Talk Elections

()

Eight candidates looking to unseat President Obama will gather on stage at Wofford College Saturday night for a debate on national security and foreign policy hosted by CBS News and National Journal.

The Spartanburg, South Carolina, debate is chance for Texas Gov. Rick Perry to revive his candidacy after a major flub Wednesday night in Michigan where he said he wants to eliminate three government agencies but could only name two of them. The awkward pause has been played over and over again on TV and the Internet since then.

South Carolina is key for Republican primary voters. Since 1980, the winner of the South Carolina primary has gone on to win the Republican nomination every time.

Front-runner Mitt Romney hopes for another strong debate performance and chance to show off his international chops and another opportunity to attack Mr. Obama while the others attack each other.

Meanwhile, political observers will be watching Herman Cain closely to see how he fares on matters of foreign policy as his signature 9-9-9 tax plan is primarily a domestic matter. Cain has been criticized as a Johnny one-note, and Saturday night's forum could give the former restaurant executive an opportunity to move beyond that narrative and to talk about something other than the sexual harassment accusations that have dominated media coverage for the past two weeks.

Moderated by CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley and National Journal congressional correspondent Major Garrett, the debate airs at 8:00 p.m. ET on the CBS Television Network and will be webcast at CBSNews.com and NationalJournal.com. The final half hour will only be available online, except for the West Coast where the full debate will air on television.

After the debate, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson will host a post-debate webcast analysis of the candidates on CBSNews.com.

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

There's another debate already? Christ.

Well, it's the final month - because in 5 weeks it's already Christmas.

And between Christmas and Iowa, nobody's paying attention.

I'm certainly not watching it, but I imagine the quality of the "debating" would make me depressed.

The real debate will begin 12 hours from now.  The topic:  Which was the funnier campaign-ending gaffe, Rick Perry's brain freeze or tonight's Herman Cain moment for the ages?

Only online? This makes me angry. Kill the internet.

Because apparently NCIS is more important than the leadership of this country.  (NCIS airs tonight at 9:00 ET, right after the televised portion of the debate.)

What a shame that rest of the nation can't watch this embarrassment.

With a significant amount of the debate online, the fact that it's a Saturday...there will be almost no one watching this. Perry can't revive a campaign from tonight, and considering he isn't experienced in foreign policy I don't know how he would.

So, I have the impression that it's a bit harder to BS on foreign than on economic policy...sure you can say "Israel Israel Israel" but if you promise something like "I will not let Iran get the bomb" you are more likely to get challenged on uncomfortable specifics- will you bomb them?  Invade?- than if you were to promise "I will cut government spending."  Knowing your stuff is more important.

If I am right, this debate could not come at a better time for Newt, or a worse time for Perry/Cain.

Jon Huntsman, this is probably the most important night of your campaign.

Same for you, Ron Paul.  The arguments you will have with a frenzied Santorum, and anybody else brave or desperate enough to take a shot at you, are your chance to influence Republican foreign policy for the next 5-10 years.

Mitt, just don't screw up.

Michele, sooner or later the attack dog that savaged Pawlenty must return.

I'll be watching it tonight, both on the telly and on the puter.  It'll be completely over by 8:30 my time, so it won't interfere with my sleep tonight, which is nice.  I don't think Perry could revive his campaign whether it's on a Saturday or a Tuesday or any other day of the week.  It won't help Cain, though he can probably hold his own.  The curtain is already closing on the Bachmann campaign.  Mitt just needs to not screw up and Paul, is well, Paul.  Huntsman is a non-factor, almost like the Mike Gravel of the Republican 2012 race, or what Alan Keyes was in the last several cycles.

Not in this debate. This is Huntsmans time to shine, though I agree with you, he is going no where anyway.

()

I hope that someone asks Cain if he knows who is the president of Uzbekibekibekistan.

I think I will skip this one and wait for the highlight reel. But this might be a good one because foreign policy is actually one of the areas where these guys have fundamental disagreements, between the necon types and the isolationists. Of course Mitt Romney will try to appear to be in both wings

Predictably, my TV doesn't work today.

What time ET?

8

I'm actually kind of curious about this one, since foreign policy has gotten such short shrift so far in the campaign.  One of the more interesting fault lines that I'll be looking for is how much the candidates stick with the Bush-era "neocon" democracy promotion line, and how much they try to appeal to jmfcst-style "support the strongman" impulses:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/38181?&in=13:00&out=16:38

I have not been able to bring myself to watch more than a couple minutes of any Debate so far. IMHO they really are boring and I don't learn anything about the candidates I didn't already know.

Expect Newt to shine!

I'm expecting a lot of national greatness rhetoric and Obama-bashing. But I am interested in how Perry and Cain present themselves tonight.

Also, I love Bloggingheads.

As one of two candidates I am supporting, I hope Rick Perry can regain his lost ground.

Poor Huntsman.  In a normal year this would be his night.

Its starting, for the 11 of you watching across America ;)

I watch these debates for entertainment value.

I didn't imagine this is how I would spend my Saturday evenings...

Another obnoxious crowd, apparently.

Crowd is VERY pro Paul.

Cain's first point kinda surprised me.

Cain using the phrase "regime change" seriously and positively? Already off to a great start.

Huntsman & Bachmann didn't get any applause.

It was because the Paul people applauded, had they not applauded, no one would have,

They're trying to overthrow the government? This is news to me. They moderator doesn't know his rules? Stupid internet.

Cains point is interesting. I actually agree with it for the most part.

Cain makes some sense.

Well done Mitt!!!

Not a very big audience...in the arena or nationwide

Mitt's a little feisty tonight, apparently.

Probably because the crowd thought they should be polite until the Paul supporters decided to be obnoxious.  After that everyone got applause.

Mitt Romney uses the 3rd person too!?!?

Mitt Romney=Bob Dole?

Not really.

Romney isn't taken **** from anyone tonight

REGIME CHANGE

I don't think Cain and Romney understand that regime change is a very negative term.


THIS JUST IN: Applause is obnoxious!

After the later cheers, not so much.

Gingrich is such a douche.

THERE ARE NO IRANIAN INSURGENTS! IRAN IS NOT LIBYA!

And there goes Israel Israel Israel!!!

But if they're covert then how do you know Obama hasn't done it?

Nice job again Newt.

Did Newt just say assassinate Iranian scientist?? Did he use the term "deniable" openly?

A night where I can finally cheer on Ron Paul.

Oh Rick...

Moderators have been consistently too pushy this campaign season. They aren't there to censor to have any role in saying what the candidates say within their time...NEWT IS RIGHT...have a timekeeper, not an obnoxious intrusive moderator

Rick (Santorum) agreeing with Rick (Perry) that he doesn't get to answer the previous questions!

Oh, no, Rick Perry doesn't know what this question is about...

Amen to that!

Perry is actually right on Iran as well---but Paul is 100% right. We got to do it the right (Constitutional) way or not do it at all!

Yes, we should utterly destroy Iran's economy because they want to defend themselves against the war hawks in Tel Aviv.

It seems like the moderators are picking on Perry to try to have another moment

Tell Em Ron Paul!!!!!! We don't need any more darn wars!!!!!! Why are we talking about attacking a sovereign country.

Santorum looks very presidential

There he goes again. Rick complaining about being on the end.

Santorum Sez: DAMMIT ASK ME THE IRAN QUESTION YOU KNOW I WANNA DO SOME WARS YEEHAW

Santorum is going to self destruct tonight.

Santorum disagreeing with Newt is a first, but he is actually closer to my views. That's why he's my #2 choice

Why don't they have a warning bell.  I mean, these moderators are better than the first debate which had a guy go "uh, um, ah, umm..." but still....

It's sounding like 2008.... three candidates essentially calling for war with Iran.

And what- go from 2 to 1%?

Scott Pelley worst moderator thus far.

THERE. ARE. NO. IRANIAN. REBELS. The pro-democracy movements need to be organic, not astroturfed.

I am hoping there is a moment for Perry.

Is that is a pink jacket? Thank you Huntsman, we're fighting Al-Qaeda, not the Taliban.

Hopefully drop out ;)

The way the candidates are talking and the small audience makes this seem more like a candidates forum than a debate

Yeah I think so to.

You go Jon!

Is it just me, or was that Huntsman's best moment in any debate so far?

Romney and Huntsman are up in my book.

Huntsman just proposed the Joe Biden plan.

Huntsman always sounds so thoughtful and intelligent, that's why he can't win  a republican primary.

It's nothing new.

He's usually rambling and indirect.

Huntsman and Paul sound reasonable. They have no chance.

As a Newt supporter, I think he is getting more timid. He is also pausing after everythign he says waiting for applause. He even admitted in an interview he was worried before debates about trying to replicate his good performances.

C'MON NEWT, PICK IT UP!!!

Let's hope he stays that way.

I see Bachmann finally got the black dress memo.

Yay I get to watch a debate for once. :D

Cain did well on the first Iran question in terms of showing some depth, he clearly has been reading up on the subject.

Pauls polling in 3rd, he has a slight chance. Sadly, Huntsman does not.

What about Israel, Rick?

Rick Perry taking a bold stand against a fraction of a percent of the budget.

How the hell is Romney 5 years younger than me???

Cain's bold new plan: work with our allies, have a plan.

Rick, did you have to reference Romney?

Lol Rick Perry.  Everybody starts with zero aid except Israel right?

Rick Perry calls for zero based budgeting on foreign aid.

She's on what committee?

"Romney! I'm your opponent now! Please stop propping me up, you're supposed to be fighting me!"

Ironic that Bachmann is on the Intelligence Committee.

Noooo, Rick, don't start foreign aid from 0! Israel will end up with 1 trillion in aid!

Why the hell does everyone here hate Isreal?

Just one nuclear weapon, Michele? But she's right, Pakistan must be kept close.

Theocrats lurve Israel

ISRAEL

ISRAEL

ISRAEL

Bachmann is sounding intelligent-

oh, no, she just meandering from Pakistan to Israel.  Meh, what can I expect.

That's Kenyan anti-colonial ideology for ya'.

Newt is waiting for the applause lines too much.

Why is Israel considered our greatest ally? What wars have they assisted us with ?

Because foreign aid is such a massive portion of the budget that it needs to be mentioned as a big topic.

NEWTS BACK

Because Israel picks fights and does not clean up the mess. I dont want to send my kids (or myselF) to die for them.

And finally Gingrich "candidly" says the real reason why they care about middle eastern affairs at all. Religion. Modern day crusaders.

Amen

I actually agree with Rick Santorum to some degree!

Santorum is making me want to vote for him again....

Rick Santorum is totally out of the loop of the GOP in a foreign policy debate.  No applause for him.

I was ready to fight in 67 and 73 when the Arabs picked a fight with Isreal....how about when the Arabs invaded on the Jews most important holiday?

Santorum's been hitting the tanning bed.

Santorum had an interesting point on foreign aid being spent in the US. He actually acknowledged that govt spending creates jobs. :P

Worse debate ever.  The moderator thinks he's one of the candidates.  He needs to stop interrupting.

Anyway, the more I listen to Santorum, the more I'm inclined to like him.

Santorum is the reasonable pragmatist in the room right now. Oh, and THAT IMMIGRATION COMMERCIAL.

In 67 Israel attacked first.

Only Christian fundamentalists (the Republican base) see Israel that way.

It is a foreign policy debate, not an economics and budget debate and to the extent that it provides leverage or impacts our foreign policy, it sounds like a very legitimate topic in such a debate. And considering we have had a million debates largely focused on the economy (with good reason), I think it reasonable for their to be one largely focused on defence.

