-
An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War
June 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
If there were no other candidates besides Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann on the stage at tonight’s debate, the political impact would have been exactly the same. Some commentators are saying that their back-and-forth jousting benefited Mitt Romney by allowing him to say above the fray, or that it benefited Rick Perry, who wasn’t there because he won’t announce his candidacy for another two days.
This is missing the point. This debate was about the Ames Straw Poll coming up on Saturday, which — together with Perry’s entry — will shift the dynamics of the race no matter what happens. If Tim Pawlenty doesn’t finish strong on Saturday, his campaign will quickly fall into a death spiral — a top donor is already abandoning Pawlenty for Perry, and that could be a sign of things to come. On the other hand, a victory at Ames would resurrect Pawlenty’s floundering campaign. Bachmann came in second to Mitt Romney in the Des Moines Register poll in June; Romney is sitting the straw poll out, so beating Bachmann is Pawlenty’s best bet at signalling that he has an organization that can win Iowa. It is quite possible that other candidates will be a factor on Saturday — Herman Cain or Ron Paul might sneak toward the top of the heap, damaging Pawlenty — but Bachmann was Pawlenty’s major target tonight for a reason.
So who won the Pawlenty vs. Bachmann debate? They both landed some punches, but my sense is that Bachmann came out on top. Tomorrow morning I’m flying to Iowa, and I’ll try to figure out if straw poll attendees seem to agree.
View all comments (45) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/11/the-bachmann-vs-pawlenty-debat
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
simon templar| 8.12.11 @ 12:11AM
Newt summed it ALL up when he challenged and exposed the ridiculousness, misdirection, and manipulation of the media and press corp via jackasses like smarmy Chris Wallace. It was the best thing said all night and the most honest.
I do not give a rats ass what the likes of these talking heads think. If you want this nation back stop listening to them. The audience wildly supported and agreed with Newt!
Clint| 8.12.11 @ 12:29AM
The Fox News Debate Commentators attempted to trash Our Tea Party Candidate Michele Bachmann for counterpunching The GOP Fop Tim Pawlenty.
The Mainstream Media Agendists have also attempted to trash & marginalize Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Sarah Palin & Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.
Now, let's see how Michele Bachmann & Dr.Ron Paul do in The Saturday Straw Poll.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Iowa.
Rise Up.
Koocasi Luapnor| 8.12.11 @ 1:20AM
Co-favorite?
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
The only things they have in common is that they both sound confused when they don't have a sound bite answer at the ready, and they're both unelectable.
Ron Paul has nothing to do with the Tea Party. He thinks it's hunky dory for Iran to have nukes, he blames America for violence in the Middle East, he blamed Reagan for growing the deficit. Those are ideas from the crackpot side of liberalville.
Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:00AM
Uh Oh ! The Crippled Russkie Is In The Building.
Do Your Homework Israel Firster Troll.
"Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a POLITICO/TargetPoint poll.
Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.
Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values — the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.
When asked to choose from a list of candidates for president in 2012, Palin and Paul also finished one-two — with Palin at 15 percent and Paul at 14 percent. "
Koocasi Luapnor| 8.12.11 @ 10:44AM
Ron Paul thinks that Iran should have nukes.
nuf said
Clint| 8.12.11 @ 12:02PM
The CIA's Former bin Laden Desk Director, Michael Sheuer Agrees With Dr.Ron Paul.
Michael Scheuer,
"And then there is Iran. How does one explain the U.S. governing elite's fear of Iran? Here we have a country that admittedly is led by one of the world's more histrionic politicians, but one that also is ringed by U.S. military bases and surrounded by an overwhelmingly more numerous Sunni world that hates Shi'ites far more than it hates Westerners. Iran‘s Islamic regime, moreover, is helplessly watching the final stages of the march of its energy resources toward oblivion, and preparing for the impoverishment and resulting internal political instability that event will usher in. "
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Iowa.
Carpe Diem.
Koocasi Luapnor| 8.12.11 @ 12:35PM
Yeah, try explaining to a real Tea Partier that we shouldn't care if Iran has missiles with nuclear warheads. Sheesh.
Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 12:52PM
Koocasi:
You seem rational. I like Bachmann, but I'm open to reason. I like Allen West more, but he isn't running. Who would you support for the GOP nomination, and why?
By the way, GREAT job in nailing Clint on Iranian nukes. Clint wants to kill 5 million Jews, is all. Boy's a Nazi.
Margie| 8.12.11 @ 1:32PM
Hi O.T.~
The Clintypoo/Tim* is I believe referring to my husband when he says "the crippled Russkie". But that poster isn't him.
