Perry stumbles, Romney, Huntsman surprise me.

[markgander]

I knew that Perry was in trouble tonight, when even Romney was able to hurt him with his base. Santorum smelled blood in the water and attacked like a tiger shark. Almost everyone did better than Perry, but Cain, Gingrich, and Paul (who was only hurt by his profound answers and dislike of soundbites) were expected. What shocked me was the strong performances of Romney, Huntsman, and Gary Johnson.

Santorum was a mixed bag. He took the low road when he dissed a brave American soldier named Stephen Hill and said, stupidly, that "sexual activity has no place in the military" (what are our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to be celibate now). But he struck home with his assault on Perry's tuition preference for illegal aliens over Americans.

Bachmann dodged every question under the Sun. I don't think that she answered any question directly. Her only strong moments were on education and immigration, where she stuck firm with the Tea Party's common platform (things that don't separate its social conservative wing from the libertarian element).

Gingrich came on strong on immigration and foreign policy, while Cain proved to have a personal story with real relevance to health care and rationing with his cancer survival and remission.

Huntsman had an interesting tangle with Santorum over Iraq, and I think that Santorum proved weak on that, since he couldn't adequately address the costs of the continued military presence.

They all did well on taxes and education, standing for the Republican principles of small government, balanced budgets, and lower taxes, at least with lip service. Time will test their resolve.

Cain's 999 plan proved to have its appeal, and Gary Johnson raised the issue of presidential vetoes and the need to use that to streamline the budget. Ron Paul also drove that point home in one of his shorter and more practical statements about vetoing "unconstitutional bills".

All in all, they all did better than Rick Perry- even Michelle Bachmann did better.

My favorite punch line, of course, had to be Gary Johnson's "shovel-ready dogs".

Number one reality check: John Huntsman directly tackling the need to "bridge" from oil to cleaner fuels by means of natural gas. I don't agree with his subsidies, but the idea of encouraging natural gas makes better sense than Obama's so-called "green jobs" at a time when solar and wind are unready.

Ron Paul tackled the root of the problem, but it went over most people's heads, since they don't know much about the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. His problem is that he is just too deep for most people, but he does well on civil liberties wedge issues, for which apparently more Republicans are ready to move in his direction than previously believed.

All in all, Perry has stumbled, Romney has picked up momentum, and it might well be his to lose....though lose he certainly can, with such a strong field (and I don't count Santorum or Bachmann here) ready to pick up the pieces. The real threats: Gingrich and Cain. Paul casts a long shadow, but he can't unite the party behind him. Gingrich and Cain are most poised to replace Perry if he fails completely, and he probably will, from the sound of it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I liked Perry at first but now I'm over him. I liked that he served in the military and didnt go to Harvard. But I sense that he's another Elmer Gantry impersonator.

 

[rgraham666]

Let's not forget that members of the crowd booed a gay Iraq vet when said vet asked the candidates if they would circumvent DADT.

 

[markgander]

Let's not forget that members of the crowd booed a gay Iraq vet when said vet asked the candidates if they would circumvent DADT.

Shame on them. Let them go to Iraq and fight there before they start judging a brave American soldier. Shame on Santorum.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Perry is the idiot's idiot. He's possibly the only may in the world who is more ignorant than Newt.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Let's not forget that members of the crowd booed a gay Iraq vet when said vet asked the candidates if they would circumvent DADT.

Some of them did boo, but most did not, and some even tried to shush the troglodytes.

I think Perry has been shooting himself in the foot with his talk of repealing amendments. Most people, in my opinion, favor direct election of senators, and calling for repeal of that amendment and income tax can only hurt him. Not that he would be able to bring either one about, but even making the suggestions is bad enough.

I realize nobody likes income taxes, but most people recognize the need.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Perry escaped from a used car lot.

 

[Handley_Page]

Excuse me for asking what may seem a daft question, but why is the AH discussing what looks like Politics ?

