Reflections on the Politico/NBC News Republican Presidential Candidates Debate at Reagan Library

What began as a quick write-up based on comments written during the debate, became a more lengthy post, due to my near-perfectionist efforts at design.

So, in the quickest order, I found the best stream of the chatter at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library was embedded at The Right Scoop website, courtesy of the-always-resourceful-MSNBC.

The candidates start and often continue with spewing rhetorical crap, mostly dodging difficult subjects and questions. Bachmann and Cain outshine everyone else in this.

The Republican candidates always mention the number of children they have and the number of adopted children they have. Lots of children for "old times' insurance", I suppose...
Jon Huntsman only has two and these are adopted, also, and legally brought over to the U.S. Why didn't he adopt American children??

• Michele Bachmann frets about "Obamacare", mentions Obama rather often, maybe just as Obama mentioned Bush-Cheney throughout his campaign. After that, other candidates are very much agreeable enough to fret about "Hillarycare". Otherwise lots of hot air. Bachmann criticizes Obama on Libya, thinks it was wrong to go there (Obama really didn't, but I don't understand where her allegiances lie). I infer her support for oil drilling in Everglades (talks about energy and responsibility). Confuses green job creation in Spain and its high unemployment, which was caused by a construction and property bust.

• Mitt Romney manages to mention renewable resources, too, where he proposes a mixed package, which I say, is a wise move. Mentions even oil shale (!).

Thinks that Obama has to go (which everyone else heartily agrees with), yet offers no solutions himself, except creating nebulous "jobs" — maybe in the fashion that Bachmann talked about getting gas prices to $2/gal.

Romney believes in the Tea Party movement. Foundlessly criticizes Obama. Talks about the middle class, only that the Republican middle class are the rich.

• Ron Paul is old, criticizes Reagan's policy (though loves his 'message'), and criticizes really everything, so remaining an eternal opposition figure. Wants to abolish TSA (maybe because of probably having been subject to a 'pat-down', given his frequent trips on airplanes, but we don't know that :).

• The Texas governor Rick Perry says stupid things, thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Calls Texas education cuts 'thoughtful reductions', then claims that there's no dearth of educated people in Texas, because of Facebook and Toyota having opened base there — but that's because Texas has about the lowest taxes in all of the U.S.

Perry, though, likes a balanced budget by wanting an amendment passed to support it. Then somehow offers platitudes to Obama (I hear an attempt to woo conservative democrats). Wants clear entrance and exit strategies when invading another country, criticizes Obama on this, yet that was a burden bourne out of Obama's predecessors.

Gaffe: "Ozone levels down Xx%!"

As governor, has signed the most executions in a state to date (which means more than GWB), doesn't lose sleep if even one person executed is innocent, because he believes that there is a working (and 'just') system in place.

• Herman Cain (the only African-American Republican candidate, who's speech also has a nice twang :) wants to fix everything — this infers all things being broken, even in crisis, which everyone agrees with. Does not answer about GE getting huge profits, but legally not having to pay taxes in the U.S. The answer is iffy.

• Jon Huntsman (Idaho) is too slick in both speech and appearance and has a deep tan. Did he spend a vacation in Mexico? Thinks "we've lost our confidence as a country," wants to make his eyes misty — Is that for real? Has two adopted children. What about biological children? Wants to bring troops home (audience claps hands) and has good ideas about how to go on in Afghanistan. Does not cut down on hot fluff, though. Supports science (vis-a-vis creationism, climate change caused by human activity, I didn't hear anything about stem cells).

Everyone agrees with Homeland Security Dpt.

• Newt Gingrich is seasoned, agrees with Obama's programme of charter schools. Proposes humane treatment of illegal immigrants, not deporting them.

• Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic candidate. Has the most balanced rhetoric, but is very uninformed and stutters — the latter not necessarily being a bad trait, given the popularity of "The King's Speech", all of which also reminds me about Lt. Reginald Barclay in "Star Trek: The Next Generation". Was positive about immigration.

Misc and Other gripes

Sarah Palin's noted absence has taken away some of the entertainment value from the debate.

For a long while Telemundo journo's face is not shown at the beginning.

To follow the debates further, see here.

Conclusion

Of most Republican candidates, each have at least one good idea — These are Romney, Paul, Perry, Huntsman, Gingrich, and Santorum (well, so-so). Perry even has two, Huntsman three, Gingrich is tied between the two. Santorum has said the least, so in many ways he's trying to cover his base.

My wish-list of Republican policies based on the debate
(In a somewhat increasing order of importance)

• Support science vis-a-vis creationism and climate change caused by human activity (Huntsman);
• Implement charter schools — this should circumvent stubborn teacher's unions (Gingrich);
• Abolish TSA (Paul) — then what?
• Diversify energy production and supply (Romney) — this would put a simmer on oil and gas prices;
• Balance the budget (Perry) — How? Only with cuts and no tax increases?
• Bring troops home, realign Afghanistan strategy and tactics to adapt to asymmetrical warfare (Huntsman);
• Have clear entry and exit strategies when invading a country, and then only under a U.N. mandate (Perry);

  See in-depth commentary in the sidebar —

  Necessary exceptions could be had with a budget surplus, as happened with the Bosnian War and Kosovo, which actions met stiff opposition from Russia and China.

