The GOP debate thread

[themadscientist]

That one got a bit heated!

The candidates are getting a bit rougher with each other and it was clear that the two biggest targets were Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. As they are considered the front-runners in this state that's understandable.

Between the two I think Romney mounted a better defense. He rarely cracks and shows anger and stays on message.

The title of dumbest question goes to George Stephanopoulos. It was in reference to something Rick Santorum had said recently.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kjls0Ln7D4[/youtube]

He feinted well and lightened the mood bringing Paul in with "We can ask our constitutionalist here" and then, I think, gave a very concise answer to a really tabloid question, given George more respect than I think he had earned there. One statement that he uttered in frustration will likely be seized upon "I don't know what the states have a right to do." In context you know it's a statement of frustration with a silly question, but taken out of context in a well-crafed hit-ad it will do damage.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pxyzAjk72U[/youtube]

Dr. Paul, correctly identified as the man to cut through the ambiguity dropped some science on the subject, but also seemed to be a little annoyed about this goofy question. It's interesting that that the question, squarely designed to invite attack at Santorum was so distasteful on its face when offered to the other two cocked and ready to fire.

The back and forth was so confusing that when it finally got around to Santorum he wasn't even sure what the question was anymore and I feel his pain. The whole thing was off the rails at that point.

Gingrich scored some points with the audience at least suggesting there is a war on religion. One highlight was him sparring with Ron Paul over his lack of service in the military. This followed a question about whether service in the military created a better commander in chief.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QJMM_btpmM[/youtube]

Paul also went toe to toe with Santorum over statements made by Paul about Santorum. It was one of the low points IMO. The negative personal attacks bring the debate down.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoZBttKBwlk[/youtube]

The bad feelings simmered and resurfaced later on.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEQENN21ZWE[/youtube]

I think Paul should stop going after his opponents in such a petty manner. Being right is not as relevant to people if you are a rude ***hole about it. If he persists with this tack it's going to hurt him. People are mad, yes, but I don't think they want an angry candidate.

For worst move I have to give that title to John Huntsman. For those of you unaware, Hunstman was ambassador to China. He speaks fluent Mandarin and would expectedly have a keen understanding of China in a way that the rest of the people on that stage would not. This does not disqualify them from commenting on China, however and in the exchange preceding the video clip the discussion was about trade with them. Romney had suggested taking a tough stance with China about its illegal trade practices. Huntsman was not for such an attitude and I think he was trying to punctuate his greater understanding of the Chinese by replying in Chinese. I know what he was trying to do, but he seriously misread his audience. He is going to be portrayed by his opponents as having "gone native" over there and he just sealed the charge. I do not agree with this one-dimensional knee-jerk judgment, but to ignore the fact that it's going to happen would be foolish. I think in a few weeks he will be able to look back at this single comment as the last shot of a rapidly sinking campaign and it missed.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqSyE9NBA4g[/youtube]

If I had to score the debate, I think Romney came through it looking the best. Huntsman the worst. Santorum and Gingrich got a little traction, Paul, at least for me, looked bad for the bald-faced negativity he demonstrated in several instances. Perry, well, he did show up.

[R/T Hemi]

That's how the publicans roll. They target the top runners and smear them a history of their failures and misdeeds. It's sort of like a football team brawling among themselves in the locker room before the big game. Romney has a chance, or he will until his fellow publicans destroy it.

[stebo0728]

Well, if Romney gets the nomination I guess we now know what the rhetoric from the left will be:

Romney says he LOVES to fire people

When you KNOW your opposition takes EVERYTHING out of context, lets try not to give them any ammunition please.

/facepalm

[themadscientist]

There are a lot of executive branch bureaucrats who need to be downsized. I think it was funny when in an interview Gingrich suggested he was a better person regarding avoiding such unfortunate choices of words. Really Newt?

They are going to the poll in New Hampshire today and the results should start coming in now, watch to thing unfold you-ins!

