AM

True, there was a small group of keepers but it would take many elections to matter and there isn’t time.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:38 AM

Another way to change congress is with leadership from above, like Ron Paul or Bachmann. Newt might be OK, I’m not ruling him out. Cain and Perry are in over their heads. Bachmann is the real deal. The RINO’s that call her crazy-eyes are the real nuts. Big government nuts. They ridicule Bachmann and Paul because they’re the only ones that will really make a difference and save America so that younger people like me have something to look forward to also.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2011 at 1:41 AM

There is definitely a case to be made for the idea of a Ron Paul presidency.

MeatHeadinCA on November 13, 2011 at 1:16 AM

No there isn’t.

Ronnie on November 13, 2011 at 3:38 AM

I don’t understand, Perry says Zero $$ for Israel, and a few other allies, based on an “evaluation” of if they deserve it–and Perrynistas are defending him. But if Cain had said that? Methinks the heads would have been swiveling full speed, spitting out the derision…

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 3:42 AM

I don’t understand, Perry says Zero $$ for Israel, and a few other allies, based on an “evaluation” of if they deserve it–and Perrynistas are defending him. But if Cain had said that? Methinks the heads would have been swiveling full speed, spitting out the derision…

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 3:42 AM

That’s not what he said. You’re distorting it so you can be critical of it.

The dishonesty on this board is breathtaking, and it’s the same handful of you over and over and over.

Perry did well. The reaction on Twitter was overwhelmingly positive (same people who thought he was done last week). I should have known he’d never get a fair shake here.

By the way, Twitter reaction on Cain? Not so good.

capitalist piglet on November 13, 2011 at 5:18 AM

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 3:42 AM

It’s because Perry supporters know that Rick Perry has one astounding record of friendship with Israel. If you follow the links here you’ll see that he was awarded Israel’s “Defender of Jerusalem” in 2009, that he has been to Israel more than any other candidate running beginning in 1991, that he has set-up the Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce, that he told an Israeli lawyer that if ever Israel needed him to let him know and when she asked for his help against the flotilla, he sent a letter to Holder reminding him of US law & that it was illegal for Americans to be on the flotilla, etc. And after Bob Turner won, Perry held a press conference with him and Orthodox Jews to come out against the Palestinians asking the UN for statehood (he wrote an op-ed about it, too). On that debate stage, no one is as big a friend to Israel as Rick Perry is.

Perry has a record as a friend to Israel, one that is well-documented and easily looked up. And one that makes me smile every time I think about it.

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 5:24 AM

I know he did, but it was just a little snark. Chill. We should all be in this together to defeat the One.

txmomof6 on November 13, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Meaty brought it up and distorted the record, yet when I correct the record, I’m told to “chill”. Interesting. I don’t care if it was “snark” or not, I won’t let the record be lied about. I also don’t like being told what to do, either, thankyouverymuch.

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 5:26 AM

That’s not what he said. You’re distorting it so you can be critical of it.

The dishonesty on this board is breathtaking, and it’s the same handful of you over and over and over.

Perry did well. The reaction on Twitter was overwhelmingly positive (same people who thought he was done last week). I should have known he’d never get a fair shake here.

By the way, Twitter reaction on Cain? Not so good.

capitalist piglet on November 13, 2011 at 5:18 AM

Hey, cp! Thanks for the info re: Twitter. I’m not on Twitter, but I still like to hear what the reaction was. Our guy did REALLY good tonight. I’m so proud of him!

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 5:28 AM

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 5:24 AM

Exactly.

Logic isn’t a Cain supporter’s strong suit-if it was…they’d be supporting someone else.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 13, 2011 at 5:35 AM

capitalist piglet on November 13, 2011 at 5:18 AM

Remember the Barbie Doll that said ‘Math is hard’?
To Cain ‘Barbies’…thinking is hard.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 13, 2011 at 5:38 AM

Go Perry Go..:)

Dire Straits on November 13, 2011 at 5:47 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on November 13, 2011 at 5:38 AM

Hello alt..:)

Dire Straits on November 13, 2011 at 6:13 AM

To summarize, Perry needs to take a crash course in Effective Communications 101, stat. If half the people think he said one thing and the other half of the people think he said the opposite, he has a problem. Imagine going to a doctor like that. You wouldn’t know if he recommended that you drink way less or way more.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 13, 2011 at 6:26 AM

Personally, I will take what he said as a recommendation to drink way more.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 13, 2011 at 6:27 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on November 13, 2011 at 5:35 AM

LOL!

If the MSM is going to pretend Perry’s against Israel over this, it will give him an opportunity to show just how pro-Israel he is :)

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 6:27 AM

Go Perry Go..:)

Dire Straits on November 13, 2011 at 5:47 AM

I think he’s got his comeback boots on :)

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 6:28 AM

I think he’s got his comeback boots on :)

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 6:28 AM

Problem is he picked the cement ones rather than the leather ones.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 13, 2011 at 6:32 AM

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 6:28 AM

Let us hope so!..:)

Dire Straits on November 13, 2011 at 6:32 AM

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 12:07 AM

With enormous sadness and regret, you lost it on this one. The entire article is a leftie smear, with no reality or logic, or not a smidgeon of truth in it. I’m very sorry for you Knuck. You have become a parody which moved from Perry to Cain. I’m very, very sad to see this becaue you have one of the better brains around, are quick. That you don’t see that Perry would never include Israel in the zero baseline is a sad moment to witness. We need no enemies from the left. We have them within.

Oh yes, you can spew back if you wish. I will continue to admire you for your general wit and wisdom, but I will look for you to talk to yourself. Otherwise there is no hope for way too many
Schadenfreude on November 13, 2011 at 12:13 AM

Knucklehead has become that which she feared and derided the most – a cultist akin to some of the most rabid Palinistas and Paulnuts that Hot Air has ever seen.

She was one of those that used to lambast the most extreme Palinistas for their inability to see reason and their blind devotion to Palin.

Alas it only took one man – Cain – to get her to drop her reason and become a cultist. It’s official – Knucklehead is no longer a Cainiac but a Cainista.

LOL…

TheRightMan on November 13, 2011 at 12:32 AM

You two take the cake…along with your little friends. You dare to call names–yet you so staunchly defend a memory lapse so profound as to make history–and is now called a “Perry moment”??? You defend Perry’s self-made “negative” talking point for the lefty blogs….and you DARE to call US Cainista’s??? And you can’t even see your own hypocrisy–which is pretty pathetic…Actually it’s bordering on desparation cause you want your man to get out of the single digets so badly. Your chortling over your “cutesy” label is a sad thing to behold…

If Cain had done either, you would be all over him…I thought us Cain supporters actually cut Perry a little slack over his enormous brain fart, (in front of millions, mind you)…something I KNOW for a fact, you Perryinista’s would NEVER give Cain a pass on…

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 6:41 AM

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 3:42 AM

That’s not what he said. You’re distorting it so you can be critical of it.

The dishonesty on this board is breathtaking, and it’s the same handful of you over and over and over.

Perry did well. The reaction on Twitter was overwhelmingly positive (same people who thought he was done last week). I should have known he’d never get a fair shake here.

By the way, Twitter reaction on Cain? Not so good.

capitalist piglet on November 13, 2011 at 5:18 AM

The bolded words say all we need to know about you….all I did was repeat what was being twitted/tweeted…about your man…

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 6:44 AM

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 5:24 AM

You and I know this, but the indies don’t–and so it would be ok to take this out of context and say it wasn’t a mistake? Like if Cain had done this, then you wouldn’t jump on this statement?

All, I’m doing is pointing out how you guys are acting…There is nothing wrong with defending your man, and I basically agree…I was just trying to make a point–sadly I know it will be lost on most of your bunch…

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 6:49 AM

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 6:49 AM

But Cain doesn’t have a record of support for Israel, just words. If Cain had the record Perry has, I wouldn’t jump all over him for it.

