The Debate That Made No Difference
The best way to describe Saturday night’s debate is a disappointment. There was no moment with any potential to change the poll standings. Amazingly, the moderators never asked Gingrich about calling Romney a “liar” or his other harsh statements this week that I reviewed in my most recent PJ Media column.
In fact, the most memorable exchange was between George Stephanopoulos and Mitt Romney, when Stephanopoulos asked an absurd hypothetical question about whether a state has the right to ban contraception. And Stephanopoulos just wouldn’t let it go. It was simply bizarre and a complete waste of time.
Here are my thoughts on each candidate’s performance:
Mitt Romney: The clear winner. His supporters were never given a compelling reason to jump ship and he suffered no significant attacks. Not bad for a guy who Politico said was facing a “weekend from hell.”
Rick Santorum: His best debate yet and it will help him solidify his position as the alternative to Romney. There were several times where he offered detail, facts, and numbers that really made me think to myself, “This is one smart guy.” He looked like a credible presidential candidate and overshadowed Newt Gingrich.
Ron Paul: Out of everyone, he had the most “wow moments,” even when I disagreed with his answers. He was also more likeable than he ever has been and his response to Stephanopoulos’ question showed a real depth of knowledge that is impossible not to admire.
He was the most effective attack dog of the night, going on the offensive against Santorum as a “big spender.” He also won his clash with Gingrich and (again, even if I disagree) had a powerful moment when he talked about his “pet peeve that really annoys him” when those that avoid service send kids off to war.
Newt Gingrich: He gave impressive answers as always, particularly on national security, but there just wasn’t a standout moment for him. It feels as if the audience has grown accustomed to his intelligent, articulate answers. He failed to achieve his two main objectives tonight: bring Romney down and stall Santorum’s momentum.
Rick Perry: He has become a better speaker but he was just plain forgettable. There was no real reason for Santorum or Gingrich supporters to move to his camp. He should’ve quit.
Jon Huntsman: Mitt Romney clobbered Huntsman on China when he pointed out that he’s been in charge of implementing Obama’s China policy for two years. Voters recognize that our relationship with China isn’t working in our favor. And Huntsman just came off like a show-off when he replied by speaking in Chinese. He’ll be gone next week.
Hopefully, Sunday morning will be a better show.
>> He also won his clash with Gingrich and (again, even if I disagree) had a powerful moment when he talked about his “pet peeve that really annoys him” when those that avoid service send kids off to war.
Oh, horsesh*t. Civilians control the military under the Constitution that Paul professes to revere.
This is a complete non-issue, and Paul sounded like an old crank.
If these people aren’t past stuff like attacking over the who “served” and who didn’t (shades of John Kerry’s endless emphasis on his own service, highlighted by that 3 months or so on the ground in Vietnam, during which he took a small piece of shrapnel in the butt, which got him one of his three Purple Hearts…but I digress…:) ) then we’re in deep doo doo.
I personally have a problem with anyone who hasnt the courage or conviction to serve, but has the temerity to send other people’s children into battle. It is a perfectly legitimate criticism to point out what I consider a major character flaw.
I catch your drift, but Ron Paul going after Newt last night saying he had 2 small children and a wife when he went (was called up) and Newt finally saying he personally wasn’t eligible for the draft…all this more than a half century ago…it is a game of character bashing and not relevant to 21st century America’s problems.
PLUS it took up a lot of time.
John Kerry’s service in Vietnam seemed to read a lot like ass covering, for example volunteering for swift boat assignment as it was considered one of the safer jobs at the time (but became not so when swift boats were called on for more hazardous duty) During his own campaign, he self-righteously droned on and on about it.
Military service is admirable, but not something to be droned on about for a lifetime.
Last time I checked (and I just retired after 30 years of service), we don’t send children into battle. I served with very honorable young men and women. All adults and all who volunteered to be there. Whether they agreed with the policy that put them there or not, they served. Calling them children dishonors them and what they do and is definitely disingenuous.
Paul said that when he was drafted, he went. What other choice did he have?
Ron Paul was probably referring to the doctor draft which ignores dependents because the draftee will be doing his civilian occupation, not combat. Not exactly comparable.