[stebo0728]

Well what Romney was saying was that he favored private sector health care because then you have the ability to fire them if they dont meet your needs. And he said he "liked being able to fire people". I completely agree with his sentiment, but boy the left ran with it, saying "Romney like to fire people". Even Gingrich started to attack him on it but then when he heard the whole context of the quote he backed down.

[themadscientist]

Romney had a great time pointing out the similarities between the left and Gingrich didn't he? See Newt. You are just smart enough to paint yourself into a corner. How's that sub-10% result feel? Hey, at least you beat Santorum, by about 50 votes.

Huntsman's performance did surprise me, but it's on to South Carolina now. I don't see him playing to well down thar.

[stebo0728]

I still have a hard time dealing with Gingrich's little couch party with Pelosi. I think SC will be Romney again, but not as large of a margin, the only other possibility might be Paul. Im starting to come to terms with Romney on the ticket, he isn't my IDEAL candidate, but we HAVE to get this current guy squirrel holed back into an ignored college professor position. He may not BE unamerican, but he sure does have some unamerican ideals. This latest recess appointment stunt really broke the camels back for me. People brushed off that "America is great, now help me fundamentally change it" quote he made last election, but its really starting to taste more and more bitter now. I can only imagine what he's got up his sleeve for a term where he doesnt have to worry about re-election.

[szh]

I have not watched the debates, unfortunately - no time.

However, I did hear Huntsman speak on the radio on the way to work the other way, and was pleasantly surprised by many of the things he said. I think I will have to do some research on him.

Not that it would matter much in this blue state that I live in, though.

Z

[bigbadberry3]

I have not watched the debates, unfortunately - no time.

However, I did hear Huntsman speak on the radio on the way to work the other way, and was pleasantly surprised by many of the things he said. I think I will have to do some research on him.

Not that it would matter much in this blue state that I live in, though.

Z

That's America's attitude

[szh]

I have not watched the debates, unfortunately - no time.

However, I did hear Huntsman speak on the radio on the way to work the other way, and was pleasantly surprised by many of the things he said. I think I will have to do some research on him.

Not that it would matter much in this blue state that I live in, though.

Z

That's America's attitude

Unfortunately.

But I still vote anyway. I will always exercise my right to do so!

Z

[R/T Hemi]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any funnier....

Todd Palin endorses..... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -gingrich/ ...Newt.

Newt, you should check with Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, I think they are Republicans too.

[Cold_Zero]

I dont think that Rep Paul's issue is attacking Rick Santorum, but it is getting his brilliant message across to tried and true Neoconservatives in the Republican Party. I really wish he did a better job in the debates verbalizing his ideas.

He pretty much has independents, paleo-conservatives and libertarians supporting him. He also ranks very well with African American voters. The problem is that he is constantly smeared and attacked by the ‘Talk Show Mafia’ and Neocon ‘intellectuals’ as being a neo liberal, out of touch or un-electable.

Personally, I think neo (decepti)cons are scared s*** of Ron Paul because his conservative ideology smacks in the face of Bush Era 'conservatisml’ and calls them/it out for what it really is non-conservative. They are reminded that they have been in support of Big Government (and spending) in their own image, slaves to the Military Industrial Complex and against civil liberties. They further lose their mind when they are shown how their ideology does not jive with the founding fathers (Jefferson, Madison and Washington), much less the constitution.

[Cold_Zero]

A pretty good clip that sums up this year's GOP race.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... eneration/

Ross Douthat has a good column on Iowa [1], but he accepts the conventional wisdom that this year’s GOP contenders constitute “the weakest presidential field of any major party in a generation.” It’s not true: they’re a sorry bunch, but they aren’t any sorrier than other Republican slates of recent years. The 2012 field has included the thrice-elected governor of the largest Republican state (Texas), the twice-elected governor of the most Republican state (Utah), the former governor of a key swing state (Minnesota), a Republican governor who won in liberal Massachusetts (Romney), and a bevvy of congressmen and senators who faithfully represent major elements of the party’s coalition: the evangelical right (Bachmann), the Catholic right (Santorum), and libertarians (Paul and Johnson).