  OTOH, the actions taken re Libya (before UN-mandated action) and Syria in the condition of a lack of money for any further U.S.-based adventures are cheap — just wait until the local people have protests, an uprising, and then a revolution. Maybe a civil war, if the dictator is a nasty d***head.

  Afghanistan notwithstanding, such a flow of events could have taken place in Iraq, and with a substantially lesser loss of lives, blood and treasure on either side, popular support guaranteed (see current events, like the Arab Spring). This could even have inspired more people in Iran.

  Furthermore, lots of friendly oil-rich countries post-Arab Spring should be happy to export to the West (potentially a mutual feeling), which should bring petrol prices well down from current levels. Suppose the U.S. were always like it now is during the Arab Spring, then countries of that region would have been even friendlier, but The Street over there is very suspicious because of heavy infractions past and current. Now it's not the U.S., but Facebook, Twitter and Google.

  Not so in North Korea, but we can wait ... :>

  A very unfortunate thing is that dictatorial states are fairly often supported and propped up by large authoritarian countries that are not particularly friendly towards the West. This is usually caused by a lack of Western friends because of various human rights infringements and other failures of state. Well, if there are no Western friends, odd and interesting Eastern players don't have the ethical qualms to be the new partners.

  Some would claim that Iraq was very much like that, stubbornly being in a situation that made inevitable an invasion on itself, but who knows. Suppose if the regime there fell in the fashion of an "Arab Spring", the corruption of the Oil for Food programme would eventually have been unveiled anyway. Look at all the uncovered wheeling and dealing done with Ghaddafi, Sons, & Co. prior to his regime's fall.

  Given the impetus for the Arab Spring, then maybe there's still good reason to have awkward friendships?
• Humane treatment and no deportations of illegal immigrants, the latter provided there is no criminal record (Gingrich and Santorum) — What to do with those who are still crossing over now?
  
  Then someone (Romney?) proposed fixing the legal immigration system — What really are the Republicans' good ideas as to how?
  
  

  Both legal and illegal immigrants that do get over, find work and live normal lives are some of the best people already. Here's why:
  
  • The legal immigrants, because they have the necessary skills and language abilities, and because they have persevered throughout the bureaucracy of the legal immigration system;
  
  • The illegal immigrants from Latin America, because they have persevered through a very taxing endeavour from whichever South American country over to the U.S.

  Do keep in mind that some of the immigrants don't survive the journey.

  Same with African immigrants to Europe. At least Al-Jazeera now has a whole programme devoted to warning about the pitfalls of life in the West.

Why SyFy canceled SGU

Disclaimer: The post is all my personal opinion, based on some facts

I'd like to add a few of my own thoughts here about why SGU was cancelled. It's all speculation and I've said it before.

Just before MGM entered a pre-packaged bankruptcy, SyFy was probably considering picking the show up for the third season, but after MGM entered bankruptcy proceedings and before it emerged from bankruptcy (a matter of just a few weeks or even less, I might add), SyFy decided not to pick up SGU for S3.

The reason, which is all speculation and inference – is based on the facts that before MGM entered bankruptcy, it was 20% owned by Comcast, which owns 51% of NBC Universal (the other 49% owned by General Electric), which owns SyFy; and 20% of MGM owned by Sony. Thus, with both Comcast/NBC Universal & Sony owning 40% of MGM, it was still (simultaneously) a competitor to them.

After MGM emerged from a pre-packaged bankruptcy, the former owners didn't own it anymore.

Right after it became clear that Comcast+GE/NBC Universal (owner of SyFy) wouldn't own 20% of MGM anymore, any incentive for Comcast's television property to cough up 50% production costs to produce more SGU evaporated. — To reiterate, just because SyFy's parent company/ies didn't own 20% of MGM anymore. (The production went roughly $2 mil. per episode, AFAIK, with 50% by MGM proper.)

And imagine how all the money really ran around. I would love for some regulator to look into this.

My opinion is that SyFy's move of SGU to a terrible timeslot was intentional and I assume, that more than anyone else were Comcast/NBC Universal/SyFy aware that MGM would eventually go into bankruptcy after which they wouldn't own it anymore. Letting SGU fail ratings-wise worked as a convenient excuse not to finance its production any further.
</end of speculation>

The only facts are who and how much anyone owned MGM and who then did not own MGM at which time and who did then and still owns SyFy/NBC. See MGM Holdings article at Wikipedia.

Everyone knew that MGM were haemorraging money like crazy and most potential buyers wanted as a condition of any sale of MGM for it to go through bankruptcy, so that MGM would not be under its former owners. Source here.

Where I think SyFy is culpable in letting SGU's ratings go is shuffling SGU's air times too much; Joseph Mallozzi directly (AFAIK) blames moving SGU to Tuesdays against "Dancing with the Stars" (and starlets) and NCIS (a police-procedural show), in a time of year that is not Summer; I also noticed indirect finger-pointing at what I understand to be rather creative accounting practices (search for Bailey writes in text) over at skiffy. Now it cancelled Eureka.