Oh horse shit, that civilians control the military was never the issue, what was the issue is the civilians who control the current military who were too chickenshit to serve in the first place when they had the option, but were great at gaming the system, biological cost shifting. The first president, Washington, was a former general, most of your presidents had military service up until the baby boomers, maybe because only less than one percent of the baby boomers got blooded in a war while the rest did the funky chicken at home with Suzie rotten crotch or hung out in France with a draft exemption to rough it as a missionary, like boy Romney. If he couldn’t pull a trigger in ’68 for religious convictions, what changed now to qualify him as commander in chief? I don’t recall boy Clinton or the current boy Obama doing such a great job in the role either, but maybe I missed something?
My favorite moment was the line Santorum delivered when Paul praised the rescue of the Iranian fishermen. Santorum pointedly reminded Paul that, under a Paul administration, the U.S. navy would never have accomplshed that humanitarian mission. I was impressed by how quickly and incisively Santorum responded with that little gem.
I can picture Santorum responding with similar effectiveness to Obama in a debate, although for him to be the nominee, he’d probably have to inherit Perry’s and Gingrich’s supporters and finally become the last remaining “not-Romney” candidate. I foresee a three-man race involving Romney, Santorum and Paul, but possibly Gingrich too if he stubbornly sticks around even if his poll numbers crater.
Gingrich should remember a point Karl Rove made a few days ago. His support dropped by 25% in South Carolina, not just in Iowa. Gingrich can’t keep blaming Romney’s Iowa ad campaign for doing him in, when he fell by the same margin in a state where he suffered no equivalent media barrage. Perhaps Gingrich does realize this now, considering the surprisingly non-confrontational approach he took toward Romney in the debate.
Idiotic!!! Perry should’ve quit because… the bullish*t liberal moderators wouldn’t give him time? Hell no! He’s the only candidate getting my vote, I WILL NOT unite behind the lesser candidates just because people like to scare others into voting against their first choice. In Nov. only my governor, Rick Perry, gets my vote for POTUS.
I’m sorry to have to say this, but then you will have guaranteed one more unoppposed vote for Obama. Look, this whole endless, useless series of “debates” is just a way to trick us into crippling our candidates for them, so Obama can have a nice, soft, pre-weakened opponent (the only kind he can beat). Why did the GOP fall for this in the first place?!
Amen. The Republican Party continues to be The Stupid Party. Rather than continue to tear at each other, Obama must be the focus of the answers to keep his failures front and center. The object is to DEFEAT President Obama, not to shoot ourselves in both feet.
Sheesh!
On the contrary, I’m glad we’re having the chance to do a proper vetting of these candidates–something the Dems never did with Obama in 2008.
I agree. Perry is also my choice. I find the aching arrogance of pundits who think they know it all beyond comprehension. If you think that Romney is most Conservative’s candidate of choice, you are defintely uninformed. Rick Perry is the only person for small goverment.
>>He also won his clash with Gingrich and (again, even if I disagree) had a powerful moment when he talked about his “pet peeve that really annoys him” when those that avoid service send kids off to war.<<
More horseshit: Ron keeps calling Iraq and Afghanistan undeclared wars, when both were declared in AUMF votes. You don't actually have to say "we declare war" for it to be a declaration of war. At other times he said that he voted against the Iraq war (but for the Afghan one). Which is it, Ron? If there wasn't a vote, how come you voted?
Still more horseshit: The draft for doctors took married men because they couldn't find a lot of 18-year-old unmarried physicians. And Ron knew that the doctor draft was an exception and EFFING LIED about it when he implied that the rules were the same for everyone else.
The man is a piece of work and, like Newt, I'm tired of this asshole filling space with his counterfeit libertarianism and cult nonsense. Send him off to wherever Lyndon LaRouche went; they are much alike.
Exactly right – I was bothered by the moderators, who should have known better, allowing Paul to get away with these blatant lies. It’s not the role of the debaters to get into cat fights on stage and they aren’t given the time to rebut Paul – but Paul was lying.
Equally disturbing about Paul is his tendency to remove himself, a la Obama, from difficult situations, such as his removing himself from culpability for his racist newsletters, and his current removal of himself from the pro-Paul ad against Huntsman, implying, somehow, that because he was the US ambassador to China and has two adopted daughters (both abandoned, one Chinese, one Indian) that he is a ‘Manchurian candidate’. Disgraceful behavior by Paul.
“removing himself” is my biggest objection to Romney, along with him being unwilling to go after Obama. It was blatantly obvious with the PAC ads in Iowa that is run by one of his campaign consultants, but also clear with the attack on Perry as a racist (the rock at the hunting camp) and the undermining of Herman Cain’s character. The only other reasonable candidate for those attacks is Obama, but Obama supporters would almost certainly hold their fire until the general election.
I don’t object to strongly pointing out the flaws in the other candidates, but when it is underhanded, personal, and designed to neuter rather than reveal contrasts, it reveals more about the attacker than the attacked.
Romney has diminished himself substantially. It appears to me that most of the other candidates are running because they want to help the country. Romney seems to be motivated by uncontrollable personal ambition, and to be backed by people who are as ruthless as wolverines against their allies, but weak cowards whan facing the real enemy.
“His supporters were never given a compelling reason to jump ship”
His supporters have no articulable compelling reason to be on his ship. The reason they are on his ship is, their boats are on his ship, he won’t rock them.
This is the group of establishment cretins who put us in the mess we’re in.
Their faults speak to us that they should step aside for the good of the nation and party.
No one is front runner who only has a quarter of the party behind them.
GINGRICH WON.
He was the only one to control the narrative; the rest passively followed these mediocre moderators into Leftist LaLaLand drivel diversions. Gingrich is the only one with the strength and intelligence to refocus when diverted, to call on the carpet when hypocrisy arises.
Agreed, I’m with Newt until he wins or quits.
I don’t mind Mitt, but Newt’s just a little angrier, a little smarter and a little more spontaneous. He also knows how to take it to the media.
Then again, the things I like about him are probably the things turning others off.
so the MSM didn’t allow the massive attack against Romney that’s long overdue? Why I am not surprised! Mitt is the establishment’s Etrog.
The debates were a rather moot affair. Most folks in New Hampshire and elsewhere probably know who they’re going to vote for. It did give ABC another opportunity to portray the Republicans as being against birth control and homosexuals, and to promote ABC’s pick for the GOP nominee, Romney, and to put some more bad blood between the Paulists and the rest of the party. the winner: ABC
George Steponhiscockalot and his “two comrades”….disgusting!
Americans better understand that they must unite under the Republican candidate, no matter who he is. A reelected obama will continue the destruction of this once great Nation.
If this is all the GOP has to offer then I will vote for the P.O.S already screwing up my country just to rub the GOP’s noses in it. F them and the moderate world of “anyone but obama”
With the question (“Do you support contraception?”)
Is George actually asking (“Do you support tax funded contraception?”)?
When the questions of support come up are they asking ie: (Do you support the idea of contraception?) or (Does… support=Tax funds?)
Excellent point. Liberals often speak in code.
Bravo, George Stephanapoulos! A new “Mitt Fit”
How can Mr. Romney claim he has a Harvard Law degree, and is so smart if he has NO CLUE about 1965 SCOTUS Griswold v CT.
Mr. Romney has no clue that almost every state in the USA had Comstock Laws starting in the 1880′s that banned contraception???
It took until 1965 and the SCOTUS to FINALLY make it legal for doctors in Connecticut to prescribe contraception to married (man+woman) couples.
Testy and ignorant, former governor of Massachusetts.
The phrase “Banned in Boston” was coined when Margaret Sanger was arrested and dragged off the stage of a theatre, by the Boston police, for speaking about contraception, maybe about 1920.
GOP can not trust Romney on judicial appointments if he is this ignorant.
Dems are going to have fun with this level of complete ignorance, and another “Mitt Fit”
10. Rich K
If this is all the GOP has to offer then I will vote for the P.O.S already screwing up my country just to rub the GOP’s noses in it. F them and the moderate world of “anyone but obama”
Just great for you! Not so much for my family or the rest of the country!
I don’t care (well, I really do) who wins, but I will sure vote for the person who comes through the primaries. As Romney said, anyone on the stage would be better than obama.
BTW, I think Romney is the only one who was respectful to Ron Paul. And I liked the way he turned to Paul, indicating he was the specialist on the Constitution. I thought that was cute!
Huntsman comes across as way tooo cool, snarky and a smart aleck! Good bye!
“Newt Gingrich: He gave impressive answers as always, particularly on national security, but there just wasn’t a standout moment for him. It feels as if the audience has grown accustomed to his intelligent, articulate answers.”
I totally disagree. Newt WAS impressive BECAUSE he always gives intelligent, articulate, answers. Um, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that what everybody has been whining about, that we need a person who is very articlulate and intelligent to go up against Obama? I don’t really see what’s not to like about Newt. He is more conservative than Romney, has a proven track record in Congress that anybody would love to have, and he can slaughter anybody in a debate. So, what’s not to love? We are going to need somebody with real stones to go up against the Obama, the Democratic machine, and the mainstream media this year. Newt could just be the experienced guy we need to do it.
Gingrich–if he’s nominated–will never get the chance to go on the offensive against Obama.
Instantly he’ll be put on the defensive about his serial adultery, his working for Freddie Mac, his being ousted from the Speakership by his fellow conservatives. Every week, Gloria Allred will find a new bimbo to claim that Gingrich had an affair with her.
Gingrich has far too much baggage to win the female Independent vote. It will be the biggest gender gap in the history of exit polling.
Gingrich’s ‘baggage’ includes the finest conservative record of accomplishment in the modern era. What has Paul actually done?
Grandma Maudie just doesn’t like him? Oh well then…
If Newt gets the nomination, they simply won’t be able to shut him up. He instatnly will have a national forum that can’t be turned off.
They can ask him any crap they want to. He’ll answer the way HE wants to. They simply can’t stop him. If they ask him about his affairs, he will ask why they never asked Obama about Wright and Ayers, and then educate the American people for a couple of minutes about those associations. If they ask him about Fannie Mae, he will explain how Obama was the lawyer for Acorn and how Acorn has now disbanded because of the 14 state lawsuits against it. Etc., etc., etc. After a few of those, they’ll stop asking that type of question, but they will have to ask SOMETHING, and whatever it is, he’ll use it to attack Obama.
And that is the difference between Newt and Romney. Romney, like McCain before him, is too fearful of rocking the establishment to ever confront it. That’s why they back him, and that’s why the moderators protect him.
Exactly right, proreason. It could also set a precedent that would set everyone back on their heels, and then quickly strive to emulate. What a concept!
Should have written, “…but then they would strive to emulate it.”
I’m a female and I’d vote for Newt in a heartbeat. His adultery was over 15 years ago, not yesterday. Plus, I’m not voting for a personal relationship or a spiritual leader; I’m voting for someone who can beat obama and run the government.
Regardless of where you stand, regardless of who you support, regardless of what you want…
Mitt Romney will be the nominee. He is the one the ‘Business as Usual’ Republican power brokers seem to have decided is their man who won’t really rock the gravy boat.
He will go up against Obama and, will lose. Why? Because it a face off between Obama and Caffeine Free Diet Obama, Obama will win every time.
Just accept it. It WILL be four more years of Obama, I’m afraid. It saddens me greatly, but that’s what it looks like it’s shaping up to be.
“Republican power brokers seem to have decided is their man who won’t really rock the gravy boat.”
Mike–
I strongly disagree. These debates, caucases, and primaries are the exact opposite of a power-brokered selection process. It could be argued that stronger candidates might have been selected if power brokers were used rather than the gauntlet of public scrutiny that is now demanded. For instance, it is very likely that Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour opted out because they did not want to put their families though the process.
I am not so sure the process isn’t at least a bit tainted with contrivance, judging from what I have seen so far: Intense, relentless bad press concentrated on the two people who appear (or have appeared) to be able to stand up to Obama; these would be Cain & Gingrich. Admittedly though, Cain really was not quite ready. Gingrich though is quite another story but unfortunately he has made one too many enemies behind the Beltway who are doing their damnedest to see to it that he doesn’t make it anywhere near the nomination.
I am also beginning to suspect that some (even on our side of the aisle) would rather see a second Obama term rather than risk possible upheavals in the wake of an Obama loss next November. Affirmative action at work here, perhaps?
No, I won’t “just accept it.” I’ll fight it. Mitt Romney must not be nominated. He must be stopped at all costs.
I, for one, thought that all the candidates did a credible job last night. It was the first debate that I watched all the way through this year. Romney did a good job on stuffing Stephanopoulos on the contraceptive issue, Gingrich made his usual smart and intelligible comments, Huntsman was better than I thought he would be and Santorum did not come off as as much of a winer as previously.