That’s not really a weaker field than Republicans had in 2000 [2], when a less accomplished Texas governor (Bush) vied with an irritable senator at odds with the party’s base (McCain), a rich man who had never held elected office (Steve Forbes), and Alan Keyes. The 1996 Republican field wasn’t exactly an Olympic squad, either, with such lights as Lamar Alexander (self-styled “Lamar!”), eventual no-hope nominee Bob Dole, and shock-jock congressman Bob Dornan. Even the comic relief of Herman Cain this cycle is matched — in improbability if not in flash-in-the-pan popularity — by Morry Taylor [3] in ’96.

Yes, there are some bizarre and unappealing personalities among this year’s contenders, but most of them are no worse than the Republicans of yesteryear. The 2012 field has perfectly orthodox ideological and professional credentials. It’s not intrinsically weak, and it wouldn’t have been any stronger if Sarah Palin or Mitch Daniels had got in or if Pawlenty had not dropped out — if you wanted Daniels, you could have had Huntsman. (And I guess you still can, for about a week.) Yet it’s true that Republicans look more foolish than ever. Why?

Perhaps because the party is more indulgent than ever of a media even more infantile than that of the 1990s. The quantity no less than the quality of debates has been degrading. Pundits have hyped nonsense polls and nonsense candidates into the stratosphere. If Alan Keyes had run this cycle, he would have been anointed front-runner at some point. The kingpins of the conservative movement share the blame: they haven’t been at all effective at electing leaders who will govern as conservatives — instead, they’ve helped elect the likes of George W. Bush — but they have been remarkably thorough in getting philosophically suspect candidates to sign blood oaths restricting their appeal to only the most rigid ideologues in the party. A Tom Coburn [4] who thinks taxes sometimes have to go up, but who appears to be quite sincere about cutting government, is unacceptable. Mercenaries of the Gingrich, Perry, and Romney variety, however, are perfectly fine, as long as they sign on the dotted line. Unsurprisingly, this produces leaders like Bush, who never raised taxes, never appointed an abortion-rights supporter to the Supreme Court, and never had a holy clue about little things like war and fiscal policy.

The candidates are mostly terrible, but for the most part they have always been terrible. The infotainment media and govern-by-numbers pressure groups, however, keep making them worse.

[szh]

I have not watched the debates, unfortunately - no time.

However, I did hear Huntsman speak on the radio on the way to work the other way, and was pleasantly surprised by many of the things he said. I think I will have to do some research on him.

Not that it would matter much in this blue state that I live in, though.

Z

And ... Huntsman is departing the race. Not enough votes received in New Hampshire to allow him to continue.

Z

[themadscientist]

And endorsing Mitt Romney.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ja ... sfeed=true

I find this statement

Huntsman, a moderate who fought a limp campaign that left him at the back of the polls in South Carolina, endorsed Romney, in spite of having described him last week as unelectable against Barack Obama and lacking core conservative principles.

Inconsistent with this statement.

"I believe it is now time for our party to unite around the candidate best equipped to defeat Barack Obama. Despite our differences and the space between us on some of the issues, I believe that candidate is governor Mitt Romney," Huntsman told a press conference in Myrtle Beach.

If you feel so strongly against him then don't endorse him, just go. I think Gingrich is an irredeemable scumbag. If he is nominated I'm voting third party. It's call consistency Huntsman; I guess the trust deficit you kept harping on applies to you as well.

Maneuvering for a VP slot? You won't get it. Santorum will or perhaps Marco Rubio.

[stebo0728]

Kinda like when Kerry completely lamblasted Edwards in the primary, then picked him as running mate?

[IBCoupe]

I imagine Huntsman is aiming for Sec. of State. With his background, it makes sense.

[themadscientist]

I think he would probably do well in that post. While I share Dr. Paul's desire to get out of the business of nation-building around the world we do need to have a thorough and wise line of communication with our global neighbors.