Clint~ you are very paranoid and ridiculous~ as usual.
You think others are always posting as someone else, but isn't that what YOU always do?? LOL.
Lord, I pray you would open the eyes of Clint/Tim* of AmSpec.
Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 12:50PM
Thanks, Clint. You support the mad mullahs having nukes. Boy, you are a nincompoop, as is Michael "missed him" Scheuer. Airhead IS a good name for you.
Ross Kaminsky | 8.12.11 @ 7:19AM
John, I disagree that Bachmann came out on top of her sparring with Pawlenty. I think she looked shrill and overly aggressive, and the way the conversation went it left me wondering if she was telling the truth. And I say that as someone who likes Bachmann.
Also, although it may seem a small thing, it can't have helped Bachmann to be off the stage as the debate came back from a commercial break.
Grzmlyk| 8.12.11 @ 10:44AM
I only watched a little more than half the debate, but from what I saw, my two cents on Bachmann is this: I think she's WAY overcoached and over "talking pointed," hammering simplistic key messages over and over and over again that are ultimately empty and reductive (I mean, "titanium spine?" "Obama is a one-term president?" How many times do we have to hear these phrases? You can't make catch phrases out of these things simply by repeating them - they have to go viral, and Michele's all fall flat).
She's like an actor in a one-dimensional play who isn't really inhabiting a role - she's got an artificial stiffness to her; you can see the machinery working.
And yes, I think she seems to lack depth - don't get me wrong, I like her; ultimately I think she is capable, sincerely stands for my values and is indeed a fighter. But since she doesn't have true executive experience, I wish she had a little more William F. Buckley in her in terms of her world view. Something a little more expansive, a little more sophisticated.
Then again, most candidates in the modern era deliberately pursue a simplistic, reductive communication strategy. They are overcoached and focus-grouped to death, and, frankly, it's painful to watch all of them. If they aren't overcoached they look amateurish (Cain, who might turn out to be a great president, but just doesn't seem to be a master of the game), like zealots (Paul), angry (Santorum, whom I like nevertheless & think is far more substantive than the media allows) or like loose cannons (Gingrich who, although he was in his element, is no reliable conservative and is, I think, a bit unhinged).
Romney is, of course, is an entirely prefabricated, focus-group vetted, "moderate-seeking missile" with no warhead attached and no conservative gyroscope guiding him; it's finger-in-the-wind, let's-go-to-the-polls-to-find-out-where-I-stand day every day, and "Obamneycare" is an abject failure; his pathetic invocation of the 10th amendment is a fig leaf that barely covers the naked truth of socialized health care at ANY level.
And I'm sorry - Pawlenty fails to impress me. I have a visceral aversion to him; there's something feckless and almost immature about him. I also cannot embrace a candidate who ever gave cap-and-trade a single thought.
These debates are painful because we want so much from our next leader - and much will be required - and, unfortunately, our options consist of flawed human beings. Welcome to reality, right?
I still kinda want to see Palin enter the race. What can I say? I think she's the real deal.
Tina B| 8.12.11 @ 11:10AM
Grzmylk, I am so with you on all these issues, and thanks for your valuable input. See my note below. I count on your wisdom and that of those like you to fill in some gaps for me. Rock on.
W| 8.12.11 @ 11:14AM
Sexist remarks. Women candidates are called "shrill" and "agressive," while men are called strong and firm. When was a man called "shrill?" As for being three seconds late, did you ever think that women require more time in the ladies room than men in the men's room? Do we need to be more specific?
Margie| 8.12.11 @ 1:26PM
Personally, Gryz was just telling it how he saw it, and I don't fault him one bit for it. His comments are usually spot on and I have always admired his ability to with laser-like precision, pin the personalities.
As to shrill, I'd say Ron Paul takes the proverbial cake.
I think Gryz wrapped it up quite well when he said that our options consist of flawed human beings.
That truly IS the reality, hey it takes one to know one (me).
I'll speak for myself in saying that I'm a realist and because of this fact~ that we're ALL flawed human beings and so are our candidates, so that is the very reason I will still vote for a Republican and have my entire voting life, and would rather drop dead or be slaughtered by a serial killer than EVER EVER vote for~ or ALLOW my sacred vote to go to a Democrat.
And I strongly advise everyone to do the same, lest Obama have a second chance to continue the UTTER destruction of this blessed country.
"That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it."