Some random thoughts here. Perry is just not ready for prime time and needs to get out. Paul is not going to win the nomination and if he does the third party run Obama gets re-elected. I also thought the moderators avoided Gingrich. He got very few questions.
Why do the Republicans continue to allow the MSM to run the debates? It only gives the MSM the credibility it no longer has.
From a European perspective, I am astonished that you cannot see the simple genius of Ron Paul. Or maybe you can see it all too clearly, and are making these various nasty comments about him because of that. From an external viepoint, your political system is completely discredited, because it is in the hands of Zionist bankers, who direct your murderously evil foreign and domestic policies via quislings like the Kenyan, and have done so since your bankruptcy in 1933. Ron Paul would restore your nation’s standing on the world stage.
He is the only candidate with the vision of a statesman; the others are simply grubby little politicians. He wishes to disengage you from the international entanglements which are ruining you, and resulting in the deaths, both of your own military men and women, as well as millions of innocent foreigners, whilst benefiting nobody but the bankers. You have no business involving yourselves in other nations’ affairs, where this does not impinge directly on the security of the US. Ron Paul sees that unless there is a fundamental emasculation of the DC oligarchy, you will slide still further, if that be possible, into the kind of totalitarian fascism which is presently staring you in the face.
He sees the destructive power of the Federal Reserve, and will exorcise its malicious hundred-year old poisonous intoxication of your affairs. Any other subject is subordinate to this one. If the Fed goes, then so too does its evil twin, the IRS. All of your income tax is levied simply to pay the interest on the “debt” which you by way of your government owe to the private bank falsely named the Fed.
Whose secretive shareholders are rarely Americans.
RP’s fundamental strength is his insistence that the Constitution is paramount ; he is the only candidate for the nomination with this as his battle flag. This document is your only protection from the plutocrats who have always sought to dominate, corrupt, and enslave the societies in which they are found.
In case you think that I am uncritical of RP, I am not. His major, and horrific, flaw is that he envisages a reorganized financial system based upon the gold-backed dollar. It is so obvious that it hurts, but this system is bound to fail, because all the gold is owned by the Rothschilds and their various front-organizations, who are the ones who have done all the damage thus far. If the currency is backed by gold, then the owners of the gold will control its value. The only workable solution is a new government-issued, and therefore debt-free, fiat currency, such as has always proved to be stable and productive of increased prosperity for all.
RP will realize that this solution is what resulted in the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy, so he will not, I hope, speak openly about it at this stage, but will introduce it after he comes to power. I hope, for all of our sakes, that this is what happens.
Ron Paul could be the greatest President that the US has ever had. You must stand behind him, or slide inexorably into a new age of darkness.
Tim-
With friends like you, RP & libertarians need no enemies. Your irrational anti-Semitism completely obliterates what could be an interesting perspective.
It takes one’s breath away.
You might disagree with Paul foreigner policy views, that’s all ok; I dislike them too. I think Paul is still a genius regarding fiscal/economy ideas.
In any case, it would be good to have a bi-polar system with Republicans vs. Libertarians instead of Dems versus Reps.
That would be a dream come true to have the liberal/dems marginalized enough so the libertarians could finally hash things out with the social conservatives/neocons/tradition repubs. It would signal the final road to freedom.
Lots of intellectual work to do before this dream comes true, though.
Stop lying! The income tax revenue exceeds the cost of debt service by a factor of five. The Federal Reserve has no power to compel Congress to do anything. And globalists are definitely anything but Zionists.
Thanks for your reliably antisemitic “European perspective”. With comments like this:
“your political system is completely discredited, because it is in the hands of Zionist bankers, who direct your murderously evil foreign and domestic policies via quislings like the Kenyan, and have done so since your bankruptcy in 1933″
and this:
“all the gold is owned by the Rothschilds and their various front-organizations, who are the ones who have done all the damage thus far”
…those of us across the pond are reminded as to what a hopelessly bigoted, brainwashed, backward, hateful, tribal, intolerant, Protocols-imbibing bunch of drooling pitchfork-wielders your ilk inevitably devolves to in times of adversity. Why don’t you go spew your vomit on Stormfront.
Well, hello Mister Sock Puppet!
Please, troll elsewhere.
I liked this exchange between George (“liberal bias is my middle name”) Stephanopoulos and Rick Santorum last week.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Senator is that true? When Osama bin Laden was alive when President Obama took office. He’s dead now.
SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, that’s right. But that was a mission that was already decided. policy to kill Osama bin Laden and to kill al Qaeda and to treat them as enemy combatants. The President did not change that policy. But that was not a policy or problem that came up under his watch. The ones that did come up under his watch, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Honduras, you can go down the list. Poland. The U.K., the Czechs. Ask all of them whether- Israel, whether we’ve been a good ally, one you could stand by. And look at the ones who have been enemies to the United States. And we have appeased and pandered. This is a President that has gotten it wrong whenever time there’s been a decision to be made, whether it’s in the interest of the United States, when a contingency came up under his watch, he’s blown it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you have quite a list there. We’re going to have to follow up another time. One final question about Mitt Romney. What’s the number one argument against him? He’s your top opponent right now.
Steffie changes the subject
Exactly right. The agenda to capture Bin Laden didn’t originate with Obama but with the previous administration.
Obama’s initiatives, as pointed out by Santorum, have been disastrous. These include Iraq, Iran (ignoring the demonstrators, ignoring their nuclear agenda), renaming terrorism as ‘man-caused disasters’, Honduras where he sided with the unconstitutional dictator, his support for Argentina vs the UK over the Falkland Islands, his insults to the UK, to France, to Israel, his bowing to the Saudi King, his apologies for ‘Being American’, his dithering over Afghanistan, over Egypt, over Libya (being shamed into participation by France/UK); his turning his back on Syria…the list goes on and on.
Then there’s his internal denigration of the American people, calling them ‘ignorant, lazy…stirring up bigotry and divisions..his class warfare, his contempt for the elected body of Americans, the Congress.
I am continually baffled that the hosts of these conservative debates allow them to be moderated by liberals.
It’s about money & ratings and, apparently, ABC determined it was in its financial interests to sponsor (yet another !) republican debate.
Diane S. and George S. are intellectually flawed, as thinkers and certainly as questioners.
The 3rd guy seemed smarter, at least in the glimpse I saw of him
“Huntsman just came off like a show-off when he replied by speaking in Chinese.”
Beijing won, a president wannabe capitulated. Does he know the French president, the German chancellor,… speak English? But they don’t speak “foreign” languages on the public stage. A show-off or was he trying to get his old job back?
How does this function as being a ‘show-off’? Why does he need to do this? Or was it to show that, since the question was about China, that he has the capacity to understand and deal with the Chinese? Could this be the reason?
Or was it a rebuttal to Ron Paul’s vicious ad hominem ad, that attacked Huntsman for speaking Chinese (which as ambassador would be an enormous benefit) – and – for having adopted an abandoned child as his daughter? Gosh, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie can adopt children from all over the world and are seen as magnificent saviors but a politician is defined, by Paul’s people in that ad as a ‘Manchurian candidate’ for so doing. Hmmm.
Perry is the best choice and gave the best answers (for the limited ones he was asked). I don’t buy that line “he’s not ready for prime time” BS. Rick Perry for President in ’12.
Several comments.
1) I thought that all the candidates did well, except for Ron Paul. His refusal to accept responsibility for his racist newsletters and that disgraceful ad against Huntsman – and his lies about the draft for medical doctors with families (ignoring that there was no call-up for non-medical men with families) – were ‘below the belt’.
I won’t refer to his ridiculous theories about the causes of Middle East fundamentalism…
2) I’m beginning to think that these nominee debates should not be televised nationally but should be confined to the state elections. Only the selected nominee should be on national television. My reason for this is because it incorrectly shows the party as internally divided, internally antagonistic and incoherent. The final selection has resolved those differences but because of all the previous televised debates, the national public doesn’t know this.
The Democratic party is similarly internally divided but since there are no public televised displays of this – their candidate doesn’t carry this baggage into the election with him.
3) That weird attack by the moderators on abortion – which was answered by Romney and others as ‘not a federal but a state concern’ suggested to me that the Democratic presidential campaign is going to operate within a number of axioms.
a) We know already that Obama is separating himself from Congress and setting up Congress to be The Bad Guy (in 2008 it was Bush). This is a basic platform in his Campaign – Obama is pure, noble, a shining spirit and not hampered by the material garbage that is Congress.