 

[Tyro999]

Because Mark Gander did not lurk on the Lit BBs long enough to learn that AH tries to be a refuge from the political 'discussions' that rage unfettered in the GB.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, Lordy. I hope you guys are still around to see what happens here during the presidential election campaigns.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Excuse me for asking what may seem a daft question, but why is the AH discussing what looks like Politics ?

Because there is nothing to prevent it. No agreement, no moderators, no rules.

It's a shame, but there it is.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Some of them did boo, but most did not, and some even tried to shush the troglodytes.

I think Perry has been shooting himself in the foot with his talk of repealing amendments. Most people, in my opinion, favor direct election of senators, and calling for repeal of that amendment and income tax can only hurt him. Not that he would be able to bring either one about, but even making the suggestions is bad enough.

I realize nobody likes income taxes, but most people recognize the need.

You just go out of your way to sell bullshit, right? The boos from those assholes (your brothers and sisters in mind and hearts) were in no way shushed...it's right there on record...no sense lying to anyone - especially yourself.....but then, it's really fucked when ya gotta admit that the so-called philosophy that yore espousing is BULL-FUCKING-SHIT.....isn't it?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And now we see why having a political thread on an Authors' Hangout is such a bad idea. Un-subscribing . . . NOW.

 

[BONNIEBREA]

The thing that surprises me about these debates is that there isn't more recognition of just how bogus they are (I don't mean recognition here on this board, but with the real news organizations like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.)

No one will be casting any actual ballots that will determine delegates to the national conventions for another four months. So what is the necessity for weekly, nationally televised debates at this point? (and the answer). They're of course nothing but republican party marketing. Yes, the candidates will spar a little, but the real reason the republican party is putting these on is to get the unchallenged open mike to the nation they provide to push their ideas.

That's certainly their right to do, and certainly Fox because its the republican network is going to air them. I just can't figure out why the real news organizations are allowing themselves to be used in this way.

(And I couldn't agree more with VM directly above - there's a lot of this stuff showing up in AH lately that really belongs over on the General Board.)

 

[TE999]

And now we see why having a political thread on an Authors' Hangout is such a bad idea. Un-subscribing . . . NOW.

Amen, brother! All this name calling and squabbling gets us zero. No one's mind is changed a whit and all people do is get alienated. Let's get back to discussing porn and trivia.

 

[markgander]

I got the impression, based upon what I have read, that this was a normal topic for discussion here at the AH. If I have committed a faux pas, then tell me to my face (well, not literally). Don't speak about me as if I'm not here.

Personally, as a Constitutionalist, I favor repealing the 16th Amendment and even the 17th, the former because it is useful to starve the welfare state of the massive flow of revenue that is wasted and is used as an excuse for the IRS to seize property without trial, audit people's finances, and violate financial privacy by requiring people to report their income. The latter I oppose, while it is an unpopular stand, because it deprives the states of representation in Congress. The House is supposed to represent the sovereignty of the People, the Senate the sovereignty of the States. The States created the Union, not the Union the States.

A real eye-opener for me was Judge Andrew Napolitano's books. The man knows the Constitution better than most justices of the Supreme Court.

People accept those amendments because they were born after them and have been taught to accept them. I used to accept them as well. I had the same civics teachers as everyone else. I have since learned that those civics teachers were wrong about that and about those so-called implied powers.

However, I am willing to offer a compromise: a Senate neither directly elected nor indirectly elected, but chosen by sortition, or lottery. That mixes state representation with a measure of popular representation, and helps ensure a regular turnover of Senators to keep things fresh. Imagine who can be a Senator if names are randomly drawn. You could get a cop, firefighter, a teacher, a doctor, a small businessman, a housewife, an accountant, etc.

Because their chances of re-selection are slim, they have every incentive to do the right thing.

Imagine....ordinary Americans given a chance to stand up for their sovereign states, one third added and removed every two years. It would certainly reduce the power of lobbyists in DC.

In any case, those are just my opinions. I would leave the House intact, just as the Framers intended. A mix of election and sortition makes sense.

