-
Agents of Influence
June 6, 2013 | 51 comments
-
Is This Teen Lesbian the Next Rosa Parks?
May 30, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Sanford Resurrected in Carolina
April 3, 2013 | 140 comments
-
Bostic and Sanford Battle in Charleston
March 29, 2013 | 16 comments
-
South Carolina Showdown
March 26, 2013 | 39 comments
Campaign Crawlers
Arizona Anti-Climax
Last night’s GOP debate may also be the last of the series.
The debate was into the second hour, and Mitt Romney had just played the Arlen Specter card against Rick Santorum, blaming Santorum’s 2004 endorsement of his fellow Pennsylvanian for the passage of Obamacare in 2010. Santorum responded by playing the Dukakis card against Romney.
“Yes governor, you balanced the budget for four years,” Santorum told Romney during the Arizona debate televised by CNN. “You have a constitutional requirement to balance the budget for four years. No great shakes. I’m all for — I’d like to see it federally. But don’t go around bragging about something you have to do. Michael Dukakis balanced the budget for 10 years. Does that make him qualified to be president of the United States? I don’t think so.”
As highlights go, it wasn’t spectacular, but Wednesday’s debate — the 20th nationally televised meeting of Republican candidates during this long campaign — was generally lacking in highlights. There were no dramatic gaffes or stumbles, and few memorable zingers. While the commentators on CNN afterwards offered their own “what did it mean” analyses, it is unlikely that the debate changed many minds.
Newt Gingrich had arguably the best performance of the four finalists for the Republican nomination. CNN’s moderator John King was booed when he asked a question submitted by a viewer online: “Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why?” This prompted Gingrich to lecture that “not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. … If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion. It is not the Republicans.”
The Republican audience in the Mesa Arts Center applauded, but the same “elite media” which ignored Obama’s record four years ago are also unlikely to make much of Gingrich’s strong debate performance. Gingrich thus did not “win” Wednesday’s debate in the same sense that he won the two debates that preceded the Jan. 21 South Carolina primary. Nor did any of the candidates “lose” Wednesday in the same sense that Gingrich lost the two debates preceding the Jan. 31 Florida primary.
After Wednesday’s debate, CNN commentators tried to make the case that, because Santorum was not the clear winner, therefore Romney “won.” However, Santorum was all smiles in his post-debate interview with the network’s Gloria Borger, evidently feeling that, by not losing, he had scored a victory. It was Santorum’s first debate since he moved to the top of national polls following his Feb. 7 triple victories in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. According to the well-established precedent of this campaign cycle, whenever any non-Romney GOP candidate eclipses the former Massachusetts governor in the polls, he either stumbles in debates (Rick Perry), is devastated by scandal (Herman Cain) or is buried in attack ads by Romney, which was the fate suffered twice by Gingrich, first in Iowa and then again in Florida. Santorum committed no Perry-esque gaffes in Wednesday’s debate and seems unlikely to suffer a Cain-like scandal, which probably means that the Republican campaign from here out will be shaped less by TV debates than by TV advertising. And to secure the money necessary to fight Romney’s well-funded campaign in the ad wars, Santorum will be in Texas today for three fund-raising events before returning to the campaign trail Friday in Michigan, scene of next Tuesday’s closely-watched primary.
Last night’s anti-climactic debate may, in fact, be the last GOP debate of the 2012 campaign. A scheduled March 1 debate in Atlanta was canceled after Romney pulled out. Another debate is scheduled March 19 in Portland, Ore., but Romney has not yet agreed to participate in that event and would probably only do so if it suits the interests of his own campaign. If Romney can win Michigan and Arizona next Tuesday, then leverage that momentum to do well in the “Super Tuesday” primaries March 6, it is difficult to see why he would give his rivals another shot at him in a TV debate. If Romney should then go on to clinch the nomination, some cynics will look back on the long series of debates and wonder whether it was all just a charade, a stage-managed TV show designed to create an illusion of excitement on the way to the predictable coronation of the Republican establishment’s favorite.
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (79) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/23/arizona-anti-climax
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Brian Mc| 2.23.12 @ 6:29AM
Good riddance! I still believe that ten questions from the people posting here would make for a more meaningful debate than all the debates held by the enemedia combined.
Jack in Wi.| 2.23.12 @ 7:52AM
There is a fine review of Herbert Hooover's great revisionist history of WW2 down page today. Everyone should read the book, and see how Hoover was right about non-intervention being the only way for America to run it's foreign policy. This great patriot has left us this huge legacy, which has just been pubished now, as the same kind of people try to lie us into another disasterous world war.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 8:35AM
I'd rather learn from the Philippics of Demosthenes what happens when you ignore the encroachments of a nefarious enemy.
"Beware lest your anxiety to avoid a war obtain you a master."...Demosthenes
Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 10:21AM
Got the Hoover book and it does contain interesting perspectives on the issues of that day. Nonetheless, NB is right in this one. There is a difference between seekingn war - we should not - and being prepared to defend the nation when the need arises. Too many, and I think ol Jack here is one, confuse the war with the mistaken "nation building" efforts or occupation if you prefer. They are not the same.
Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 7:52PM
There's an idiot posting on that thread with the handle John-TMF that doesn't get the difference between war and nation building. His history is somewhat revisionist so he can "prove" what he wants.
Presidents after Wilson had to deal with an attitude Wilson inculcated in the people by getting us into a war where we had no interest at stake. WW1 was horrific, and the casualties the worst we faced since the Lincoln caused holocaust when he destroyed the old Republic.
As a result, there was very significant resistance to maintaining any more than a token military force. It was able to defend our littoral, but was not strong, or large, enough to "venture abroad seeking monsters to slay." Even Lincoln's war was unable to overcome that resistance.
It has been in the interests of certain groups to drag us into wars in which we have no real interest to defend. They are basically the same groups that gave us the UN, and are wanting to drain us of resources and strength. Given fallen human nature, I don't see this ending at all well. I think Obama may be the last US President as the political centrifugal forces have been building for the last 80 years are about to destroy the country. I doubt, very seriously, that the US will exist by 2020.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.23.12 @ 6:40AM
The debates clarified the candidate's positions . No debate process is perfect
.
In one sense the debates worked to clarify how weak Obama was on many issues.
Samtorum will soon be gone from the process.
Ironically these debates appear to have bettered Romney and changed him much more than the other candidates.
If Romney does emerge victorious he should consider Newt as a debating coach and model.
JJ| 2.23.12 @ 11:43AM
I will believe that when he abandons his teleprompter.
SUBVET| 2.23.12 @ 11:53AM
GEORGE SOROS.............."We think either obama or romney's fine but Gingrich, he would change things".
Romney is obama all over again with a R next to his name we saw that with Bush. The game continues with the same end result. Newt has the experience to make some changes, just like Reagan tried to do but, the machine is to courrupt. Lets face it my kids will never see or be able to experience what I have seen and done.
We need to come to our senses and remove this POS from office and get on a track to controlling this cancer. I still have faith in the american people to see through all of the smoke and pick Newt to lead the charge back to freedom.
John Drake| 2.23.12 @ 2:17PM
I would suggest that you're confused. It's Santorum who is Bush redux, only worse. Newt has certain skills that should have been able to do what you hope, but his utter lack of character has rendered them destructive, not constructive.
Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 7:55PM
None of this litter is worth the powder it would take to blow them to perdition. There is no doubt however, that Mittens is the Soros approved Republican. Frankly, I'd trade Obama to get Dubya back. We'd be better off, alas.
benny havens| 2.23.12 @ 7:14AM
The media has controlled all of the debates. They are more interested in getting the candidates to fight, snipe and back stab each other then they are in finding out what solutions a particular candidate has that will solve our current problems.
“Governor Romney, you said this about Senator Santorurm”. “Congress Paul you said this about Speaker Gingrich”. “Mr. Speaker, you have a $100,000 account at Tiffany’s.”
We know about all of the baggage. If one of these guys is going to be our choice to run against Obama, than let’s hear only about their vision, plans and solutions.
Big Tony| 2.23.12 @ 8:58AM
The people at the Clinton News Network don't care what solutions the GOP candidates have to offer. Their guy in already in the White House they are trying to insure Obama's reelection. The only mystery is why the GOP accepts the invitation of CNN and it ilk in the first place. These people are so balatantly biased and dishonest they will probably feed Obama the questions of the presidential debate in advance.
benny havens| 2.23.12 @ 8:24PM
We need the Tea Party to schedule and run a debate.
Pelligrino| 2.23.12 @ 7:25AM
It should NOT be the last debate/discussion nationally televised. If Republicans and Conservatives wish to keep Job #1 removal of Barrack Husein Obama and his Czars and disastrous appointees as cabinet secretaries....
Continue doing these events. CONTINUE!
Do you hear?
This keeps the fallacies, foibles, follies, and false governing of the Obama administration front and center for the American people.
Even the MSM lame brains have to give these GOP events and their content some coverage. Every one of them can help play a critical role in continuing the nation's discussion of this as the WORST 3 years of a presidency and presidential administration in our ENTIRE HISTORY.