If this becomes a big issue, it will be a great opportunity for Perry to show his credentials as a supporter of Israel (heck, he’s a Zionist).

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 6:52 AM

Logic isn’t a Cain supporter’s strong suit-if it was…they’d be supporting someone else.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 13, 2011 at 5:35 AM

Yeah, we can all see your logic for what it is…the logic of a lemming. I know how desparate you were for your guy not to shoot himself in the foot tonight…

Oh, and btw, since most of us Cain supporters were so LOGICAL last night that we gave Perry a little slack for his painful “duh” moment…you can consider that to be the last you will see from me. And you wonder where all the “love” has gone between us HA commenters…

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 6:53 AM

capitalist piglet on November 13, 2011 at 5:18 AM

Remember the Barbie Doll that said ‘Math is hard’?
To Cain ‘Barbies’…thinking is hard.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 13, 2011 at 5:38 AM

Do I REALLY need to replay Perry’s forgetting the 3rd point of his own plan? Damn, when you put blinders on….

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 6:55 AM

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 6:49 AM

But Cain doesn’t have a record of support for Israel, just words. If Cain had the record Perry has, I wouldn’t jump all over him for it.

If this becomes a big issue, it will be a great opportunity for Perry to show his credentials as a supporter of Israel (heck, he’s a Zionist).

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 6:52 AM

You have nothing to jump all over him for in this debate…Perry gave a big talking point to the left, that is the point. And you think they will pay attention to his record? Really? That worked so well for Palin…

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 6:59 AM

Must hang in there for another year. After that it either gets better or we go 100% gulching.

Schadenfreude on November 13, 2011 at 12:19 AM

This.

Who is John Galt on November 13, 2011 at 7:06 AM

But Cain doesn’t have a record of support for Israel, just words.
Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 6:52 AM

All presidential debates are just words. Obama had a record, and what did he end up doing? Oh, and BTW…Cain was the only Republican presidential candidate at Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Courage” rally in Israel. Cain said “If you mess with Israel, you’re messing with the USA.” Putting action to his “words”.

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 7:07 AM

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 6:59 AM

I was repsonding to your own hypothetical of “if Cain had done this, Perry supporters would’ve jumped all over him”: I was saying that if Cain had Perry’s record and said what Perry said tonight, I wouldn’t jump on him.

BTW, there was PLENTY of things to jump all over Cain for tonight: he dodged questions left and right and he kept saying that he would surround himself with good people — his judgement in people *coughBlockheadcough* is terrible.

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 7:10 AM

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 7:07 AM

You call that “action”? Going to a Beck rally and with words saying that he supports Israel? Good for him, but that is not “action” and certainly not the genuine action that Perry has demonstrated toward Israel for 20 years.

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 7:12 AM

Romney/Bill Owens
Newt…sec state
Cain…sec treasury
Paul…sec of shutting down unneeded federal programs, departments, and agencies. Of course, he’ll have to create a department to do that first. lol
Perry…back to Texas

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 7:25 AM

I think he’s got his comeback boots on :)

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 6:28 AM

He has them on the wrong feet.

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 7:31 AM

Having read through the entire thread, I’m stunned at how much vitriol is being directed at Perry by Knucklehead and MeatHeadinCA.

Look, Perry’s brain freeze the other night was awful, and his debate performances prior to last night were pretty lousy. But he was objectively good last night. Denying that fact runs into Perry Derangement Syndrome territory. (In my opinion, his Israel answer was fine. Schadenfreude (I think) identified the calculus that would be used for Israel’s aid. You can’t seriously think that a President Perry would not support Israel.)

I have no idea who will win ultimately. I’m looking hard at Perry, Gingrich, Cain and Romney. So far, I like Perry’s ideas best, but also admire Gingrich’s clear abilities, and Cain’s happy warrior demeanor. One thing I do know is that spending so much time trying to tear Perry down isn’t particularly productive. He’s not your preferred candidate? Fine, but why the hatred towards the man? That’s the way it reads.

jaschenb74 on November 13, 2011 at 7:32 AM

You call that “action”? Going to a Beck rally and with words saying that he supports Israel? Good for him, but that is not “action” and certainly not the genuine action that Perry has demonstrated toward Israel for 20 years.