BUT – Congress represents the American people! However, Obama has a deep contempt for ‘people’; he’s an elitist – and right from the start, he’s shown his contempt for the Will of the People by ignoring and rejecting Congress’s right to read his bills before passing them, and even, bypassing and ignoring Congressional votes with his governance by executive fiat.
b) I suggest that Obama will also be setting up His Federal Govt against the States. He’s shown his antagonism for state rights also, right from the start – with his lawsuits to reduce their power.
I think the abortion question fits into this latest theme: The power of the federal govt vs that of State governments. And the states are going to be defined in this campaign as corrupt/materialist/impure, as Obama defines Congress.
Obama will set up Himself and the federal govt as the noble, pure, shining light of grace etc…
I should point out here that everyone who is defending one or another of the GOP candidates is really just polishing a turd, albeit a smaller one than the one currently in the whitehouse.
That’s quite a generalization.
Almost any other turd is vastly preferable to the current turd.
Yes, it is, but an accurate one. Your statement that any other turd is vastly preferable to the current one is also accurate.
Former CIA agent Michael Scheuer endorses Ron Paul MARY STEGMEIR 1:05 PM, Jan 3, 2012
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/03/former-cia-agent-michael-scheuer-endorses-ron-paul/
A lot of opinion writers feel the moderators were terrible, and I agree. I loved Diane Sawyer talking about gay adoption putting kids with “loving homes” and Gingrich ripping her a new one, pointing out that the liberal press never talks about the other side of the coin – bigotry against religion. Best moment of the debate. Sadly, folks like Sawyer and Stephanopoulos have their liberal filters glued so firmly in place that they don’t know they are there.
The questions asked last night were largely irrelevant and skirted issues where attacks against Obama would occur. Nothing about the government acting as an investment banker in cases like Solyndra. Nothing about reluctance of the Justice Department to pursue Voting Rights Section 8 cases; or about ensuring integrity of voting (several Democratic voter fraud cases have come to light recently). How about North Korea, basing foreign aid on gay rights record, increased regulation versus improved enforcement (e.g., MF Global), sub-Saharan Africa, the Excel pipeline, the Islamist takeover of Arab states, the expansion of forces in the Pacific, the STOCK act (insider trading rules for Congress), the legality of recess appointments, our relationship with Latin America (especially with Hugo Chavez trying to gain traction), the President acting without Congress, campaigning on taxpayer dollars, etc.
You will not hear the truth in the LSM. So, I will shine the light of truth to the biggest threat to all of US. What if Washington wanted to EAT ALL OF THE RICH here in the U.S.? Is America really broke? Michael Moore (and others) tells us that there are oceans of cash being hoarded by the wealthy. But Iowahawk (iowahawk.typepad.com) did a little addition, and armed with these statistics Bill and the ‘Hawk blow a hole in the “hoarding” lie big enough to fit a documentary filmmaker through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ&fe…
I was totally unimpressed with the debate Saturday night. Perhaps, I am one of the many growing bored with the substantial number of debates moderated by Democrat operatives that tend to stray as far away from substantive issues as possible.
I liked Romneys response to the BS question about contraception. Stephi was trying to trap him the same way Santorum was trapped, by getting Romney to answer that THEORETCALLY states should have that power, then putting out bogus headlines that Romney opposes contraception. Romney correctly called it out as an absurd hypothetical trap question, and correctly refuded to answer it. It shows that Romney knows how to avoid traps like that from the leftist media, something I am not sure Santorum has learned yet.
I liked that Perry explicitly called for support of Tea Party values. Nobody really completely supports the Tea Party in this race. Santorum supports the evangelicals more than the Tea Party. Newt represents Newt. Paul sort of represents Tea Party values (except on foreign policy), but is to far out there for most. Whether it is enough to help Perry at this late stage, I dont know.
Huntsmen actually got some cheers when he highmindedly responded to Romney that we should be more ready to serve administrations of the other party. But I agree Romneys sally still resonated with repubs, confirming our perception that Huntsman is liked by far to many dems, and Huntsman responding in Chinese was loopy.
I agree that Pauls chickenhawk comment about Newt was a low blow, especially since Newt comes from a military family, so he definitely has respect for military people, and had an entirely legit deferment, unlike Clinton.
I would also agree that Romney mostly won, because he is the frontrunner, and nobody dealt him a serious blow to change that.