Immigration commercial by numbersUSA is playing. Is that the same one people were talking about previously?

Really? I've been enjoying it. I think the topical debates work much better than the catch-alls.

Israel attacked first, and even so, it is not our business. Israel can survive on its own.

Well done Newt!

God Gingrich makes me want to puke

Thinking outside the box = adopt Reagan/Thatcher policy?

YEAH

Newt refuses to evaluate Romney's willingness to change Washington.


He has made giving the finger to the moderator a legitimate practice, which is a positive improvement.

Mr. Speaker, how would you think outside of the box?
  Well...lets do what Reagan did.

That said, Newt is still my favorite at the moment.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!  GINGRICH ON NAVY FUNDING!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS SEABEE IS A HAPPY CAMPER

inb4 999

67? You mean when Egypt was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the state of Israel? Without the slightest attempt at diplomatic protocols? That was Israelis picking a fight with Arabs (and Egyptians), not vice versa.

Israel is disliked primarily because it resembles a fascist state nestled in the middle of the Middle East, invulnerable because of nuclear weapons and mindless support from the USA (I still don't understand why Americans slavishly support Israel even at cost to themselves). They make attempts at "negotiation" that amount to absurd demands followed by blatant attempts to derail it (Sharon intentionally starting the second Intifada, anyone?). If you're a Democrat, you should dislike Israel because they engage in imperialism and regularly engage in murder of innocents, and if you're a Republican you should dislike Israel because they are, to all intents and purposes, socialists.

Cain doing what he does best, restating the question in the form of a sentence.

I dont know if I hate or like Newt anymore...he is very competent, for what ever its worth.

Santorum is getting a lot of time. Good.

How about asking Paul a question now....

Resembles a fascist state? The only country in the Mideast who gives full democratic rights to religious minorities? I support Isreal because they give Christians and Muslims full rights.  They are a beacon

Santorum " keep hope alive".....lol

Lol @ Perry. They just went there.

Love the Perry pun!

So far I'd say based on performance:

1. Perry
2. Romney
3. Gingrich
4. Cain
5. Santorum

Too early to tell with the other three.

Perry shows that he can be quick-witted. That's promising for his candidacy.

Demint and Graham in audience, and nice job by Perry

Apparently admitting to being dumb is an applause line.

You just got Perry'd Pelley'd.

Good line on Perry, can he follow up with some substance and competence?

Perry reminds me of Reagan, and I am liking him more and more. He is NOT done, I am wrong in that prediction.

I was thinking about the earlier section of the debate focused on Pakistan.  Why did nobody mention India, a stable nuclear power with a much larger economy sitting right on Pakistan's eastern border?

Perry can see Mexico from his house.

Santorum: Yay, killing scientists!  those guys!


Yes, of course they do.

http://jfjfp.com/?p=20559

That isn't even mentioning the murder of Palestinians in Gaza on a regular basis.

Oh sh**t Oregon in the house

Perry's best debate so far.

Nuclear weapons aren't under the purview of the Department of Energy.

I'm surprised that the crowd didn't boo the torture question.

Cain is doing bad tonite....talking very slowly

Perry is far from done. I suspect he'll reemerge by Iowa and be poised as the Anti-Romney candidate...

Thats a myth. Israel is far from Democratic. I do mantain that they have a right to exist.

There's the applause.

Pretty sure they are, actually (though of course in war time the military takes control).

Oh, boy, here we go.

Yeah, that was really bad.

Also, sad that the crowd goes wild over waterboarding.

Scumbag Cain:
I oppose all torture

Would bring back waterboarding

Top Tier Candidates:

Romney
Perry
Gingrich

lol @ Bachmann's assertion that the ACLU is running the CIA.  LOLOLOL

lol@Bachmann

Wow Bachmann....I'm not Obama fan but the guy has used drones and got Osama....don't think he has "decided to lose the war on terror"

Well, he's probably been spending almost the entire time since last debate prepping.

Thank you, Paul.

The loving Christians in this audience are hating Paul's ridiculous anti-torture stance.

Obama has the ACLU run the CIA!? Then the ACLU are American heroes for killing Osama!

Why is Ron Paul talking about international law?  

Only issue I probably agree with Paul on

Paul is 100% right. Now Bachmann is going to respond. I cant imagine how stupid her answer is going to be.

Huntsman: It's lonely over here in Siberia.
Santorum: Tell me about it.

Oh Rick, there you go again.

Paul you are talking to the Republican base. They can't  or won't comprehend.

Thank you, Huntsman!

I've always wondered if Bachmann studies incorrect statements or if she just makes them up on the fly.

Huntsman.... Too much sanity for the GOP

Kinda wish that the moderator had let Bachmann and Paul get into it over waterboarding.

They just did it again(cheering for death).

People are booing the Al Walaiki killing?????????????????????????/

They owe Paul and Huntsman two questions now.

(new messages after i hit post)

Now they only owe them one more question.

Lol at the Paulites in the crowd

Romney: "absolutely [ok to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism overseas without a trial]".

Great job Mitt!

Romney: New American Century!

Dont you mean President Romney??  He's sure acting like it

Romney will make this country great again!

"We're not going to have booing." You and what army?

Romney is a fool.

SCOTT PELLY SHUT UP!!!!  THE MODERATORS ARE NOT CANDIDATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO GINGRICH!!!!!!!!!

Did someone say "murderer"?

It's called treason, Newt.

We could of captured him, and brought him back for trial just as easily.

I heard Reagan in Romney's response. I cannot wait for January 20th, 2013.

The moderator, whatever his name is, was smiling like a cat that caught the canary when he challenged Gingrich.

Woohoo kill people!

Just outright disgusting opinions on these things. I don't understand how people in this country can applaud things like "we don't need to put people in courts" or openly admitting to supporting what is legally defined as torture. What is wrong with this country? Ugh.

NEWTWINK

Why does he keep directing his comments to Mitt?

Here we go with the Reagan worship.

Screw the moderators...this entire campaign moderators have overstepped. We're here to watch the candidates not the moderators

Private sector defense?

I want some of what you're smoking, since all I'm hearing from Romney is utterly empty statements about being "strong".

I assumed Rick Perry would go with the better example of Japan.

Scott Pelley is winning this debate.

It was Japan that posed the economic threat. Not the Soviet Union.

I must admit, a catchier meaningless slogan than Win the Future.

Romney: Open Trade but they must play by the rules.


Interesting Huntsman is trying to get leverage over Romney by declaring this to be protectionism.

Is Scott Pelley moderating or trolling?

Romney will be the next President!

Mitt is actually right.

Yeah, the moderators are really starting to piss me off.  Like Clarence said, They are not candidates!

And as the President of Bain Capital , Mr. Romney you helped ship jobs to China.

Young people? Huntsman, just join the Democrats.

And the Romney supporters are ()

Huntsman missed his big shot

No, not in the least.

Let the candidates talk.  Pelley is the worst!

If he hadn't been shut up, maybe he could have said something that  made sense.

He's definitely trolling it up a bit

The candidates should have agreed to longer than 6 seconds response time.

The irony about Huntsman stance is that, if followed, it will do more harm to the free trade by turning more Americans against it. And eventually, you will have real protectionism enter the debate, and it would win big. If anyone is playing politics on this issue, in my opinion, it is Huntsman.

Wow Perry...

Perry is such a clown.

Is Perry's 000 the new 999?

There goes Perry. He was doing so well and then lost it.

Perry's answer about Israel and aid is both wrong and right...time to ask Paul a question, he is really being ignored tonight.

Yo, Perry looking niiice right there.

He can only go so far!

It's very annoying, and I'm tempted to stop watching. He's not letting the candidates finish their thoughts or start dialogues when they disagree.

So that is it?

Go to cbsnews.com.  they are streaming the rest of the debate.

Ah! Thanks! :)

Just started the final half hour on CBS's streamline.

Wow, Santorum looks a lot saner with each debate.

Course, the competition isn't hard..(kudos to Paul and Huntsman for being right on torture).

Lag much?

Another painful Cain answer.

Bachmann's plan to cut defense spending is repeal Obamacare... why not?

Stopped watching...sh**tty live stream...

So cut student loans, aid to the poor, infrastructure spending, unemployment compensation , but increase defense spending. God the Republicans are so out of touch with the mainstream.

Bachmann military plan: cut obamacare

Cain's train will be derailed for good after tonight.

Why is Cain so slow on his answers? Also why is Bachmann so off and have to bring up Obamacare in everything?

Screw NCIS I want to the see the debate. :(

Cain: Let's support more authoritarian leaders and dictators.

LOL? Saleh is our friend? The proper term is our bitch. Now they seriously need to ask Paul a question, he has had TWO.

http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/watch-the-2012-republican-presidential-candidates-debate-live/

Dearest Newt,

It's not very covert if you announce your intention to do it on national television.

Paul's suit is too big for him.

lol, don't think I would have gone there if I could. I am using dial up.

Mitt looks and sounds presidential.

What's left of CBS viewers will be finished after tonight's debate.

Wow even SC senator is bagging on Perry.

I love how people who never served in combat can be so cavalier in starting wars, and sending other peoples children to be possibly killed

If the Presidents of the past and future were robots, then you would be right.

Lindsey Grahm says everyone gets a gold star.

Does Romney still want to double Guantanamo?

The government is dominated by Chickenhawks...

Oh Ron...

I. Freaking. Love. Ron. Paul.

Paul on a tirade, and Bachmann tries to intervene.

Amen to that!  Pisses me off when Mr. Five-DeferMITT talks all tough. Hey Mitt- I fought, You didnt

Shut Scott Pelley up, please!

The lag and moderators are terrible. And topic wise you think this would have been a good debate.

Douchebag moderator...

Paul's rant was incredibly unfocused and not to the point.

Well done Perry!

Perry calls Ron Paul, "Senator Paul."

Perhaps I watching something else, but I didn't see much gleefull or giddyness about sending troops in the combat.  There are some candidates who are willing to do it if they judge necessary and others who wouldn't see such as necessary. But no one is say yea lets slaughter Iran, just like it would be unfair to say that Paul would let some enemy march in the streets in of NY if they wanted.

For Gods sake, Paul is NOT a Senator. And Bachmann, you need to STFU.

Perry is trying redeeming himself. Too little too late.

Rick Perry showing that Texas Swagger.

He was much more inspiring in the '08 debates. Then again, the laggy feed didn't do him any favors.

Put Ron Paul in his place, somebody!

This would have been a much better debate for Perry to screw up at (at least the online part).

Unless you want to require military service to be prerequisite to the run for President, it is kind of an unfair standard to say only candidates who are veterans can take a stance on certain issues.

The feed isn't laggy for me, and I'm on the CBS News website.

President Mitt Romney

Ron Paul has had his best night yet.

I want military service to be compulsary for all citizens

Of course Paul is doing great, it's on the internet.

Everytime Mitt Romney talks I.... ()

Clinton voters would have said this 4 years ago.

Aside from the reelection of Obama, who else is there?

The Ryan plan will cut our debt. Right....

Jumping trains?

Newt, Perry, Paul, Huntsman, and maybe Cain.

()

Apparently the link messed up

No one. But that doesn't mean GOP votes are going to back Romney. If they want to back Newt or Cain it's fine by me.

This is Perry's best night by default.

You're wrong Bachmann. Please, Stfu

Unemployment 4% Newt? Jeez he is so arrogant

Cain is having a terrible night.

It way too long for someone to directly say  the poor's in a Republican debate.

Scott Trolly is at it again!

Its lagging like hell.

Mine is streaming just fine

First Europe question of the night?

If the moderaters were not tooles, then I would say this would be the best debate so far.

What a poor online connection tonight

Oh, god, they asked Perry about the Eurozone. Hold your breath.

EDIT: Fortunately, there were only 10 seconds available for him to answer. Um, what?

Lol Scott Pelley

Worst debate in terms of format and moderators!

They didn't give him time to say anything.

lolwut

Great ending.

Perry actually had a great answer. Then Scott Trolly ended the show lol.

They asked Paul FOUR questions....he's in 3rd place for hells sake!

I think it's pretty clear that Cain did the worst.

CBS sucks.

Winners:

Romney, Perry, Gingrich.

Grades:
Romney: A+
Perry: B
Gingrich: B-
Bachmann: C+
Huntsman: C
Santorum: C-
Paul: D+
Cain: F

The Cain trail may finally be at it's end now.

I don't think Pelley used a timer, he just said "okay that's enough" whenever he heard a verb.

Kill the internet. Good answers, terrible debate. NationalJournal (why not The National Journal?) is a farce, and this debate is more important than NCIS. Huntsman was going to say something good, and Perry was going to express his schadenfreude vis a vis the Eurozone.

In that case, you would have a situation where politicians would be more concerned with politics then national security interests when making tough decisions. The spectre of a 1960's situation would loom over their decision making.

I renege on my earlier disagreement.

You've got 8 candidates on the stage and a debate time of 1 hour and 30 minutes (of which 20 minutes are commercials and 10 minutes talking time by the moderators).

So you are left with 1 hour for 8 fu**ing candidates !!!

These debates need to last about 3 hours, without commercials, so that you can get a good sense of the candidates positions and let them finish their sentences ... ;)

One of the reasons for creating the department in the first place was to change where in the budget was the funding for the reactors used to make nuclear weapon materials (such as those at the Savannah River Site that is less than an hour away from me).  

Hey, fake Tender Branson, change your name ... !

;)

still waiting for the "exclusive post debate analysis" on the live stream

Also the Dems on here aren't realizing there is a huge difference between taking control of an entire country for years and storming a country to take out a nuclear facility. And there is an even bigger difference between that and conducting an airstrike to take out a nuclear program.

They assume that military intervention is synonymous with 100k plus troops when historically 90% of all military interventions resulted in few if any troops and no declaration of war because of its limited scope.

I hope you were being ironic.

^^^^

Perhaps he was inspired by Pelley when he gave a question to Senator Bachmann.

Why should Isreal be allowed to have nuclear weapons  and not sign  the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,  and be subjects to inspections, but Iran who is a party to the  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty shouldn't?

You see the media is like a machine and Reps aren't supposed to be Presidential candidates and thus they weren't programed in, so they are designated as Senators, instead. :P

I didn't watch it.  What'd Perry mess up tonight?

Nothing.

Nothing, he actually managed to bump his poll standings from 5% to about 8%.

But for every good Perry debate performance there will probably 3 others that will follow that expose him as a clueless Neanderthal again.

Well first I didn't even comment on whether or not the intervention is a good one or not. I'm just pointing out that acting like an intervention in Iran is synonymous with Iraq style multi-year war is a false one.

That said:
1) People at the height of power in Iran frequently talk about killing millions of Israeli's unprovoked on a regular basis.
2) Iran isn't a democracy(at least it can quite easily drop a nuclear bomb with only the approval of the Ayatollah). Democracies don't start wars as frequently as dictatorships do(feel free to name the US in Iraq 2, but that is one of the exceptions not the rule).
3) Moral relativism is stupid in matters of foreign policy because your actually on one side. To not try to prevent people that hate your existence from getting devastatingly powerful military capabilities for the sake of some universal moral relativism is stupid.


But ultimately I think Newt and Mitt's answers about trying to promote the opposition, go covert, and attempt to destabilize the government are all better options.

So because you did it, I should? I thought the army supported Freedom...

I don't believe Iran poses an existential threat to the United States of America , and I don't believe they will anytime in the near-term future. If Israel has beef with Iran and thinks they are a threat, let them fight there own battles. When has Israel ever shed blood and treasure for us?

Clarence's position is pretty stupid and not well thought out. I'm curious as to how he would handle a criticism like: How would compulsory military service not destroy economic output in areas such as a young man or young women owning a business being forced to shut the doors due to compulsory military service?

Or do you have a clue as to how much something like that would cost?

Or do you have any idea how much combat effectiveness drops when you have many people that don't want to be there?

Wouldn't you agree that people who criticize politicians for sending troops to war would have a much better argument if military service was compulsory instead of voluntary? At least for right now those serving chose to make a difference in the rest of the world.


I would point to Clarence's position as just another example of someone producing a knee jerk believe without really spending any time thinking about the consequences of something like that.

Good heavens Wonkish, the man might have legitimate reasons for holding that position, especially considering his experience. And if they weren't well thought out, it always a stronger strategy to let them put them forward first and then if they are, most would come to that conclusion on their own. By bringing it up first you run the risk of "being told" and simultanesouly having the focus shift to you and your style rather then the issue of compulsory military service.

I would say that is at least a fair answer. Of course you would then by extension not care if Israel carried out airstrikes against Iran, right?


Lets just throw aside the defending of Israel as an ally, the providing of weapons to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan for killing American troops, the risks that a nuclear Iran poses to the region, and that further nuclear proliferation anywhere is probably not a good thing for a second. Just taking a look at the very low cost of engaging in building the opposition, covert, and destabilizing and maybe even air strikes vs. the hassle, far future risks to the US, and potential loss of life that could come from a nuclear Iran makes these moves no-brainers from my point of view.

I can appreciate some of the arguments for national service/military service, but in the end, its still involuntary servitude. And I'm not down with that. So yeah, I'll be with the Chairman on this one then.

