« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

CBS/National Journal Debate CoveritLive!

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  November 12th, 2011 at 07:53 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Join in by clicking in the window or in the comments.


 

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • changeforrickperry

    And I’m more nervous than I was on Wednesday night. I’m praying for Rick Perry. God’s will be done.

    “If we win, we’ll praise Him–and if we lose, we praise Him.”–Facing The Giants
    ______________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

    • changeforrickperry

      If Perry’s first answer is indicative of how this will turn out, he’ll do just fine. He was fired up and gave the moderator the what-for!
      ______________________________________________________________
      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

      www.changeforrickperry.org

      • booboola7896

        That’s it, he’s officially Texas toast.

        • clintonformccain

          NT

        • Tbone

          but out grew it about 4 years ago. Am I right? I mean about the 4 years? Or is it less?

        • gekster

          Perry said that all foriegn aid should start at zero, and depend upon how much they support the US.

          Since there is no question as to the support Isreal gives the US, there would be no question as to the foriegn aid.

          The only thing I can think of is you are throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.

          Tell you what, Hello Kitty Island Paradise has free registration.
          Get your Mom to help you register, and get off an adult political site.

          And just so you know, the Golden Orb is on the NE side of the island in a cave.
          Have fun.

          • pttx333

            only trying to get someone to pay attention to him, Reckon?

          • gekster

            But I did notice a moby nature to his comments.

          • pttx333

            this one – must be too old for it. But … what is a moby nature? ;-)

            Mom

          • gekster

            The Unofficial RedState FAQ, Version 3.0

            What is a ?moby??
            The word ?moby,? as used here, refers to the musician, who in 2004 encouraged the pathetic, tone-deaf trolls who listen to his work to go on conservative boards and be so over-the-top that it would serve to discredit conservatives and Republicans. We now use it for anyone pretending (badly) to be a Republican or conservative, who is instead trolling for no reason we know or care. Once identified, they get tossed.

          • pttx333

            What a piece of work! Thanks for the info. I think this one is just a straight out paulbot lunatic. I had a hissy fit at him while ago, and I’d do it again in a July minute – even a May minute, if I feel like it. Pacifists, Jimmy Carter, et al., – make me SICK!

            There I go again … sorry, gek.

            Mom

          • conservativeparrothead

            One answer I havent seen discussed, and I thought from what I saw on CBS, it was one of the worst of the night came from Governor Perry. While I liked his starting at Zero, his answer about China and Communism was the kind of answer that tells me he doesnt have depth of knowledge.

            The Soviet economic brand of Communism vs that of China is not even a comparison. When he said it was like in the 1980′s, I thought he was going to reference Japan, because they were our primary economic competitor it seemed in the 1980′s in terms of items in the US coming from Japan, American companies competing with Japan, etc…but when he said the Soviet Union, to me it wasnt a very strong answer.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …because Rick PROPERLY referred to “Communist” China to make a key-point observationally; its entire structure has undergone pseudo-modernization, but it still is top-down controlled and harbors human-rights violations.

            This facet of Rick’s worldview represents a refreshing recognition that would then cry for implementation which is prudent and strategic…but first the facts must be recognized [as he has wisely ... and clearly just accomplished].

            As noted supra, his “0-based budgeting” concept resonated well; there was no need [when pressed for time] to discuss Japan [which, clearly, is an ally]; presumably, he would not cut-off support for Taiwan/Formosa as might others [particularly D's] who would sacrifice this outpost to wipe-clean the debt [as if being bought-off would altar fundamentals, let alone cure domestic ills].

          • conservativeparrothead

            Cyber Theft from China, it was a very weak answer. He had a pretty good night overall, but it was obvious he was not versed on this and just started dropping good buzzwords like Communism into dustbin, Reagan, etc…

          • txindependent

            I’m sick and tired of Isreal getting unlimited money without any conditions.

          • nathanalbright

            …I just don’t think Israel will have any trouble earning it (and I don’t think Taiwan would either). Those nations are genuine friends with a genuine republican (small r) culture. I believe they should have to earn their aid, and I think they’d earn a lot of aid (if perhaps not as much as we give them–though much of what we give them is “aid” tied into directly purchasing American military equipment). I think that aid to a lot of African and Central Asian states would be eliminated under Perry (or Newt), though.

          • BigRedConservative

            And also, investing Israel isn’t throwing money into the wind, it’s investing in what is effectively our only stable ally in the Middle East.

          • avgjo

            As if Jewish ‘possession’ of Jerusalem wasn’t enough reason for hatred by Muslims, those silly Israelis decided to line up with the Great Satan. That makes them the little Satan and gives their whacko neighbors even more incentive to attack them. Couple that with intel and weapons sharing and you have a strong ally who has proven its worth.

          • greyeagle

            There would be no question about Israel receiving foreign aid. He developed communications and trade with Israel years and years ago when he was TX Agriculture Commissioner. He has received several awards as a Friend of Israel. The other countries of the world would be a different story. I have heard him say numerous times “why are we giving foreign aid to countries who are not our friends”?
            So I think some countries would be off the friend list. The UN would also be likely to receive numerous cuts as well.

        • ihavehadit

          Perry said all countries start at 0 but since Israel is our friend and ally we will of course give them aid.

        • annie54

          why don’t you just go to bed with your bottle a teddy?

        • lizzie

          and 75% of it has to be spent on US hardware. Eric Cantor wants to move it to DoDef. In Israel, there is quite a debate as to whether US military aid is plus or minus – very complex debate.

          That said – Perry is the absolute strongest GOP candidate on Israel since his first visit in 1992 on irrigation technology. Texas and Israel have similar climate, ecosystem. It is Texas companies who are leading Israel’s development of offshore gas and shale oil.

          I follow this very closely, and find it annoying that the msm attributes Perry’s support for Israel entirely to his Christian faith.

          Even more annoying to me, has been the RJC and Commentary crew fawning for Romney, who can not bring himself to go on the record that apartments in North and South Jerusalem that happen to be east of the 1949 armistice line are NOT settlements, the apartments that Obama has turned into two public diplomatic rifts.
          Whereas Perry had the courage of his convictions to stand next to MK Danon in Manhattan just before Obama’s speech at the UN in September.

          well, enough about Israel. except it was interesting that no one mentioned Israel as a key US ally in cyber-warfare when that came up.

          I assume Mr. Cain is still trying to figure out where Israel is…he certainly forgot to mention Syria when he stumbled through his Arab Spring sort-of-answer..

          • avagreen

            I HAD forgotten that!

            I wouldn’t want to be on Israel’s bad side, or Moussad’s.

            Sometimes, I wish……….

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …of the press-conference to which Lizzie referred is provided infra but, first, her commentary [pun intended] requires exploration.

            Everything she wrote is right-on, and I suspect that the RJC [which tries to remain neutral] and Commentary [which is more unbridled] think they need to abide by the AIPAC-approach, namely, to curry future support from the candidate by pandering during the campaign-season. People such as Shelley Berkley love receiving a “100%” AIPAC rating, despite the fact that it is skewed to only the obvious issues; except for people such as Keith Ellison, most D’s are also high-rated.

            But, just like the ACU rating is wisely supplanted by Heritage-Action analysis, so too must the people who analyze voting patterns CONFRONT the reality of TRUE supporters on CONTROVERSIAL issues. THIS is where Perry distinguishes himself [the thrust of Lizzie's comment]. THIS is why selecting a forthright individual is so vital THIS CYCLE.

            Again, Perry distinguished himself as did no one else, when compared in a disinterested fashion. Again, however, he must remain comfortably flawless or defer to DeMint. RS’ers [and EE, our fearless-leader] will be watching!

            *

            http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/5848/rick-perry-hes-guy?page=3

            Here is the press-conference in NYC regarding the UN vote on ?Palestinian Statehood? that has been captured [compiled after much Internet-searching]. Experience the uniqueness of his standing astride Congressman Turner [who hired Rush, decades ago] and Deputy Knesset Speaker Danon [of the wing of the Likud that assuredly cannot stomach the mega-release of terrorists]. Then project the type of forthrightness that he will project when dealing with America?s enemies; his history of shooting a coyote that threatened his dog should serve as ample warning to political/military adversaries of the risk entailed when confronting his forthrightness.

            Perry distills the issue
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q0Sqlj_I9o

            turner
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q0Sqlj_I9o

            danon
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxgWSPMLu44&feature=related

            perry answers questions
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgsumGJswWk&feature=related

          • nathanalbright

            …by the quality of his friends and associates, and those are two excellent choices of people to stand beside. Clearly, you have to know a fair amount of foreign policy to stand beside a pretty hawkish Likud MP.

  • Scope

    The aid dollars start at zero until a country makes a firm commitment that they stand with the US first. He hates the UN initiatives, and trying to make it a one world government and one world military effort, all run by the most corrupt organization in the world.

    • changeforrickperry

      He’s on fire tonight. I hope he has Sarah Palin-style notes on the palm of his hand!
      ______________________________________________________________
      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

      www.changeforrickperry.org

      • annie54

        tonight. He was great!

    • SoFiMil

      Fantastic answer, Governor. Great job tonight.

  • RealQuiet

    That question from the moderator about the Department of Energy and what Perry would do with the nuclear weapons was strange.

    • lizzie

      which is why you can not just make it disappear because it should be a Federal function to control nuclear material, use, weapons, research.
      loose nukes and waste are a valid national security issue – US has paid to help Russia clean up and secure their nukes/waste.

    • lizzie

      which is why you can not just make it disappear because it should be a Federal function to control nuclear material, use, weapons, research.
      loose nukes and waste are a valid national security issue – US has paid to help Russia clean up and secure their nukes/waste.

      • Stan(ley) Pruss

        Before DOE creation, nuclear labs were supervised by Atomic Energy Commission. DOE monitors some basic research, but also now much “green energy” promotion. It could be broken up and much of the non nuclear stuff put elsewhere or eliminated. My entire 40+ year career was paid for by AEC/DOE and retirement was attractive because basic research is not valued as it once was.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          …particularly when noting [as guzzardi has documented] that many federal agencies/departments simply dole-out $.

  • center77

    my guess will be the establishment knocks him for it.

    • pttx333

      He is the one they fear the most!

      • texasroots

        if I remember correctly you were having a little fun with Cain. How about it?

        • avagreen

          Whaz you mean, willis?

    • Scope

      The “establishment” headed by the illustrious Karl the Rover will do everything and anything he can to take Perry down. Then you have the trial lawyers, the liberals, Fox, the MSM, and what do you have left. Perry is such a strong threat to so many, they will try to hang him from the closest tree. We won’t let them.

      • center77

        because when all those people hate him, that means he is the person they are afraid of, that makes it that much more important.

      • Carol Tarasewicz

        I got a nasty response from Karl Rove back in August when he said that Rick Perry could be put to death for suggesting that Bernanke printing more money is almost treason. I am on Rove’s you know what list now.
        I told him we wanted to pick our nominee this time, we do not want the media to shove him down our throat, like they did with McCain and now are doing with Romney.

        I apologize if I’ve posted this three months ago.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          This is huge, because Perry’s comment was nuanced [if the video is reviewed]; he qualified it and he was making a key-point [comparable to the Ponzi-Scheme observation about ss].

        • pttx333

          a nasty, devious, underhanded individual – totally untrustworthy. Actually, Carol, it may be a resume enhancer for you to be on his “list.” LOL

          Perry went through the meat grinder during the last Governor’s race in Texas, yet he still won handily. Rove, the Bushies, et al., were out for the jugular since they were convinced that Kay Bailey Hutchison “deserved” to be the Governor because she wanted to come home to “rear her children.” The field was large, so there were many hired hands throwing the garbage around. That was a race for the history books. Dirty, dirty, dirty.

          If you posted this 3 months ago, I had not yet found RS so wouldn’t have seen it. Perhaps you should post it often.

    • clintonformccain

      Having bludgeoned Perry for poor debate performances, they will now pimp his improved performance as the second coming. Think of the new media as a glorified People Magazine.

      • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

        …and this reinforces the imagery that this is one big “political reality-show.”

        But we must go through this process, hoping for Perry’s rehab to take-hold.

        But he will now have to initiate a THIRD effort to “introduce” himself.

        The odds are long, the stakes are high…and DeMint remains a Senator.

        Perhaps highlighting a few of Mitt’s answers [such as withdrawal from Afghanistan by a deadline only 3 months longer than that of BHO] will help to turn the tide….

  • Scope

    the moderators are already treating Perry as a has been nothing nobody? Funny that tonight Huntsman is pulling a Santorum, or a Johnson. He says that he feels like he is in Siberia over there. I thought so many gave him credit for being such a big foreign policy expert. He might know something about China after living there, but it seems the chinese have brainwashed him. And Santorums position on Pakistan is almost brain freeze worthy. He was ousted because he has been government spending worthy.

    • supergirl2911

      That Perry was not asked as much and that he was not attacked by moderators or candidates.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …articulated during prior days regarding Rick’s ongoing viability.

      I hope I’m wrong, but I can’t help but notice the presence of and content of the query of Sen. DeMint; he smiled, and then inserted the hot-knife-through-butter reflecting the current dilemma of cost-cutters.

      I have railed against the 8/2/2011 votes favoring creation of the Super-Committee because of the ability to anticipate its failure [and/or that of Congress, during December] yielding mandatory $600B cuts in the DoD. It is this issue that obviously animated DeMint’s innocent question.

      Perry isn’t quite in Siberia, but he knows he must reverse the sustained freefall via the ad-buy @ FNC BUT he absolutely MUST ensure they remain FRESH; I don’t want to see the same fresh-face self-professed cost-cutter every-hour-on-the-hour, relegating him to Geico-perceptions. I want to see myriad productions , for surely there’s plenty of educatin’ to do!

      Otherwise, concur with Scope’s portrayal of the minor-characters…

  • sandollar

    With the CBS feed?

    We tuned in about 10 minutes late, but my guy (Gingrich) is his usual excellent self, Cain isn’t doing too shabby &Governor Perry is doing GREAT!!
    ENORmous points re foreign aid starting @ zero & spending.
    Vast improvement- they are working together.

    Woops Ol Mitt just made points with NEA cut/&.
    These moderators STINK- almost worse than msnbc.

    Grrr this feed

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …and it precluded note-taking; to follow are rough-comments regarding the first hour [and critique of accuracy is invited]:

      Iran’s Nukes
      Cain won’t use military force
      Romney supports military force if necessary
      Gingrich endorsed both prior answers [wrong, recalling Cain], then endorsed coordination with Israel as well
      Paul opposes military force [seeking Congressional support] and denies credibility of IAEA [citing Iraq]

      Iraq Status
      Perry also wants to sanction Iran’s central bank, right now…and then [regarding Iraq] said we must not withdraw via a time-table; then shifted to Afghanistan [citing lack of BHO's support]
      Huntsman, regarding increased casualties in Iraq, cited problems with security; he then called for withdrawal from Afghanistan; neither war is USA’s future [and decried nation-building]

      Afghanistan
      Santorum noted Al-Qaeda is impotent, then shifted to Iran [citing prior congressional action] and endorsed supporting immediate strike against Iran [with Israel]
      Bachmann noted success of surge and also decried withdrawal time-table
      Romney wont’ negotiate with Taliban; regarding both wars…he would withdraw by December instead of September of next year
      Gingrich noted inability to win unless Pakistan is confronted; a larger strategic discussion is mandatory [including, also Iran]

      Pakistan
      Cain doesn’t know if it is friend/foe, and he would approach query by demanding commitments to answer this question
      Perry asked about this double-game, cited also Gingrich and issue of Foreign Aid; must send clear message that only friends are helped [and decried supporting Pakistan's military]
      Bachmann wouldn’t cut all foreign aid because they have nukes; also noted Syria being supported for Iran…and that the table is being set for a major attack on Israel
      Santorum disagreed with Perry, noting inability to treat Pakistan as anything other than a friend; must “get over it” [OBL locale]; differentiates government with Hakkani Network
      [noted foreign aid yields domestic military expenditures, mirroring suggestion from Perry]

      Foreign Aid
      Gingrich concurs that it is also desirable to “start @ ’0′ when deciding budget” [as Perry said, but as Bachmann disagreed]; Egypt must also be re-thought noting that “Arab Spring” seems to have become an anti-Christian Spring [citing Copts]

      [Gingrich refused to answer a question in f/u of a comment about Romney; took opportunity to praise him.]

      Think outside the box…
      Gingrich would attack issues [including repudiating UN, agenda-21] regarding Iran and North Korea; wants to build navy

      Over-rule generals, when?
      Cain would depend upon properly-chosen generals, depending upon multitude of sources of input
      Santorum has clear agenda and would choose people who shares his viewpoint [priority on security is Iran]

      Eliminate Energy Department
      Perry would relocate oversight of nukes [then said major priority, noting Texas experience, knows how to deal with military...and then cited Mexican border]

      Torture
      Cain would follow military procedures and would preclude torture, but he would trust judgment of military leaders as to its definition; water-boarding is enhanced-interrogation and, thus, OK
      Bachmann also concurs with water-boarding; decried BHO’s having allowed the ACLU to run the CIA [noting we have no jail to handle terrorists on the battle-field]
      Paul decried torture, including water-boarding [claiming lack of evidence that it works...and it's uncivilized and immoral]
      Huntsman decried torture, including water-boarding [and we can't project proper values under such circumstances]

      Drone OK to kill USA-Citizen
      Romney endorsed, and then claimed it is necessary to rebuild military [citing American Exceptionalism]
      Gingrich endorsed [cited rule-of-law without judicial-review]; war denies enemy combatants citizenry-rights…it’s act-of-war, not judicial

      China’s cyber-attacks – are we engaged in $-warfare?
      Perry denied China would become dominant; claimed “the Communist Chinese government will end-up on the trash-heap of history” [citing RR's quote against USSR]; attacked Mitt [constantly]
      Romney noted China’s interest in trade can be leveraged, decrying currency-manipulation and not having played-by-the-rules; present data to WTO…regardless of whether trade-war results
      Huntsman disagreed with Romney [regarding WTO] and doesn’t want trade-war [because it would hurt America's small businesses]; prefers to coordinate with allies and Chinese youth

      • pttx333

        gold star. What you have written is what I recall from the debate. I do, however, get angry all over again at some of the answers – bewildered in a few others.

        Thanks for the time you take to post these reports. They are most helpful, not to mention good debating material we can use with one another and the trolls.

  • Tbone

    Nailed it.

    • bzip

      Perry did excellent on the Euro part, too bad the debate ran out of time. It is at the very end of Part 7 of the debate video that gekster pasted below, at 13:20 of the video part 7.

  • eabjr

    This was a most painful “debate” to watch. CBS/ NJ came off as trying to deal with children, and especially toward the audience. The smugness and “disciplined” format shut down real interaction and gave a “you better behave” arrogance and feel to the whole thing. Go to two hours instead of rushing things…let them speak!
    And the best way in such a 8 person format is to ask a question and give ALL equal time to respond, right down the line. That’s 12 solid questions, with time for rebuttals and back and forth in two hours. This favoritism stuff is BS…

    • lizzie

      so we can compare/contrast

      hoping to avoid double post when I hit post comment!

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …but I suspect they had more queries than they felt could be squished into the first hour [remembering the upcoming cameos of Grahamnesty and DeMint and the intent to involve Tweets].

      Establish a 5%-polling threshold and limit the debaters; presumably, this will transpire in January.

      As is reflected in my notes supra, the inability to watch a clear video during the last half-hour was deadly.

      • nathanalbright

        …until it was posted on youtube. At least then I got the chance to get a good feel for it.

  • sethellis

    CBS sucks. What idiot’s idea was it to not show the entire debate in all timezones? None of the online streams worked. Absolute disaster.

    • papabear

      cbsnews.com, http://nationaljournal.com/cbs-nj-foreign-policy-debate, http://www.ustream.tv/cbsnews and http://newsblogged.com/live-streaming-news-video-cbs-stream.

      Every one of them stuttered worse than Obama w/o a teleprompter!!

  • papabear

    The feed stuttered so badly that I missed 25%+ of the audio after it went to net only.

    • snowshooze

      http://www.therightscoop.com/watch-the-full-cbs-republican-debate/

  • westcoastpatriette

    .

  • lastgopinillinois

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-250_162-1335.html

    • papabear

      After the debating was done, the feeds cleaned up. I caught all the spin room and post analysis. I hope they will post a copy of the last 1/2 hour for those of us who missed it :-(

  • Tbone

    As such, the first question asked should be “Are you a terrorist” then you torture them until they answer yes. Then it’s OK.

    The man is a genius.

  • fellowgeorgian

    Cain is the only one that is answering this question with Common Sense!!!! It would be absolute arrogance to say specifically what any candidate would do on any specific case. A sitting POTUS has access to intelligence that NO candidate has. And Cain is trying to convey that when asked these “gotcha questions”!!!!

    • supergirl2911

      but if Perry used that “common sense” he would be knocked down. Let me guess
      Common sense is that he will surround himself with the smartest most qualified people.
      He will ask the right questions.

    • lizzie

      and there were no “gotcha” questions. Mr. Cain dug his own hole with his answers.

  • snowshooze

    And I can’t find the whole thing, just bits and pieces..
    I would like to watch it all through before I start reading about it…
    Thanks,
    Mark

  • septembergurl

    by Scott Pelley and craptastic unwatchable CBS feed. Having said that, it was lively and informative as long as you did not come looking for clarity on issues.

    What we found (and this is pretty important) is that we have four candidates who are fluent and knowlegeable on foreign policy;

    Newt Gingrich
    Rick Perry
    Michele Bachmann
    Jon Huntsman

    And we have four candidates who are not ready to discuss foreign policy in a meaningful way:

    Mitt Romney
    Rick Santorum
    Ron Paul
    Herman Cain

    Interesting but flawed debate. The format was crap, allowing Pelley to prissily slap the wrists of various debaters for going over time. Given that, a lot of topics were covered in an informative way.

    • conservativeparrothead

      To me, Foreign Policy should be almost a forum, where a candidate comes out for 10-20-30 minutes, whatever and answers the same questions from the moderator.

      This way every candidate has a chance to answer the same questions and we get to see who really knows what. Rick Santorum was kind of saying that when he said everyone should have a chance to answer on Iran, and I agree they all should of had a chance to answer on everyone, and probably in a way that they cant hear the others answers.

      Kind of like the Rick Warren forum he did with Obama and McCain.