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 7:12 AM

You are missing the point, people know Cain has no record, all he can do is put actions to his words. He went to Israel, it was not just any old rally here in the States, and he is FOR Israel…should be easy to see for the simplest minds. He doesnt need 20yrs of background. Perry has 20 years, but still made a statement that can be misconstrued. I am just pointing out how the defense of Perry, which I don’t disagree with, is something that if a Cain supporter was doing the same for Cain–it is viewed as being a cultist. I can’t remember if you have ever jumped on the “Cain supporters are cultists” bandwagon, but I know you have high-fived those who do. Just saying…

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 7:40 AM

jaschenb74 on November 13, 2011 at 7:32 AM

You really are clueless as to the “vitriol” that has been aimed at Cain, aren’t you. Living in a bubble here on HA is not a good thing. I mean, we are constantly called cultists and Cainista’s…After a while one stops allowing oneself to be a punching bag as a replacement for the deperation of the Perry fans…

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 7:46 AM

Pelley shouldn’t be allowed to moderate another debate. What a clown.

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 7:48 AM

I think everyone held his/her own last night, I am glad Perry did well, and I am going to bed…long night at work…

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 7:48 AM

I’m watching the debate from the beginning and it’s clear so far, that Perry is intent on bumbling through this debate too.

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 7:50 AM

It’s time to winnow the field down. Starting with Santorum, Huntsman, and Bachmann. If Perry blows it tonight, he needs to be removed from further debates. Paul needs to go because he is absolutely wrong headed on foreign policy.

With Romney, Gingrich, and Cain on stage, we will get all the policies that matter to the GOP and each candidate has the ability to beat Dear Leader. Obviously Romney has the greatest chance.

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 7:58 AM

Did Perry really say that he will drop the foreign aid to Israel to ZERO DOLLARS?

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 8:01 AM

Why does Cain ALWAYS defer to surrounding himself with competent people? I know it makes sense, but using that talking point and “9-9-9″ as the only answers to most issues is very weak.

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Hard to believe some of the posters here didn’t see what really happened re: the foreign aid subject. It should have been obvious to anyone that the Israel question was intended to be a “gotcha!”. You could tell by the way the assclown moderator asked it, he was literally chomping at the bit to put it to Perry. I took the Twitter question as being anti-Israel, but I suppose it could have been pro- hard to tell.

Either way, Perry’s answer was fine because it was perfectly consistent with what he proposed. Anyone who knows his record knows he has been more actively pro-Israel than anyone on that stage. To try to argue that he wouldn’t be is either dishonest or ignorant. And this “Omygosh, the press is going to have a field day with that!”, from posters who’ve done nothing but criticize and bash Perry- is, to put it nicely, pretty laughable. lol

kg598301 on November 13, 2011 at 8:29 AM

If you were looking for a debate where Cain fell apart under the overwhelming pressure of “winging it” in an establishment game, this wasn’t it. His replies were underwhelming and lacked detail for sure, but he didn’t commit the rookie mistake called the “the GI Joe saber rattling trap”. He deftly sidestepped that with ‘sensical’ replies. You still get the impression that his foreign policy would be a strong one.

Bachmann was radiant and fantastic on details. That’s debate prep for you.

And nothing like an ol’ foreign policy debate to bring out the testosterone in a Texan. Perry was on fire and passionate. He looked very presidential to me up there. The best debate line re foreign aid to other countries will start at $0 and be evaluated, even Israel. That needed to happen yesterday.

RepubChica on November 13, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Perry is intent on bumbling through this debate too.
csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 7:50 AM

Yup…he was the very best bumbler, even when threw his $0 foreign aid idea out and he was giddy that the Newtster took him up on it. Good thing they cut all of them off at 9 on CBS and Ricky in the middle of his answer at the end of the debate on-line. It’s the way Ricky talks thru the back of his throat that is so suitable for caricature.

gracie on November 13, 2011 at 9:00 AM

He looked very presidential to me up there.

RepubChica on November 13, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Perry was okay but that was because he was removed from the center of the stage. Less attention is the only way for him to have better debates. I saw him like a deer in headlights for most of the debate. His answers were trite and shallow. The only time he actually acted like he was speaking from his own thoughts was when he was making fun of himself.

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Did Perry really say that he will drop the foreign aid to Israel to ZERO DOLLARS?

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 8:01 AM

Who really knows for sure as with him one often needs a multiple foreign language to English translator.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 13, 2011 at 9:14 AM

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 9:02 AM

I thought Perry was pretty front and center last night, seizing the spotlight at every opportunity. Exposure therapy? Anyway he doesn’t have to try very hard, he’s a very attractive man for his age and has great stage presence. Does he have any Mexican or Native American in him?

RepubChica on November 13, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Does he have any Mexican or Native American in him?

RepubChica on November 13, 2011 at 9:17 AM

I’ve wondered that myself. His younger pictures especially, really look like it~

http://galleries.statesman.com/gallery/rick-perry-021010/#59950

(There are some great pictures on this site, for Perry fans.)

kg598301 on November 13, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Voter from WA State on November 13, 2011 at 9:51 AM

That summation is pretty accurate imo. I only saw the first hour, as CBS didn’t show the whole debate. Why in the world do they get to sponsor a debate in the first place if they won’t show the entire thing?!! is my question. And, the moderator was an idiot. Worst to date.

kg598301 on November 13, 2011 at 10:20 AM

P

erry has a record as a friend to Israel, one that is well-documented and easily looked up. And one that makes me smile every time I think about it.

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 5:24 AM

He also is a friend to Sharia Law and the muslims in TX.

stenwin77 on November 13, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Voter from WA State on November 13, 2011 at 9:51 AM

What really surprised me was how lackluster Herman Cain’s performance was. What with the prevalent opinion being that he is weak on foreign policy, I thought he would make a special effort to get out in front of that. But he didn’t, and he wasn’t at all fiery or charismatic or even funny like he’s been in past debates. Wonder what’s up with that. He must know by now that he can’t base all of his campaigning on 9-9-9.

kg598301 on November 13, 2011 at 10:33 AM

I didn’t comment last night because I was too busy/distracted trying to get the feed to work.

I thought that Perry looked strong. It’s the first debate I saw where it seemed he loosened up and tried to be himself, and he seemed to be more comfortable. Good for him – I’d like to judge him on his policies, and not on whether he hits or misses the banana peel (although that’s a drinking game in itself).

Re: Cain.

I disagree with the near universal panning of his performance. To me, he was very steady. My perception of his “dodging,” etc. was that actually he was showing us that he’s not going to jump out ahead of time and give definitive answers on things he doesn’t yet have the facts for.

I felt that in his answers on those things that can’t be decided until he has the same access to information as the president, he went as far as he honestly could but then said he’d consult the experts.

I like this approach because I feel it is honest. It shows his executive makeup. And it’s just a caricature to hang this all on Mark Block. Just because all the other candidates were trying to jump out with sharply defined positions on each question, doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have to walk these positions back as president once they saw the intel that 0bama is getting.

So I feel that Cain was being honest, and I thought he really was pretty steady.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 10:43 AM

No one’s talking about Romney, but I thought he was – again – pretty impressive. At first glance, Romney does seem to have all the tools.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Exactly.

Logic isn’t a Cain supporter’s strong suit-if it was…they’d be supporting someone else.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 13, 2011 at 5:35 AM

Remember the Barbie Doll that said ‘Math is hard’?
To Cain ‘Barbies’…thinking is hard.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 13, 2011 at 5:38 AM

If you were joking around, it would be funny as intended. There is a joke in what you said, but you probably aren’t going to like learning what the butt of it is. :)

When people make personal attacks (which are emotional i.e. illogical in nature) about others’ intelligence that they can’t impersonally/logically defend, they indict themselves as poor thinkers, and thus they are guilty of the very accusation they make against others.

You may be asking why I might be so certain that you can’t impersonally defend what you said. If so, here is the start of my explanation: by what objective standard do you measure yourself by which causes you to believe that you are a logical person, and that you acted as one when you insulted Cain supporters as though you were intellectually superior to them? Can you even define what “objective standard” and “logical fallacy” mean without looking them up first? LOL

Bizarro No. 1 on November 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM

He also is a friend to Sharia Law and the muslims in TX.

stenwin77 on November 13, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Nope. Pam Geller doctored quotes in order to smear Perry. Here’s a link to what my research found, I started researching this in August.

Israel doesn’t give their “Defender of Jerusalem” awards to Sharia-supporters. Perry has a 20 year record of support and friendship with them.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 4:13 PM

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 7:40 AM

Perry was very clear in his two answers on the subject last night: every country starts at zero dollars and then they will have to show why they should get our aid; then he said “Israel is special” therefore, they would be a country who has already shown why they should get aid. It was simple and consistent. Only the deranged Perry haters here are pretending it was confusing.

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM

You really are clueless as to the “vitriol” that has been aimed at Cain, aren’t you. Living in a bubble here on HA is not a good thing. I mean, we are constantly called cultists and Cainista’s…After a while one stops allowing oneself to be a punching bag as a replacement for the deperation of the Perry fans…

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2011 at 7:46 AM

Actually, I’m not clueless, nor do I live in a bubble. I just don’t post that often.

I really don’t see how your dissatisfaction with how Cain is treated on this site means it is ok to dismiss any positive achievement by Perry. In fact, your point — that you feel Cain is unfairly singled out for poor treatment here — would appear to be a reason not to subject another candidate to such treatment.

We all want to beat Obama next year. Keep your eye on the prize.

jaschenb74 on November 13, 2011 at 5:02 PM

I didn’t comment last night because I was too busy/distracted trying to get the feed to work.

I thought that Perry looked strong. It’s the first debate I saw where it seemed he loosened up and tried to be himself, and he seemed to be more comfortable. Good for him – I’d like to judge him on his policies, and not on whether he hits or misses the banana peel (although that’s a drinking game in itself).

Re: Cain.

I disagree with the near universal panning of his performance. To me, he was very steady. My perception of his “dodging,” etc. was that actually he was showing us that he’s not going to jump out ahead of time and give definitive answers on things he doesn’t yet have the facts for.

I felt that in his answers on those things that can’t be decided until he has the same access to information as the president, he went as far as he honestly could but then said he’d consult the experts.

I like this approach because I feel it is honest. It shows his executive makeup. And it’s just a caricature to hang this all on Mark Block. Just because all the other candidates were trying to jump out with sharply defined positions on each question, doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have to walk these positions back as president once they saw the intel that 0bama is getting.

So I feel that Cain was being honest, and I thought he really was pretty steady.

cane_loader on November 13, 2011 at 10:43 AM

I agree with everything you said about Perry and Cain.

I also have been too busy to comment, but I thought Perry was terrific, was one of his best debates and I agreed with him. He is absolutely right about starting everyone each year at zero for foreign aid. Everyone knows that Israel would be the first one given aid when the annual list starts. Perry is solid with Israel.

I think Perry and Newt did the best. (even though I didn’t agree with everything Newt said, he showed command of the subject and that would gain votes.)

I have to say that Romney was third best, even though I don’t believe he would stick to anything he says and he will bore people to death in Obama debates and I don’t agree with everything he said.

Of course we all know that Cain’s weakness as a candidate (not as President – there I have full confidence in him as Commander in Chief.) But Cain held his own and made no mistakes and I agreed with everything he said. His answer and follow up to the first question about Iran was perfect. He had the best approach and sounded VERY Presidential when asked in the follow up if he thought we needed to use the military. “Not at this time.” Perfect answer. Doesn’t rule it out, but it’s too soon for war, and we still have options that Obama hasn’t tried or tried strongly enough. Especially when we have 3 war fronts going already.

Elisa on November 13, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 13 14 15