GOP candidates’ debate on security very frustrating

• Reprints

Eaton

Updated: January 1, 2012 8:19AM

Chances are one in 10 that you watched the Republican presidential debate last week in Washington, D.C., where the eight candidates responded to audience questions about foreign policy and homeland security.

I was fortunate enough to watch the debate, sitting among Capitol-covering media. To my right, an Associated Press reporter submitted stories, and to my left, a Talking Points Memo staffer blogged.

For a freelancer from flyover country, it was an enlightening experience. As a voter seeking a viable alternative to Barack Obama, it was frustrating.

In Illinois, only one GOP candidate has an intact field organization that is necessary to win delegate elections in the March 20 primary election — former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. State Treasurer Dan Rutherford is leading the charge for the Romney campaign in the state, and Rutherford’s extensive statewide network is paying off.

That’s fine, but organization is one thing. I’m looking for a leader who can get us out of the mess we’re in.

For me, Romney lacks the personality needed to attract swing voters who make decisions based on impressions only. Over the years, Romney has created a trail of flip-flops on policies crucial to conservatives. And while I can appreciate the passion and intensity it takes to run for president, Romney is wound a little too tight for me.

In listening to the debate and the reaction of reporters around me, I thought who among the candidates commanded the stage? Just about then, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) began attacking the Patriot Act that was adopted after 9/11.

“I would change the Patriot Act,” the 74-year-old Paul said. “It’s too easy to give up liberty for security. Look what happened with Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVey.”

Paul was reacting to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s comment that he would not change the Patriot Act.

“There’s a difference between national security and domestic crime,” Gingrich said. “McVey succeeded. We have to convey the message, ‘You take down an American city, and we’re going to do all we can to stop you.’”

Paul said Gingrich advocated a police state. U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) interjected.

“We’re living in a different situation now. President Obama has handed over interrogation of terrorists and is now issuing Miranda warnings to terrorists who are not American citizens,” she said.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said he supported the Patriot Act but that America must protect national liberties. He said federal intelligence agencies needed to be free to share information.

The conversation then turned to the homeland security issue of protecting our airports from terrorists. Romney said “we can do better” than the current system of intrusive pat-downs, which he termed “confusing.

“There are rights afforded to citizens,” he said, but “... we need tools when war is waged domestically to protect the lives and liberties of Americans.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he would privatize the federal Transportation Security Administration, which provides airport security, and get rid of its unions. Perry agreed the Patriot Act should be kept in place.

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania, said he supported a system of profiling passengers because we “should be trying to find the bomber, not the bomb. We are at war.”

“But we haven’t declared war,” Paul responded. “We are sacrificing liberty in case there are terrorists. We must protect the rule of law.”

Georgia businessman Herman Cain said he would support “targeted identification of those who try to track and kill us. I would support privatization (of TSA), and there may be areas we should throw out of the Patriot Act. “

After 9/11 and instances of U.S. citizens being lured into radical religious sects to become enemies of America, we must all be concerned with security threats.

We in Illinois are focused on keeping our jobs, paying our bills, feeding our kids and doing the most with less each month. It’s much easier to focus on things we can control rather than on topics such as homeland security and national defense.

But that’s not good enough or responsible enough for us. No matter how tough it is, we must be concerned about national security.

Three years ago, information about the candidates was mostly filtered through the media folks who sat around me in D.C. last week. In 2012, direct information through numerous live debates, cable news interviews, books, websites and personal appearances will allow more access than ever before.

Sure, we may not have Gingrich or Romney personally visit our homes as Republicans are used to in Iowa and New Hampshire, but there will be no excuse for not making an informed decision next November.

Stop the complaining about the state of the nation. Get informed. Get involved. Our future depends upon it.

By the way, you can start by visiting the Bremen Township Republican Party meeting at 6:30 p.m. Thursday at Gaelic Park in Oak Forest. Candidates and media will be there to make it easy to get informed and get involved.

Fran Eaton is a Southland resident who co-founded and edits the conservative political blog, illinoisreview.com