The American Spectator : A Little Bit Ghetto

Text Size

A Little Bit Ghetto

By George Neumayr on 1.27.12 @ 6:09AM

CNN's GOP presidential debate in Florida revolves around trash talk and tacky questions from Wolf Blitzer.

Early in Thursday's Republican presidential debate, CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer caught Mitt Romney flatfooted on one of his anti-Gingrich ads. The ad accuses Newt of calling Spanish a "language of the ghetto." What, Blitzer asked Romney, did you mean by that? "I haven't seen the ad, so I'm sorry, I don't get to see all the TV ads," replied Romney. "I doubt that's my ad."

But it is his ad. "We did double check, just now, Governor, that ad that we talked about," said Blitzer. "We double checked. It was one of your ads. It is running here in Florida on the radio, and at the end you say 'I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this ad.'"

The exchange captured what Romney has tried to avoid -- the image of a remote plutocrat working so hard to buy an election he isn't even aware of his own ads.

Establishment pundits will no doubt ooh and ah over Romney's generally confident performance -- CNN informed viewers that he now enjoys the services of a new "debate coach" -- but rank-and-file conservatives should find the prospect of a rising Romney deeply depressing. How is it possible that two years after the Tea Party propelled the GOP back to congressional power Republicans are contemplating a former Paul Tsongas voter as the head of their party?

Gingrich spent too much of the debate responding to attacks rather than making them. He should have used every question as an occasion to remind voters of Romney's liberalism. The best licks on Romney as a liberal ended up coming from Rick Santorum. Training less fire on Gingrich at this debate than at previous ones, Santorum turned his attention to Romney with a sustained broadside against Romneycare. How, Santorum asked, will the GOP be able to argue against the Obamacare mandate with a nominee who hatched the idea? Romney said in reply: "It is not worth getting angry about." Yes, it is.

Romney's tutelage under a new debate coach admittedly bore some fruit. America's immigration problem isn't "11 million grandmothers," he said concisely after Newt had belabored his point about not deporting elderly illegal immigrants.

Newt had his moments in the debate, but he failed to deliver any knockout punches. His knowledge of policy is far more detailed than Romney's, who usually just sticks to his narrow talking points, and Newt's conservative credentials remain far stronger. Romney continues to appear as a more handsome and taller GOP version of Michael Dukakis -- the bloodless and visionless technocrat who, as Newt suggests, just wants to "manage the decay" in Washington, D.C.

Romney's contribution to the Reagan Revolution was nil, as he admitted in a roundabout way to Blitzer. Newt used the same question to remind the audience that Michael Reagan had just endorsed him. Newt added that Nancy Reagan had also conferred upon him her husband's mantle in a past speech.

The Republican establishment has been working overtime to hoodwink GOP voters into overlooking the ideological differences between Romney and Newt, trotting out Big Tenters with zero expertise on conservatism to claim that Newt is not "conservative." Against an immutable standard of conservatism, he is not, but next to Romney he looks like Edmund Burke.

The establishment never fails to choose the more liberal of two leading candidates. The boys from the yacht club have once again decided to lose with a semi-reformed RINO.

If Romney wins the nomination, he will have won largely on personal attacks and a plastic, big-bucks campaign. Some victory.

Ron Paul had one of the most endearingly direct lines in the debate when he said, after a petty back-and-forth between Newt and Mitt that Wolf Blitzer had encouraged, "That subject doesn't really interest me a whole lot." Blitzer seemed determined to ask "nonsense" questions, as Newt put it, circling back several times to now-exhausted tax return and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac issues. When he wasn't trying to stir up trouble on that front, Blitzer was uncorking cutesy questions about the candidates' wives and an ageist question to Ron Paul about his medical records.

From time to time Blitzer kicked control of the microphone over to "CNN en Español." Modern America doesn't have segregated schools anymore, but it does have segregated channels. Media liberals call this progress.

About the Author

George Neumayr is a contributing editor to The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (147) | Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.27.12 @ 6:29AM

The Republican Party may become conservative one day but it hasn't had a real conservative at least since the 60's. In fact, JFK was in some ways more conservative than many Republicans who followed.

And Santorum's rant against top down government has left him open for a knock down in the next debate. Santorum is another hypocrite who liked big government before he opposed it:
http://biggovernment.com/jbrad.....rk-legacy/

In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican — sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden (Club for Growth ).
His Senate career lasted from 1995 to 2007, and the Club for Growth estimated during that time Santorum “requested billions of dollars for pork projects ” (National Review).
Santorum’s remarks addressing his earmark legacy sounds exactly like Tom Delay’s defense of the practice.
“We appropriate funds,” Santorum said about Congress’s role in an interview Wednesday with CNN’s John King. “And as Ron Paul did, as Jim DeMint did, as just about, I think, every single member of Congress did, when you go to Congress, you make sure that when taxes go from your state to Washington, D.C., you fight to make sure you get your fair share back.”Later on in the interview, he added, “I also said that when earmarks got abusive, that we should end them.”
And in 2009, he said , “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

Jack in Wi.| 1.27.12 @ 7:01AM

The only conservative running in thsi race is Ron Paul. He has the 30 year voting record to prove it. he has already won. No pro war Republican can win the Presidency. 70% of the people want an end to these wars, the Fed audited, foreign aid ended, and a smaller and less intrusive Federal government. Ron Paul is the only Republican who has put forth a program to do all this. All the others are just wind and fury unable to decide anything to cut except food stamps and Social Security for Americans while we waste hundreds of billions in foreign countries like Israel, Iraq, Germany, Japan, Afganistan Korea, and Japan.
Ron Paul for Peace Prosperity, and Liberty,

jothepro| 1.27.12 @ 8:33AM

For all these years Ron Paul was a libertarian. What happened Jack wi?

Skywalker L.| 1.27.12 @ 10:19AM

Ron Paul will save us! Ron Paul wil save us!

R2D2

SpiralArchitect| 1.27.12 @ 1:00PM

Win.

The Bruce| 1.27.12 @ 11:27PM

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

tada| 1.27.12 @ 10:27AM

Jack in Wi., you are clearly losing your touch. Normally you've been (burdening) us all as the first one off the mark to comment on all these articles -- your blinding goal? To be the first to post at the top of an article -- daily!

You've had this as your goal, right? You think that you'll directly influence this deciding of the GOP candidate or the November 2012 outcome by....being the first to comment?

Well, Bill H.O. beat you to the punch today.

What's wrong? Off your game?

Okay, all kidding and smarmyisms aside; what gives? Nobody much reads any of us. Not you, me, any of what we spew.

Figure out a way to use these precious God given mornings you have in a better way. (I'll do the same)

Crassus| 1.27.12 @ 10:45AM

Now hold on a minute before we go much further. Give Jack a dime so he can call his mother.

Clint| 1.27.12 @ 7:21PM

Give Israel Firster Crassus A Bus Ticket To The Peoples Republic Of Massachusetts,Where His Fellow RINO-CINO's Live.

Drunken Sailor| 1.27.12 @ 12:50PM

Ron Paul will never make it Jack. Seems he is in hot water again about his racist news letters. This time some insiders are dishing the dirt that he knew all about the remarks in them and signed off on it as a marketing strategy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....print.html

So you see Jack, you were simply a marketing demographic of racist. Odd how he got that right and we pegged you for it isn't it?

Anthony M| 1.28.12 @ 11:15AM

Enough with the non-sensical, Trotskyite charge of racism. Ron Paul is not a racist and he's not an anti-semite and he's not going to get the nomination. Calling someone a racist simply because you don't agree with him has to be one of the most ridiculous charges to come out of the leftist politically correct movement. To see these charges continually on this website from supposedly right-leaning citizens makes me wonder if the USA has a chance of surviving.

Drunken Sailor| 1.30.12 @ 8:43AM

I take it you didn't read the link?

Mike| 1.30.12 @ 3:12PM

Prove he's not. He is rabidly ant-Christian. In the last 10 years he advocates Muslims killing Christians, and fights anyone ever defending themselves against a Muslim.

A president should think they are equal.

Mike in NC| 1.27.12 @ 6:58PM

I appreciate Ron Paul's viewpoints in many ways; unfortunately, Ron Paul has as much of a chance of getting elected as my dog. The Ron Paul supporters should probably reserve their undying support for his son. Congressman Paul is a terrible campaigner.

The Bruce| 1.27.12 @ 11:30PM

Well, Mike, if I look at my ballot and find your dog running against Obama, I'm pulling the lever for your dog!!!

Everyone knows dogs are higher up on the food chain than Marxist pigs.

Mike| 1.30.12 @ 3:09PM

Ron Paul is pro-war. He just doesn't like war against Muslim nations, but he is wholeheartedly for war against a Christian, Jewish, or secular nations. He thinks it's okay for Muslims to kill non Muslims, but Christians aren't even allowed to defend themselves according to him. He said the 9/11 hijackers were justified, but when a Muslim shot many people at an army base in his home state, he refused to say it was wrong.

Not one Ron Paul supporter has even bothered to deny this.

P.S. Look at his actual Congressional numbers. he's not the fiscal hawk his friends and enemies proclaim him to be.

Vern Crisler| 1.27.12 @ 8:50AM

So in your strange world Bill, even Reagan wasn't a conservative. Folks, that tells you all you need to know about these Ron Paul pissants. They hate true conservatives: Newt, Sarah, Rush, Buckley, Reagan, Lincoln, Washington.

I don't like to contradict Sarah, but if the Republican Party is to remain truly conservative, it has to "excommunicate" these Paulistas from the party, the same way Buckley did with the Birchers and others.

Why don't you Paulistas go join the Democrat party already. Leave us alone.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.27.12 @ 9:23AM

First off, you mention Sarah Palin. She became a conservative while out of office. She certainly wasn't one in office.

Reagan talked a good game, but look at his history and the facts. You won't deny those in your "strange" world will you?

Reagan initially cut taxes, then he passed some of the biggest increases in history. He was also a big spender and it wasn't all defense. Reagan also passed the first amnesty bill. Most Tea Party supporters would not support that. Do you? Maybe you're stranger than you believe.

Actually, if Obama is considered in the frame work of conservatives he would beat most hands down.

1. He's cut more taxes than any other President in history.

2. He's deported more illegal aliens in the shortest period of time.

Also, I don't support Ron Paul. He's just another lib who makes mileage supporting the gold standard.

Vern Crisler| 1.27.12 @ 9:39AM

I rest my case. Denying that Reagan and Sarah are conservative and claiming that Obama is more conservative. Wow.

So who are you supporting?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.27.12 @ 11:57AM

I have the facts on my side. You have glib statements. Please educate yourself and you won't look like a circus clown in the future:
http://mises.org/freemarket_de.....ontrol=488
In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.

Dai Alanye| 1.27.12 @ 12:41PM

No offense intended, but O'Stalin is giving us some wonderful examples of how to lie with statistics.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.27.12 @ 12:54PM

You're showing how to lie without statistics. Let's see your facts. The Mises Institute is respected world wide. When you make comments like that you sound like a complete uninformed moron.

Anthony| 1.27.12 @ 1:08PM

Yes, Like I said yesterday in response to Emmett's hit piece on Newt, I could do a credible hit job on Reagan if I was so inclined to engage in this type of slick dishonesty.
Now you see it first hand.
BTW, Jeffery Lord has exposed the cabal against Newt in his blog piece. Well worth reading. So, Mr. Abrams, so much for your reputation. I hope the pieces of gold you collected were worth the price of a lost reputation.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.29.12 @ 7:52AM

It's not a slick hit piece. It's a well documented article from the Mises Institute, an economically conservative organization. The only slick thing here is your portrayal that it is somehow false.

carnot| 1.27.12 @ 3:57PM

yes...he does conveniently sidestep who controlled the Congress.

Mike| 1.30.12 @ 3:15PM

Are you familiar with how the United States government works?

We have this thing called, "Congress."

You act like Reagan was dictator who had control of everything.

If Ron Paul became president who he have Congress killed, and usurp the entire government?

Because if he didn't, he'd have the same problem Reagan had, because Congress controls the budget. The president only has one action.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.27.12 @ 12:01PM

Here's Sarah Palin's conservatism. While Governor of Alaska she claimed there should be no subsidies for groups like NPR and there shouldn't. When she left office the first thing she did was have a film made that "Ta Da" relied on government subsidies. It's really humorous how brain dead lemmings follow these neoconservatives right over the edge:
http://wonkette.com/441738/evi.....ins-alaska
In case you missed it, small government crusader and Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin’s TLC reality show “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” received a $1.2 million subsidy from the state of Alaska. The show spent $3.6 million on production in the state, meaning that Alaskan taxpayers covered a third of the cost of the show.

Sarah Palin may have quit her job, but that doesn’t mean she can’t still force her state to pay her a salary.

Dai Alanye| 1.27.12 @ 12:18PM

O'Stalin is showing a lack of understanding here. Sarah Palin's Alaska was certainly no reality show, especially as it showed Sarah mountain climbing when, as was admitted, she fears heights.

The show was a subtle travelog to promote Alaskan tourism, thereby justifying the expenditure of State funds. The publicity for Sarah was merely a happy side effect. Alaska used Palin for the same reason Fox News does -- to gain viewership.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.27.12 @ 12:55PM

And how does that explain away her position that NPR should not receive government subsidies but she should? Please. You're making yourself sound stupid.

carnot| 1.27.12 @ 3:59PM

I don't know...maybe the value proposition was that NPR doesn't merit any government support. geeze...are you this simplistic in your thinking?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.28.12 @ 4:59AM

That's a really stupid comment.

canuckistani| 1.27.12 @ 2:14PM

the truth

SpiralArchitect| 1.27.12 @ 1:02PM

I agree with Bill about The POTUS being more conservative than most.

_____________

Vote Totalitarian

Obama '12

SpiralArchitect| 1.27.12 @ 1:04PM

Thats called hyperbole folks.

How about a carni instead of a circus clown?

My feet aren't large enough to be a circus clown...

Appleby| 1.27.12 @ 6:32AM

Thanks for the summary. I'm glad I didn't bother to watch it.

oldfart| 1.27.12 @ 7:54AM

I don't watch anything hosted by Wolf Blitzer.

JimH| 1.27.12 @ 9:49AM

Such a cool name. Such a lame man.

Crawler| 1.27.12 @ 12:14PM

Well, there's one thing you might want to watch with Wolf Blitzer: Search YouTube for his memorable show on Jeopardy. It was a show for the contestant's charities and at the end Wolf was so far in the negative column, Alex had to give him a 1000 bucks just to compete in Final Jeopardy! And he zeroed that out!

Wolf's performance is priceless!

That show told me all I needed to know about Wolf and his employer. LOL!!!!

Teaghan| 1.27.12 @ 2:12PM

God this is getting so depressing. Let's just throw in the towel and coronate the Won again.
I'm so sick of these bloody debates that do NOTHING but make these candidate look like the fools they are. WE HAVE NO ONE TO RUN AGAINST obama! And who's idea was it to have all of these damned debates! For God's sake!
Yes, I'm at my wits end with it all!

carnot| 1.27.12 @ 4:04PM

what we have is Obama's record. and that will be more than enough.

the debates are an interesting display of human dynamics with occasionally enlightening aspects. not to worry. we get to see how deftly candidates handle the unexpected.

what matters...and where the real problem falls...is us: what are the goals & objectives?

runningdeer| 1.30.12 @ 12:51AM

I am beginning to feel as you do. I wish that Newt and Mitt would get together before they get on the stage and practice barbs until they get it all out. Then when they get in front of the camera that they would smile some and try to at least act as if they respect each other. The face that Santorum makes when any of the rest of the candidates speak is body language to a fault. He say's without a word ( I don't believe a word of that ) and then the audience picks up on it even if unaware of what body language is.
Mitt has a habit of using his hands in a manner that say's ( in spades) go away, get away from me) while he is attempting to explain away a remark. The hands pushed outward then fingers forced downward as if he is pushing you away and telling you to get down and get off. The folks pick up on the unspoken words from his hand gestures. I'm shocked that no one has taught him that yet!
Newt has his body language going better than anyone except for Mr. Paul who seems to be the most relaxed of all the bunch. At least he smiles.

Vern Crisler| 1.27.12 @ 8:45AM

George's summary is spot on. If Romney is nominated, then the Republican party is effectively dead: it stands for nothing.

And that goes for old guard conservatives like RET. They've either bought into the idea being respected by liberal media, or of winning the Senate, no matter what, and so they want to play it safe with the presidential condidate. I'm afraid if Romney is nominated, we'll lose both the Senate and the presidency.

carnot| 1.27.12 @ 4:09PM

that's nonsense. It's an idiotic article totally devoid of context. in short...a hatchet job. I'm not committed to any candidate....but I'm alert enough to recall what happened in 2010 and how that dynamic can be extended further in the House and the Senate. shaping the environment is what counts until such time as the last prize is won. as we have seen with Obama....his agenda can be defeated. the Presidency isn't the only power node. question is.....does everyone roll over like a child and give up or shift to Plan B? one has to think strategically and operationally...not just tactically.

carnot| 1.27.12 @ 4:11PM

Romney or any Republican candidate is less of a threat than Obama. whomever will have to deal with a Republican Congress (one hopes)...or be dispatched in 2016. one step at a time.

The Bruce| 1.27.12 @ 11:39PM

Vern, given the current political climate in the US, when it comes to Republican candidates, I don't have a problem with going back to the doctrine of, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

If I have to choose between a shit sandwich and a full-up fecal force-feeding, I think I'll choose the former.

Whatta ya say, Vern?

And I don't buy into the idea that the guy that's the nominee will influence House and Senate races. Not one bit.

db| 1.27.12 @ 6:35AM

From the title of this article, I thought maybe one of the candidates had recycled the famous line from "Snakes on a Plane."

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.27.12 @ 6:36AM

When you lie down with Dogs, you're gonna get Fleas.

STOP letting these Ultra Liberals frame the Debate, Are you F-ing telling me that there's NO CONSERVATIVE GROUPS out there, that can run one of these things?

Get off your lazy *sses, and FIND ONE!

I can just Imagine the Democrats LAUGHING and LAUGHING and LAUGHING, as their adoring sycophants at CNN and NBS and MSNBC hit use every trick in the book, to make them look smaller, as compared to their MASTER.

I don't watch them. Don't need to. I've seen this Movie too many times, already.

canuckistani| 1.27.12 @ 11:13AM

Did I see a different debate?
The questions from Blitzer were spot on, referenced from campaign ads and rhetoric, providing the chance for candidates to look eachother in the eye and substantiate their attacks. No one on here complained when King goaded Pawlenty to challenge Willard on "Obomneycare" last fall.
When we write on here complaining about superpacs and the like, having a moderator ask a straight question about the content of these blackbag attacks is fair game.

Truth hurts sometimes, and Newtie was shown to be a schoolyard bully that cowers in the corner when properly confronted. No eye contact, no rebuttal, no engagement.
His slamming to the ground of the Palestinian was revealing of Adelson's influence (purchase) of Newtie. It was parochial, mean spirited and the lamest pandering he has done to date.

It is right that his Waterloo happens in Florida, and it amusing to watch a gambler's cash be sewered like that.

SpiralArchitect| 1.27.12 @ 1:24PM

If someone contending for PRESIDENT cannot take control of a debate to present their thoughts & agenda they must be considered unqualified to lead a nation (of any size).

The Bruce| 1.27.12 @ 11:41PM

True. If you can't take the fight to Wolf Blitzer you haven't exactly earned your spurs.

Brian Mc| 1.27.12 @ 6:40AM

The American Spectator's followers who voice their opinions here could come up with questions deserving response. Each one would better the best examples of all the liberal debates we have been force-fed up to this point. I'm sick of us pandering to the MSM when it comes to this. Just one debate without having to look at one single socialist but, I suppose that's too much to ask. And so, I don't watch them and will only read about them the following day.

carnot| 1.27.12 @ 4:14PM

exactly. it's trumped up nonsense most of the time. TV drama.....cuz that's what MSM IS these days.

jo blo| 1.27.12 @ 6:49AM

Sir, thank you for being one of the few in the conservative wing of the media to not shill for Romney. It's been disgusting, otherwise.

If/when Obama gets a second term, we'll have lots and lots of 'conservatives' to thank. Romney will be destroyed in a race with BO.

SpiralArchitect| 1.27.12 @ 1:29PM

The re-election of Zero will be a term only as it is a measure of time. That term will not be 4 years - he will be outted b4 that time or preside as a ruler - we are on the brink of Totalitarianism. His actions & statements already provide his agenda & ideology.

Doing 'whatever it takes' such as bypassing Congress & ignoring law.

Interested in his methodology?
This looks like it was written about him, as if they are one in the same:
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes.....linsky.htm

carnot| 1.27.12 @ 4:15PM

and who that Conservative candidate be?

somnolence| 1.27.12 @ 6:56AM

Hardly. Santorum LOST the exchange with Romney over Romneycare vs. Obamacare, as Romney effectively repelled everything he brought up, and Santorum at the same time hurt Gingrich when he told him that Newt had been in the forefront for nationalized health care for 20 years. Obama will be defenselss because as Romney says the two plans ARE NOT the same thing, and only the dense continue to believe they are. It takes most people a full year to read all the pages of Obamacare, perhaps an hour and a half on the Massachusetts program. Romney actually vanquished everyone on stage last night, although Santorum merits an A-.

PCP Smoker| 1.27.12 @ 7:29AM

Are you convinced that Romney can use Obamacare against Obama when he, Romney, created the predecessor to Obamacare? Forget who won what and where. In your mind, as a voter, are you convinced that was the case?