  • gekster

    If I can find the last half hour, I will put it up as soon as.

    part 1

    part 2

    part 3

    part 4

    part 5

    • gekster

      part 6

      • gekster

        part 7

        • gracie

          I was having a-cat last night not being able to see what everybody was talking about., Mucho thanks.

      • bzip

        At 11:07 in Part 6 of this debate Perry slams Ron Paul

        • pttx333

          timeline where Perry slams Ron Paul! I could watch it over and over! Perry was truly angry by the time he finished – he meant what he said, that was NO act. He doesn’t act anyway, though, he just lays it out there. Did my heart good to finally hear someone pound Paul for being an isolationist/pacifist – there’s no other way to explain his stance, though he denies the labels. Personally, I care NOT how they gather info from captured terrorists – if one or all of them have information that would save one American life or any of our allies’ – I just don’t care what they do. Covert operations and all that, if need be. Guess Paul doesn’t care about 9/11 or any of the other atrocities we have suffered – he thinks if we’re “nice” they will not attack. What an idiot, a dangerous one at that.

  • avagreen

    Too late tonight. I want to savor this over and over.

    Goody, goody, gumdrop!

  • papabear

    Part 1 is 14:17 long. Part 2 is 14:07 long.

    I think Gekster may have the same link for “Part 6″

    • papabear

      nt

  • pttx333

    spoiling those of us who sit here just waiting for someone to go out and find videos for us! ;-)

    • gekster

      I’m going to have to get a bigger hat.

      • pttx333

        World, etc. sell all sorts of hat in X-large sizes, doncha?

        LOL

        Mom

        (or as I always tell my kiddos – “Don’t you ever forget that MOM spelled upside down is WOW.”)

  • seth90212

    The problem with Perry is that he seems to memorize certain responses to certain anticipated questions. That rarely works as his packaged responses rarely match the questions posed, and he’s not able improvise and adjust. Tonight was no different. Come hell or high water he was going to give his canned responses no matter what was asked. That’s what got him into trouble the other night when he couldn’t remember his own plan. He wasn’t speaking from the heart or from his own knowledge base. Rather, he was trying to recall a script and his memory failed.

    • nathanalbright

      …as if you were watching the same debate as everyone else. His reply about zero-cost budgeting for foreign aid and his digs at China and Pakistan (as well as bailing out Europe at the very end) were very excellent and got even Newt to nod in agreement. His sly pointing out of his executive experience dealing with Mexico and the security situation on the border was a nice touch too.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …for a few reasons.

      First, all will prepare their answers; if you don’t like someone, then mischaracterize it as “canned.”

      Second, even the others had to admit Rick’s “zero-based budgeting” approach was wise; no one else concurred [but no one disagreed] regarding his intent to shut the Iranian National Bank.

      Third, Perry did speak from the heart, particularly when citing his own military experience [both in the field and in the leadership].

      AND, this time, Perry’s memory didn’t fail….

    • greyeagle

      Obviously were not watching the same debate the rest of us. I think you are an anti-Perry troll from another web site that will stay nameless.

      • Tbone

        or he wouldn’t be trolling against Perry. LOL

  • bzip

    To me this was the defining moment for Perry. It was this clip of zero aid tht changed the corse of the debate and Perry drove the debate from this:

    Perry Vows To Start Foreign Aid Budgets At Zero
    http://youtu.be/m2UbCo7I43Y

    Perry Jokes About Debate Gaffe
    http://youtu.be/FJh205O-8a4

    Perry: Politicians Don’t Run Pakistan, Secret Service Does
    http://youtu.be/2SZemeZhPlY

    • pttx333

      clips. He really nailed it last night, and my buttons are popping just thinking about his huge rally. I KNEW he could do it, and he did. That is who he is, Rick Perry unplugged. It appears he must be feeling somewhat better also – he’s been through so very much.

      Thank you!

    • nathanalbright

      ….really need to be turned into some kind of “foreign policy” commercial (or series of commercials) since the debate gave him such excellent material.

      • bzip

        Perry was in top form last night.

        I don’t know if the media will acknowledge it but there was a very clear defining moment in that debate: “Perry Vows To Start Foreign Aid Budgets At Zero”

        That defined the debate, the conservation was than driven by the Perry Zero remark and it not only defined the debate but also redefined Perry campaign.

        We will see how the media plays this but to me the big winners were:
        Perry
        Newt

        The big loser was:
        Cain

        • circlegranch

          We’ll have our work cut out for us the next couple days to fight the spin machines. Encourage all to donate and invest time writing comments at other major sites, letters to editors of Iowa newspapers, contact tea party groups in the early states, sending emails of support for Gov. Perry; this is a call to arms for a formative ground game by citizien journalists!

          I paid alot of attention to overall demeanor last night from all of them. Quick summary: Santorum is still angry; Bachmann seemed rather resigned to her failed campaign but that she’ll hang in just in case she finishes in the top 4 in Iowa. Cain seemed distracted; he was out of his element on the topics. (I think he should have been asked about his claim that if he’s not elected President, he wants to be Secy of Defense and then followed up with a question about his position on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell). Cain seemed off message and without some of the usual glib remarks. Romney is intent on winning. His campaign is far more about Mitt being president because he really wants it than being president because the country needs him. Paul was Paul; at least he’s consistent. Huntsman seems willing to keep trying at least till New Hampshire although one wonders where he’s getting his financing. Perry and Gingrich both came across as being relaxed and of not trying too hard. That attitude seems to be a wonderful fit for Perry. Things are what they are. He admits to not liking debates and nobody that’s sincere is good at something they don’t like. He’s damned if he skips debates and to a degree, damned if he shows up so he seems to have adopted the mentality that if he make a blunder, he’ll show humor and just ride it out. He’s connecting with the rest of us that are human. Both he and Newt seemed confident in their positions and voters can either accept them or reject them because they will survive either way. Romney is coming across as wanting this so much a loss would be crushing. His intensity is becoming a bit of a bore.

          I like the Rick Perry that showed up last night because he’s the real deal. This is what he’s truly like and I have a good feeling we’re about to witness a resurgence.

          • pttx333

            but do you think Newt can dump the baggage somewhere? And sometimes he comes across as quite arrogant, at least to me he does. What he says, I will agree, is often really good. Perhaps an important position – cabinet, etc., in an advisory position?

            Cain is toast. He really bombed, but I think he knows his ship has sailed and he’s still standing on the dock. Rightfully so – he is truly c.l.u.e.l.e.s.s.

            Romney wants the 1600 gig as yet another trophy on the mantle. He is so self-absorbed as to be disgusting. Fake, phony, plastic, waffling serial windsock (as Carville referred to him LOL – and I never agree with HIM). Total untrustworthy, IMHO.

            Our guy came through – big time. He looked better also, so I would imagine he may have his back pain a little more under control. Bless his heart, he really did well.

            Paul? Nutso would be too kind.

            Our guy can and will pull it out of the hat!

          • annie54

            the Press Secretary for Perry? Is that off the wall to think that? Be frank, please. There wouldn’t be as much vetting for Newt and his wife wouldn’t be so omnipresent.

          • acat

            I’m sure he’d be great, but .. it seems so beneath him.

            I’d suggest considering a conservative talk show host for the job. Tony Snow did brilliantly in the role.

            Mew

          • Common_Cents

            nt

        • retire05

          I was at a dinner last night that honors our county veterans, and missed the debate. This morning I was catching clips, and comments, on FOX. FOX just ran a clip of Newt’s “zero based foreign aid” comment and indicated it was Newt that brought that policy up.

          From what I have read here this morning, it was Perry’s idea first. Can any of you shed light on that? If it was Perry’s idea, then we have a major problem with FOX representing the idea as Newts,

          Also there was a quick clip of Jim DeMint and Lindsay Grahram smiling and nodding approvingly. What was that over?

          Come on, gang. Fill me in as I don’t have time to watch all the videos until this afternoon.

          • gekster

            I posted it last night as soon as it hit youtube.
            And Perry brought up the 0$ foriegn aid position, and it was Newt that agreed with it.
            If Fox did what you said, shame on Fox.

          • acat

            and Newt’s less of a threat than a resurgent Perry would be.

            Mew

          • avagreen

            cuud’uv knocked me over with a feather.

            Quite the nice reply and sounded JUST like he speaks (mellow and to the point with just a few words…..he’s really a nice guy), but still putting out the line that Perry has been given coverage by Fox. I wrote back that he may have been coverage, but I doubted the quality of that coverage.

            I invited him to come view RS to get an idea of what is being said here. He thanked me for the suggestion.

            So, Bret, if you are lurking here, a big welcome! :D

          • avagreen

            the majority THINK than Cain can. Still!

            **holding forehead, shaking head**

          • acat

            First, because we’re all political watchers of one sort or another, Red State tends to be a couple steps ahead of the majority. The Cain allegations broke *how* many days ago? Many folk haven’t heard them yet…. others are still working through their five steps to acceptance.

            Second, this is an online poll. It’s by definition not scientific. The only real surprise is that Ron Paul wasn’t winning.

            Mew

          • avagreen

            Almost no reason to read…they are so rote.

            But, get this! They said all the candidates but……Paul (and someone else ) were just putting out memorized talking points (or something like that)……..and only Paul was the unrehearsed one. LOL!

            Guess they overlooked the close-to-apoplectic Perry when he was defending the use of water boarding (“torture”) to our “boys and girls”(I think that’s the term he used) over there risking their lives. He was furious and I saw laser lights from those angry brown squinty eyes. God have mercy! Laser eyes can kill. ;)

            I know. I gottum, too. ;)

          • acat

            I am hoping he spends his golden years far away from Rand’s pad.

            Mew

          • Scope

            don’t you? LOL

          • pttx333

            I’ve “gottum” also – only they’re green! Yes, he did use the term “boys and girls” and I loved that too! That is the protective father in him. LOVE IT!

          • texasroots

            “You havtuh unduhstand (lick lips)….

          • avagreen

            …..didn’t catch it the other night.
            :D

          • texasroots

            that’s what I thought. I keep going back to it and laugh, it’s hilarious.
            Can you do something on the debate?? Thanks.

          • avagreen

            I can’t even remembuh wheruh ah wrot theat last thing on Herman.

            ??

            Is he still singin?

          • texasroots

            Brett Baier, unfair, unbalanced and afraid of Pres Obama

          • avagreen

            Brett Baier, unfair, unbalanced and afraid of Pres Obama.

            Sad. Honestly. He’s such a nice guy. Not being sarcastic.

            What is the hold over our media does this Chicago goon have over the media? Do they know something we don’t? You know……”the cows munching in the meadow.”

          • texasroots

            I noticed that when story broke about Murdoch’s phone hacking in Europe, there was talk about FCC possibly conducting hearings in US. Then, nothing, and appears (to me) Faux News has done a 180 pertaining to BO. I happened to catch the Docy guy on Fox and Friends apologizing that what he had said the day before about BO wanting to apologize to Japan was not true.

          • avagreen

            Frankly, I’d rather have a smaller house and my good conscience, but I’m not them.

            Pity.

            *shrug*

          • Scope

            held a fundraiser in England for Obama during the 08 election season.

            When I read the article about Fox going more moderate, and at times they have actually gone left of center, it was a little surprise, but not shocking. Fox had been hiring more and more lefties/liberals for a while. That info was in the same Kurtz article where he relays how Wallace and Baier were planning on how they were going to go after Perry in the debate they were moderating that night.

            Do you remember the Glen Beck shows where he really went after Soros, and showed all his connections to some of the worst liberal groups in the country like the Tides Foundation etc. He named names, like Van Jones and Anita Dunn et al. He regularly reported how he was being threatened by Soros and all his cronies. One of them even paid Beck a personal visit, and indicated that he better shut up or else. Do you remember Beck’s show about how the lefties promote propaganda much like that of the guy that wanted to sell an over glut of bacon at one time, so he made bacon and eggs a perfect match, and that you couldn’t eat one without the other. He was doing a fantastic job of educating the viewers about the agenda of the liberals, and just how they were going about accomplishing their goals. He ain’t at Fox no more. And that parting was a very strange thing, as he said many times he had the utmost respect for Roger Ailes, and that was why he moved over to Fox. From the few times I’ve heard him on the radio lately, you know there is no love lost between him and Fox. There is definite animosity there.

            I definitely agree with texasroots below that there is something going on with the whole Murdoch thing, as it seems that the major changes at Fox seemed to have happened around the same time as Murdoch’s problems in England. If I believed in conspiracy theories, I would believe that Soros is going to get his way before he croaks whatever it takes.

            Why is Fox going all in for Romney? I don’t believe for a minute that Romney is giving Fox the cold shoulder because he is afraid to go on any of their shows. Talk about softball interviews. They are helping him much more by promoting Cain or whatever other candidate would be seen as the anti-Romney, who they know has little chance of beating Romney. Perry is and has always been the biggest threat to their guy. They must paint Perry is the most negative light they can. They either ignore him, and talk up Cain, or they talk about him like he is the red headed step child. Do you believe that Cain would have gone up in the polls as he did without the help of Fox? They put him on the map, and insured him as much name recognition as possible. For a while I was beginning to think he slept in the Fox studios. Guaranteed that if Cain didn’t screw up on his own, Fox would have turned on him with a vengence before the primaries started. They would never allow him, or anyone to beat Romney.

            We’ve all complained so much that the libs always try to pick our candidate for us with their reporting, and we’ve said we were not going to let them do that again. Now Fox has decided to go all in to pick the candidate that they are trying to shove down our throats. That, in my eyes, makes them even worse than the liberals.

            Isn’t Rush, Hannity, and Levin on Fox radio? Aren’t they pushing Cain also?

          • avagreen

            Wasn’t aware of the gala by Murdoch’s daughter, though.
            Yeah, the problems started when Murdoch began having his legal problems. I thought I’d heard he was turning the reigns of the division that includes Fox over to one of his sons, or maybe it was over to Ailes. Can’t find the link right now.

            Yeah, Glenn’s leaving was a marker for sure about the direction that Fox was headed.

            Here’s an interesting article
            here, which just verifies what we all are rubbing our eyes about in disbelief. Yes, it really, really is happening.


            In an article published in New York Magazine, Roger Ailes, CEO of Fox News is reported to have told colleagues that he thinks Sarah Palin is an idiot and unhelpful to the conservative movement.

            Really? Gosh, we never knew. But to be fair, there was a lot more of interest in that article than the sensational headline that is getting all the attention. I?ll have an article at Alternet soon (and here at News Corpse in a day or two) about how Fox News has sabotaged the Republican Party, but in the meantime, here is a brief summary of some of the more salient facts in the NYMag article:

            Ailes thinks Sarah Palin is an idiot (a given).
            Ailes threatened to fire Glenn Beck as talks over his departure broke down.
            ??as with everything concerning Glenn Beck, the situation was a mess, simultaneously a negotiation and a therapy session.?
            Ailes was upset that he could not elect a president.
            ?the Fox candidates? poll numbers remain dismally low.?
            Ailes tried to recruit Chris Christie to run for president.
            ??he fell hard for Christie, who nevertheless politely turned down Ailes?s calls to run.?
            Ailes is the GOP kingmaker.
            ?You can?t run for the Republican nomination without talking to Roger.?
            Ailes threatened to quit in 2008.
            ?Ailes confronted Murdoch after he learned Murdoch was thinking of endorsing Obama in the New York Post.?
            Ailes is a true believer in the lunatic theories his network broadcasts.
            ?Ailes told Axelrod that he was concerned that Obama wanted to create a national police force.?

            Perhaps the most profoundly disturbing item in this list is that Ailes is recruiting candidates for the GOP. How can the head of an alleged news network have that sort of political role? What if he succeeds in persuading Christie, or someone else, to enter the race? How could his network cover the campaign with any impartiality? Not that they would anyway, considering that half of the Republican field is on the Fox payroll, but this would blow any pretense of being ?fair and balanced? out of the water. No wonder Rupert Murdoch?s own son-in-law said of Ailes?

            ?I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes?s horrendous and sustained disregard of the journalistic standards that News Corporation, its founder and every other global media business aspires to.?

            Ouch!

          • avagreen

            nt

          • Common_Cents

            There is much overlap between Gingrich/Perry.

            “GINGRICH: I’ve been a strong supporter of international assistance, but I think there are a couple of good reasons to review the whole program. First of all, I would replace virtually all government to government aid with some kind of investment approach that encouraged American companies to create jobs that made both the US and the other country wealthier. Our bureaucrats giving their bureaucrats money is a guaranteed step towards corruption. Second, I think when you have countries that vote against you in the United Nations consistently you really have to ask yourself why are you giving them anything? We came out of World War II with the generosity that made perfect sense when we had 50 percent of the world economy. And it was a different world. And we need to understand how different it is.”
            Source: 2011 GOP Google debate in Orlando FL , Sep 22, 2011

          • pttx333

            3-4 questions which were given to the candidates by the mods. Four candidates were given DeMint’s and the remaining ones were given Graham’s. Those questions (all of ‘em) had to be answered in the allotted time.

            Was great debate. When you have time, there are some really good videos here, even one from backstage featuring Perry that originated at, I think, The National Journal. Our guy did a knock-out job – great!

          • bzip

            Yep, it was Perry that brought up the zero based aid policy and then Newt agreed. Fox was clearly biased as I figured. Even CNN acknowledged the Perry Zero based policy;

            Five things we learned from Saturday’s GOP debate
            http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/13/politics/things-we-learned-gop-debate/index.html

            “Zero, not nine

            Sorry, Herman Cain: The operative number in Saturday’s debate was not 9, 9 or 9. It was zero.

            Perry said that’s the amount of foreign aid every country in the world would receive at the outset of his administration. Each nation would then have to explain why they deserve American funds — even Israel. Perry later clarified that Israel, a staunch ally, would continue to receive “substantial” money from Washington.”

            And from;
            http://tv.breitbart.com/perry-vows-to-start-foreign-aid-budgets-at-zero/

          • pttx333

            but it would appear that I will be. Haven’t watched FNC in a long time – just for special things – because I grew so weary of what they have become. Just the same ol’ same ol’, different day mess as everyone else. Did flip over to F&F on Fox this a.m. and heard Chris Wallace say that Cain and Perry were about equal but neither were hurt and both would get a little bump – I’m paraphrasing there. But that was the gist of it. I wanted to slap that snarky smirk off his face! He absolutely LIED.

          • avagreen

            \\ //
            . .
            __

          • pttx333

            to meet up with the two of us, would he. Wish I could throw out a few adjectives here, but must refrain from doing so. Dagnabitall!

            Thanks for your help the with the ever-so-correct and perfect Chrissy Wallace – the poster boy for wimpification, after b.o.

          • iidvbii

            Don’t ya’ll leave without me…. I definitely want in on this… Got a bone or two to pick myself.

          • pttx333

            will surely make the strangest wounds and in different places. LOL

          • iidvbii

            Perhaps we can stop by a sargents on the way out and get me some roach killers…. Yeah rattle snake… Leave just the right impression….LOL :P

          • pttx333

            I’m sure we can pick up enough “equalizers” to weather the storm! If nothin’ else, I proudly volunteer to TALK ‘EM TO DEATH while y’all hold ‘em. I’m quite good at it – lots of practice, doncha know. Deal? ;-)

            FYI: Unfortunately, I talk just like I write, ceptin’ for this peculiar drawl that I have!

          • bzip

            Well according to fox’s web report they do give Perry credit but I also saw that TV segment where they didn’t give Perry credit for the Zero policy statement;

            GOP Candidates Debate Foreign Policy in South Carolina
            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/12/gop-candidates-to-debate-foreign-policy-in-south-carolina/

            “Texas Gov. Rick Perry repeatedly said that in a Perry administration, foreign aid for all countries would ?start at zero dollars.?

            He said Pakistan is sending messages that ?they don?t deserve our foreign aid.?

            ?It?s time for us as a country to say no to foreign aid to countries that don?t support the United States of America,? he said. ?I don?t trust them.?
            Gingrich hailed Perry?s idea as exceptional. ?You ought start off with zero and say explain to me why I should give you a penny,? Gingrich said.”

          • pttx333

            know what the left is doing, or did something not get the daily memo. OR they’re just a serial windsock like Romney.

            Grrrrr

          • bzip

            I wish I knew but I saw that TV segment of Fox and Carl C. clearly gave Newt the credit for the zero policy statement (I was so peeved I turn the TV off).

            Oddly enough Fox does have the written web version correct giving Perry the credit.

            Don’t be surprised if there is little acknowledgement of Perry’s good showing at the debate last night from Fox news though. They seem to already be bent on Tooting The Newt now :-) .

          • texasroots

            but we are on to them. There is no way they will give Perry credit. I can’t stand any of them. Perry was saying before he went on with Megyn he hoped the feed would not go down. They have that happen a lot, especially if it’s someone they don’t want to really hear. I remember it happening at CNN too.

        • seth90212

          Nothing posted here, however delusional, is going to change the dynamics of the race or convince people to prefer Perry. The man is polling at 4% and is likely to remain there with minor fluctuations up or down.

          Perry’s direct competitors are Santorum and Huntsman.

          • iidvbii

            Or is it 9-0-9 or 15-19-24 yet? Keep hoping and praying but there is a reason no one bothers issuing attack adds against Cain and it has nothing to do with that sparkling character we are all learning so much about. Just watch the returns once the voting begins and it will become clear why they fear “The Texan” and laugh off “The Pizza Peddler”….

          • gekster

            Is that if Perry is, as seth says “The man is polling at 4% and is likely to remain there with minor fluctuations up or down ” then why does he spend so much time on a nobody.
            What is his reason for all the slams on Perry if his competitors, as he says, are Santorum and Huntsman. That Perry is on the bottom and going nowhere.

            Or does he see the truth that Perry is a force to be reconned with, and he is the one seth fears the most.

          • iidvbii

            There is a reason this election has to be about immigration or debates or basically anything but the economy and who has the experience, track record and previous success to deal with it. I believe once people are tired of marketing slogans and slick sales pitches, they will look for substance, experience and results. That is why the attacks continue, to stall the real conversation. None of these “candidates” can lay a glove on Perry where it matters. So the circus continues….

          • pttx333

            Haven’t “seen” you all day … figured you must have skipped town or somehting.

            Nothing new on this end, just saying Hey!

            Mom

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …he noted the need to shut-down the Iranian National Bank.

      • nathanalbright

        …that it should be shut down today (!).

        • ericblair00

          Supporting Iranian dissidents and destroying the standard of living for the average Iranian may not be complimentary goals.

          The U.S. is arleady sanctioing Iran and it has rallied our international partners to do the same. Smart, targeted sanctions can be effective, but they’re not a silver bullet. Perry admonished the administration and his Republican colleagues for not supporting sanctions against Iran?s central bank. Sanctioning Iran?s central bank would disrupt oil prices and hurt the U.S. economy. It would also devastate Iranian civil society and the ?dissidents? each GOP candidate said they supported. Eli Clifton reported last week: ?Central bank sanctions may disrupt oil markets and damage U.S. and global economic recoveries; weaken multilateral sanctions efforts if U.S. allies are unwilling to sign on; and extract a shocking humanitarian toll on ordinary Iranian civilians. In fact, central bank sanctions may run counter to U.S. interests and actually strengthen the Iranian regime. Mehdi Karroubi, an influential reformist politician in Iran, warns that ?sanctions have given an excuse to the government to suppress the opposition by blaming them for the unstable situation in the country,? and CNN?s Fareed Zakaria writes, ?[Sanctions'] basic effect has been to weaken civil society and strengthen the state ? the opposite of what we should be trying to do in that country.?

          • acat

            (cheshire grin)

          • nathanalbright

            …itself is not a huge oil-exporting country, but it does have a little and close access to the oil routes along the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf. There isn’t any silver bullet. I think our best option would be to quietly and covertly help Israel to do the job themselves, and then give them some suitably private congratulations for a job well done.

  • Scope

    in a debate, or with anything, some just won’t give him a break. Steve Hayes of the “Weakly” Standard says that Perry’s 0 based foreign aid doesn’t matter because it’s only 1% of the budget. Isn’t that the kind of thinking that got us into this mess. Hey, what’s a billion here or there.

    • Scope

      on Fox. He said Perry came across as more relaxed and likable, but he didn’t give any substantive answers. He said that Perry dodged on some answers. What a Romney hack he is.

      • nathanalbright

        He sounded pretty combative about the security risk in Mexico (something that was largely ignored) and foreign aid budgets. I thought his answer (and Newt’s) when it came to balanced budgets was pretty direct and to the point to. Some people will see what they want to see, though.

      • texasroots

        It’s laughable. People who watched the debate and then listen to these jokers figure out right away they are Romney hacks.

        • avagreen

          Man! If a news network can so happily prostitute themselves in this manner and so quickly……….what about the rest of what was once civilization?

          Cluck me.

          • Scope

            that tried to tell you that you didn’t see what you just saw with your own eyes. Fox’s interpretation of the debate last night requires one to enter the realm of a “willing suspension of disbelief.” I have seen people on CNN give Perry a pass in saying that everyone has brain freezes, it happens to everyone. For Fox, Perry’s brain freeze fed right into their Perry is an idiot agenda, and they are going to use it every chance they get to prop up their boy Romney. There is no possible way that every host and guest on a network could all be so against one particular candidate across the board, unless they were instructed to do it or lose their jobs. I’m still wondering who is behind that agenda besides Karl Rove.

          • avagreen

            with those two little hairs on top spin around til it falls off and bounces down the studio floors, and hit every commentator sitting and lying.

            Man, I’m getting ugly.

            I just can’t stand this evil happening.

            And, that’s exactly what it is……when lying and conniving takes the place of facts/truth.

          • acat

            I choose not to have cable, so I don’t watch Fox. At least, not at home. (the in-laws are Foxphiles .. and a bit deaf .. when staying in a shared vacation rental I was woken up more than once by Glen Beck)

            How many former Bushies are in the Fox lineup?

            I forget who it was, but someone (maybe Erick?) made the point that there’s a good deal of animosity between the Bush team and the Perry team – although not necessarily between George and Rick themselves – and this sure seems to be driving Fox to support the anti-Perry…

            Can you fill in some gaps for me, please?

            Mew

          • Scope

            are Dana Perino and Karl Rove. As you know they worked directly for W.

            Either shortly before, or shortly after Perry got into the race, one of the hosts, don’t rember who, asked Rove about the animosity betwen the Bush/Rove camp and the Perry camp. Rove went into this long argument that it was he and the Bush’s that helped Perry get elected as the Ag. Commissioner in Tx. He made sure to say that without their help, Perry wasn’t doing real well, and would probably have lost that election without their help. He went on about everything he and the Bush’s did for Perry when W went to Wash. He went on and on about how Perry never was greatful for all their help. As Gov., and when W was still pres. Perry said, apparently in public, that W was never a fiscal conservative, even as his time as TX. Gov. Perry disagreed with some of the W accomplishment’s such as Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, TARP and etc. I’m sure he expressed his opposition to those things in public as well. I also get the feeling that Perry believes that W never did all that he could/should of as Pres. to help secure the border. He obviously never did anything about it even when he was TX. Gov, and certainly didn’t do anything but fight for an amnesty plan as Pres.

            I think that there is probably much more to it than that, but as you know the Bush’s, Cheney and Rove went all in for KBH to beat out Perry as Gov. I also remember reading somewhere that Perry has actually won against Rove and Axelrod in some contests in the past. Maybe one of our Texans can tell us about that. It is clear though that Rove despises Perry. I also read that Rove takes credit for getting Perry to become a Republican, but I believe our retire05 talked about that and said it wasn’t true.

            It is my guess that Rove et al turned against Perry because Perry was a bad boy and didn’t just go along with them to get along. And they think he owed them his alliegence no matter what, and he told them no dice. I’m sure that Rove, with his close relationship with the Bushe’s young and old, has tentacles all over the country big time, and he is now calling in all his chips to help him finally defeat Perry. Revenge is a very nasty and self absorbed agenda.

            That’s my opinion anyway.

          • Scope

            You are not missing anything by not having Fox on your TV. Why pay money to listen to what has become nothing but a bunch of crap. I started getting discussed with them a while ago when they started hiring at least as many D’s as R’s. And the D’s they have are some of the most liberal. At least on CNN I know what Donna Brazille and Candy Crowley are going to say. When Fox is broadcasting some of the same lefty talking points, and pushing propaganda, I am ready to throw my TV in the garbage. I do learn alot on DIY though. My husband, the cook in the house, loves the food channels.

          • texasroots

            How about that Bob Beckel? OMG, how much liberal can you get. That’s why I completely stopped watching Faux News, too many commercials, too many liberals. They have become an Infotainment channel like MSNBC.

          • Scope

            is such a liberal he stinks. Did you see him on the 5 when the Solyndra scandal was just breaking news? He refused to talk about it, because he said that there was no scandal, just a couple of emails that the R’s found, and they were crazy. He literally sat back and refused to talk about it, just like a child.

            He has been calling Perry hop along Perry, or cowboy Perry every time his name comes up. Thankfully he wasn’t on the day after Perry’s mistake, but Juan Williams picked right up where he left off.

          • retire05

            who has a bit of history of his own that should disallow him ever insulting others or resort to name calling.

            The smily Mr. Beckel was a drunk and a coke head who spent the first part of his life stoned. He was also one of the people who designed, and set up the system of Democrat caucuses the night of elections. He knew that Jesse Jackson was gaining in the polls, and that he had to be stopped.

            The caucuses are a pure system of voter theft. In Texas alone, Hillary won the primary by over 100,000 votes, yet by the time the caucuses were over, Obama took Texas, disenfranchising 100K Democrat voters.

            Not to mention Beckel’s love for the bottle and cocaine, he also seemed to like hookers, one of which he paid with a hot check. Yet, he is good friends with Sean Hannity and is a respected pundit on Fox. No one should ever give this man a job.

          • Xasteius

          • acat

            I’ve found life without cable to be pretty much like life with cable, except we go to the movies a bit more often. Makes ‘em an event.

            Mew

          • retire05

            Karl Rove was leading Bush’s gubernatorial campaign and Perry was running for Lt. Govenor. In Texas, we vote on both, not as a common ticket such as POTUS/VP is.

            Rove had a way of campaigning, but Perry’s style was very different and Perry didn’t mind pointing out the weakness of his opponent. Rove, with his eye on the prize even back then, didn’t want to make a lot of enemies in Texas but Perry didn’t care. Perry was a country boy and understood the Texans he was appealing to as Ag Commissioner. Perry was right, Rove was wrong, and the fued became history.

            Yes, Rove claimed credit on Fox for Perry switching parties. But it wasn’t Rove who convinced Perry to leave the ever moving left Democrat Party. More likely, it was Phil Graham, who had done the same. With Dukakis taking the nomination, and the party moving farther left, a number of Texas Dems at the time began to consider switching parties. The Democrat Party no longer held to their Southern conservative ways.

            John Connelly saw the hand writing on the way and became a Republican in 1973, just a few short years after he was wounded in the Kennedy car.

  • paladin1

    by the media and by Israel support groups and lobbies here appears to be Governor Perry’s call for zero base foreign aid budgeting. On the media’s part, it is merely an attempt to stir up a non-existent controversy among Israel supporters here in the US and to diminish Governor Perry, especially with that incomprehensible Jewish Democratic support in the northeast which is believed to be damaged by the Anthony Weiner congressional replacement vote.

    On the part of the support groups and lobbyists, I see it as a reflexive reaction to an unreasonable fear that the cash flow will be restricted. In my opinion, this is unreasonable fear given the 75% US made defense purchases and the jobs that go with it, and the Congressional majority’s solid support for Israel. Aid to Israel by the US is ONLY threated by the continuation of the Obama presidency and his overt rejection of our long term ties.

    Governor Perry has long been a friend of Israel and his initiatives with Israel from some years ago on agricultural issues are, or should be, well known. In addition, he has spoken up in support of Israel on numerous occasions and there is not a better friend of Israel on the debate stage than Governor Perry.

    It is also interesting that the media and the lobby have chosen to wave the Ten Year Memorandum regarding Israeli aid and use it as an example of Perry’s ineptitude in this area. Clearly, the Governor advanced support for Israel in his debate answer and all supporters of Israel should be quite heartened by his answer.

    By the same token, I believe, with Governor Perry, that every country receiving US foreign aid should be zero based yearly and the aid provided determined by whether the actions of the country enhance and assist the US, or whether they choose to play us as the pawn we seem to have become in the foreign aid game.

    Nations like Israel, who work closely with us and with whom we have a high level of cooperation, can expect to be rewarded with necessary and reasonable assistance given their value as friends.

    Nations such as Pakistan, and others should expect to see their aid based at zero and remain there until they exhibit the level of cooperation and assistance we demand in exchange for our monetary aid. It is clear that the civilian government in Pakistan is more and more controlled by the military and the military is becoming openly antagonistic to US interests. They play us off against the Chinese and admitted turning over our helicopter stealth technology to them for examination prior to returning it to us. They play on our fears that their nuclear arsenal must be protected from radical Islamists when in reality, it is in the openly terrorist-supporting hands of the antagonistic military and is constantly in danger. If Pakistan chooses to reject the US, let them openly go to China for the money they want and be prepared to face the consequences if their nuclear arsenal is fully compromised.

    Nations such as the People’s Republic of China should receive no subsidies, friendly or not, since they openly undermine US interests in the Middle East, Africa, and South America, and they have a thriving economy to support themselves.

    • Scope

      Perry is also not any friend of the UN’s either. I remember reading an article that one year when the UN was having a big birthday, then Pres. Bush asked all of the Governors to acknowledge and honor the good work that the UN was doing. Perry refused, and said that they have failed at any and every attempt to promote democracy throughout the world. They have not promoted American values throughout the world. Obama has put the UN on a pedestal, and has insured them gazillions of our tax payer dollars, not only in dues and fees, but with every damn dumb program they initiate, with the help of the invisible Susan Rice. Perry would probably encourage them to move out of the US, and/or would cut off most of our dollars going to them, or their programs.

  • Ausonius

    Dem Governor O’Malley of Maryland is right now lying about what – supposedly – “everyone” could plainly see and hear: These Republicans have “no ideas and no real solutions.” :)

    Sure! “No new ideas” from anyone up there!

    Again the Dems provide the Republicans with a great sound-bite here: calling zero-based budgeting “extreme” is itself an “extreme opinion” to anyone with even a below-average I.Q.

    Will the Republicans take advantage of Dems’ own statements?

    • izoneguy


      Of course the democratic Gov. of Maryland thinks Zero-based budgeting is “extreme”

      The 2010 census finds that more Americans are migrating from high to low tax states. One great thing about our federalist system is that states are laboratories of democracy. Maryland?s experiment with high taxation and excessive government spending has failed. The state is a clear lesson of what not to do. Unless Maryland immediately shapes up by reducing its tax burden and job-killing regulations, many residents like me are likely to vote with their feet by moving out of the reckless state.

      • Ausonius

        Many thanks for that instructive link to the article at FreedomWorks!

        Facts are so obviously brutal to the Leftists, it is no wonder they do their best to place them under the rug or to claim that their lies are the facts.

        It is a shame that people do buy the lies rather than the facts: I suppose the lies make them “feel good about themselves.” :)

  • ericblair00

    Just some background for those of you who support cutting foreign aid.

    As Congress struggles to negotiate a budget deal to keep the government running, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told lawmakers Wednesday that the GOP version of the budget bill would result in the deaths of at least 70,000 children who depend on American food and health assistance around the world.

    “We estimate, and I believe these are very conservative estimates, that H.R. 1 would lead to 70,000 kids dying,” USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah testified before the House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee.

    “Of that 70,000, 30,000 would come from malaria control programs that would have to be scaled back specifically. The other 40,000 is broken out as 24,000 would die because of a lack of support for immunizations and other investments and 16,000 would be because of a lack of skilled attendants at birth,” he said.

    The Republican bill, known as H.R.1, was passed by the House, and would fund the government for the rest of fiscal 2011. It would effectively cut 16 percent from the Obama administration’s original fiscal 2011 request for the international affairs account.

    Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) pointed out that H.R. 1 would provide $430 million for the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account, which is 50 percent below the president’s fiscal 2011 request and 67 percent below fiscal 2010 levels.

    Shah said that such a cut “would be, really, the most dramatic stepping back away from our humanitarian responsibilities around the world in decades.” The IDA account supports 1.6 million people in Darfur, so halving the account would place 800,000 people at risk, he said.

    “[T]his would lead to a significant amount of reduction in feeding programs, medical programs and food and water programs for people who are incredibly vulnerable,” he added.

    Shah was also testifying in defense of the administration’s fiscal 2012 budget request, which also faces the axe on Capitol Hill. Subcommittee Chairwoman Kay Granger (R-TX) opened the hearing by announcing that the administration’s fiscal 2012 request was dead on arrival.

    “While I understand the value of many of these important programs, the funding request for next year is — is truly unrealistic in today’s budget environment,” she said. “We simply cannot fund everything that has been funded in the past. And we certainly cannot continue to fund programs that are duplicative and wasteful.”

    Granger said she would support USAID programs that have national security implications or contribute to the ongoing missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Her Democratic counterpart, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), said that national security is threatened by instability in other parts of the world as well.

    “Drastic cuts to USAID would risk a great deal in stability and security around the world which could spawn the kinds of threats that cost this country the lives of men and women in uniform and billions in treasure,” she said.

    Shah argued that foreign assistance is crucial to the long term economic recovery because it helps develop markets for American goods.

    “USAID’s work also strengthens America’s economic security. By establishing links to consumers at the bottom of the pyramid, we effectively position American countries to enter more markets and sell more goods in the economies of the future, promoting exports and creating American jobs,” he said.

    • gekster

      I’ll wait tll you find out.

    • paladin1

      written to tug on the sympathies of the emotional and uneducated globalist. We are pouring billions of dollars of aid into countries who use our money to feed their children so they can use their funds to kill, assist in killing, or support others who kill our children on the battlefield. Your priorities are misplaced as are those of those who are afraid to face up to the facts that we should not support for any reason, those who are acting in a manner antithetical to US interests. The article is full of the typical “sky-is-falling” fear mongering.

      • ericblair00

        is that US foreign aid is used to INCREASE American power. You don’t seem to understand what former Secretary Gates and Former JCS Chairman Mullen clearly articulated: foreign aid serves American interests. The moral argument for foreign aid is only one small element of why a world leader like the US invests in foreign aid, even though our investments are only 1 percent of the budget.

        • acat

          I think it’s the right idea.

          Mew

        • gekster

          Care to answer.

          • ericblair00

            “It’s time for us as a country to say no to foreign aid to countries that don’t support the United States of America,” Perry said.

            This is sensible, except if Perry fails to differentiate between the people within a country and the regime leading a country. Foreign aid is often used to build the sorts of civil societies within countries that advance US interests. It also can be used to stabilize regions that could otherwise collapse, creating terrorist sanctuaries.

            Regardless, considering the miniscule size of the foreign aid budget, and the stated belief by various military and defense department officials, not to mention secretaries of state, that foreign aid is hugely beneficial, I think I would look elsewhere to cut.

          • acat

            you’re proposing that USAID require a plebiscite before offering aid, our government has no choice but to deal with the regime in power.

            Mew

          • retire05

            We give BILLIONS in foreign aid, in many forms. And what is the benefit of that aid beside reducing the amount of your earnings you get to keep because you have to be taxed to cover the cost?

            Aid, like all charity, should be voluntary, not mandatory. There are many foundations that provide aid to people all across the world. I choose to give to U.S. charities, like the St. Joseph Indian School. But to take money from one person to give to another is not charity, it is redistribution of wealth with elected officials decided who should benefit from their largess which is funded by the taxpayers.

            Perhaps you would like to tell me what nation has been convinced to befriend the U.S. due to our aid? We, the U.S., rebuilt France after WWII, to what avail? If you think France is a true ally, you fool no one but yourself. What Middle East nation has stood by us although we pour our money into them? Can you name one civil society in the ME?

            Perry is right. Friendship bought is a shallow friendship, subject to change with the amount of the check. We need to end foreign aid except for everything but national disasters and hunger. We don’t get any bang for our buck. I remember a photo of a man standing in line to get U.S. aid in Bande Ache after the tsunami. Here was this man, getting food, and medical supplies, to allow him and his family to survive, paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, and he was wearing a shit with a photo of Osama bin Laden on it and yelling “Allahu Akbar.”

            I am tired of forced charity. Let people donate to who they want to donate to. Let charity organizations help starving people. Let the Hollywood elite, or Oprah Windfrey, with their millions, put their money where they mouths are.

          • ericblair00

            Thanks for your thoughtful response.

            It is a valid position to oppose all foreign aid, as you do. It is important, however, that before making that decision that one understand what actually constitutes foreign aid and why people like Secretary Gates and JCS Chairman Mullen support it. It isn’t because they are hippies. It’s because they recognize foreign aid as important instrument of US power.

            I would respectfully disagree with you regarding the success of foreign aid to Europe after WW-II. In fact, I think the Marshall Plan was perhaps the most successful instance of foreign aid in the history of our country.

          • acat

            between the Marshall Plan, which aided western nations that our army had just crushed, and USAID.

            Or, are you saying that we’ve rolled over Egypt while I was sleeping?

            Europe, at the time, was both Western in mindset and had a very clear understanding that they were defeated.

            Egypt, for one example, is neither Western in mindset, nor appear to understand the iron fist inside the velvet glove.

            This renders USAID worse than useless, it is creating a false sense of importance among the Egyptians.

            Note – Egypt is used as an example here as they receive quite a lot of aid, including equipment for their armed services.

            Mew

          • ericblair00

            that the Marshall Plan is a special case. I hadn’t raised it.

            Do you know why we historically gave so much money to Egypt? (Here’s a hint, I don’t think it’s a very good reason. And just to be clear, this is a great example of foreign aid I would greatly reduce. )

          • acat

            of the Marshall Plan is in your post.

            Yes, I am familiar with Middle Eastern history. My opinion is that it should have been handled quite differently, but .. one must take into account the parallel history of two world wars and the cold war.

            Diplomacy – and USAID is an arm of the diplomats – is the art of saying “nice doggy” while looking around for a stick, after all.

            Mew

          • ericblair00

            familiar with Middle Eastern history maybe you could explain the origins of US aid to Egypt for us?

            Aid to France was mentioned in a previous post. I thought the commenter was referencing post wwII aid.

          • acat

            Let those who are not do their own homework.

            (see my previous statement regarding ignorance)

            Mew

          • retire05

            aid for disasters, hunger relief from droughts, etc. and foreign aid for nation building. The first catagory can be dealt with by legitimate charities and are. The second catagory must have a viable return on our dollars.

            I will give you an example: Iraq. We have gone into Iraq, released 25 million people from the clutches of Saddam Hussein, provided them with free elections, built schools, water systems, roads that could be traveled by trucks for not only our military but for their commerce, and in the process lost American lives. But what have we gained in Iraq since the capture of Saddam? Wasn’t the capture, and the removal from power, of Saddam our original goal? Why did we then decide that we would spend BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars there rebuilding a nation that is oil rich? We build schools, insurgents blow them up. We rebuild them again, only to have them blown up again.

            Now, at the end of the year, Obama is going to pull all our troops out of Iraq because he was incapable of reinstating the deal with the Iraqi government that Bush acheived. And when he does, you can bet the Iranian U-Hauls will be sitting at the Iraq/Iran border with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard moving in faster than you can shake a stick at. Will we continue to pour billions into Iraq then?

            If we are going to ever see a peaceful Iraq, we should have done what we did in Germany after WWII. We allowed them to rebuild their government, but by our standards. Now we are so politically correct that we are going to stand by as Sha’ria law is implemented all across the Middle East as those nations are freed from dictatorship using our money. And the problem is that Sha’ria is not compatable with western democracy.

            All nations have the ability to throw off the yoke of oppression. But there has to be a willingness on the part of the people to do that. Lives are lost, and wars ensue. But it should not be our responsibility to provide them with tony hotels and schools when they blow up their own nation. Especially not with nations that are resource rich, as Iraq is.

            I supported the war in Iraq. But once we captured Saddam, and the people understood he was no longer a threat to their freedom, we should have told them they were on their own and use their oil to rebuild their nation, not our tax dollars.

            No matter how many American lives are sacrificed for the sake of democracy in Iraq, it will never be a reality unless the Iraqis themselves want it, and I see no indication that the same corruption that was Saddam is not repeating itself with new players. Why should we pay for that? The old corruption is the new corruption. All we have done is move chess pieces and at a great cost.

            Here is my foreign policy for ALL nations: you develope your own economic systems, we will encourage you but not pay for it and if you make one wrong move toward the U.S., we will bomb you into pre-historic times.

          • ericblair00

            Thanks for your comments.

            A couple quick points.

            First, I agree with you that the war in Iraq has been hugely wasteful. It was a gigantic strategic miscalculation and one that I never supported.

            Second, the Bush Administration negotiated the departure date for US troops. This is not in dispute. The Obama Admin wanted to keep a few thousand troops in Iraq past this deadline, but only if the Iraqis gave them immunity from local prosecution, which they would not do. Maybe Obama should have leaned on them harder? I don’t know. But it would be irrresponsible to leave troops there if they are subject to Iraqi law.

            Third, Iraq and Iran fought a HORRIBLE war in the 1980s. Iran will definitely increase it’s influence in Iraq, but if our concern was to keep Iran down, we should have left Saddam in power. Saddam wasn’t very kindly to the Iranians. The problem of Iranian influence in Iraq after our departure is very real, but there is reason to believe that the Iraqis won’t take too kindly to undue Iranian influence. We’ll see.

            Four, we agree more than we disagree. The war in Iraq will end up costing trillions of dollars. I think that is a huge waste. The foreign aid budget is less than 1 percent of our federal budget. Quite a bit less.

          • retire05

            I do not think the war in Iraq was a “giant strategic miscalculation.” I think it was a necessity to remove Saddam. It is well known, to those who are well read, that Saddam was enabling Al Qaeda (Salmon Pak) and caputured Iraqi documents have proved that Saddam was doing exactly that, as well as seeking yellow cake (in spite of Joe Wilson’s about face on the issue).

            The Bush administration negotiated a time-table for leaving, but it was never negotiated that ALL the troops would leave and the time table was subject to Iraq’s ability to handle itself. Just as we remained in Germany for decades, we would remain in Iraq. Iraq is a strategic location to spy on Iran. Look at a map. With U.S. forces and intel in place in Iraq, we would be in a better position to watch the nation that Jimmy Carter facilitated. What Obama could not re-negotiate was Bush’s original agreement with the new government of Iraq. Iraqis view Obama as weak, and able to be pushed around. They have Obama pretty well pegged in the right hole.

            Iraq has no chance against Iran. The Iraqi police force/Army is corrupt. Iran knows this and is already operating in Iraq with impunity. They are fighting side by side with Iraqi insurgents as well as supplying the insurgents with arms. The hatred some Iraqis have for the Iranians disappears when compared with the hatred the insurgents have for the west, and all things western. These are religious fanatics stuck in the 7th century, and no amount of “hearts and minds” policy will ever change that.

            If we are going to pull our troops out completely, what about the Americans who are contractors working there? They train Iraqi military and police, advise and trail oil field workers, teachers, professors, a hundred different things. Those Americas are going to be left to the mercy of the insurgents and the Iranians. It was imperative that we retain a presence in Iraq. Obama has destroyed that possibility because he is inept at foreign policy.

            When we pull out, we have to be clear; allow insurgents/Iranians to continue to function freely in Iraq, and we will make that nation into a parking lot.

          • ericblair00

            The SOFA agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration was absolutely clear: all forces out by Dec 31 2011.
            https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40011.pdf

            There is no substantiated evidence of significant ties between AQ and Saddam – this has been debunked repeatedly.

            “Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa’ida and Saddam Hussein’s regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa’ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al’Qa’ida and Iraq”
            http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

          • gekster

            Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) said that if he were president, ?every country is going to start at zero dollars? in American foreign aid. ?We need a president of the United States working with a Congress that sends a clear message to every country. It doesn?t make any difference whether it?s Pakistan, Afghanistan or whether it?s India,? he said.
            But it makes sense for everyone to come in at zero and make your case.

            So that doesn’t mean he is going to cut it cold turky.
            He is basically saying, if you want it, tell me why we should give it.

            Top 25 Recipient Countries of U.S. Foreign Aid FY 2009 Reported in $US millions, (the latest I could find)
            Country U.S. Total Economic and Military FY2009, $US millions

            Afghanistan 8,816.70
            Iraq 4,873.70 *
            Israel 2,432.30
            Egypt 1,784.60 *
            Pakistan 1,782.90 (hid Bin Ladin)
            Sudan 1,212.70 *
            West Bank/Gaza 917.84 (these guys have money for bombs and missles,
            but not humanitarian aid)
            Ethiopia 940.30
            Kenya 918.40
            Colombia 895.40 (23 largest oil producer)
            Jordan 816.30 *
            Georgia 622.20 (105 largest oil producer)
            South Africa 570.70
            Burkina Faso 508.60
            Nigeria 500.50 (14 largest oil producer)
            Mexico 499.40 (7 largest oil producer)
            Russia 478.90 (1 largest oil producer, single country)
            Uganda 474.30
            Namibia 396.30
            Tanzania 377.00
            Haiti 368.80
            Congo 348.60 (38 largest oil producer)
            Mozambique 325.20
            Zambia 292.40 (109 largest oil producer)
            Zimbabwe 285.50 (Head of goverment took all the rich peoples
            money, and put it in his pocket)
            note: the amounts is in millions of dollers.

            Tell me Perrys plan won’t work.
            And all the people who have oil, I think they could change priorities and spend the money on thier own people. But if the US is going to give me some, why should I.

            * Member of the Arab League, the listed largest oil producer.

            sources.
            Oil Production:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

            Arab league:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Arab_League#List_of_member_states

          • ericblair00

            I fully support a close examination of all US aid programs. I simply reject the contention — held by some tea party types, if not Rick Perry — that foreign aid is a waste.

            This is a helpful overview of how the money is used. A bit dated though.

            http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-916.pdf

          • gekster

            You misspoke as to what Perry ment.

          • westcoastpatriette

            is your assertion that foreign aid increases American power. In what way. specifically, and how does that increase in American power comport with defending the homeland?

            In other words, do you think the primary way to defend our borders and American way of life is through world power and dominion?

            Not trying to be argumentative–trying to follow your reasoning.

          • ericblair00

            Thanks for your comment.

            Foreign aid contributes to national security in a multitude of ways, from assisting in the stabilization of regions that might otherwise collapse, to election monitoring, to democracy promotion, to assisting the former soviet union dismantle its nuclear material.

            The point isn’t that all foreign aid is appropriate — there is undoubtedly waste — but that foreign aid as a principle is intended to advance the interests of the US.

          • westcoastpatriette

            and I think my questions are meant to bring to light how far we have strayed from constitutional governance and your answers are a reflection of that.

            While you gave me the standard reasoning in defense of foreign aid, you still did not answer my question with respect to extending our power throughout the world under the guise of defending our homeland and way of life–which is my understanding of the Constitutions’ empowerment of the federal government.

            This discussion could go on forever, but the main thing that I think is important is that Perry’s position of wanting to erase the board and rethink what we are doing and why with respect to foreign aid is a wonderful place to start.

            Bottom line–and why I continue to favor Perry for the nomination–is that he thinks like this all the time about all government policies and programs and it is just the starting point for bringing about substantial change to turn back the clock on socialism in America. And I don’t think foreign policy should be taken off the table in that regard.

          • acat

            to use the term for non-kinetic forms of coercion, is remarkably difficult to measure in a generally accepted way. Too often, the measurements of the good are subjective and politicized. Note that this applies equally to both parties.

            I would prefer that the whole thing be shut down and left to non-governmental agencies as that reduces the conflict to a matter of personal choice, not government policy.

            Simply put, if Jimmy Carter wants to take a break from building houses for the poor to go monitor elections, let him raise his own money to do so. I see no U.S. interest in having him do so.

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            Especially, “measurements of the good are subjective and politicized” as well as your description of “soft power.” Don’t trust either party when it comes to justifying the growth of “government power.”

          • acat

            calling you a libertarian.

            (cheshire grin)

          • westcoastpatriette

            and decided against it.

            Actually, there is very little I disagree with in terms of the bigger picture. I find myself in agreement with them much more than I disagree. But, boy, when we disagree, we disagree.

          • ericblair00

            a fair point. If you are opposed to most forms of government spending as a matter of principle than foreign aid certainly wouldn’t suit you.

            It is important to keep in mine that this constitutes less than 1 percent of the federal budget. Just to keep it in perspective.

          • acat

            If my company screws up and cuts my pay by less than 1%, I notice.

            If your company were to take “less than 1%” from your paycheck for a mandatory United Way contribution (assuming you’re employed of course) would you notice?

            I trust my own judgement in deciding what outfits to give to far more than I trust my governments’ judgement.

            Mew

          • ericblair00

            and you ignore my questions (egypt) so I don’t really see much value in continuing the conversation with you.

            Do you have a position or argument you can clearly articulate that you would like to discuss?

            I’ll toss two out here for your consideration. You can pick one.

            JCS Chairman Mullen and Sec Defense Gates believe foreign aid is an essential element of national power. Please tell me why they are wrong.

            House Republicans recently proposed eliminating the NNSA’s counterproliferation program, specifically relating to nuclear material in the former soviet union. Do you support this program or not?

          • acat

            I have made several arguments. Your inability to grok them is not my responsibility, but I would suggest that you ask your teachers for a refund.

            Mew

          • ericblair00

            How are we supposed to have a conversation if you ignore three lines of argumentation? The point is to exchange views. If you aren’t interested in discussing this topic, please say so.

            If you are interested, I’ll reiterate two of my proposed starting points for you.

            JCS Chairman Mullen and Sec Defense Gates believe foreign aid is an essential element of national power. Please tell me why they are wrong.

            House Republicans recently proposed eliminating the NNSA?s counterproliferation program, specifically relating to nuclear material in the former soviet union. Do you support this program or not? If not, please explain why.

          • acat

            My preference remains for the government to not do foreign aid. There is no constitutional justification for it. Further, private entities have a far better dollar-to-results ratio in the case of humanitarian aid.

            The specific NNSA program you mention made sense in the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that part of the world has stabilized a good bit since Gorbachev’s day; I think we can stop paying the various governments to do things they’ll do anyway. That ca$h would be much better spent securing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons from Islamists at this point….

            Please explain, Mr. Blair, why you believe USAID should continue to exist, and where in the constitution it finds its’ raison d’?tre.

            Mew

          • ericblair00

            When you lose some of the snark, it becomes much easier to talk.

            It is an entirely valid position to argue that the US government should not engage in foreign aid. I would argue that the weight of professional foreign policy opinion, scholarly and professional, argues that US foreign assistance is useful element of national power. This is probably why the JCS and the Secretary of Defense argued for more foreign aid funding, as did Ronald Reagan, during each of his years in office. If i’m not mistaken, foreign aid under reagan was 2x what it is now.

            It is a fair position to argue that funding efforts to prevent loose nukes is unnecessary. Most would probably agree with Presidents Bush and Obama, plus their secretaries of defense, and their intelligence chiefs, that the threat of nuclear terrorism is the number one immediate danger to the US and thus probably worth the miniscule investment necessary to reduce that risk.

            US Aid was created by an act of congress, has subsequently been funded every year without fail by Congress, has been supported by every president since its inception and has been unchallenged by any federal court, to my knowledge. But I would be interested in your legal argument as to why USAID is unconstitutional.

          • acat

            I did not say it was unconstitutional, I asked where its’ justification is in the constitution.

            I would also point out that the U.S. reliably pays farmers to not grow anything, props up dying industries, gives grants and loans to kids studying in fields where the only possible job is as a professor, and otherwise squanders billions. This is not sufficient reason to keep doing a thing.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            whether we are talking about a welfare recipient or a nation receiving foreign aid.

            Foreign aid is an essential tool of national power, but giving money away without having the other side “earn it” in some way is the non-use of a tool.

            I would put the NNSA in a different category.

          • ericblair00

            I agree.

          • Tbone

            who will torture the crap out of suspected terrorists under a rendition program. Other than that, it is a waste.

          • acat

            I wonder what Greece would bid these days?

            Mew

          • Tbone

            get them drunk on ouzo. The biggest danger the terrorists would face would be getting cut by broken crockery.

            OTH, that arm on shoulder dancing might make ‘em give it up.

        • ericblair00

          What I meant was that foreign aid INCREASES american power around the world and that this is a very good thing. What is sad, in my opinion, is people who think of foreign aid simply as some sort of global welfare, when in reality it is very often used to increase US influence. This is not a controversial position.

          • acat

            Please also clarify whether you understand the difference between personal charity and government aid.

            The amount of aid that comes out of the U.S. government is dwarfed by the amount that comes out via Non-Governmental Organizations, eh?

            Mew

          • ericblair00

            The point is that foreign aid ADVANCES US SECURITY INTERESTS.

            So if you are a conservative that believes in a powerful US, foreign aid is your friend. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be carefully evaluated, but cutting it to 0 – if that were the argument – isn’t very sensible.

          • acat

            The mistake in your argument is the blind assertion that foreign aid advances U.S. security interests. This has not reliably been the case, nor is this the only problem with foreign aid as currently implemented.

            The Perry proposal is to restart from zero every year, looking at what aid is needed, and at whether that aid is going to allies, fellow travelers, neutral parties, etc.

            This does not mean “cutting aid to zero”, this means evaluating whether foreign aid is, in fact, both necessary and is continuing to advance security interests.

            Further, you have yet to reply to my question on whether you understand the difference between USAID and, say the Red Cross.

            Mew

          • ericblair00

            I do understand the difference between US aid and the red cross.

            Believe it or not, I agree with your position. What I fear however is that many people who fashion themselves as conservatives think of foreign aid as simply global charity, which it is not.

            I underestimated you, mr. cat.

          • acat

            naturally, you have much to learn.

            Please endeavor to do so. It will make these conversations much more enlightening to all.

            Mew

        • westcoastpatriette

          used by liberals to justify government intervention whether foreign or domestic. And that is the problem. Conservatives have a different view, generally, and see these arguments as faulty on many levels.

          • ericblair00

            conservatives supported the “freedom agenda”? Did I misread 8 years of the Bush administration?

          • acat

            You’ve admitted as much in some of your other writing here.

            I suggest that you get educated on what liberty means.

            Mew

          • ericblair00

            Please explain how supporting foreign aid demonstrates ignorance o liberty. Thanks.

          • acat

            the “liberty agenda” requires conservatives to blindly continue with foreign aid.

            Mew

          • ericblair00

            we are a bit off track. I apologize for referencing the Bush Admin. I think that got us off track.

            My only contention is that Foreign Aid often advances the security interests of the US. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and several Defense Secretaries agree with me.

            That was the only point I was trying to make. Apologies if I wasn’t clear.

          • acat

            You have yet to clarify that point.

            Mew

          • ericblair00

            I find it “sad” when some – not necessarily you – equate US foreign aid as simply global charity rather than an important aspect of American foreign policy that often increases US power.

            Did that make sense?

          • acat

            Choosing to remain ignorant is one of the few self-punishing crimes.

            Mew

          • ericblair00

            that’s the end of our conversation. Nice contribution there at the end.

            I guess the JCS and the Sec Defense don’t understand the american national interest. You should educate them.

          • acat

            Did you?

            Mew

          • ericblair00

            nt

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            That certainly bought us a ton of good will and security didn’t it. And then there’s another $2B for Egypt. It’s a long list.

            We’d be much more secure if we’d spent 10% of that on fuel-air weapons and paving materials.

          • westcoastpatriette

            across the board–then, yes, you misread them.

          • runner12

            giving away money to evil regimes who pilfer the money away from the poor or disadvantaged and use it to line their own pockets and/or to purchase weapons.

            I wonder how many liberals with your point of view actually talk to missionaries and/or relief organizations that are native inside these countries. My guess is very few. They will tell you that they never see a dime of that “government” charity and it is often used to make the powers that oppress the people even more powerful.

            A great book to read on this subject is “When Helping Hurts.” It is written from a religious perspective. But I think that regardless of one’s faith or non-faith it speaks well to how futile our efforts have been to really help the poor both at home and abroad.

          • ericblair00

            Am I correct in understanding that you oppose foreign aid on moral grounds?

            Because it is one thing to argue that the government has no business engaging in foreign aid in the first place, but it is quite another to argue that it is immoral.

          • runner12

            Secondly, I oppose the current form of foreign aid that we provide because it is a big government bureacracy that seldom accomplishes what it claims to accomplish.

            You made a claim upthread that cutting foreign aid would hurt the “children and the poor.” This is a typical liberal argument to justify pouring billions of dollars in aid to foreign countries who have dictatorial regimes. The purpose of my counter-point was to expose this argument for what it is, a myth.

            When we provide foreign aid to an oppresive regime, do you really think the “poor and the children” ever see a dime of of that money? Or is it more likely that they are stockpiling weapons to use against the US and/or other political enemies?

            Could you answer these questions for me?

    • paladin1

      I posted my comment in what is admittedly a bit more sharp tone than I normally post, mainly to stir up debate. I unexpectedly had to leave and find I have missed out on the entirety of it. I have read the exchanges and rather than re-hash them, I would like to refer you to a post I made earlier regarding the aid issue, to better explain my position on it.

      http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/11/12/cbsnational-journal-debate-coveritlive/#comment-9968

      I would like to cover one point that you raised several times however, if you will allow. You stated: ” JCS Chairman Mullen and Sec Defense Gates believe foreign aid is an essential element of national power. Please tell me why they are wrong.”

      I do not believe they are wrong in principle in this issue. I do believe that foreign aid is an essential projection of US power and influence but should only be used to bolster our friends or, in instances where it is pivotal to determining the direction of allegiance on a nation in the balance. Where I believe they have failed is in allowing themselves to be influenced by the liberal agenda of the administrations they serve (yes, I know Gates worked for Bush also, and I stand by my statement) and by a sense that they must throw good money after bad if, in the balance with a nation such as Pakistan or Afghanistan, they are being “gamed” by a devious coalition of forces such as the Pakistani military and the Taliban who continue to take our money, provide verbal assurances with no results, and repeatedly return to the trough for more money. This makes no sense but is a function of grasping to provide a favorable outcome. It is aid to these people, that must be terminated, whatever the cost to their civilian population. Making ours suffer and in the case of our military men and women, die, is inexcusable.

      • nathanalbright

        …this is the point that Governor Perry was making when he said that Israel would continue to be funded at a substantial level even “starting at zero,” because they could make a good case that the money was deserved, that it helped increase our strategic interests. That is because Israel is a genuine friend. Does giving aid to Palestinians help? Not a bit. The Pakistanis? Nope. Corrupt Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Nada. Genocidal maniacs in Sudan? Worthless. If you think “starving children” will have a hard time getting aid from the United States you have a very cruel view of Conservatives, unless they are the starving children of some tinpot third world dictator whose gravy train just ran out, and that I am fully in support of.

  • http://politicalwoman.wordpress.com politicalwoman

    http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/

    You can watch the debates thus far in their entirety.

  • bzip

    South Carolina debate wrap
    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/13/south-carolina-debate-wrap/

    Good reviews for Perry:

    “Rick Perry: This was the surprise showing of the night for me. Every time I?m ready to write the Perry campaign off as road kill on the political highway, he turns around and upsets the apple cart. He not only handled his ?oops moment? flub from Wednesday with style, but incorporated it into this debate in a way which made him seem funny, grounded and in touch with the voters. He scored huge points early on when discussing foreign aid, proposing a ?start with zero? theory, where America would judge each case individually before agreeing to pay the first penny to other countries. A few people took that as a questionable answer, focusing more on the budget, but the moderators brought the subject up in terms of foreign relations, so it was definitely applicable and expertly explained. He had plenty of other zingers, memorable quotes and solid answers. No doubt about it, this was Rick Perry?s best debate of the entire series and he may be on the road to recovery from earlier stumbles.”

    • bzip

      Seems ABC news also has good reviews of Perry’s performance;

      Republican Presidential Candidates Attempt to Find Foreign Policy Footing

      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/republican-presidential-candidates-attempt-to-find-foreign-policy-footing/

      “Perry?s Redemption

      There?s no question about it: the stakes on stage at the CBS News, National Journal, South Carolina Republican Party debate were highest for Texas governor Rick Perry, who committed an embarrassing gaffe at another debate just three nights ago.

      There were no such blunders at Saturday night?s event and Perry offered some solid responses to a slew of questions about international issues. The foreign aid budget in my administration for every country is going to start at zero dollars, zero dollars,? Perry said.”

  • tricianc

    First I want to say, It’s a truly sad day when Left wing media such as CNN and ABC give our GOP candidates credit where credit is due and Fox and yes, even our conservative sites and bloggers, do not. Although I didn’t see through all their bias before the year 2007, I can now. That’s why I’m watching them instead of Fox, etc , reading and listening to other than popular conservative talk show hosts and sites.

    Our side does an injustice to voters by not vetting all our candidates. I realize each has their favored candidate but not reporting on things is the same as lying to us. They either do not report on it if it’s their candidate if it’s bad or over report if it’s good, even using it as a diversion. I’ve even seen where they’ve reported the bad on their candidate leaving it up for a short period while if it’s bad on the other candidates, leaving it up for days.I believe this is actually why the non-Romney candidate keeps changing. Not to mention, this makes us look indecisive and foolish to the other side and Independents.

    Now to Politico:

    “Every country would start at zero,” said Perry, who introduced the crowd-pleasing proposal in response to an unrelated question, and fielded a follow-up from Twitter. “Obviously, Israel is a special ally, and my bet is that we would be funding them.”

    In answer to Leftist’s spin of Perry’s remarks, here’s his campaign response:

    A prominent Israel hawk in Rick Perry’s camp, Jeff Ballabon, emails:

    Perry believes Israel’s an extraordinary friend and our greatest ally. “Start at Zero” is obviously right for America and anyone wanting to exclude Israel from “Start at Zero” must not believe in Israel’s value as our ally. Block’s reaction reveals the way Democrats see Israel – as a charity case or a narrow constituency’s political football – but US aid to Israel isn’t based on a domestic lobby, nor is it special treatment or an entitlement. Under Rick Perry, Israel will set the bar for judging foreign aid to any country. Perry’s Start at Zero is exactly the right policy – no country stands to benefit more than Israel from merit-based foreign aid.

  • center77

    If this embed does not work, here is the link.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwDoTg-Kljw

    Its a video of Newt and Al Sharpton. Now I like Newt and feel he is smart, but the baggage is way to large, plus I am turned off he called conservatives who did not agree with him cannibals, and hateful.