Like the last debate focusing on social issues, this debate was significant because it was focused on a single important issue, national security, which the candidates have not talked much about.
The moderator was Wolf Blitzer, and the debate was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Indeed, experts associated with these two fine organizations offered up most of the questions. It was good to see some of these people and finally be able to match faces and voices to their names.
Once again, Mitt Romney came across well. He seemed quite knowledgeable on any number of issues and often gave very detailed answers to the questions. He made no major gaffes, and stood on the principle of having a strong, proud nation. Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann also did quite well, even though Santorum made a gaffe when he called Africa a country, and made an odd statement about Abraham Lincoln destroying civil liberties in the US. Bachmann schooled the other candidates on the intricacies of working with Pakistan–she had such great depth there that she may well have won the debate if she had had more chances to talk. For several debates in a row, both Bachmann and Santorum have done well. Conservatives wanting an alternative to Romney should give both candidates a second look.
Though no doubt many people will believe that Newt Gingrich did well in this debate, and he did indeed come out very strong in the first ten minutes or so, most of his later answers were insubstantial and glib. In the few areas where he went into any detail, he was simply wrong. He would tell Pakistan that they need to follow our way or the highway. However, he has no understanding that this attitude would not only cut off whatever influence we have in the country, but that it would risk open war between Pakistan (and by extension Afghanistan) and the US. Gingrich was also for a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants which would not lead to citizenship. This would cause more problems than it solves, as it would create a permanent underclass in US society without much in the way of political rights.
Rick Perry and Herman Cain displayed a complete lack of depth on the issues. However, at least Cain did not sound ridiculous. Whether he was stating that Afghanistan and India were both putting pressure on Pakistan to cause it to behave, or that there needs to be a no-fly zone over Syria, Perry just sounded comically ill-informed.
Both Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul seemed deluded–and at times even offensive–in their own crazy ways. The more Huntsman talks, the more he hurts his already slim chance to be president. Paul is simply not a conservative when it comes to foreign policy. Indeed, he is far to the left of Barack Obama.
——————–
Ed Meese: Shouldn’t we extend the Patriot Act?
Gingrich: There is a distinction between national security requirements and criminal law. In a world where a single terrorist nuke can take out an American city, we need the Patriot Act because we need to protect ourselves. Indeed, it should be strengthened.
Paul: This is a criminal issue, so we do not need the Patriot Act. It is unconstitutional. We dealt with terrorism quite well with Timothy McVeigh.
Gingrich: Timothy McVeigh succeeded. We need to stop terrorists like him before they act and kill innocent people.
Bachmann: Barack Obama has outsourced our terrorism policy to the ACLU.
Huntsman: The bright shining light moves people. Tom Ridge is great. Be prepared.
Question: Are TSA pat-downs a necessary evil?
Romney: We need to do better than the current process. Gingrich was right: This is a matter of war, not criminal law. War operates under different laws than criminal laws.
Perry: The TSA needs to be privatized, and get rid of the unions. Keep the Patriot Act. Need to upgrade CIA and military intelligence.
Santorum: We should be trying to find the bomber and not the bomb. Profiling is good. Privatize the TSA. Abraham Lincoln ran right over civil rights because we faced a domestic threat. We have to deal with homeland threats differently. Profile Muslim males.
Paul: What if the terrorists look like Timothy McVeigh? No declaration of war, so we are not at war. These terrorists are merely suspects. American citizens can be assassinated.
Cain: Blizt, can I call you Blitz? I support targeted identification–let’s not call it profiling. The terrorists want to kill us, so let’s kill them first.
Ed Meese should get a point for still being alive. Gingrich made a complete fool of Paul. Before ripping into the Patriot Act, Paul should specify which parts of the act are illegal and unconstitutional. Huntsman must have been a Boy Scout.
I want to shake Ron Paul He is one of the few in Washington that puts constitutional principals first–which is needed to secure our personal liberties. I am one voter who believes that The Patriot Act is a Pandora’s Box and needs to be overhauled completely. But on foreign policy, Paul comes across as a nut case! Honestly, I am not thrilled with the field at all right now.
Ron Paul seems a little nutty to me. In my dreams, I see Sarah Palin stepping forward, but in the meantime, there are some hopeful signs among the candidates. Not GREAT, but hopeful.
Here’s the thing about Ron Paul: When you take what he said in the family values debate and what he said here, he is not a conservative at all–he is thoroughly and consistently a libertarian, and he refuses to compromise in any way on that. While there is some overlap between libertarianism and conservatism, they are not the same. And yes, it is a nutty ideology when you are as strictly libertarian as he is.
I wish Palin were in this race as well, though I take solace in the fact that Bachmann and Santorum finally seem to be behaving like presidential candidates.