CONCLUSION:THE CNN NH DEBATE PART III

View previous topic View next topic Go down

20110617

Post 

CONCLUSION:THE CNN NH DEBATE PART III




Ms Bachman made her announcement that she would be making a formal announcement soon-then the questioning went to another candidate.She also mentioned her effort to repeal Obamacare.
Gingrich pointed out the reality which can relate to the repeal of Obamacare.He said,
But I want to answer Sylvia at a different level. This campaign cannot be only about the presidency. We need to pick up at least 12 seats in the U.S. Senate and 30 or 40 more seats in the House, because if you are serious about repealing Obamacare, you have to be serious about building a big enough majority in the legislative branch that you could actually in the first 90 days pass the legislation.

So I just think it's very important to understand, it's not about what one person in America does. It's about what the American people do. And that requires a senatorial majority, as well as a presidency.
This is EXACTLY why you can say you were the first to try to repeal Obamacare but at this time,under these circumstances,it's just impossible.Sure it sounds good but can't happen.Perhaps in the future.
Ms Bachman's strongest comments were her defense of life comments. She actually walks the walk.
People can shoot me for saying this but Gingrich did well-although i am sure he shot himself in the foot early on in his campaign.Had he not made the comment re Paul Ryan's plan the way he did he might not be in the shape he's in now.He didn't choose his words carefully enough;but he did in the debate and explained exactly what he meant.
You can dislike Gingrich for a number of reasons but he did make some statements in the debate that are worth looking at-as much as Bachman seems to have made the bigger impression(I'm not sure why either).
First we'll look at John King's attack on Cain.Before he got to this attack King made an attempt to marginalize Cain. King even gave Ron Paul the floor enough times to take up a considerable amount of time the other candidates had on the floor.In fact King didn't seem to give him -Ron Paul-the time warning as much as he did the rest of the candidates.That said,here's King's first out and out attack on Cain that we knew was coming,
Here is Cain's answer:
The question from King.He almost begs the question,
Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?

CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn't appoint one. That's the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn't be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -


CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey -- there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have -- my term, not his -- a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn't ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let's make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their -- you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization --
Gingrich steps in here to back up Mr Cain. Again,Gingrich is right.

KING: Mr. Speaker, go ahead.

GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed -- when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, "You're my enemy. I lied."

Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.



GINGRICH: We did this -- we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.
Finally,Gingrich is spot on again and backs Herman Cain's response to the illegal immigration question:
GINGRICH: One of the reasons this country is in so much trouble is that we are determined among our political elites to draw up catastrophic alternatives. You either have to ship 20 people out of America or legalize all of them.

That's nonsense. There's not -- we're never going to pass a comprehensive bill. Obama proved that in the last two years. He couldn't get a comprehensive bill through with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and he didn't even try, because he knew he couldn't do it.

You break this down. Herman Cain's essentially right, you break it down. First of all, you control the border. We can ask the National Guard to go to Iraq. We ask the National Guard to go to Kuwait. We ask the National Guard to go to Afghanistan. Somehow we would have done more for American security if we had had the National Guard on the border.
It's odd to me that Romney and Bachman got the most bump from the debate,Cain got some and Gingrich got little credit at all.
In fact,it's really odd to me that Romney is being called the PRESUMED front runner.
Presumed by whom?
Anyway,it was a horrid format,they had a horrid moderator.The whole thing was a farce and anyone who got any bump certainly deserved it for putting up with this.
Surely if you want to use up any time in a debate give the floor to Ron Paul.

Mr Cain was very gracious through the whole ordeal but i think the format and the moderator killed any chance he had of getting any name recognition.
A real-not a staged-town hall meeting would have opened up the floor to the public and a fair format would have posed EACH question to EACH candidate. Let's hope the next debate has a better format and a better moderator.C-Span would do a far better job than the LSM.
Before anyone jumps on my defense of Gingrich keep in mind i have no skin in this for Gingrich.If he's right,he's right.
Like a Star @ heaven
avatar
Cain's The Main
Admin

Posts : 360
Join date : 2011-02-13

View user profile http://cain4pres.americantalk.net

Back to top Go down

- Similar topics
Share this post on: Excite BookmarksDiggRedditDel.icio.usGoogleLiveSlashdotNetscapeTechnoratiStumbleUponNewsvineFurlYahooSmarking

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum