Two Debates, One Straw

13 09 2011

Within a week’s time, we had two different Republican debates.

After reading the Twitter reaction last night during the debate and after it, I finally got fed up enough with the few neo-cons and lamestream conservatives I (used to) follow to unfollow them.  I long ago gave up on the lamestream conservative blogosphere, now I have done the same on Twitter.  The straw that broke the camel’s back was all their hatred of Ron Paul, though I’ll get to him in a few moments.

I wanted to bullet point these issues that were brought up at least once in these last two debates:

FOREIGN POLICY:  My only real grind with Ron Paul over these last two debates is what he said last night, re-hashing AQ/OBL’s official position for doing 9/11.  My problem with that mentality is that whatever legitimate concerns AQ and OBL could have bought to the discussion table and to the arena of above board foreign affairs, they forfeited their right to do so once they got into the terrorism business.  JewAmongYou had a great post a few weeks ago, imploring us not to read the manifestos of people like the Nutbars of Norway, Tucson, Columbine, the Unabomber, Oklahoma City, etc.  His point was that nobody would have ever cared what they had to say, think or write but for their violence and terrorism, so reading their words in earnest of their violence is tantamount to rewarding their violence and begging for more.  The literary equivalent of blood money.  It is for the same reason why I rarely if ever say the names of said Nutbars in a public medium, because I’m not going to give them the eternal infamy they were begging for.  Once OBL and AQ started engaging in terrorism, they gave up their right to participate in the legitimate arena of ideas.

Believe me, I don’t want our military in the Middle East even more than Osama bin Laden didn’t want us there.  But any decision we make to pull out should be made by us, for us, in our best interests, NOT because some seventh century terrorist ragheads have cowered us into hiding behind locked doors.

GARDISIL:  How much can Rickroller Perry be bought for?  Apparently, five kilobucks is all it takes.  That’s the best $5,000 Merck ever spent — They made a whole lot of money from Governor Perry’s near-mandate.

Lurking behind this Gardisil in Texas question is the really big unmentionable white elephant in the room — Race.  I wanted to cringe when all the other candidates referred to “little girls” being forced to get Gardisil.  When in reality, from what I have been made to understand about Hispanics in America, and what I already knew about blacks, they start early, if you know what I mean.  A 12-year old black or Hispanic girl in Texas isn’t really that little.

That said, I am not for this mandate.

IMMIGRATION:  I keep hearing some of these candidates say over and over, like a canard — We have to “secure the border” first (whatever that means) before we can address the rest of the immigration question (code words for amnesty).  If you’re going to give amnesty in the long run, it makes no logical sense to “secure the border” (quote-unquote) first, because what is there to secure after you’re just going to let everyone in after the so-called “security” happens?  (Or rather, pretends to happen).  It’s like putting the most sophisticated door locks in all the doors from your house to the outdoors, then never bothering to close the doors.

HUNTSMAN AND H-1B:  He popped off about H-1B visas at both debates.  Does he literally want native born white Americans shut out of STEM professions?  I suppose the answer is yes.  He also says this in context of needing to get real estate values back up — In my opinion, real estate values need to keep going down, because they got so high that native born working class white Americans were priced out of the real estate market during the mania of the last decade.  That’s the one thing I don’t bust Obama’s chops over.  Huntsman lauded Vancouver, B.C., Canada in last week’s debate — Believe me, I have secret squirrel sources in Vancouver who tell me it’s not quite the paradise he claims it to be, especially if you’re a native born white Canadian of limited means.

NEWT GINGRICH:  I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I actually look forward to Newt Gingrich’s answers in these debates.  On top of that, he’s winning these things from the standpoint of substance.  Though I know he’s a total phony, a crypto-globalist, and has personal morals that make Bill Clinton look like a monk by comparison, Gingrich is the only person on that stage who can think on his feet.  You know before he answers that he’s not going to give some pre-rehearsed canned answer.  I predict he’s going to have something of a surge in the polls, just probably not enough to win any state save his own Georgia, and even that’s a long shot.  I think he’s auditioning for the running mate.

RICK SANTORUM:  Sure, he tells us about the two Senate elections in Pennsylvania he won.  But he won’t tell you about the one he lost in 2006, by an 18-point blowout margin.  I find it ironic that he roasted Ron Paul over FP, because at least Ron Paul won his election in 2006.

MICHELE BACHMANN:  The more I think about it, the more I conclude she’s actually auditioning for Speaker of the House.  Still, if the Missouri Primaries were tomorrow, I would vote for her.  Best combination of electability and issues, though far from perfect.  And certainly not good enough for me to send her any money.

FEDERAL RESERVE:  All eight people on that stage last night (including the one who used to be part of the Fed, even as irrelevant as the Kansas City district is), are on record this season as being in favor of auditing the Federal Reserve.  Fifteen years ago, that position was “too kooky” or “too far out” for seven of them.

WEALTH GAP:  In last week’s debate, one of the moderators (I think it was Brian Williams) asked the field what they would do about the wealth gap between black and white households.

The good news is that politicians don’t directly answer most questions they are asked in a debate format, so none of them, including the intended first recipient, Rickroller Perry, answered. The bad news is that even if they would have answered, none of them would have given the proper answer, that the wealth difference between blacks and whites (as well as the wealth difference between blacks and Hispanics, and between blacks and Asians), are almost entirely due to blacks’ gratuitous spending and the refusal to save money or engage in microeconomic actions which result in saved wealth. The next proper response would be political, that since Republicans get zero black votes for all intents and purposes, even if the economics were not the responsibility of blacks themselves, the politics are not the responsibility of the Republican Party and its elected office holders.

When I said as much on AR late last week, someone responded to me with an additional factor, that another contributing factor to the black-white wealth gap is age, that older people tend to have bigger nest eggs than younger people, ergo part of the race wealth gap is merely a function of whites being older on average than blacks.  That’s a good point, but still, it doesn’t change what my answer would have been — What are Republican politicians and Presidential candidates to do about people’s ages?

APPEALING TO HISPANICS:  That one was asked last night, and someone (can’t remember who) gave a really screwy and false answer.  Whoever it was said that Republicans could attract Hispanics by being against big government welfare programs.  Bill Richardson, former New Mexico Governor, himself Hispanic, said that Hispanic voters wanted “fully funded welfare programs” (almost an exact quote).  Besides that, there is the matter of percentages.  Hispanics are generally a 60s Percent Democrat constituency, and only once in a blue moon in a given state for a statewide race (including Presidential races, which are 51 implied separate races), will the state’s Hispanic population vote majority Republican.  And the trend is moving toward the Democrats, as the typical American Hispanic is becoming less white and more Chicano and Afro-Caribbean over time.

AFGHAN WOMEN:  WTF?  Why are we supposed to care about women in Afghanistan?  That’s the one question Ron Paul should have gotten, and should have knocked out of the park.

I’ll address Social Security later on, because it’ll take me quite a few words to develop the topic in the way I want to.



%d bloggers like this: