Thursday, September 22, 2011

Live Blogging the Fox/Google Debate

We're about a half an hour away.  Are you going to watch?

8:00:  And here we go.  Introducing the candidates.  How long before Huntsman drops out?  And why is Gary Johnson here?  I mean....

Wow.  That spread graphic on where the questions came from is interesting.  Heavy to the east.

The first question is about small businesses.  I don't think I like the video question thing.  But, we'll see.  Rick Perry takes the first answer and it's boilerplate.  Jobs in Texas.  Personal injury trial lawyers - "don't come to Texas...".  Same thing we've heard.  He's touting Texas to the hilt.  Perry seems a little nervous out of the box.

Romney looks relaxed.  He's not a bit nervous.  He smirks, though.  Romney's first blast goes to Obama and how "he's done everything wrong" for small business.  Fox seems to be having a little microphone trouble.  We have to "crack down on cheaters like China" Romney says.  Romney gets the first over the time limit ding.

Romney says the way to "lift America" isn't to take from one person or group and give to another.

To Bachmann, a question from the last debate about "Out of every dollar I earn, how much do I deserve to keep?"  Bachmann says all of it.  She says private solutions that are permanent is the way to go.  What the heck does that mean?

To Santorum, a question about right to work states.  Santorum looks weird waiting for the video question to cue up.

Santorum says public employee unions are where we should focus our attention.  He says state and federal workers should not be involved in unions.  Applause.

To Newt:  A question about unemployment benefits.  He says it's "fundamentally wrong" to give unemployment benefits for 99 weeks for doing nothing.

Huntsman (who doesn't look orange this debate) blathers about his energy plan.  And gets dinged for time.

Herman Cain gets a question about his 9-9-9 plan and the audience applauds and cheers.  They like it?  I guess.  Cain, bless his heart, is personable and relaxed.  He needs a job in the Republican nominee's cabinet!  He knows business.  "It treats all businesses the same!"  of the 9-9-9 plan, he says.

8:20:   Governor Johnson says something about promising a balanced budget.  He's for the Fair Tax and a Consumption Tax. 

Ramesh Ponnuru (at NRO) says the Fair Tax won't work.

Jennifer Rubin:

A question to Perry about Social Security and how it will work if fifty states run it.  Perry says "We ought to have as one of the options" that we have options for state retirees and state employees.  (As a teacher, I don't pay into SS in Louisiana.  I pay an equal amount into the Louisiana Teacher's Retirement System).

Perry and Romney go head to head on this a bit.  Romney says Social Security is the responsibility of the federal government, not the states.

Why does Romney say, "Thank you" at the end of all his repsonses?

Perry drags out "RomneyCare" and quotes Romney's book back at him.  He's prepared:  he notes that Romney changed his paperback from his hardback on the subject of RomneyCare.  Romney goes on the defensive.

Romney says his health care system is a plan for his state, not the entire nation.   Romney said, "I actually wrote my book."  Ouch.

Romney says Obama is a "big spending liberal" who takes his ideas from Europe and that won't work here.  "I believe in free enterprise and capitalism.  I believe government is too big."  WTF:  "I didn't inhale."  Yes - he said that.  He said that he did not spend his whole life in government but in the private sector.  Dig at Perry.

Seems Romney isn't willing to call Obama a socialist.

Herman Cain says he'd cut the EPA "It's outta control...the EPA has gone wild."  Mentions their regulation "of dust."  Laughter and applause.  He offers a solution for Social Security:  the Chilean Model, he says.  I'm reminded of a tweet from Mary Katharine Ham after the last debate:  "DON'T Google Chilean Model at work!!!!!"    Heh!

Newt is the smartest guy on the stage - he just is.  But not electable. 

Here's a good question about massive overreach of the government into the classroom.  Gov. Johnson says he'll abolish the Dept. of Education.  Applause.  Santorum says education is the parents responsibility and not the feds.  Newt says you need profound reform at the state level and that most states should adopt Pell grants for K-12 so parents could choose what school their kids go to.  Ron Paul says get the feds out of the business of educating our kids.  He says don't enforce NCLB and advocates tax credits for those who want to opt out of a federal education system.  Rick Perry advocates school choice, vouchers, and the charter system.  Perry jabs at Romney for his support of the Race to the Top.  Perry got some Boo's on that.

Romney blows that dig off and says the feds ought to be out of education.  "We need great teachers," he says.  Romney says Arne Duncan "is doing a good thing" by evaluating teachers. 

Bachmann says local control with parents is the way to go.  She plugs her mom credentials and her foster mom credentials yet again because there might be life on Mars that doesn't know that by now.

Herman Cain is on board with all of the above.


david7134 said...

I don't know about you but Perry creeped me out with his facial expressions and use of hands. My wife took one look at him and said "no way". Now I know that we should look at the substance of what he says, so I did that and when he said you had to have "heart" to deal with illegals and give them more than what we have, that sealed it, he is a liberal and just saying what we want to hear. Now if he wants to give my kid in-state tuition, then maybe (just kidding),the guy is bad news in more ways than one.

Anonymous said...

I thought this was interesting from
Posted by Brad Jackson (Profile)

A Texas law supported by Republican presidential candidate and Texas Governor Rick Perry to provide in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants when they attend college has gotten a lot of attention recently. It was the primary focus of several heated exchanges at last night’s debate and was widely criticized on Twitter as well, but Perry’s opponents and the media are giving an inaccurate picture of the law and its effects.

First of all, here’s a review of what the law actually entails.

Texas law permits a child who has lived in the state of Texas for at least three years and graduated from a state high school to qualify for in-state tuition at a Texas college or university, on the condition that the child agrees to pursue full citizenship.

Now let’s look at how many students qualified under this rule.

According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, in FY2010, 16,476 students qualified for in-state tuition under TEC 54.052(a)(3), the Texas statue governing this program. That number represents only one percent of total enrollment in Texas public universities; community, technical, and state colleges; and public health-related institutions.

Only one-percent. One-percent. The likes of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and others would have you believe it was a program run amok where these students were defrauding a system, unfairly taking advantage of this status, and ruining higher education for every other Texan. In a state with more than a million students in public institutions of higher learning, 16,476 students is a drop in the bucket.

Despite what you may be lead to believe, this was not a highly partisan bill that narrowly squeaked by on a tight party-line vote in the Texas legislature. In fact, only four legislators voted against the measure. The national media, and those politicians from outside the state of Texas may be quick to criticize this law and label it as extremist, but in reality it’s not.

This program makes a difference by offering these kids a helping hand to a quality education they may not receive otherwise.

These students have lived in Texas, some the required three years, some nearly their entire lives. As part of this program students must have graduated from a Texas high school, most likely a public one, paid for in part by the state. Shouldn’t they have the chance to receive the same services at the rate that other students who graduated from a Texas high school do?

These children should not be punished for the illegal acts of their parents. Many families risk life and limb to get to America so their children can have the opportunity to attend college and achieve the American dream.

Besides the fact that Republicans will be shut out of power for ages to come if they alienate Hispanics, it’s entirely inappropriate and un-American to punish the children of immigrants who may have fled their dysfunctional, failing, or dangerous homeland for a better life here in America. These are students who only get this in-state tuition rate if they commit to becoming legal citizens. Their tuition isn’t waived altogether, it’s just provided at the rate that every other Texas resident pays.

Now I’m not lobbying for blanket amnesty, and neither was Rick Perry – he’s on record opposing the federal DREAM Act – but the picture of this legislation painted by his opponents in this election is entirely inaccurate.