Also, I like the idea of an Electoral College that actually elects the President, not just rubber-stamping the popular choice. The Framers created an Electoral College to deliberate, not to pre-judge the outcome. This would also restore much of the sovereignty of the States, not to mention prevent the larger, more populous states from dominating the election.

So, choose the Senate by lots, but let the legislatures pick Presidential electors, who would then quietly, calmly, and deliberately choose the best man or woman for the job. The four-year political circus would end rather quickly. Of course, that part doesn't require a Constitutional Amendment, just changes in state laws, since the Constitution already empowers each state to decide how to pick its own electors.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It is, sadly, a normal conversation for AH. Not all of us are happy about that. Some of us like our sexy times untrammeled by hatred and divisiveness.

Actually, it isn't that normal-- your first post is simple, factual, and under-wrought, instead of over. I gotta appreciate that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I got the impression, based upon what I have read, that this was a normal topic for discussion here at the AH. If I have committed a faux pas, then tell me to my face (well, not literally). Don't speak about me as if I'm not here.

Personally, as a Constitutionalist, I favor repealing the 16th Amendment and even the 17th, the former because it is useful to starve the welfare state of the massive flow of revenue that is wasted and is used as an excuse for the IRS to seize property without trial, audit people's finances, and violate financial privacy by requiring people to report their income. The latter I oppose, while it is an unpopular stand, because it deprives the states of representation in Congress. The House is supposed to represent the sovereignty of the People, the Senate the sovereignty of the States. The States created the Union, not the Union the States.

A real eye-opener for me was Judge Andrew Napolitano's books. The man knows the Constitution better than most justices of the Supreme Court.

People accept those amendments because they were born after them and have been taught to accept them. I used to accept them as well. I had the same civics teachers as everyone else. I have since learned that those civics teachers were wrong about that and about those so-called implied powers.

However, I am willing to offer a compromise: a Senate neither directly elected nor indirectly elected, but chosen by sortition, or lottery. That mixes state representation with a measure of popular representation, and helps ensure a regular turnover of Senators to keep things fresh. Imagine who can be a Senator if names are randomly drawn. You could get a cop, firefighter, a teacher, a doctor, a small businessman, a housewife, an accountant, etc.

Because their chances of re-selection are slim, they have every incentive to do the right thing.

Imagine....ordinary Americans given a chance to stand up for their sovereign states, one third added and removed every two years. It would certainly reduce the power of lobbyists in DC.

In any case, those are just my opinions. I would leave the House intact, just as the Framers intended. A mix of election and sortition makes sense.

Also, I like the idea of an Electoral College that actually elects the President, not just rubber-stamping the popular choice. The Framers created an Electoral College to deliberate, not to pre-judge the outcome. This would also restore much of the sovereignty of the States, not to mention prevent the larger, more populous states from dominating the election.

So, choose the Senate by lots, but let the legislatures pick Presidential electors, who would then quietly, calmly, and deliberately choose the best man or woman for the job. The four-year political circus would end rather quickly. Of course, that part doesn't require a Constitutional Amendment, just changes in state laws, since the Constitution already empowers each state to decide how to pick its own electors.

Politics is a normal topic of discussion here but, unfortunately, some of us want to have a rational discussion, while others just want to repeat unsubstantiated rumors as if they were proven facts and to personally insult anybody who disagrees with them.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I tend to agree with Mark, but would like to add that Rick Perry should have let Mike Huckabee defend his position in the debate, because Huck did a lot better job of it. I still don't agree with Perry's decision, but at least Huck made me see the upside of it.

That being said, he's done. When you have to have former candidates make your point, you're screwed.

My own views on immigration:

1. Yes, illegal immigration is wrong and we need to crack down, within reason. Enforce the law, though I frankly fear the idea of a national ID card, and think that it is a classic case of valuing security over liberty.

2. The real problem is the welfare state. If there wasn't a welfare state, illegal aliens wouldn't represent such a drain on our resources. Do some people need help? Of course. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and our budgetary problems (and welfare fraud) show that we are headed there in a hand-basket.