Margie| 8.12.11 @ 1:37PM
Sorry, I saw your comment was to Kaminsky with regards "shrill", not Gryz saying that. And he (Ross), may not like Bachmann because she's a Christian, and therefore "socially conservative". Since Ross is Libertarian and wants to legalize drugs~ he probably has a disdain for her.
That's just my opinion.
But the rest of my comment still holds.
W| 8.12.11 @ 9:39PM
I will work and vote for any Republican against Obama.
Occam's Tool| 8.13.11 @ 12:09PM
I don't think of Ron Paul as a Republican. He votes with Kucinich all the time.
Luis | 8.12.11 @ 8:29AM
Quite an interesting debate.I am curious who will turn to be the better candidate.
Sean| 8.12.11 @ 8:59AM
I think Bachmann trashed Pawlenty pretty good. Of course the talking head idiots don't like that as they are emasculated wimps. Pawlenty is a real leader for Cap and trade and insurance mandates. What an idiot he has to be to fall for the Global warming hoax.
Solo| 8.12.11 @ 9:45AM
Bachmann and Pawlenty trading barbs all night was very unseemly. Of course, Chris Wallace was trolling for a few "atta boys" from his fellow media pukes and was determined to instigate a fight...somehow.
He tried to bait Newt but got his ass handed to him, instead.
Bachmann should come off the "I stood firm on the debt limit increase" as it makes her seem mathematically "challenged".
As Santorum pointed out, there is only enough to pay the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and VA benefits....and that's it!
Bachmann is essentially crowing about her willingness to shut down; The Pentagon, the courts, the Dept of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA...and so on....
She's either stupid or a wild-eyed zealot with a short attention span.
The time to argue about government spending excess is during the budget process--not when we're within days of shutting down everything from the FBI to the Post Office.
It's a moronic position to take and Bachmann embraces it proudly.
Big mistake on her part.
I like her enthusiasm but I'm not impressed with her intellect. If she were to continue that tac in a Presidential debate, Obama would have her lunch...and her lunch money.
Applause lines spoken to die-hard fans are not always wise policy.
Clint| 8.12.11 @ 9:56AM
Take Note,Who Are Attempting To Marginalize Our Tea Party Presidential Candidates.
The GOP Ruling Elite & Their Apologist Flunkies Are Setting Us Up For Their RINO-CINO
Candidates.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Ramping Up For The 2012 Elections.
Rise Up.
Bo| 8.12.11 @ 11:28AM
Put the tea cup down, brother. You don't have to capitalize the first letter in every word.
Clint| 8.12.11 @ 12:01PM
Get Bent Sister.
Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 12:55PM
Bo is not a female nickname, C(lint) Elegans. But I guess you wouldn't know that, being a 302 neuroned self-fertilizing hermaphroditic roundworm. PLEASE tell me my mouth is making bets my fists can't cash again, spazmo.
David T| 8.12.11 @ 9:59AM
It doesn't matter who won between Pawlenty and Bachmann--neither one will get the nomination.
Solo| 8.12.11 @ 10:46AM
Well, Clint, I'm an active member in good standing in my local Tea Party and I can tell you that true Tea Party Patriots are looking for principled leadership with a conservative bent--not some wild-eyed hack spouting applause lines.
So far...Michelle Bachmann has failed to distinguish herself as a serious policy-oriented contender for the Presidency.
It's early yet and perhaps she will find her sea legs and develop into a candidate of substance. But for now, she's just stumbling around deck spouting canned talking points and hoping no one will notice.
I wish Sarah Palin would jump in the race. She has a record of achievement, executive experience, good instincts, fires up the crowd and has developed a good political eye.
She has the credential that Bachmann lacks.
Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 1:01PM
OK, Solo. That makes sense. But what if Michele is what we get? Then what?
My take:
Cain---may be. But he's too inexperienced. Before he announced, he should have hired some profs from Hillsdale and had them put him through a topics boot camp.
Palin--not announced.
Perry---may be OK. But he's worked for Gore in the past.
Romney: Care. Nuff said.
West: Not running. Ditto for Bolton.
Pawlenty: NOT inspirational. Also was at one time for Cap and Trade. But the No fire really hits it for me. Full disclosure: I worked for the guy.
Paul: You've nailed it. My own view is that Paul is a pro-Islamist traitor. That renders his intelligent domestic ideas moot, because we're gonna get nuked under President Paul.
Who does that leave us? You see the problem? If Sarah jumps in, great. But I'm interested in your views. Honestly, no sarcasm. I like your stuff.