Um: Did you notice how John (whatshisname, the CNN guy on state) had to behave himself a little more? Maybe because Newt Gingrich humiliated him some in South Carolina? Folks, this is a good thing, and it must continue. The media hacks have to hear the howls of lampooning when real Americans in live audiences get to give them "live" feedback.
We are not just winning this for whomever of these four will triumph on November 6, 2012. We are winning this for the movement to END the hegemony the liberals have carved out over the last 45 years.
TrueBlue | 2.23.12 @ 2:56PM
Honestly they should just start posting their plans as speeches to youtube (along with their campaign websites), complete with graphs and pointing to sources. Focus on that instead of attacking other candidates, and then make use of online media to spread their message. Have AmSpec/PJMedia, etc. host a skype debate or something, along with an IRC chatroom to get questions from the audience.
Mimi| 2.23.12 @ 4:18PM
Interesting perspective and I think you are RIGHT! The discussions are getting our message out and educating the voters...Even the MEDIA has to be learning a lot and they now get it , that we are on to them and don't like their unfairness.
There was not the audience in the first few debates...more are NOW tuning in and looking over ourguys....I would bet our message has won over a few who don't follow politics like us POLS.
Great post!
Von Mises Jr.| 2.23.12 @ 8:00AM
The debates are political theatre since the topics and the spin of the analysis are a joke. The MSM is presenting their strategy as a question as to whether the Rebulican will take away your contraception.
But the real question is "if they can make Catholic Priests pay for abortion, can they force your mother to take the end of life pill?"
She can refuse, but the IPAB "death panel" in turn will refuse her treatment. At what point does the pain of a slow death make that death pill a bargain?
All should, and most reading here are watching the campaigns. Romney yesterday seems to have adopted the language and strategy of the left. He is for tax cuts except the top 1%, who will also lose their deductions. Is his next campaign event going to be at OWS?
Pelligrino| 2.23.12 @ 9:26AM
Yes, Von Mises, you are correct. Others here -- rightly -- point out the same. This has been too much theater, too little brass tacks, these 20-some debates to date, if one can call them that.
But remember the final question of last night. Do you? It was something like "Tell us the biggest misperception that voters seem to have about you as the candidate along this campaign 2012 trail..." For once, Mitt Romney, was right, although he should have been much more forceful with John King of CNN. When John King sought to interrupt Mitt Romney and get him to answer on a "misperception," Romney's answer was as it should be. Essentially saying "Don't waste the good people of America's time with mamby-pamby loaded questions (this one designed to make us GOP candidates look weak). This is the only chance you are giving us to make a closing statement to this live and TV audience, I will answer and speak to the American people as I choose to do so."
About an hour prior Romney correctly chastised CNN and King's colleague for trying to interject contraception into the debate discussions in a televised debate several weeks prior. Romney used this moment last night to say, "You liberal thinkers are trying to steer this into a discussion about contraception. No, this is a discussion about handcuffing a faith group and ever increasing government mandates in the lives of Americans."
There are only four now. Surely ALL FOUR get it. Surely all four are now smarter men than back in September and October 2011. They are much more comfortable in these situations and know that they can turn the discussions to much more useful, tangible, real material for the American public.
IT CANNOT BE EMPHASIZED ENOUGH: When we do these events in front of live (unmuzzled) American audiences, the audiences respond. These live audience responses are often the most valuable communication during the debate events.
There is nothing to say that the GOP final four cannot handpick better questioners and do the debates/discussions on a better TV channel that is more about news reporting than liberal opining, is there?
Toss ABC, NBC, CNN, and the rest aside. Kick 'em forever to the curb. Use this moment to show the nation that they are irrelevant and unnecessary for this process. This is the age of the new media, no?
Choose other means, venues to host these discussions and debates.
My point once more: KEEP IT UP! When three of these final four GOP candidates loudly say how stupid Obama's handling of the Middle East is (Arab Spring et al), Obama's attack on Catholicism, Obama's use of czars, Obama's Solyndras, Obama's failure to allow Keystone, Obama's budget that WILL KILL more jobs in America, and on and on....when they have these issues AND express them as almost unified voices (each with their different point of emphasis), the American people are listening.
Listening in their living rooms all across America and nodding their heads in agreement.
And this keeps the focus on Job #1: Removing Obama and his enablers.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.23.12 @ 9:58AM
Bingo Pelligrino. I NEVER watch the MSM, and even avoid FOX News since they dropped Beck and Judge Napolitano. I watch some business news on TV when events warrant, listen to Rush and visit conservative websites. The other stuff is "boob bait."
And if you want to learn, read the original sources like Mises, Hayek, Locke, Burke, Tocqueville, etc. There you will learn the truth and understand who these MSM and politicians really are. Boob baiters seeking power and economic rents.
Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 10:24AM
Good conversation guys. I am personally weary of these "debates" as they are not. I would welcome a real debate along the lines of "Resolved, the national government must manage the economy" or Resolved, "The social welfare state has proven itself necessary for the well being of the citizens".
Those kind of questions and the candidates handling of them would be revealing.
JJ| 2.23.12 @ 11:45AM
I have added Drudge to the list of media to avoid. He exposed himself as just another DC RINO.
Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 11:59AM
Romney is all over the WSJ editorial page today. Good timing on his part although we might ask where he has been say OH the last eight years. Finally got around to a tax policy but a little late to the dance aren't we?
Von Mises Jr.| 2.23.12 @ 12:00PM
Al and JJ,
We cannot control the debates and therefore MUST pay strict attention to the nuanced answers and statements we hear from the campaigns. We are also doing the right thing by speading the word. God bless and have a great day.
Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 12:09PM
The more nuanced the answer, the less trustworthy the speaker. Yes, I'm being glib, but the fact rtemains these debates are anything but. Perhaps it would be better to have them sponsored by the party, or the Tea Party, or National Review or Amspec or anything but the national media trying to keep themselves relevant. Instead of the joint pressw conference format we could actually debate: Resolved the federal government should centrally plan the economy or Resolved a national social welfare system is in the best interests of the citizens liberty. Questions like that might be of some value in determining if a prospective nominee has any substance.
BTW JJ, you seem new so welcome aboard.
TrueBlue | 2.23.12 @ 3:02PM
IRC chatrooms for questions along with live video feeds. Heck, each candidate could make it public that they intend to hold one from their campaign website at XYZ time and date.
P.| 2.23.12 @ 3:27PM
True B., I am in agreement with what you said. If I were candidate X, I would have my top 10 points/issues highlighted very clearly on my website and then have, yes, a 5 - 6 minute YouTube clip on same. I would say, "If you want to know where I am prioritizing my campaign, view these things. If you want to know what I think and what I will do in January 2013, listen to these short videos."
The only thing that these debates give us in the large audience feedback. That is priceless. This needs to continue. Kind of of like crowd responses at April 15 Tea Party/Tax Day rallies. The roar, laughter, or bit of booing is instant feedback as to what real citizens think.
Thus, in some well-thought out, professional fashion, these forums on the Conservative side need to continue in front of live audiences right up to the first week of November.
These can be live (and taped, obviously) webcasts.
Mimi| 2.23.12 @ 4:35PM
Thats right but last night the crowd was owned by Mitt...his supporters bought up all the tickets.
He gets an A+ for Prep-work and lining up Ron Paul to do the dirty work on Santorum....Slick!
Even if he gets to be President how on earth are you ever going to have any respect for the man.
I know it's Politics but GEE WHIZ he has "MEAN" methods to get what he wants...what a shame!
Tommy Frisco| 2.23.12 @ 4:23PM
JJ,
DC RINO is not the best description for Matt Drudge. Read up on him and you'll see why. I did my research after the coordinated attack on Gingrich on the day of the second debate. The attack came from all sides, including the Drudge Report. What I discovered was very shocking and disappointing. For example, he communicates with only a handful of people on a daily basis and Ann Coulter is one of them.
Tommy Frisco| 2.23.12 @ 4:27PM
I meant to write: on the day of the second debate, IN FLORIDA. Sorry.
Indy| 2.23.12 @ 8:06AM
The hot topic for today is gas prices but no questions on that, hmmm?
How many rigs have left the gulf? Why the decrease in drilling permits? Oil production is up because of permits issued by the previous adminstration and because of increased drilling on private land but the media cheers Obama. The GOP / RNC cannot craft a simple message, are they even capable of getting a message out to the voters? Remember how the press grilled Bush when gas prices hit $2.50? What are they saying now...chirp, chirp.
In AZ border security is critical but no questions on Fast & Furious.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 9:23AM
Yeah, I noticed that those questions were conspicuous in their absence.
Pelligrino| 2.23.12 @ 9:41AM
Indy, you are right. Where was the discussion on the U.S.'s own as yet untapped energy resources. Where is the hefty discussion on Keystone, Solyndra and the Finland Fisker that American taxpayers have shelled out massive money for?
Where was the discussion of building oil refineries in America? Nuclear power? Every little town and crossroads in America is sucking and wanting more electricity as each month passes.
I cannot believe that Fast and Furious did not come up at all. I bet that the crowd reaction there, even in Mesa, would have been very anti-Obama/Holder/DOJ.
Indy, you are right. Why cannot these GOP/RNC planners get their act together? Let's not let the liberals at CNN/the John Kings and Wolf Blitzers and androgenous Anderson Cooper shape and define what we focus on.
Do the Atlanta debate in front of a firmly conservative, middle class Atlanta suburb live audience -- and do it on a station that sells its feed to Fox.
The same for Portland. And let surveys of Conservatives, surveys done prior to these debates, determine where the 15 top topics will come from.
It should not be a deal-breaker if Romney is not present. It can be just as worthwhile with just three or two of them. I AM TOTALLY SERIOUS ON THAT POINT.
Indy| 2.23.12 @ 9:44AM
The sad thing is the bloggers have done all the homework, it would be simple to craft a message and then get the right people in front of the cameras, West, Ryan, Rand Paul, Toomey
"Obama 2006: “There’s going to be a day when we look back at that $3.05 or $3.15 gasoline as the good old days” more at the link, come on GOP, wake up and play offense.
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=38180
Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 12:04PM
So Indy, the question remains: Why do we export domestic production?
Tommy Frisco| 2.23.12 @ 4:01PM
Al Adab,
I'm not sure I understand your question. Is it because the oil/gas companies are not owned by the Government, therefore, they can put their products on the open market, to get the best price, just like any other company?
The Government can tax the heck out of the oil companies on their profits and collect royalties when the oil/gas is produced on Government-owned lands, but they have to purchase the products just like everyone else does.
Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 4:29PM
Tommy:
It sells for the same price onshore as offshore. With our current domestic production as high as it is, a couple new refineries (which need government permits sadly) could easily glut our domestic market if the stuff stayed here. That would result is lower commodity prices at the pump. That would be best for both the citizens individually and national security collectivly.
TommyFrisco| 2.23.12 @ 8:41PM
Al Adab,
I understand that the price is the same onshore as offshore. We can't get a discounted price for a barrel of oil just because it is produced locally. To my knowledge, we don't even get first rights to that domestic oil/gas other than maybe being able to take advantage of lower shipping costs. The point I'm trying to make is that it's a global marketplace which results in a global price for a barrel of oil.
The price of gasoline, as Indy has stated, is affected by supply and demand, not to mention the cost of additives required by our Government. The cost of a barrel of oil is only one of the factors affecting the price of gasoline. I agree with you in that new refineries are critical for ensuring we have an adequate supply of gasoline which will help keep the cost of gasoline as low as possible. Just knowing that we are making plans to increase oil/gas and gasoline production would help keep the speculators from being so fearful of what's going on in the Middle East...which would go a long way toward keeping gasoline costs down.
One thing we can be sure of, by April, we will be hearing Obama and the Dems/MSM complaining about the excessive profits being made by our domestic oil/gas producers and the greedy Wall Street speculators. For them, it will be a fine compliment to their OWS theme for the Nov. 2012 election. Of course, we realize the main problem is not with Exxon or Wall Street. The main problems, as usual, are in Washington DC.
As always, it is a pleasure commenting with you, my friend.
Indy| 2.23.12 @ 7:33PM
You raise a very good question and I wish I had a good answer. I agree with you, we should sell the oil here at home. Our weak economy contributes to the problem because demand has dropped so the oil companies sell it where there is demand and that has resulted in net exports. I wish we would get rid of ethanol, it makes no sense to me to burn our food and it has reduced demand for oil while being more harmful to vehicles and the environment (notice how food prices have increased as we burn more corn? Ok, the Fed also has a lot to do with high prices but I won't go there on this thread).
We need to unleash the private sector in all industries, a growing economy will increase demand and keep more oil in the US.
TommyFrisco| 2.23.12 @ 8:09PM
Indy,
I agree with you about ethanol. It never made sense to me and I was mad at GWB for his 2007 ethanol mandate. I seemed to be the only one complaining about it. For one thing, I expect us to have a lot of problems by having the Dept of Energy getting involved with the Dept. of Agriculture.
Indy| 2.23.12 @ 9:54AM
Even ABC covered it, RNC, the ads are being written for you, use this
"Even Vega seemed truly surprised to see such a drastic change in such a short period of time, telling Sawyer that “it is almost too unbelievable to believe.”
“It went up 10 cents?” asked Sawyer, herself shocked at what just had occurred.
“Ten cents during that two minutes while we were on the air,” confirmed Vega."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/bu.....broadcast/
Vern Crisler | 2.23.12 @ 8:12AM
Finally, someone at AmSpec writes something right.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 9:32AM
I'm not convinced that this debate advanced the ball for anyone. And I CERTAINLY don't buy the spin that's being repeated today about how Santorum didn't do well. We'll see how the polls & the voting results bear out, but I'm thinking that the field will stay in the same spots they're currently in.
The establishment will continue to help Mitt crap on Santorum, just as they have anyone who's challenged the "inevitability" of his nomination. All this talk of a brokered convention, all this talk about how Rick can't win because he's "too religious" is all CRAP. Its the powers that be in the GOP peeing their pants that Mr. Electability is vulnerable. Yeah, Santorum's "too religious." Well, we have a guy right now who's about as religious as Marx was, so why would the converse be so bad. Besides, anyone who thinks that "Rev." Wrong's "church" had ANYTHING to do with spreading the word of G*d needs to have their heads examined.
Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 10:28AM
NB:
Too many Mormon voters in AZ for this to make a difference. Why anyone is surprised that Romney is strong there eludes me. LDS voters allow that factor to trump any others. The Church has wanted a President since Joseph Smith himself ran. One might ask why they feel it so important.
That State is suffering invasion by armed gangs, bandits, from across the border and the Federal government sues them for trying to protect themselves. That and energy policy such as "why do we export domestic production?" would have been good questions.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 11:16AM
Hence the reason I HATE these farcical debates. Nothing of substance is ever asked about. I sure as hell hope that the next time around, the Republicans get their collective crap together & decide not to play into the media's hands.
Tommy Frisco| 2.23.12 @ 10:07AM
Thanks for a great, un-biased analysis of last night's debate. I agree with everything you said. I strongly suspect that everyone has made their decision by now so I don't think any more GOP debates are necessary. I've made my decision and based it upon what I wanted our next POTUS to accomplish. We need someone who will turn this country around and get it back on the right track. Washington DC is a mess and someone needs to clean it up. Politicians are notorious for promising things on the campaign trail, but being unable to fulfill those promises after getting elected. I'd like to humbly share my thoughts on who our nominee should/should not be:
No on Ron Paul - Although he is a Libertarian, I am glad he has been involved in this primary because he has helped to keep the conversation focused towards Constitutional conservatism. But, he has not accomplished anything significant after being in politics for 30-40 years. I can't expect him to get much accomplished as POTUS since he won't get support from Republicans in Congress.
No on Mitt Romney - the only candidate to sign Government-run health care into law. No one knows for sure what his core beliefs are.
No on Santorum - represents GWB's compassionate conservatism and big government. There are too many instances showing that he put politics and his career above his principles, made worse by him portaying himself as the moral, principled candidate. He is my second choice.
Yes on Newt Gingrich - he has shown the ability and willingness to accomplish what I want our next POTUS to accomplish. He has proven himself to be capable of successfully negotiating with the Democrats, coming back with deals where conservatism wins, much more so than anyone in our current GOP leadership positions. Even his enemies admit that he is the smartest guy in the room.
I would like to see a Gingrich/Santorum ticket because they would compliment each other very well. Gingrich helps win the South and Santorum helps win the Midwest. Rick would help offset whatever moral issues that some voters would have for Newt. Newt could focus on economic and foreign policy while having Rick focus on domestic and social issues.
Marco2| 2.23.12 @ 11:35AM
Gingrich/Santorum, now THAT'S the ticket! I'm looking forward to the 44-state Obama landslide.
Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 12:02PM
Marco2:
The Obama margin of victory was 70 votes where it counts in the electoral college. FL, VA, NC and Ohio have 75. That is where this election will be decided.
Pelligrino| 2.23.12 @ 1:00PM
Al Adab, hello! You've been active here this week. Good! We need the solid thoughts and commentary you offer.
I trust that you are not counting out Michigan as a state that could very well go for the GOP presidential candidate. Or, better, put, that Michigan will go 54 - 56% for the non-Obama candidate.
Jobs situation in Michigan is horrible! People in the Wolverine state know what the situation was in the mid 90's, not that long ago at all now. People are embarrassed about Detroit.
People want jobs. People have visible evidence in Michigan of jobs and stores and companies just vanishing, people moving to places like Arizona, Texas, Florida, even Alabama and Tennessee.
That will weigh heavily on the Michigan voters' minds. As will the failure on the Keystone pipeline.
If I were a GOP strategist, I could not imagine a better scenario for GOP candidates in November 2012 right now. Gas prices rising ALWAYS grabs the attention of Americans like nothing else does. (It then becomes so easy to use those Obama "focus like a laser beam on the Gulf of Mexico" while showing his ugly legs beneath bermuda shorts while he's putting on some very exclusive Martha's Vineyard golf course. Gee, the GOP needs to hire me.)
Tommy Frisco| 2.23.12 @ 1:16PM
Al Adab,
If, and that's a big if, the GOP establishment will get behind our nominee, even if it's not Romney, I believe we'll see a landslide victory in November much like we saw in 1980. Once it becomes clear who our nominee will be, the entire focus will be directed towards Obama and the fact that he is against everything that is good for America.
We must do our part and support whoever the nominee is and do everything we can to make sure our friends, relatives, co-workers and neighbors understand the importance of getting Obama and everyone in his administration out of office and out of Washington DC.
Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 1:23PM
Pell, Tommy:
Certainly I hope you are right, but I would be more than happy with 275 electoral votes.
Pell, I've had a bit of extra time on my hands this week and thank you for the humbling comments.
fmm| 2.23.12 @ 11:29AM
Last night was not a positive to me. Ron Paul came across as a lightweight in every category. Gingrich looked like he has already given up. Santorum showed depth of knowledge in every aspect but seemed not quite mature. Romney looked like a toothless grandma revelling in her "got you on that one" attacks on Santorum.
The most telling part of the debate was the tweat from a listener which I will paraphrase as: "I would kill to know what the candidates are writting in those notes". Firstly, it was obvious they were writing clues to aid their responses to attack lines from other candidates. If the viewing public can't understand such simple minded stuff, how can they be expected to grasp the weighty issues we face? Secondly the inappropriate use of the word kill in this context is an indication of how deeply we have sunk as a culture when horrific ideas are used so lightly.
Carl Cull| 2.23.12 @ 11:55AM
About the DuKakis Card. During the last monlths of the Presidency, DuKakis almost drove his state into bankruptcy, trying to prop up the crumbling Massachussets Miracle, so I wouldn't say he balanced the budget that year.
TRW| 2.23.12 @ 1:08PM
Carl Cull, wasn't Rick Santorum's point to Mitt Romney, "It is no great feat to balance your state's annual budget if it is a codefied requirement in the Massachusetts state constitituion." Isn't that what Rick Santorum is trying to emphasize? In other words, a U.S. president that actually presided over a balanced U.S. budget for a certain FY (or multiple FYs) could possiblly crow about it some and this self-patting on the back might have some merit to it. However, in states where it is required, well, is it really an accomplishment?
I am asking.
Bill| 2.23.12 @ 12:05PM
Guess Who?
Voted for
1. Raising debt ceiling 5 times
2.Planned Parenthood
3. Medicare Part D
4. NCLB
Voted against
1. Right-to-Work law
Ans: "Keystone RINO" Rick Santorum
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 1:18PM
Yes, we know you're upset that David Duke isn't running.
Bill| 2.23.12 @ 1:20PM
Yes, we know you warship Jeremiah Wright!
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 2:35PM
Yeah, sure, Bill. Whatever you say. However, I'm not the one who writes things like "ni**erlover" on this site. Go back to your trailerpark in West Memphis, slug. Your latest meth batch is probably ready.
Bill| 2.23.12 @ 2:48PM
You live on food stump, I see!
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 4:38PM
I eat better & more expensively at lunch than you do all month, rube.
Bill| 2.23.12 @ 1:18PM
I enjoyed the bloody wrestling match between Romney and Santorum, while Gingrich and Paul stayed on the sideline, smiling and breathing fresh air coming out from the AZ desert. Romney knew his Romneycare is killling his campaign and Santorum was shaky and exposed last night, and looked unable to debate a teleprompter guy like Obama. Gingrich will pass on in AZ and MI, but will come out strong in the Super Tuesday. Bad news! Romney and Santorum cannot seal the deal. Newt "old man in the sea" Gingrich is live and alive and poses a great threat to rest of the GOP contender.
Bill| 2.23.12 @ 1:28PM
Santorum endorsed Arlene Specter over pat Toomey, and that Specter was the 60th "deciding" vote in the senate implementing Obamacare. Santorum helped Specter and Specter helped Obama pass Obamacare. Santorum's hands are bloody, whether he denies the fact that had he helped Toomey instead of specter, Obamacare would have had never passed in the senate, Obamacare would have been killed in the senate.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 2:37PM
Sure, Bill. It was just that ONE vote. Like Scott Brown. Oops, they found a way around that, didn't they? Nevermind the fact that we got Alito & Roberts confirmed to the court thanks to Rick committing political sepukku.