[stebo0728]

Man Newt completely PWN'd Juan Williams last night. That's the Newt that I like, not the pissy Romney bashing one we saw the last couple weeks. And let me ask this. Juan's one question about Newt's remarks about poor people, he asked if Newt considered the remarks to be insulting to poor people, "especially black people". Now wait no one is calling Juan on that? What the hell? So poor people are black people? IS that what Juan means? To me that seems way more insulting of a connection to make than anything Newt had to say.

[IBCoupe]

"And so I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps." - Newt Gingrich

"The vast majority of food stamps users are white." - Reality

Man, I don't know why there might be a question about race, poverty, and Newt Gingrich. Maybe it's because Newt Gingrich brought it up.

[stebo0728]

"And so I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps." - Newt Gingrich

The black community (avoiding hyphenated americanism here) is the community that makes food stamps, welfare, and poverty the overriding issue of elections, when this is an overriding force of politics, its because of the black community, Gingrich's point is "lets change that from demanding welfare, to demanding jobs, from demanding handouts to demanding hand ups"

"The vast majority of food stamps users are white." - Reality

Citation needed. Ill dig up my citation later that elaborates on the issue, as its more complicated than your reality above.

1. At any given time, blacks are the majority food stamp users.
2. White people tend to use food stamps for longer durations than blacks, arguably making whites the bigger moochers, I've never claimed they aren't.


"99 Weeks? Thats an Associates Degree" - homerun

Gingrich was on fire, but again, he needs to bring that fire to a supportive role, I just dont see him filling the oval office. Id support him over the current buffoon to be sure, hell Colbert would be the better choice above Mr. Berry (just to irritate you).

[IBCoupe]

The black community (avoiding hyphenated americanism here) is the community that makes food stamps, welfare, and poverty the overriding issue of elections, when this is an overriding force of politics, its because of the black community, Gingrich's point is "lets change that from demanding welfare, to demanding jobs, from demanding handouts to demanding hand ups"

Sure, but it shouldn't be hard to see how Gingrich's comments can be taken as insulting, then. Your "What, does Juan think 'black people' means 'poor people'" comment was nonsense. Just pointing that out.

Citation needed. Ill dig up my citation later that elaborates on the issue, as its more complicated than your reality above.

Correction: the largest ethnic group of food stamp recipients is, at any given time, white.

35.7% White.
22.0% Black.
10.0% Hispanic

The reason it's referred to as "the welfare queen myth" is because it's not true.

[stebo0728]

So what's the interpretation of Saturday's results? My take? The people of SC sent an overwhelming message, not to Gingrich, but to the liberal Obama backing media. People have had enough of pulling old skeletons out, and manipulating them, when theres far more important things to be worried about. SC folks are already pissed that the media managed to derail Cain's campaign. SC would have given Cain the win had he still been an active candidate. In fact, Cain received more votes than all the rest of the inactive candidates combined Saturday night, as they were still on the ballot. Romney has some major work ahead of him now to catch up. I think I've decided, of the leftovers, Gingrich stands the best chance. Romney is a close second in my mind tho. Thats a tough call. Santorum's still a joke as always, theocracy is old hat. But as far as Saturday's elections go, if John King hadn't started that debate with an x-wife question, thereby giving Gingrich the opening to tear him a new poop hole, that debate would have went a bit different, and perhaps the election would have as well. The Obama king making media is going to have a harder task keeping this turd afloat than it did getting it passed to start with.

[Bubba1]

So what's the interpretation of Saturday's results? My take? The people of SC sent an overwhelming message, not to Gingrich, but to the liberal Obama backing media. People have had enough of pulling old skeletons out, and manipulating them, when theres far more important things to be worried about. SC folks are already pissed that the media managed to derail Cain's campaign. SC would have given Cain the win had he still been an active candidate. In fact, Cain received more votes than all the rest of the inactive candidates combined Saturday night, as they were still on the ballot. Romney has some major work ahead of him now to catch up. I think I've decided, of the leftovers, Gingrich stands the best chance. Romney is a close second in my mind tho. Thats a tough call. Santorum's still a joke as always, theocracy is old hat. But as far as Saturday's elections go, if John King hadn't started that debate with an x-wife question, thereby giving Gingrich the opening to tear him a new poop hole, that debate would have went a bit different, and perhaps the election would have as well. The Obama king making media is going to have a harder task keeping this turd afloat than it did getting it passed to start with.