Tina B| 8.12.11 @ 11:03AM
Speaking as a mother, grandmother and teacher, I can hardly stand to watch people argue in front of me, I want to get in the middle and arbitrate somehow. So Jerry Springer like or not that bad, I didn't watch the debate. Yet I care very much about its outcome. So o o o o
I read AS, AT, NR, WND, and all the responses I can to get YOUR views of what I couldn't handle watching. Go ahead, call me a weanie, it's what I do.
Now, I don't know what to think about Bachman, and Cain, hardly mentioned - is that good or bad, Palin - how would it have been if she had been there, Mitt, (personally, I'm still having trouble with that whole "Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer thing) but his healthcare stance isn't so hot either. And what about my hero Alan West?
I don't know if trying to attend the next debate, in September in my home town is worth a shot. Maybe hearing them first hand in the same room would help, but I don't know.
I ask myself, can a national politician still be honest in this culture? Can they stay selfless defenders of the American Way after gaining the power of the Presidency? Can they wear this "ring" without being corrupted by this power?
Ronald Reagan had had it all as a famous actor and president of the SAC. He had fabulous wealth and a happy marriage. When he got the ring on, it didn't seem to corrupt him. He had the past experiences and the strength to resist this lust for power and greed for its accoutrements.
But everyone before or since him, at least since Eisenhower, has fallen prey to the power of the ring. Now, I seek earnestly for the right one to lead us, and the debate seems to have gotten me nowhere at this point in time. I DVRed it (new word) and I will steel myself to watch it for myself, now that I've read all of your evals. Thanks for that.
Margie| 8.12.11 @ 2:34PM
Fear not, Tina B! Like el Rushbo said today~ it's only the 2nd debate! It'll be weeded out as time goes on.
And despite their flaws, I think of it this way~ these decent people are FAR FAR better than any Democrat. None of them are Socialist, none of them are Communist, and none are Liberal.
OK, Romney may have a streak of socialism in him, and I do not want him to be the nominee, and R. Paul is nuts, but this is just the beginning of the race.
Stefan Stackhouse| 8.12.11 @ 11:21AM
Pawlenty damaged Bachmann a bit, but it was a suicide mission. He has just about done himself in with this. Looked really bad. I don't expect to see him finish any higher than 4th in the straw poll, and a placement even farther back would not surprise me. He won't last much longer after that. He might have a shot at Labor Secretary in a Romney cabinet, though.
Romney hasn't closed the deal with me yet, but I'm gradually warming to him a little. The nation's economy is crap, and we do need somebody who really does know his stuff. Romney apparently does.
OLDRAY| 8.12.11 @ 11:39AM
So far it looks like another Republican disaster. Romney is Terrible. Ron Paul is a nut. Bachman is the best of the crew but doesn't have enough depth. A Republican team of Palin and Rubio could win in a walk AND lead this country back to basics. But that seems a lost cause. It looks bad.
simon templar| 8.12.11 @ 12:19PM
Please exercise just a little optimism..it is 15 months away, the poser is a walking dead presidency, and most people would vote for anybody but him. Just what DEPTH does the idiot have in the white house?
simon templar| 8.12.11 @ 12:15PM
Winning this election is quite simple. I am afraid however, that, as usual, many Republicans ...particularly politicians just can not seem to get past their handlers, talking heads, and the typical stupid conventional wisdom.
Then there is the rest of us...chirping and always ready to shred our candidates like coleslaw
all the while the Liberals are laughing their asses off and saying here they go again..this is just too easy.
No, our candidates must obtain the golden fleece of approval, the litmus test of depth, virtue, and conservativism. Of course, articulation, looks..ect, are very important as well. Then there is the classic, "our candidate will get torn to shreds by the dem incumbent..does not stand a chance.... Yeah, I remember that in 1979 when Ronald Reagan ran..the usual...stupid, warmonger, could not win anything, lacking depth, can not beat the incumbent, Jimmy Carter.
While were so vigorously destroying ourselves in a circular fire..which we just seem to love...the progressives are parading their complete, disastrous, incompetent, dangerous, and severely damaged incumbent or candidate on their shoulders touting his glories, his successes, his articulation, his depth.
Here it is loud and clear.
It is about real ideas and solutions, stupid!
It is about honesty and passion (not slogans), stupid!
It is about the economy, jobs, and government out of control, stupid!
It is about the POSER (and the Dem Party) currently sitting in the white house!
It is not about tearing each other apart or scoring points for yourself. These debates are idiotic, entertain only talking heads, and provide little for the public other than propaganda and group think.
Newt exposed and nailed this when challenging Wallace. Listen close to the loud approval of the audience.