Vern Crisler| 1.27.12 @ 8:39AM

I think Santorum won that exchange. Romney may have "vanquished" everyone last night, but only because he bored them to death.

canuckistani| 1.27.12 @ 11:19AM

I am convinced of the old political axiom: if you're explainin' you're losin'.

I bet that healthcare goes to the backburner by both Obama and Willard if this primary season ends by March.

There is no way for a Willard to parse his words when - his words - 75% of Mass residents like it. I believe it will be a net zero for each candidate in the long run, as Obama has no interest in engaging on it either. The only hope for the case agtainst it is a SCOTUS rejection. Even fringe observers believe that is a 50/50 proposition.
If the SCOTUS confirms the law, the GOP under Willard will need to retreat.

carnot| 1.27.12 @ 4:18PM

no it won't. 60+ of Americans hate that legislation.

SpiralArchitect| 1.27.12 @ 1:30PM

The 10th amendment will be his only means of defense - like it or not.

carnot| 1.27.12 @ 4:16PM

easily. a Repbulican Congress places the bill to repeal on his desk. you really think he'd veto?

somnolence| 1.27.12 @ 6:58AM

At the moment, ready for this, Romney has a double digit lead among Latinos in Florida according to some polls. Obama will be mercilessly beatens by "Mittens".

canuckistani| 1.27.12 @ 11:26AM

Possible, but remember that BHO has not targeted Willard on a specific or grand scale as yet and the best Willard can muster is a 2 point margin.

Get ready for a blizzard of messaging starting in about 6 weeks. Q4 econ finished well and the Dow is back to pre-meltdown levels. The fragmented TP is showing their newness with their inability to coalesce around a candidate, and likely has distracted them enough to enable more Rinos to capture local and state noms.
The fawning over Rubio may be a short-sighted manoever. He has not been properly vetted nationally, has critical divergent views to majority hispanic positions, and has not demonstrated any ability to influence the GOP caucus as a senator.

Drunken Sailor| 1.27.12 @ 12:58PM

LOL. Economic recovery huh?

2011 GDP 1.7%

Oh I know that's Bush's fault right? Interesting how the GDP was 3% in 2010 yet continued to drop to 1.7 in 2011. All under Obama's watch. Somehow I don't think that will help him much.

http://www.businessinsider.com/2011-gdp-2012-1

Almost forgot to mention.
Food Stamps up 45%
Federal handouts up 32%
http://news.investors.com/Arti.....-obama.htm

canuckistani| 1.27.12 @ 2:39PM

That's what the programs are there for. We have the lowest taxes since the post war period....where are the job creators? Interest rates are at near zero. Low inflation. Where are the job creators?
Guess what, it has nothing to do with tax policy. You've been fooled again.

30's 40's and 50's - government mega projects. Innovation investment, exapansion of public college funding.
60's - MI complex
70's - energy crisis and stagflation started under Nixon
80's - baby boomer maturation and transfer of economy from industrial sectors to consumer sector. Rapid price inflation commences the separation of the upper and middle classes. Enabling of S&L's and Countrywides of the world to be developed.
90's - EU creation and start of successive bubbles: golden triangle, Japan, Dot-com and long-term paper collapses. Derivatives go from an estimated 7 levels to nearly 35. Lehman Sachs and Stearns concoct these programs. Greenspan fails to act. Clinton signs Glass-Steagal repeal.
2000's - perversion of public policy and abandonment of reason like unpaid tax cuts, entitlements and war folly. Greenspan sits idly by as surpluses are erased based on bogus Friedman theories.
2010's - denouement and restructuring period underway. Damage deep but not irreparable.

I suggest to you this is a dawn of a new American era where more poeple than ever are engaged in public discourse. It is messy and unfocused, but it will come in the next 5 years.

You know it too.

Drunken Sailor| 1.27.12 @ 3:50PM

"where are the job creators?" They are sitting on their hands waiting to see if more Obama regulations are going to impact them or will he be a one termer. I can tell you from personal expierence our industry has been hit by lots more regulations, which have created entire departments just to keep up with them. No company is going to make massive hires without being able to make a long term plan.

carnot| 1.27.12 @ 4:21PM

and latinos know they are out of work because of this administration.

carnot| 1.27.12 @ 4:19PM

and latinos know they are out of work because of this administration.

Mr ED| 1.27.12 @ 7:04AM

There seems to be an entire industry dedicated to removing any and all impediments to Romneys coronation by the Ruling Class RINOs and their talking heads in RINOmedia land.

I don't know how practical it mat be, but after listening closely to Ron Paul I have to admit that he is at least asking the right questions. He is right that it is government interference in so many areas (health care, education, housing, ad nauseum) that lies at the heart of the problem. Self-styled political saviours, offering themselves as proxy champoins of us all and offering to "fight for us" is a recipe fpr disaster and tyranny. I do think he is just too much of a theoritician to be a really effective president (?) I love hearing him tell the truth and watch the other candidates look on him in the same way they might a sightly crazy uncle, completely oblivious to the truth he speaks.

PCP Smoker| 1.27.12 @ 7:26AM

You are absolutely right about the dedicated industry to shill for Romney. Sadly, Matt Drudge has now joined that process.

canuckistani| 1.27.12 @ 11:29AM

Do you ever consider that they may be right?

The country is far more complex and nuanced than any grenade-tossing nonsense broker like Newtie can attempt to wrangle.

Goldwater redux if Newtie can abduct a win.

PCP Smoker| 1.27.12 @ 8:18PM

Don't disagree on complexity and nuance of the electorate, but Ford, Dole, McCain, and, now, Romney failed and will fail again to win the election.

You, the GOP establishment, and the DC Cons, can continue to drink from the well of the Goldwater's loss, but Proposition 13 in 78; Reagan's landslides in 66, 80 and 84; the takeover of the House in 94; Bill Clinton's "Era of Big Government is Over"; the South becoming solidly republican, the transformation in Wisconsin, and the 010 Congressional election tell me you are stuck on fear. Time to liberate your thinking.

oldfart| 1.27.12 @ 8:01AM

Not sure it is aimed at Romney specifically or just who ever happens to be in the lead at any one particular instant.
This might actually be a good thing to prepare the 'winner' for the big round to come against Obama.
Hang on to your socks folks. This election year will rank right up there with Adams vs. Jackson, and Lincoln vs. Douglas.

carnot| 1.27.12 @ 4:23PM

what truth might that be? I don't find anything original in what he has to say....particularly his isolationist foreign policy.

Sadie| 1.27.12 @ 7:11AM

Surely, you couldn't possibly call it a debate - more like an evening version of The View with Jerry Springer-styled questions. The questions posed were not to be debated, they were used as live bait.

Too bad and sad that the most informed on the internet have not gathered as a single force to bring a 'real' debate to the voters.

oldfart| 1.27.12 @ 8:02AM

Amen - I knew it would not be worth watching with that idiot Wolf as the moderator.

Mr ED| 1.27.12 @ 9:47AM

Amen and ditto. I kept thinking that 'ol Wolfie was that devious kid on the playground who only wanted to get the other kids fighting among themselves. No question AT ALL framed in opposition to Obamesiah or DemocRAT policies, only questions focused on differences between the candidates on stage, and most of those were of a "he said - he said" personal nature. I was disgusted when Newt tried to elevate the discussion and refuse to engage in the personal accusation stuff but Romney picked up the baton and carried Wolfies effort to the finish line. Disgusting.

somnolence| 1.27.12 @ 7:19AM

Sadie, that is what I've been saying all along. To call these spectacles "debates" is misplaced. The Lincoln-Douglas style debates that many clamor for will never materialize, because if those debates were implemented in their true format, the time limits to pause for television ads would have to be taken into account, since opponents could have up to 30 minutes-one hour of rebuttal time alone. The closest proximity to decorum as such in late modern times were the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, and even those weren't what are forebearers heard on the plains or town halls of America in its infancy.