I'm amazed by Gingrich's success, because he's got more dirty laundry than a laundromat, which will certainly get aired up by the democrats. I don't view him as electable in the general election. Although he was kinda dumb for playing coy about his financial disclosure, I wouldn't count Romney out yet. I still think the GOP ticket will end up Romney/Christie.

[stebo0728]

Honestly, I dont think Gingrich's laundry is quite as dirty as commonly perceived, perhaps that will be espoused upon in the general campaign. However, I also think, if SC is any test for the nation as a whole, the people have decided, its about the economy now, laundry doesnt matter. I certainly haven't counted out Romney, he still has a fighting shot at this.

I dont know about the VP slot just yet, but I'm sure either your assessment of Christie is a pretty good one. Otherwise I see Rubio being a solid taker too.

[themadscientist]

SC is NOT the rest of the country. They have thier views and they have every right to act on them, but they do not speak for the rest of the country. Every state and every district and neighborhood in them has an opinion and none of these guys makes everyone happy.

I think Santorum has correctly pegged the problem with Gingrich, for the GOP at least. For me he was a non-starter for being a scumbag. He's one comment away from derailing any positive gains he makes. That's good because he will screw himself in the end with that fat mouth and his delusions of grandeur.

Romney is like a glass of water. It's probably the best thing on the menu for you, but it's boring as hell. He let the tax thing hurt him and agreeing to release just one year suggests he still hasn't figured it out. He can screw himself just as quick as Newt, but by being meek and embarrassed.

This race is going to have some legs me thinks. We could see them fighting all the way to super tuesday because Santorum is still scratching and clawing and Paul will fight till the last purely for the principle of the thing. Maybe Romney and Gingrich beat each other so hard the thing is still contested all the way to the convention.

[Bubba1]

SC is NOT the rest of the country. They have thier views and they have every right to act on them, but they do not speak for the rest of the country. Every state and every district and neighborhood in them has an opinion and none of these guys makes everyone happy.

I think Santorum has correctly pegged the problem with Gingrich, for the GOP at least. For me he was a non-starter for being a scumbag. He's one comment away from derailing any positive gains he makes. That's good because he will screw himself in the end with that fat mouth and his delusions of grandeur.

Romney is like a glass of water. It's probably the best thing on the menu for you, but it's boring as hell. He let the tax thing hurt him and agreeing to release just one year suggests he still hasn't figured it out. He can screw himself just as quick as Newt, but by being meek and embarrassed.

This race is going to have some legs me thinks. We could see them fighting all the way to super tuesday because Santorum is still scratching and clawing and Paul will fight till the last purely for the principle of the thing. Maybe Romney and Gingrich beat each other so hard the thing is still contested all the way to the convention.

I see a lot of ugly sparring thru minimum Super Tuesday. And the longer it takes, the more uglier it'll get, which benefits the Democrats.

[IBCoupe]

So what's the interpretation of Saturday's results?

My interpretation of it was as follows:

"This is not a repeat from 2004: charismatic philanderer defeats yankee moderate in South Carolina primary."

[IBCoupe]

[Newt Gingrich is] one comment away from derailing any positive gains he makes.

I'm still waiting for elaboration on what he meant by "the Palestinians are an invented people."

I mean, I grew up in a Jewish community, so I know exactly what he means, but I'd like to hear him say it.

[IBCoupe]

I see a lot of ugly sparring thru minimum Super Tuesday. And the longer it takes, the more uglier it'll get, which benefits the Democrats.

That's why they picked March 5th to allow States to go winner-take-all. Up until Super Tuesday, this year, the delegates will be appointed proportionally. Except for Florida: having already been penalized by the RNC for moving its primary up, it decided to go all the way and appoint its remaining delegates in winner-take-all fashion, making it probably the most decisive primary election before March.