THAT WAS A DEBATE?

In what was supposed to be a debate last night in Las Vegas, pretty quickly deteriorated into what was nothing more than the verbal equivalent of a bare-knuckled brawl, as candidates jettisoned the 11th commandment against attacking a fellow Republican. Personally speaking, if I had to pick the winner of the night, I have to say that it was the idiot moderator, Anderson "180" Cooper, who seemed to constantly be going out of his way to stir up as much conflict as he could. And the candidates seemed only to happy to oblige him. And with each little conflict that he was able to instigate, at least throughout the portion of debate I watched, you could see the wryest of smiles emerge, like he was just so proud of himself. It seemed as if Cooper sought to employ a diversionary tactic of a sort, being focused on leading the candidates away from criticizing Barry and criticizing each other. So by the time the whole thing was over, way too much energy had been expended on silly brawls amongst themselves, when the energy should have been focused on the guy who is, nearly single handedly, destroying our country.

So what we were witness to was what equated to nothing more than a bunch stupid grade school antics with candidates continually drowning each other out as they shouted at and over each other, and moderator Cooper doing very little in attempting to maintain any semblance of order as they all vied for a chance to speak. While I do think it is important to identify the differences between our GOP candidates, I also think it important to maintain some level of focus on Barry "Almighty." Some of the exchanges were simply ridiculous, becoming so hostile that, toward the end of the debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who had fired his own salvos at former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s healthcare reforms, made a very correct appraisal of the situation, when he remarked: “Maximizing bickering is probably not the road to the White House.” I couldn't help wondering, is this what’s going to defeat Barry? Is this the best that the GOP has to offer? My confidence in our being able pull this thing off was considerably shaken after watching last night's free for all. Who among those taking part appeared presidential?


So I think it very safe to say that while the CNN-Western GOP debate was, without a doubt, the most contentious of the eight GOP face-offs so far, it was also, most likely, the least informative. I don't think that it accomplished all that much in the way of providing to voters anything that could even remotely be considered as useful information. I was somewhat disappointed in the tactics chosen by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the man who I was very much in favor of when he first announced his candidacy. And even though most pundits seemed to agree the he had a much-improved debate performance, I was actually less than impressed. At one point, when he alleged that Romney’s criticisms of Texas immigration policies was “the height of hypocrisy,” I thought that he sounded rather childish, to be honest. And then when Romney tried to respond, Perry continually interrupted. For nearly a minute, the two men talked over each other, trying to get a word in edgewise. Romney put his hand on Perry’s shoulder, and later suggested that, if Perry wanted to be president, he would have to learn to give others an opportunity to speak.


One of the confusing aspects of the evening was when Cooper asked the candidates if any of them were opposed to repealing the portion of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that says anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen. Everyone said no, which told me that none of them are not the last bit familiar with what the 14th Amendment actually says. Because it does not say that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen, if that were the case then babies born to diplomats working in this country or to tourists visiting here from other countries, would become citizens of this country, and that is simply not the case. They are citizens of their own country who just happen to be born in America. But not one of our candidates made that point, or if they did, I certainly didn't hear them make it. They just all answered with a blanket no, with no one choosing to expound on it. I just found it more than a little disconcerting that no one seemed to be all that knowledgeable regarding the Constitution. They all like to talk about what is or is not constitutional, but do they really know what the Constitution says. I'm beginning to wonder.


After the debate, it was a Fox news commentator, Doug Schoen, who credited Perry with being “more energized” than in earlier debates. “But he couldn’t shake Romney,” Schoen said. “Romney was energized and persuasive on healthcare and immigration.” Perry did introduce a "new" issue Tuesday, stating that Romney had once employed undocumented workers to mow his lawn, a story that the Boston Globe first reported in 2007. Now if I remember correctly, that issue was brought up the last time around, so at this point it should be considered as being pretty much old news, so I didn't understand Perry's rationale for even bringing it up. And as he did last time, Romney replied that, as soon as he found out the workers were illegals, he stopped employing them. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum also traded blows with Romney, testily demanding that Romney stop speaking at one point. He said Romney had exceeded his allotted time to answer the question. Romney replied that Santorum had interrupted his response. Again, behavior that I thought was more than a bit whiny and not very presidential.


Newt Gingrich, who is normally seen as being the voice of reason during these debates, also proceeded to leap into the fray. He said there was “a lot of big government” in Romney’s reforms. Romney shot back that he got the idea for his healthcare reforms in Massachusetts from earlier proposals put forth by Gingrich and the conservative Heritage Foundation. Initially, Newt attempted to accuse Romney of telling a lie, but in the end he had to admit that there was some truth in what Romney had said. Santorum used the debate to continue his efforts in making a strong bid for social conservative issues. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann made a tough case for securing the southern border and identified with women whose families have been impacted by the mortgage-default crisis. Texas Rep. Ron Paul, was his normal whiny, grandpa acting self, something which very quickly grates on my nerves, as he urged that various government departments be shuttered as extra-constitutional and ineffective, and he urged that U.S. troops be brought home immediately from Afghanistan for fear it could bankrupt the country.


Fox’s Schoen observed that the field ganged up on Cain, who maintained his poise for the most part and answered critics with aplomb. “He was on his heels and less compelling than he has been,” Schoen said of Cain. “His contrast with Romney was strong. Cain was effective, but less effective than he had been. Romney did the best overall, I think, and closed strong.” After the debate, Cain tried to distance himself from the verbal brickbats, saying he believed they had “turned voters off.” Analysts who were commenting on the debate agreed with that assessment, with some saying that this type of fisticuffs are bad news for the party. Someone said, “When you’ve got the front-runner of your party called a liar by three other candidates on stage, there’s a problem for the party and a problem for the front-runner.” My sentiments exactly. However, political guru Larry J. Sabato put the fireworks in context in comments made to various news organizations afterward. Plenty of time remains to heal the wounds and unite the party behind the eventual nominee, said Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.


“We're getting closer every day to the first election, whether it is in December or January,” Sabato said. “As election day approaches, the knives come out. It's natural in politics. All the candidates who can afford TV got some good sound bites to use out of the debate. Emotions are heating up. “But after a nominee is selected, they'll cool off, in all probability,” he said. We can only hope that the wounds inflicted over the course of these debates won't be so severe as to be made unable to heal. These candidates, while there is nothing wrong with pointing out difference amongst one another, should never lose sight of the what is the true objective here. They must remain mindful of the bigger picture. That being, the defeat of Barack Hussein Obama. At any future debates those taking part cannot afford to allow themselves to be lured into conflict, as they were last night by Communist New Network (CNN) minion, Anderson Cooper. These people have to be aware that guys like Cooper are going to be doing their best to set the candidates to attacking each other so they are not attacking Barry "Almighty."