Sadie| 1.27.12 @ 3:43PM

The time has come for the best of the bloggers to gather as a consortium to initiate a live feed debate online.™ Imagine a real debate with real questions. The funding of such a project could be met with advertisers and readers on the internet.
It might even be a profitable venture.

PCP Smoker| 1.27.12 @ 7:24AM

Absolutely agree. You should have also aimed some of the fire at TAS founder Bob Tyrrell who on these pages trashed Gingrich over some inane garbage or the other. The more the GOP establishment and DC Conservatives, including Bob Tyrrell, try to ram Romney down my throat, the more I'm thinking of staying home if he gets nominated.

canuckistani| 1.27.12 @ 11:35AM

He's not ramming Willard down your throat.
He's trying to salvage some element of a viable counterpoint to BHO.

Willard dismantled the Newtie stardust campaign in two quick shots: the pandering tour from NH to SC to the Moonbase baloney, and then shot him down over his Freddie money and his obvious duplicity over his own investing.

That was on live TV, no proxies no superpac cover. They were direct hits. Tyrell did not conjure that one, it is Newtie's inadequacy that emerged.

PCP Smoker| 1.27.12 @ 8:21PM

Anyone who can explain conservatism, something Newt can do and something Willard CAN'T, will have no trouble proving a counterpoint to Obama. An orange tree would get the job done. However, selecting a guy who created the predecessor to Obamacare will not have much to say on the one issue Americans of all views are united on.

Mike| 1.30.12 @ 3:28PM

Neither Gingrich nor Romney can explain conservatism, because they have no clue what it is. Gingrich was a Rockefeller Republican who became an accolyte of Nancy Pelosi.

The idea that Gingrich or Romney are conservative is a complete sham. Why don't you join the Green Party?

POST American| 1.27.12 @ 7:34AM

"--And notice, once again, as the campaign
gets underway, the REAL issues' disappear'."

AS the plunder heads into its next,
and probably FINAL round, and the
4 decades on Globalist RED China TREASON
OP is now all but accomplished----

----------------------NOT A PEEP----------------------

And all this as informed voices are
predicting that by 2015 the collapsed US
will be flung into full-blown receivership
to the Globalist front op RED Chinese.

That's going to mean ACTUAL, boots
on the ground operations and management
of the US---by RED Chinese personnel
with, no doubt, warm no nonsense EUGENICS
included.

"There will come a day when Americans
will WELCOME the presense of foreign troops
on their soil."
-Henry Kissinger
(David Rockefeller GO-fer)
1992

---------------------There will indeed. . .

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.27.12 @ 8:17AM

That's better.

Trebuchet| 1.27.12 @ 7:55AM

Santorum was the one who deflected Wolfs' school yard taunt about Romnys' finances and Gingrich agreed to have a truce so that they could all address the real issues. It was Romney who acted like a di@k and who anxiously jumped in to save Wolfs bacon and reignite the question. It appeared to me that this was a loaded question given to Wolf by Romney so he could give his prepared answer. I don't trust the guy.

TW in SC| 1.27.12 @ 10:54AM

"Romney said in reply: 'It is not worth getting angry about.' Yes, it is."

Yes, it is. For a great many reasons. The first being that a shrug of the shoulders and a dismissal like that indicates that he knows better and that flip, "So what's the big deal?" attitude is reminiscent of a spoiled prep-school kid who just dented my Toyota in the parking lot with the bumper of his Jaguar and has no intention of doing anything about it. It gives the impression that he, like so many politicians, look upon these debates as necessary evils to try to "look good on TV" rather than establish contact with the people. I think those people actually repulse him and he's in politics to further enhance his resume for his own glorification. Anyone who thinks he's a "man of the people" is delusional.

canuckistani| 1.27.12 @ 11:41AM

So the 27 minute fantasy film about Willard the Vampire is not fair game for Newtie to defend?

The Adelson purchased Israel-firster baloney is not fair game?

Newtie was laid bare. Wolf is an old player like Donaldson and Rather - primadonnas wrapped in a jounalistic patina. They do this for a living, and you knew CNN wanted vengeance for Newtie disrobing John King the last time.

If we choose to bitch about the MSM, then stop aligning with them for these debates.

There are enough web outlets to properly stage an online forum without the sensationalism MSM moderators require.

POST American| 1.27.12 @ 8:02AM

---And BTW ---is this blog known for its
'90's SHow' cyber sock puppets?

Maybe it is.

Sad if true ---and sadder still if it isn't. . .

Dick Nome| 1.27.12 @ 8:20AM

I am sick of the phoney 'debates' and I haven't even seen one. All they are is pressers with Liberal media interrogators. Useless at best and destructive any other way I see it.

rnd| 1.27.12 @ 9:15AM

Mr. Nome, occassionally these debates have their merits.

The occaisons?

When real people speak. Either like in the one held in Myrtle Beach, SC or, even better, the one held in Charleston, SC. When the crowd speaks to inform both the media hosts AND the candidates of what REAL PEOPLE think.

ALSO: When real people get to ask questions and it is obvious that the person asking is a bit nervous but very sincere in a well-thought out question.

I have taken some courage from genuine questions spoken by these real, every day people. (No, I don't mean the contrived ones like "Hey, I've been a closet gay guy in the Army, and, well, now am I going to have to face punishment for speaking up now before the written Dept. of Army regulations are in place?")

Some of that was available in CNN's last night hosted debate.

The best real moment maybe? From CNN Espanol. When Wolf Blitzer goes to his CNN Espanol media host for the first question, it is obvious that the questioner, a woman, is a woman with a Latin background. Whereas the CNN Espanol media host has a nearly Ricky Ricccardo accent and he's heavily emphasizing all his vowels, the Latin-looking American woman speaks her question with perfectly fine, very good American English.

I loved it! (She spoke like most home, middle class women in America) And her question was pretty good, too.

scotchieguy| 1.27.12 @ 10:06AM

CNN Espanol. Ha ha ha!!! I loved it, and I just cracked up with that woman and her perfect English. CNN Espanol. WTF? These guys are so politically correct I want to puke.

canuckistani| 1.27.12 @ 11:43AM

What would Newtie do with PR? They are citizens as well and they cannot obtain government services in Spanish if Newtie is elected?

I figure Kentucky and Arkansas would have a problem with english first as well.....

Indy| 1.27.12 @ 8:51AM

I'm glad I didn't watch the debates, journalism is dead. I cannot recall one question in any of the debates about the European Debt Crisis and revised downward projections of GDP and how another recession in Europe will drag down our economy. Even Mr. Soros is predicting riots and the need for heavy handed response from the US govenment to crack down on rioters. If the candidates were smart, they would force the issue in these forums. The media won't report these stories, the candidates should be educating the public, the collapse of the Euro will have a direct negative impact to the US.