3. The other real problems are:

a. Regulations that make hiring Americans and legal immigrants more expensive, while inconsistent enforcement mean that businesses get a slap on the wrist for hiring illegal aliens. I don't know what else to call it, when everyone knows that it happens, but it doesn't stop.

b. This is going to upset some people in the social conservative wing of the GOP, especially the FAIR crowd, but we need to improve the legal immigration process, so as to make it easier to get a green card. The fact that it is easier to start out illegally, and then become legal after getting caught, suggests to me that we have problems with the red tape and need to modernize our system. Also, bear in mind that some people enter legally, and then lose their legal status. We should make it a bit easier for people with visas to keep them.

Finally, children of illegal aliens are not criminals. They didn't choose to cross the border. Their parents did. If their parents are willing to give up custody, temporarily, and they have legal alien relatives or citizen ones who can supervise them for a short time, until they become adults, perhaps some kind of underage person's hardship document would be a good solution, especially if the kids have grown up American and know too little Spanish to do well back in their native land. Either that, or let their parents go on probation, pay modest fines, and do community service of some kind, while getting a temporary green card.

That applies even more to "birthright" cases. Sorry, I know that it stinks that people abuse the system, but the moment you start down the slippery slope of re-defining "all persons born or naturalized in the United States", you become as bad as the liberal loose constructionist, "living document" crowd.

As Justice Sutherland wrote in his dissent, in the Blaisdell case, "If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned."

As a strict constructionist, old-fashioned Constitutionalist, I make no exceptions to that rule. I have looked down into that abyss (albeit drunkenly at the time), as Rob pointed out to me, and I didn't like what stared back at me. I refuse to sacrifice liberty in the name of some well-meaning nativism. My ancestors (well, except for the handful of Algonquians among them) came to this country as immigrants, too, and were thought of as being "damned Dutchmen" in their time (or Irishmen, in some cases). I fear that while many, like me, merely wish to uphold the rule of law and would welcome hard-working immigrants from any country (and the revenue from the taxes they pay, because we could frankly use it right now), others are locked into the same kind of fear that motivated the "Know-Nothing" Party and the Chinese Exclusion Act (a disgusting, embarrassing law, if there ever was one).

That's not even counting the heinous crime committed against Americans of Japanese descent during World War II, while the sons, husbands, fathers, and brothers of those very Americans were fighting for our freedom in places like Italy.

So, in summary, not amnesty, but reasonable enforcement of the law, while reviewing it with a mind to reforming and streamlining it, giving business incentives to hire Americans more often, not punishing the innocent children of illegal aliens, and not drawing an artificial, arbitrary line between some natural-born citizens and others (least of all in open violation of the purpose and spirit of the 14th Amendment), most of all keeping the enforcement within the limits of the Constitution, are my positions on illegal immigration.

Some will still say that I am too strict, others that I am too soft, but you can blame that on my libertarian leanings. As Ron Paul put it, "If you can use a fence to keep others out, you can use one to keep us in."

 

[Zeb_Carter]

And Herman Cain wins the Florida straw poll...by a big margin!!!!!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I tend to agree with Mark, but would like to add that Rick Perry should have let Mike Huckabee defend his position in the debate, because Huck did a lot better job of it. I still don't agree with Perry's decision, but at least Huck made me see the upside of it.

That being said, he's done. When you have to have former candidates make your point, you're screwed.

My own views on immigration:

1. Yes, illegal immigration is wrong and we need to crack down, within reason. Enforce the law, though I frankly fear the idea of a national ID card, and think that it is a classic case of valuing security over liberty.

2. The real problem is the welfare state. If there wasn't a welfare state, illegal aliens wouldn't represent such a drain on our resources. Do some people need help? Of course. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and our budgetary problems (and welfare fraud) show that we are headed there in a hand-basket.