On the substance of chicken hawks, its more a measure of folks who refused to serve when others were forced to (which I don't believe is right under any circumstances) who then go on to call for others to serve. That's the thing that gets people on this subject. Sometimes it compels them to the answer of "Everyone should serve!" as opposed to the truth that "This person was against self sacrifice and service when it was their neck on the line, are for it for when its someone else's, and is thus a hypocrite." It would be nice to avoid the realities of the 1960s and 70s when it comes to the draft and the numerous escape hatches those with influence had for themselves and their children. But those realities will exist if there's ever a draft again given the current trajectory of power in this country. So not only is mandatory service a bad idea from a rights view, but its also impossible to implement it fairly in this country.

I don't believe it should be a requirement that a potential commander-in-chief have served in the military, and in some ways its better if they haven't or did so many years previous, so as to provide a fresh perspective to the upper levels of command, but if someone was exploiting loop holes in an unfair system that makes it less fair for others (such as with the draft), then that shows an aspect of that person's character that there are not many chances to view. And it doesn't matter if that unfair system was the draft or something else entirely (taxes might be a good example, but I'm to tired to parse an argument on this). Its only because there's great emotion, patriotism, and death attached to service that it grows beyond a clean cut view of fair vs unfair.

Very true, but I was willing to take that bet though in the interest of cutting to the chase! And that may mean that I get schooled by someone that knows a lot about the military, costs, etc. and also has a very good cursory knowledge of the section of the economy that young adults impact, but I guess we'll see.

As to my style, well if he does an excellent job answering the questions then he has earned the right to humble me a little. But again we'll see.

I think compulsory military training, the way Switzerland does, would be better idea.

As do I.

First of all to Chairman Sanchez, I am a proud veteran of the United States Navy, not the Army. Then again you're probably among the naive majority who thinks "army" and "military" are synonyms...

 As for Wonkish1...
I do not want to elaborate much on my time in Vietnam or the Navy as I don't want to 1) brag 2) bore you with details 3) relive some of the horrors I saw. Suffice it to say that I know the tragedy that war is and the effects combat can have on a person.  This discussion began with criticism of chickenhawks who send kids to war because THEY haven't thought it out as they have no lived through it. I assure you that any sentiment or belief I have regarding war or the military is more thought out than you could ever imagine.  Your rejection of my view as "stupid" and "not thought out" is immature and innaccurate.

Your views about the economic effects are precisely why I support it.  I disagreed with some others about this earlier but I look at Isreal as a model in many ways, their military as a perfect example. Do you ever wonder why Isreal is EXTREMELY productive for its small size? Why they have the percapita highest number of startups? Why they invent so much technology for military, health, agriculture, etc? Its because of the training and experience their ENTIRE citizenry has in the military.  Familiarization with technology translates into the real world, as my naval construction experience allowed me to have a long and successful career in construction of homes.

Imagine if every citizen at age 21 left the military with very high proficiency in math, science, engineering, etc. On top of that he / she had special skills that are applicable to work, and had the discipline and work ethic instilled by the military AND skills in health, fitness, dieting.  Of course, I also believe everyone should contribute to our national security by serving as it is the right thing to do, but the reasons above are some of the many benefits it would have for our nation's economy.

To answer your questions about combat effectiveness...I served in Vietnam, when many men with me did not want to be there. Vietnam was the point of lowest morale in our nation's history. Today I read an article about how suicides among military service members have gone up in the past few years.  Still, combat effectiveness is perfectly fine now as it was in Vietnam. Readiness is formed in training, and soldiers who are not ready to go, don't make it.  Basic Training is meant to teach you how to deal with the worst case scenario

Fantastic shot of bewilderment on Romney's face as he watches Perry give an answer:

()

See Yankee the crux of this issue is economic not military(hence his military experience isn't all that pertinent to the discussion).

Clarence do you know that Israel also has a much, much, much higher start up fail rate than the US has?

Please show me how Israel's military training translates into the best education in the world for health and agriculture technology!

You haven't shown any proof that Israel's required military service leads to a high rate of innovation. Actually in the US those exiting the military have some of the lowest proportions of innovators of any group in the entire country. This makes sense because the military teaches discipline, structure, orders, etc. and definitely doesn't encourage creative thinking.

Wouldn't you agree that tactical errors today aren't even close to what they were like in Vietnam partially because today military personnel see military service as a calling that requires constant focus, attention, and improvement and that contrasts significantly with past wars like Vietnam where many people didn't want to be there.

As to mandatory military service:

My father was drafted to fight in Vietnam, so I take this issue very personally. Are there positives to forcing every citizen to do military service? Perhaps. It would teach some useful skills as specified and could teach discipline to some. But just because some good can come from it doesn't mean it's right. Forced military service is a trait of a totalitarian society, not that of a free society. Those who volunteer to join the military, especially during times of war, are brave. But they know what they are signing up for using their own free will. How many of our citizens were forced against their will to join the military, fight, and die in a war when the only alternatives were either prison or fleeing the country? Way too many.

Tactical errors...I assume by what you mean you are referring to decisions made by officers, who clearly see military as a calling regardless of when they served. Draftees never rise far above private, seaman, airman, etc

As for the Isrealite military, start up fail rate regardless, you have to admit the amount of techonology that comes from there is proportionally far larger than any other nation in the world. They themselves attribute this to military service.

I find your comment that the military doesnt encourage creative thinking to be naive, inaccurate and offensive.  You are trying to paint a picture of the military as a bunch of grunts, men like me who did the rough jobs who are trained strictly for tasks. Did I not say in my last post how boot camp trains people for the worst case situation? When I'm in a village in Vietnam or a mountain pass in Afghanistan, and I'm ambushed, you don't think that requires more creative thinking than you could possibly muster?  Our military men and women are the most rugged survivalists in our nation.  

And training is changing as we rely much more on technology than manpower. Take for instance field artillery, the Army branch where my brother served. He'd tell me how they'd have graph paper and maps on the field and approximate the position of the forward observer, leading to innaccuracies which led to some civilian deaths.  Nowadays, you have the forward observer giving info, the fire data analyzers giving coordinates, and the men with the howitzers adjusting accordingly.

You look down upon the military for doing the dirty work to keep you free.  Lucky for you I never gave a sh**t what the Jane Fondas of the world thought, and neither did any of the men I served with. We served and people serve today because they believe in our country and are willing to be shot at, blown up, permanently disabled, and definitely emotionally scarred to defend it.

Clarence, we dont agree, but thanks for your service in Vietnam. Happpy Vetrans day :).

So you think that tactical errors aren't capable of being made at the squad level?

You haven't provided one shred of evidence showing that the high entrepreneurial proclivities of the Israeli population has anything to do with military service.

I don't understand how you could see that as offensive. Your free to disagree, but a body that very much discourages people from disagreeing with superiors can be argued as having a negative impact on the development of critical thinking skills. That is a far cry of accusing people in the military as not having those skills(in no way have I said that) instead I'm merely pointing out that there are many traditions in the military that can be a negative influence on the development of critical thinking. You would know better than I, but doesn't the military tell you to trust your training when serious situations present themselves?

Just because the military has gotten more advanced doesn't mean that they train people to be more innovative.


Now I take huge offense to this statement. This is absolutely not true. I have over a dozen friends that have done tours in Iraq and Afghanistan one of which had a roadside bomb explode next to them. I have always showed a ton of appreciation to the sacrifices they've made and have supported their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just because I vehemently disagree with your position to make military service compulsory doesn't mean I "look down upon the military".

My highest degree of appreciation as well!

Thank you Wonkish and Chairman Sanchez!

Wonkish- I know you did not mean to be offensive, this old sailor just gets riled up. As for evidence of the Isrealites, they say themselves that their techonological advancement is due to compulsary military service. As for training, of course servicemen and women are always called upon to remember their training which is why even for active duty there is CONSTANT training to reinforce knowledge.  But the most important thing I was told in basic training, identified as most important by my senior drill instructor, a nasty son of a bitch but a helluva brave one, who advanced on Omaha Beach, was "trust that little voice in your head."  First day I set foot in Vietnam, got a rundown by a Lieutenant Commander- I believe his name was Willis- where he repeated the same thing.  If we heard a rustle in the bushes, if we heard what SOUNDED like an animal call, if we saw bubbles in the water...if it didnt feel 100% right, chances are it wasn't, and it was your job to act on YOUR instincts to save yourself and the men around you.

I divided your answer into two parts. The second one is a very good answer. The first one doesn't constitute evidence of compulsory military service causing their technological advancement. Its an anecdotal(if even that) statement of unidentified people in Israel who make the claim your making without any real step by step explanation as to why. That doesn't pass the test of what constitutes evidence!

I hope you realize that the argument you are making not only is that people can learn valuable lessons and skills from military service(that is kind of obvious), but that it is a unique and superior method of learning high value skills relative to all other places and methods of learning valuable skills and lessons. That is a very, very hard argument to make!

I didn't say it was either in relation to his experience. I said that in view of his experience, people would have a very negative view of you questioning his depth of thought on this issue.

As to this statement itself, I fail to see how the crux of any issue relating to mandatory military service is not a military issue. :P Sure there can are economic effects, but it is by defination an issue concerning the military.

I am sure any red blooded patriot would claim their country is more technology advanced because they do X. You could probably find some poor indoctrinated soul in North Korea who would attest to such. In order judge something like that, you have to have more objective criteria and analysis.

I wasn't questioning his depth of thought on military issues though I was questioning his thought on what the consequences of such a policy would be and the majority of those consequences are non military.

Apparently, Clarence disagrees with you. He is advocating compulsory military experience because he thinks it would improve the education of people in the United States and benefit the American economy. He isn't making the argument based on any strategic defense benefits that would come from having mandatory service.

Thank you Senator North Carolina Yankee

Wonkish- here is a link that sums up what I've been hearing from advocated for Isreal http://www.economist.com/node/16892040

While I disagree with the way that article characterizes the US military, it shows what I've been trying to say. I've heard this before at events done by the American Isreal Political Affairs group who have done events that I have been invited to in my area, and I was invited as part of my church to attend their national convention in Washington, where I attended a seminar on Isrealite military technology and how it transitions into their civilian counterparts.  Was extremely interesting.

Wonkish- I don't disagree with Senator North Carolina Yankee. There are definitely strategic defense benefits from having an entire population (age 18 - 49 or so) trained and essentially ready for combat if it came to it.

Are you saying American Jews don't?

Now that is at least evidence! I should point out 2 things.

1) That in the article start-ups are only taking the brightest individuals out of Israeli military. That doesn't necessarily point to it being a superior value added model. Education isn't an entity that is good at selecting who are the smartest already, but instead something that focuses on providing the highest amount of increase or growth in knowledge between two points in time. But this is a minor point compared too...

2) This article does nothing to show that the military is a superior education system than all other alternatives.


Clarence I work in Finance why don't you explain to me how I would benefit on an educational level from time in the military?

Yeah, but couldn't that also be accomplished by compulsory military training as others have pointed out instead of compulsory military service?

Also, the thrust of your argument has been economic not defense oriented in nature. If your argument had been "whatever the economic consequences today's world requires the entire population being military trained" instead of what you said then it would be a different story.

Beyond the benefits everyone gets from organization, discipline, etc.....there is an entire branch of each service dedicated to finance, accounting, business management, HR. I never had any of those jobs but I suspect they are all responsible for tens of thousands of men and women.  Working payroll for all these service members- including bonuses, incentives, different rates etc- is definitely good work experience before entering the civilian workforce.

Is there a law that says he can't argue for it because of both? Your post seems to indicate he has to choose between the two as why it should be put in place.

None of what you just said would be job experience for my kind of work. If I was in corporate finance or accounting that would be a different story, but the military has basically no work applicable to securities, nor does it teach you how to sell yourself, nor does it provide any education or experience in matters of tax issues, etc.

Given my chosen career path a university provides significantly better education on those areas and designations provide even better education than a university.

There can only be 1 "crux of any issue".

Selling yourself...ask any man seeking a promotion in the military. It's not something I'm proud of, but schmoozing is probably more important for an officer seeing the next grade than in anything else...too political. Tax issues have to also be dealt with all the time, especially with regards to combat pay.

Granted, nothing in the military prepares you to deal with securities. I have to say though that when I was wealthier and had a portfolio just over $1M, I chose my wealth manager based upon his military service. He was a Marine and told me that many of his clients were veterans, and his office actually directed all veterans to him so it provided him a steady flow of clients.

No offense but your first paragraph is kind of reaching. Bringing up the tax issues involved in combat pay is like bringing up your family budget as experience in handling the budget of a corporation. Its not realistic at all.

So would you agree that not all professions stand to benefit more from a military education in comparison to others?

A phrase which you first used and clarence never did, that I remember. He has put his main emphasis on economic benefits, but he has in no way limited himself to just that as a justification for doing so that I have seen, in my opinion.

A person can have as many equally important reasons for supporting something as they want.

That is just one example, but I think many would tell you that tax issues are very prevalent in military pay. I would absolutely not agree with that, as I believe everyone benefits from military service due to organization and discipline.

I did not grow up wanting to serve in the military. I flunked out of college at 20 after failing one too many engineering courses.  The United States Navy changed me and made me the man I became.  I retired as a Chief Petty Officer (a high enlisted rank) and made the transition from mobile military construction to the construction of new homes. The timing was good and I made my way down to Florida to participate in the boom there.  By the time I retired, I was living in a dream- a 13 acre property in rural North Florida with the woman I loved in a home I built. I had an investment portfolio of about $1.1 million.  If you had told me I would become a millionaire in the time between college and the Navy, I would have laughed. While I have lost most of my fortune in the past several years trying to make my wife's last years as comfortable as possible, I still have enough to buy a smaller house in a more urban area, pay for medical expenses, eat and drink plenty, and occasionally travel. If it weren't for the US Navy, I would be either homeless or dead.

Why do the skills or attributes that are acquired from military service have to be career specific to benefit someone in a certain occupation?

EXACTLY!

Because if you are going to claim that the military is superior to all other education possibilities during that mandatory period than your going to have to actually establish that it is better than the alternatives and Clarence is advocating mandatory military service for all people and so it has to be superior to all alternatives for every profession because in a free society where I can choose any path to advance my future career aspirations I'll gravitate to the places that stand to provide me the most benefit for those career aspirations.

Wait a minute you are actually going to tell me that military is superior to all other methods of education for a career in finance? You serious? This is news to me, and that would be news to a lot of people in my industry. Damn I really blew it then with my degree in finance and my designations, my experience working in securities while in college, and my 12,000 hours of personal study. I should have just not done all of that and instead just joined the military and I guess I would be a lot more knowledgeable today and be a lot further in my career than I am now. Oops!

Sorry for the satire, but if the military was better for my career prospects I would have done it and so would have many others in my industry. They didn't because its not.

1- I've enjoyed this discussion up until now, but you are showing your true colors as a sarcastic, disrespectful, little prick.

2- Never would I advocate the military instead of a college education,but as a supplement.

Perhaps some military service would have done you wonders in terms of respect and professionalism.  I certainly hope you do not have this sort of attitude in your work with securities, getting coffee for a hedge fund manager or whatever it is you do. 

1. Hey I said sorry for the satire. I just used it to illustrate a point. Its not meant to be disrespectful. At one point you accused me of not appreciating those that have served in the military. I took offense to that. I definitely did not mean offense to this.

2. Then your advocating time outside of your chosen profession being the better part of a decade. That is a long time to not enter the professional world.

I actually put a lot of thought into joining the marines not because it offered much in the way to benefit my future career aspirations, but because I believe deeply that I was lucky to be born in this country and should look at doing what I could to defend it. The attitude within the firm is of aggressively challenging the assumptions of others because we are being trusted with a lot of other people's money and we don't take that responsibility lightly. When we are talking among each other the atmosphere is very blunt. When we are talking with clients its a lot more cordial.

Typical military service nowadays is 3 years active duty, 3 years inactive reserve. 3 years for your country? No to hard a choice to make.

I gotta get myself to bed now

I'm aware of that as I said before I have over a dozen friends that have done tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. But 3 years active duty(and correct me if I'm wrong, but anything related to accounting, payroll, etc. requires a choice of career in the military you can't do those by taking the minimum) plus 4 years of college means a minimum of 7 years(better part of a decade) before you can go into your chosen profession.

Have a good night, thanks again for your service, and sorry again if my post above in this discussion was a little to forceful I definitely didn't mean any offense or disrespect behind it.

Also, sorry about your wife. My deepest sympathies.

There are people for whom military service is a disaster even if they don't get crippled or killed in combat or training. A sociopath who better knows weapons and killing techniques could go through military training and get proficient at 'arts' that one last wants an evil person to know. Who wants anyone to teach potential hit men the mastery of that trade?

Some people go through military life and develop a hostility to civilian life as well as injured feelings. The extreme example is Timothy McVeigh. That's before I mention the stereotyped (if mercifully rare) "angry veteran".

If someone has extremely cultivated artistic or academic skills, military life is probably a disaster. I notice that although returning WWII vets did well after the war in much, they did very badly in literary, musical, and artistic achievements.     

I'm interested in how Clarence suggests dealing with those who refuse to serve.

Politics renders a draft a moot point.  Suggesting it would be even more politically suicidal than the Republicans 2012 platform is going to end up being.