VonMisesJr| 1.27.12 @ 9:31AM

Romney reminds me of O'Brian in the Orwell classic "1984." He posed as one of the "brotherhood" to trap Winston and turn him into "Big Brother."
The real people (not in the Beltway or on Wall Street) understand that someone with no principles in not to be trusted. Romney is a flip-flop, and is vague and unconvincing. He is also a dirty fighter.
Been there, done that when the morons who couldn't figure out what "fundamental change" meant gave us Obama. I want a straight talker like Newt, even if he is flawed, or Santorum if he can become a contender.

scotchieguy| 1.27.12 @ 10:11AM

I WANT to like Romney. I really do. Maybe if he wiped that permanent, plastic smile off his Ken-doll face, I could. Until then, he just seems like a vapid game-show host saying whatever he is programmed to say. At least when he gets angry, he is somewhat real. I can just hear his handlers, "don't let 'em see you mad, Mitt! Smile like you are watching your grandkid's first ballet."

Newt says all the right things, but I don't trust him any more. It has come down to the lesser of two evils. Someone else needs to jump into this race and save us.

TW in SC| 1.27.12 @ 11:10AM

That's very unlikely. You have to understand the psyche of people who go into politics, which will take you back all the way to grade school and high school. Something happens to the psyche in adolescence where popularity starts to trump everything. And it gets even more convoluted because it has to do with popularity within a certain group or set of margins.

However, popularity among the people of the US counts pretty much for zip, zero, nada in a presidential debate. They are pandering to the media, except, perhaps in Newt's case. But in Romney's case, his "execs" will do all the heavy lifting, analyze the media results of the debate and come up with a strategy. Newt most likely will listen to his advisers but will also just as likely come up with his own assessment. None of this is perfect and I'm circling back around to the high-school thing.

At the base of it, that center of their brains that gets the most satisfaction is what they will focus on. People don't like criticism but certain people have an uncanny ability to ignore, dismiss and eliminate it totally from their life. Or so they think.

In reality, they are just avoiding it and it never sinks in, much the way a high-schooler would develop a pseudo image. (Think Judd Nelson in "The Breakfast Club) but given the circumstances, it's a tad, but only a tad more complex. Most people don't seem able to see through it. Some can. Many take their schtick at face value, probably because they've been doing it for years and are very well-rehearesed.

My whole point is that it matters for nothing. The inability to get down to basics and relate to things at a simpler level has been bastardized by years of learning how to be "sophisticated" which is another word for behavior modification to appear attractive to others.....Others of a certain sameness.

Those who would be absolutely the best at actually being in office are also those who detest politics the most. They understand the things that are absolutely necessary while avoiding BS. Therefore, they avoid politics and have little regard for anyone who is a butt-kisser, lackey, toady, yes-man or con-man.

Politics and pragmatism are diametrically opposed.

John II| 1.28.12 @ 3:43PM

"Politics and pragmatism are diametrically opposed."

Owing perhaps to my own (conservative) fondness for lost causes, and after a long absence from this site, I herewith offer a comment that no one, including TW, is likely ever to read.

Hey TW: I just finished about ninety minutes of scrolling, including a scroll-stroll through this whole thread, and I just wanted to come back and say thanks. Yours is the best comment I've read in an age on the topic of politicians. The notion that most politicians discover their calling in the schoolyard is not new (Tom Wolfe said something similar a generation ago in a Commentary gabfest about the supposed difference between liberals and conservatives), but you've expressed the notion with unique succinctness (in response, by the way, to the characteristically thoughtful remarks of Vonnie and Scotchie).

Yet I don't think your response makes a case for your concluding proposition: "Politics and pragmatism are diametrically opposed."

In fact, politics and "pragmatism" (in the popular sense of the term, not the somewhat heavy-duty philosophical sense) go hand-in-hand for all politicians, good and bad alike, since politics in the Aristotelian sense is generally the practice of rendering ideas workable.

The real case you've made is that politics is usually "diametrically opposed" to good morals and sound character. What's most distinctive and precious about America are her constitutional checks against the kinds of creeps who are most drawn to politics--the kinds of pushy schoolyard BMOCs and busybodies who, in other systems of governance, become SS agents and commissars and viziers and mullahs.

Nonetheless, you've articulated eloquently what ordinary good people have always sensed about the hungry political animal. America most needs a sure-enough Cincinnatus to counter the Obamas and the Romneys of our culture--and the Bobby Jindals and Paul Ryans seem, as always, to be in short supply.

Just sayin'.

reps| 1.27.12 @ 9:33AM

I think the author of this article, Mr. Neumayr, ought to have some fun with how corny CNN opened this debate.

With the opening, all the loud music, the glowing neon blue lights, the drum beats, I fully expected that male baritone voice that one hears in NBA arenas to bellow out, "Let's get ready to Ruuuuuuummmbble!"

As Wolf Blitzer had each candidate come out on state it was just like how a big sports telecast has the opening defensive line introduced in an over-the-top way.

Is this really needed? This is what we do when choosing the leader of the free world?

Also, I like the national anthem just fine, but, um is it necessary prior to getting down to business? Time is rather finite. Let's not fill it with irrelvant fluff.

(No, our national anthem is not irrelevant fluff, Of course not. But it does not belong at a debate. This is not the place for it. Especially when we only have 90 minutes including commercials.)

We have so many issues that need sorting out. A commenter above refers to the unmentioned, never heard in these debates topic of the plight of Europe which will further drag us back into recession.

Get down to business. No rock and roll electric guitars, no strobe lights, no introductions (I think we know who they are now; there are only four of them)

"I'm Wolf Blitzer, and I am THRILLED to be here." (If you don't know what I refer to here, go back and view this part. And ask yourself: What is this?)

Uuuuuuuggggghhh.

Mr. Neumayr, go ahead. Have some fun with this. Poke away at it. This is pure national TV nonsense. Lampoon it. It's fun to do so. But it also has a point.

Either we are a serious people about a very serious business or we should just keep partying like its 1999.

scotchieguy| 1.27.12 @ 10:14AM

This was nothing more than garbage reality TV for the masses. It is all about ratings. Substance? Better go to C-Span. I felt about as sheepish as I would when I occasionally watch a re-run of the Brady Bunch.

tadcf| 1.27.12 @ 9:54AM

If you ask me, Blitzer did a good job not letting Newt give non-answers by blaming the media and the moderator. But Newt still didn't have to respond to the veracity of his statement about Spanish and the ghetto, made in 2007.

canuckistani| 1.27.12 @ 11:45AM

Exactly. I thought the Blitzer approach was the right one for the bully Newtie. He was kaput after Blitzer followed-up

POST American| 1.27.12 @ 10:08AM

"America better watch it or in a couple
of decades we're going to be a minstrel
show for RED China."
-Gore Vidal
(1985)

"------ONE DAY Americans will WELCOME
foreign troops on their soil."
-Henry Kissinger
1992

CUT TO THE CHASE!

---------------CAPSTONE TREASON-----------------

(BTW ---Treason --derived from the Old French
'Tradere; ---to trade ---handover -- SURRENDER)

AGAIN! ---for the hard of thinking
--------------WE'RE DEALING WITH TREASON.

Dan Mathewson| 1.29.12 @ 1:54PM

So, we're dealing with treason, then?