Bill| 2.23.12 @ 2:50PM
You're a parasite, like Obama.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 4:40PM
You're a bigot, like Bull Connor, George Wallace, William Fullbright, Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd & other nice Dems.
But please DO try to keep obfuscating the fact that you're a racist piece of shit. Its really amusing.
Bill| 2.23.12 @ 10:39PM
Con Chef is the racist liberal union thug.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 8:15AM
And you can prove that how? I can prove you're a bigot because I can cite your post where you called Clinton a "ni**er lover." I don't think you can find a single post of mine favorable to unions or that's racist.
Be gone, Democratic plant. Wither & die like your segregationist forebearers.
Philo Beddoe| 2.23.12 @ 3:08PM
Senator Santorum campaigned on behalf of his fellow Republican Senator Arlen Specter, the senior member on the senate judiciary committee. With Senator Specter's help, all of President Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed with even a view "D" votes helping. Senator Santorum had no crystal ball and could not foresee snarlin' Arlen jumping back to the Democrat party because he feared a tough primary battle against Pat Toomey. To vilify candidate Santorum for his efforts on former senator Specter's behalf is downright stupid.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 4:40PM
BINGO!
Jon b| 2.23.12 @ 3:02PM
The GOP debates remind me more of a Batman series villain reunion than anything else. Mitt Romney as King Tut. Newt Gingrich as the Penguin (Yack, yack, yack). Rick Santorum as Egghead, Ron Paul as the Riddler. And formerly Rick Perry as Mr. Freeze, and Michelle Bachman as Catwman. Not a single candidate that isn't Bat-shit crazy among them for one reason or another. We need a true conservative like Eisenhower or even Nixon.
Goldwaterite| 2.23.12 @ 4:26PM
"CNN's moderator John King was booed when he asked a question submitted by a viewer online."
I'm not certain who won, but John King (CNN) definitely lost this one.
But the question remains: Why does the GOP "braintrust", time after time, invite liberal Obamanites to "moderate" the debate by laying a crafty series of rhetorical land mines. If you were a professional football team, would you invite your opponents to supply the referees for each game?
TRW| 2.24.12 @ 2:16AM
Goldwaterite,
Excellent point and question.
This is truly baffling.
There is no one who is on CNN nationally or its many international broadcast teams that I trust. A lump of coal could do more honest journalism.
Conservatives need to pound the Republican National Committe and party chair (the guy with the funny last name) as to why this nonsense with CNN, Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzkrieg and others continues.
David| 2.23.12 @ 5:13PM
Bill, why do you post here? Once in a great while you write something worth reading, but you repeat the same f_cking talking points like a moron (dictionary definition: mental capability of a 12 year old). You never respond to anyone with an itelligible argument when they shoot down your argument.
And you sure don't have any class.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 6:45PM
Not to mention his calling people "ni**er lovers." Personally, I think the schmuck is a liberal plant.
porno | 2.23.12 @ 7:11PM
The loopholes are the big problem. While many exemptions have the best intentions behind them, a system like ours encourages companies to essentially buy preferentially treatment from Congress.
Gene| 2.23.12 @ 8:18PM
Say, wasn't Ron Paul there?
Gene| 2.23.12 @ 8:21PM
Following up on myself, it is becoming clear which outlets and people are promoting establishment. Today, Hannity outlined the performances, no clips. No Paul. Took a commercial then refused to commont on whether there was a "conspiracy" between Paul and Romney. Cheap parlor tricks.
POST American| 2.23.12 @ 11:23PM
-----------------------LAST WORD-----------------------
BTW --speaking of 'ANTI' s in general
-------ANY TIME for that FIRST piece
on the Anti-Constitutional NDAA 1021/
-----------------------------------ANYTIME. . .
P.S. ---ROMNEY'S ------A GLOBALIST.
Adjoran| 2.24.12 @ 2:53AM
There is no rational reason to permit the media to set the rules and run debates in our primary contest. They aren't Republicans, they are the active enemy. Democrats cancelled a Fox News hosted debate in 2008, just because it was Fox News. Screw 'em.
If we need these halfwits and Democratic retreads to ask our candidates questions, then none of them deserve to win. Let the candidates debate and the media report what happens - NOT participate and steer what happens and how.
bop berrigan| 2.24.12 @ 5:47AM
The debates have shown how flawed the candidates are. With the exception of R. Paul none have demonstrated any consistent conservative principles. Unfortunately, Congressman Paul doesn't appear to have the character to advance beyond his status as being a fringe candidate.