3. The other real problems are:

a. Regulations that make hiring Americans and legal immigrants more expensive, while inconsistent enforcement mean that businesses get a slap on the wrist for hiring illegal aliens. I don't know what else to call it, when everyone knows that it happens, but it doesn't stop.

b. This is going to upset some people in the social conservative wing of the GOP, especially the FAIR crowd, but we need to improve the legal immigration process, so as to make it easier to get a green card. The fact that it is easier to start out illegally, and then become legal after getting caught, suggests to me that we have problems with the red tape and need to modernize our system. Also, bear in mind that some people enter legally, and then lose their legal status. We should make it a bit easier for people with visas to keep them.

Finally, children of illegal aliens are not criminals. They didn't choose to cross the border. Their parents did. If their parents are willing to give up custody, temporarily, and they have legal alien relatives or citizen ones who can supervise them for a short time, until they become adults, perhaps some kind of underage person's hardship document would be a good solution, especially if the kids have grown up American and know too little Spanish to do well back in their native land. Either that, or let their parents go on probation, pay modest fines, and do community service of some kind, while getting a temporary green card.

That applies even more to "birthright" cases. Sorry, I know that it stinks that people abuse the system, but the moment you start down the slippery slope of re-defining "all persons born or naturalized in the United States", you become as bad as the liberal loose constructionist, "living document" crowd.

As Justice Sutherland wrote in his dissent, in the Blaisdell case, "If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned."

As a strict constructionist, old-fashioned Constitutionalist, I make no exceptions to that rule. I have looked down into that abyss (albeit drunkenly at the time), as Rob pointed out to me, and I didn't like what stared back at me. I refuse to sacrifice liberty in the name of some well-meaning nativism. My ancestors (well, except for the handful of Algonquians among them) came to this country as immigrants, too, and were thought of as being "damned Dutchmen" in their time (or Irishmen, in some cases). I fear that while many, like me, merely wish to uphold the rule of law and would welcome hard-working immigrants from any country (and the revenue from the taxes they pay, because we could frankly use it right now), others are locked into the same kind of fear that motivated the "Know-Nothing" Party and the Chinese Exclusion Act (a disgusting, embarrassing law, if there ever was one).

That's not even counting the heinous crime committed against Americans of Japanese descent during World War II, while the sons, husbands, fathers, and brothers of those very Americans were fighting for our freedom in places like Italy.

So, in summary, not amnesty, but reasonable enforcement of the law, while reviewing it with a mind to reforming and streamlining it, giving business incentives to hire Americans more often, not punishing the innocent children of illegal aliens, and not drawing an artificial, arbitrary line between some natural-born citizens and others (least of all in open violation of the purpose and spirit of the 14th Amendment), most of all keeping the enforcement within the limits of the Constitution, are my positions on illegal immigration.

Some will still say that I am too strict, others that I am too soft, but you can blame that on my libertarian leanings. As Ron Paul put it, "If you can use a fence to keep others out, you can use one to keep us in."

Add IDGIT to your list of superlatives.

Ninety-nine percent of my ancestors emigrated to America before the Revolution. Moving from one spot within the British Empire to another doesnt make you an immigrant. I mean, are you an immigrant when you go to the store?

 

[mikey2much]

This could be the only time

I liked Perry at first but now I'm over him. I liked that he served in the military and didnt go to Harvard. But I sense that he's another Elmer Gantry impersonator.

I can't remember the last time you made a post that I could agree with. So let me take this moment to prove that I don't always think you are full of shit.

I agree with JBJ.

I need to lay down, I feel a bit dizzy.

 

[JackLuis]

This year there are lots of contenders on the right, and only one of the left, although if the economy doesn't improve soon, it will be a dismal Christmas season, and we may see a opening of the field.

I haven't watched the media circus much, but Paul is the only one who isn't full of BS. Santorum is another shill and Perry is the Oil Biddness Candidate. Cain strikes me as a lightweight, but Huntsman looks to be electable and perhaps effective in office.

I'd like to see the Left put up more candidates to get more diversity, than White House propaganda in the conversation.