OregonBuzz| 1.27.12 @ 10:17AM

First of all, these are not classical debates. There are no questions or postulates offered to the contestants regarding current affairs, taxation, government over-regulation, foreign affairs, the growing Middle East crisis or anything else of importance. Has anyone heard a question regarding the national debt vis a vis the GDP and what should be done about it? Of course not. Personal attacks are more fun and don't require the responder to display any knowledge of the current real state of the union. The GOP and the candidates by participating in this series of Gong Show farces are cutting their own throats. Absolutely disgusting considering the very real problems this country faces.

Anthony| 1.27.12 @ 10:23AM

Now now George, you shouldn't be questioning the wisdom of the bright bulb filaments of the R establishment, especially after yesterday's coordinated attacks on Newt, which included our own Emmett.
You need to sit back, grab the popcorn, and watch this re-run along with the rest of us, after all, we know how this will go down and how it will end.
However, in case you've forgotten the plot, let's review; a McCain establishment wannabe, nasty and vicious as the origional, along with a R party hell bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, manages to propel, once again, an empty suit, void of any substance and committment, to the nominaton.
Now that the nomination has been secured, the nominee, who has fought a vicious and nasty brass knuckle campaign against his chief opponent, will once again don his mittens for the campaign against Obozo.
The "fight" against Obozo will be tepid and civil, in a manner befitting the Marquis of Queensbury.
As election day approaches, our nominee will excoriate his parties base for not standing with him. On election night, in a gracious concession speech to Obozo, our nominee will tell the world what a gracious and clean campaign he fought, wishing the Marxist all the best.
The only thing missing from this sequel disaster will be the presence of the one hope many of us had, Sarah Palin.
Romney will not have a Palin to help his losing campaign, as I'm sure, even if she was asked, which I doubt, Sister Sarah would tell Romeny, "sorry pal, been there, done that with a previous loser".
I only wish I could say nonetheless, despite this loss, America lives happily ever after.
After 4 more years of Obozo, America as we know it will no longer exist.
Thank you R establishment!!!
Lights on, popcorn finished, can somebody pass the Tums, I'm sick to my stomach.

eitr| 1.27.12 @ 10:32AM

Personally, I'm using Malox. I've got an extra bottle. If you need some, let me know.

DatsunMark| 1.27.12 @ 10:30AM

Romney is a flip flopping John Kerry without the hero baggage.

Crassus| 1.27.12 @ 10:48AM

And a slightly less obnoxious wife.

Dave| 1.27.12 @ 10:56AM

These endless, gotcha' debates, debates that are continually "moderated" by lib promoting shills with high dollar haircuts, reminds me of the lifelong alcoholic who never seemed able to toss the monkey off his back. Oh, he'd try a few times, but in the end you'd always find him sitting on a corner stool at Kelsey's, giving mouth-to-mouth to another glass of Jim Beam on rocks. The family would plead, coddle, and beg ol' Uncle Teddy to give up the sauce and try to get clean. Or at least ... cleaner. But the pleading never worked, and after a while, Uncle Ted's family finally gave up; deciding to let him die by his own free hand, rather than waste the gas money on another trip to Kelsey's to give him a ride home.

Sometimes, it's just better to walk away. Right now, I don't plan on wasting another tank of gas.

jlkthree| 1.27.12 @ 10:58AM

The Heritage Foundation invented "Romneycare"and he's changed positions like Ronald "amnesty" Reagan.There's no such thing as a perfect conservative.

Mike W| 1.27.12 @ 11:26AM

Trash Romney all you want. He is still vastly superior to fat Newt. If you like amnesty , Puerto Rico statehood and flip flopping then Newt is your man.

DatsunMark| 1.27.12 @ 1:28PM

Mike,
*Romney* is what you get when you try to put up the least offensive persona to the national media.

Right-minded Frank| 1.27.12 @ 8:47PM

Mitt's wallet is the only thing superior over Newt. if it is one's bank account that makes one superior than why don't we draft Bill Gates to be our next POTUS. Mitt has proven he is willing to purchase the White House and say any lie he has to get himself nominated. there is no way Mitt beats Obama in the general election. He doesn't inspire anyone to vote for him unless you share visions of living on your own planet after death.

Please Explain -- I see a prob| 1.28.12 @ 4:47AM

Please tell me why Puerto Rico statehood is a bad thing?

They are Americans, too. Same for all our territories.

I'd really love to be able to live in Puerto Rico for a few years to learn/see if 'not being a state' has any tangible disadvantages for them.

Maybe it doesn't?

If there are real disadvantages to the Puerto Rican people, then I am for their statehood. They are as much a part of us as the liberals in Maine and the whackos in San Francisco.

That did not come out right -- that last sentence.

Simply put, they are part of us. They are. They also contribute per capita more personnel to our U.S. military than any other region/part of the USA.

To me, all Americans must have equality and equal opportunity (not equal results). If Puerto Rico or another one of our territories is severely handicapped in some way by not having "statehood," we need to correct this error now.

somnolence| 1.27.12 @ 11:43AM

America as we know it may no longer exist, but I, along with millions of others will resolve to make the ensuing rulers lives so miserable each and every day the will wish they had never been born. Sorry about your doomsday scenarios, I'm not swayed nor am I buying it. We survived a war that tore this continent apart for four years, claiming more lives and kin than any other, and slowly recovered(to a certain degree, although repercussions have never fully left us). So we have become so spoiled and passive in our I want it now, gimme, gimme culture that passivity is a hobby to untold numbers. No, in fact, if Obama comes through again, there is potential for America to be like it was, sans no help from him, but much like it was say, 1775-1776 with much more firepower available. Keep that in mind, naysayers.

canuckistani| 1.27.12 @ 11:46AM

Go back to bed, and stay there.

somnolence| 1.27.12 @ 11:55AM

No thanks, as I ceased pulling the covers over my eyes years ago.

Bulbul| 1.27.12 @ 1:05PM

Wolf Blitzer set up a "perfect" trap, and Gingrich fell right into it. He would never recover, or may be.

Scott McInnis| 1.27.12 @ 1:16PM

I can't wait till we get rid of that inexperienced, Universal Healthcare, Liberal, pro-abortion, pro-guncontrol, pandering, elite, that's been running for president the last 6 years.......
MITT ROMNEY!!!!!!!!

Bulbul| 1.27.12 @ 1:45PM

I'm with you.

somnolence| 1.27.12 @ 1:50PM

Rick Santorum, like Mitt and Newt, supported governmental health mandates in 1995. So I guess you could say all these men have evolved. All of us will be headed toward the snake pit if we are looking for another with a halo. Just sayin'.

canuckistani| 1.27.12 @ 2:45PM

Mandates are required, period, unless you are in favor of eliminating the care law that requires hospitals to stabilize all comers?

It's just like personhood. Neat idea, aligns well to pro-life fringe, but is unworkable with so many caveats attached.

With us entering voluntary wars, the average American knows that the pro-life question may be unanswerable in American terms.

Bulbul| 1.27.12 @ 2:06PM

Putting aside the feud between Gingrich and Romney, as a devoted Christian and constitutionalists, I miss Gov. Rick Perry.

Red in Denver| 1.27.12 @ 3:06PM

WHO, exactly, is George Neumayr? The bio provided only says he is a contributing editor and lists articles he's written. I did an internet search, but couldn't find any biographical data on him -- not even anything on Wiki.

Pat| 1.27.12 @ 4:58PM

Obama and his personal foot massagers among the mainstream media types aren’t planning to ride his track record to re-election. Based solely on the Obama record, the Democrats would be wiser to run a different candidate without a solid string of failures to his credit. “I’m not a Republican fat cat” is Obama’s only track record and the platform he plans to run on. And to Obama’s voting base, like the “we’re entitled” folks of Detroit, that declaration counts for a lot. But outside our urban ghettos and the upscale compounds of the Eastern Liberal elites , his dismal track record may not count against him quite as much as the Republican Party movers and shakers hope.

If these staid old Republican candidates play Obama’s game, the media plans to confine them to the so-called “issues” and keep Obama’s long list of failures out of the debates and one on one interviews. Their plan is to occupy Republican candidates with defending promises like lower taxes, even for Warren Buffet’s wealthy secretary. Just “the same old tired Conservative promises” will be Obama’s comeback every time the Republicans state their positions on this or that “issue”.

But what if the Republicans dropped the Mr. Nice Guy routine and the loyal opposition blather and went after Obama’s accomplishments, instead of his economic failures? What if the Republicans delved deeply into the bailouts, the Stimulus giveaways and the Soylandra loan type swindles – what if they talked on and on about what Obama did accomplish for his friends and Democratic Party supporters?

If Obama is running on his image, then bring this image to the big screen in IMAX 3D. Who got rich on Obama’s watch? In what ways and with how much of the taxpayers hard earned wealth? And remember there is no polite way to label Obama a cheap hustler from Chicago – drop the dignified reserve and point out that, while in the White House, Obama did for his friends and supporters those same favors he did while in Chicago - name names, estimate how much money changed hands in return for political support. The media can’t resist controversy and personal attacks, so chum the water and let the sharks feed.

CNN may control what the candidates are asked but they can’t control their answers. So blast away at Obama’s only political asset – namely his media manufactured image as self-appointed champion of the poor working stiff.

Right-minded Frank| 1.27.12 @ 8:50PM

so incorrect. watch the debate over and tell me that CNN didn't control Newt and Santorum's answers by cutting them off or engaging in a debate from the moderator. Last night was an ambush and anyone with half a brain could clearly see it. CNN ambushed Newt because the one they tried last time failed.

eint| 1.28.12 @ 4:36AM

This is why all 4 of the remaining GOP candidates should have agreed to NOT SHOW at the CNN debate. Don't diss the Jacksonville, Florida people; hold the event nearby and do it though another network. Even a small, local TV station could do the hosting.

In a joint statement issued prior, the four could state that 1) CNN has already hosted at least twice (three times? not sure) in this long series of GOP 'debates,' 2) CNN's unfailing gross bias (since I can remember in year 1990 -- the first time it was very, very obvious to me) makes them professionally unsuited to be part of the national discussion.

C'mon. This idea has merit. What a home run that would be for the American people, eh? Right on the heels of what Newt responded to John King in Charleston, SC, the American people would "get it" and highly approve of stiffing CNN.

These four missed a golden opportunity to sock a big black eye (truly deserved) on CNN, still pretty akin to the Communist News Network.

The GOP should at least be able to control its own events. Boycott CNN.

These remaining four missed a golden opportunity to reprimand a wayward, liberal, elitist, holier-than-thou, anti-American element of our media.

(Maybe one more sign that none of the four are really that great/smart?)

Right-minded Frank| 1.27.12 @ 8:44PM

the problem with Newt's comments about not speaking English well and using the language of the ghetto as obstacles to advancement is the fact that newt is correct but politically incorrect. In today's society you are not to speak truth to power if you want to be taken seriously. you have to make stuff up because in the Kardashian era its image over substance.

POST American| 1.27.12 @ 9:40PM

--------------------------IN 2020--------------------------

-with the entire nation under the
'helpful management' of their CFR
instigatated creditors --the RED Chinese

-with the ENTIRE country pawned
away and the capstone USERERS long
settled in comfy new digs inside RED China
and Dubai

-with even our empty capstone elections
a thing of the past

-with all those over 45 relocated off
the land and those over 50 into 'EUGENICS
zealous' FEMA camps

-with people sitting around voided and
dwindling,having expended even their
outrage about the years old news that
----their offspring, via injection and
GMO, had been permanently sterilized

-while it's 'old hat' to even bother discussing
the reality of corpses being recycled
into everythign from bedding compounds
to TV dinners

-as Bill Gates, wanted by the general
public everywhere, still delivers 'feel
good' 'upbeat' video chats on the
misunderstood humanitarian wonders
of soft-kill genocide from an undisclosed
'hardened' location overseas

-AS you sit there reading this between
football games and porn downloads

-----------------------AS GOD ALMIGHTY WAITS

------------------SAVE THIS POST---------------------

Come 2020 you'll be astonished to realize,
in 2012 ----someone was there!

Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 1.28.12 @ 12:04AM

Fox News isn't much better. Lets face the facts if this debate was about substance the only one who would stand out is Ron Paul. Listening to Santorum after the South Carolina debates I have a new found respect for the man, but as a non-interventionist I find Santorum's war mongering foreign policy to be "disgusting". However I was on Santorum's side when Paul went after him for opposing "Right to Work" legislation in Pennsylvania. We need more pro-union, working class conservatives, but at this point in time in our nations history I truly believe we have to reign in the Empire. End the wars, cut off all foreign aid, close our military bases abroad and limit our interactions with the rest of the world's nation states to bilateral trade based on the best interests of the American people.

sturmndrang| 1.28.12 @ 1:52AM

I can't get over Newt's bizarre critique of Paul Ryan's medicare plan as "right wing social engineering". It doesn't seem possible a true conservative could say that - a political opportunist could. I think Newt has Obama's gift of SOUNDING like the smartest man in the room - a member of the "composure class". Except when he, as Newt does occasionally, drops a huge intellectual turd. Obama's not very wise, is the opposite of wise, and I'm afraid the same is true of Gingrich.

wilda woods| 1.28.12 @ 11:11AM

Wolfe acted like a bulldog, pitting one against the other!!!
What kind of a debate does these left-wing nuts think they are moderating????
I though they were to talk about how they would solve the problems that government has created!!!!

David| 1.28.12 @ 11:24AM

Santorum has been the adult in this primary season. Send him five bucks.

David| 1.28.12 @ 11:27AM

Somnolence, get your fu_cking facts straight. Santorum never supported individual mandate. What the f_ck do you think he was attacking Newt and Mitt for in all these debates. What a moron you are!!!

Zhejiang Haoren Electric Vehic| 1.28.12 @ 10:12PM

Zhejiang Haoren Electric Vehicle

shipley130| 1.29.12 @ 2:09PM

Wolf Blitzer is one of the biggest breathing buttholes around. After he went down that path to try to link Sarah Palin to the Gabby Gifford shooting, I only hope someone will shoot him in the mouth.

Harry| 1.29.12 @ 4:04PM

Wolf Blitzer is a dick, what more do you need to say about the guy...

POST American| 1.29.12 @ 10:26PM

----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------

"--And NOW it comes out some 92%
of Gingrich's twitter followers are FAKE
---and the 'crowds' for Romney an Gingrich
BOTH are largely paid to be there---"

---SEE--- the program.

Learn to recognize PSYCHOPATHS
when you see them.

Teach your children to recognize them
---esp. actuarial psychopaths a la the
capstone EUGENICS agenda.

---------YOUR LIFE NOW DEPENDS ON IT--------

And keep humming that tune!--

---"Everything OLD is NEW-remberg ---AGAIN!'