These are not the usual times nor can we allow ourselves to act and think in the same patterns we have had in the past. We must break out of the typical and habitual conventional wisdom and group think. Damn, you need to stop listening to the talking heads, Joe Scarborough, Ted Baxter O'Reilly, the trolls out here posing as conservatives, the liberal state media, and the FOX news 'professional' analyst.
Listen carefully and think about this. Would there ever have been a Tea Party movement if it were up for analysis and prediction by these insiders and talking heads? NO. It was birthed by ordinary citizens so fed up that they said the hell with the media, the insiders, the talking heads, the experts. A simple but wise man on the floor of the NYSE spoke out against the madness and called for resistance. Tred lightly, keep your eyes and ears open, keep focused, and carry a big stick to bash the opposition with!
Margie| 8.12.11 @ 2:13PM
My opinion of what you just said, simon?
You sound like OldeFarte, and me, too.
When it comes down to it~ our side needs to defeat the opposition, and it has to be by electing a Republican for President.
How?
By sending our money to the candidate we want to win.
And by voting for them in the primaries, with the hope that they will win and be the nominee in Nov. 2012.
We can't allow someone else to pick our candidate for us. We allowed that with McCain. We cannot afford to allow it a second time.
Unfortunately, we have open primaries in some states which also allows Democrats to vote in our primaries~ those need to be closed.
I don't know what the mechanism is to do it, but it seems to me that NOW would be the time to start.
Tina B| 8.12.11 @ 12:20PM
Okay, Simon, well said.
simon templar| 8.12.11 @ 12:23PM
If I hear this DEPTH bullshit one more time... I am going to John Galt it out of here as you are wasting my life, time, and energy.
You do not need much depth when you are competing with a puddle of toxic waste.
I do not need a crystal clear ocean.. a nice clean swimming pool will do just fine.
Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 1:04PM
I think Bachmann is perfectly acceptable. I like what she says, and she has nice legs. She's watchable on TV. Or, as a former D-Cup GF of mine was called (she also made Law Review at Michigan)---"beauty and brains, all in one chick."
Solo| 8.12.11 @ 12:41PM
You make some good points, Simon, and I largely agree.
But...if you wouldn't mind too much--some of us would like to more thoroughly vet our candidates.
If we're not allowed to distinguish one from the other, then I guess the Primaries will have to end in a tie, huh?
Or maybe we should just forget the whole thing and play "Rock/Paper/Scissors" to determine our candidate.
simon templar| 8.12.11 @ 1:08PM
Solo, you know very well that I am not saying do not vet our candidates. Did you read some of the comments in this thread and hear the helplessness, cynicism, unrealistic expectations, irrationality, exaggeration, and distorted thinking?
Are you watching the talking heads once again tell us what too think, create the narrative, and set us up? Did you notice that in the TV debate, jobs and the economy were ninth on the list of topics. Did you notice how the candidates themselves except for a few exceptions have unwittingly accepted the handlers typical bullshit?
Yes, distinguish them. But do it with logic and substance and YOUR original assesments and observations not the useless crap spouted out by the talking heads for consumption and parroting. Do not hold these debates up for any real value other than the shows they are. Most of all do not listen to media sycophants like Joe Scarborogh.
Let US evaluate and use everything other than what they provide to program us. Go to their web sites, go to their speeches, do some research on their backgrounds, share that with the rest of us out here, post accurately their positions on issues using only their own words and actions. Let US like the Tea Party take back this process. Put ourselves in the drivers seat.
simon templar| 8.12.11 @ 1:16PM
Remember, everyone of those candidates has strengths and weaknesses, recognize both, talk about both, and do not write off any of them..the Liberals just love it when you do. DO NOT LET THEM CONTROL THE NARRATIVE ANY LONGER! A lot can happen between now and 15 months from now.
Any of them are a damn far sight better than the ridiculous and dangerous excuse that currently holds the office.
Margie| 8.12.11 @ 2:23PM
Excellent.
You see, simon, how it is? When you say something and say it so well, you are then accused of either being a "RINO" or a "sell-out" or some other choice names.
But you ARE saying how most of us are thinking~ at least those who are honest.
Who in their right minds WANTS RINO'S?
I do not think a single poster at AmSpec does, at least not amongst the conservatives that post here. Only Liberals would love to see a RINO elected.
For decades, too many conservatives have either sat out the elections, maybe thinking that their vote doesn't count or who knows what they thought. Maybe they were just too lazy to get out and vote.
But now that they are seeing the utter destruction being done by the present occupant in OUR White House, they are waking up and THUS we have the TEA party.
I am hopeful still, even in this present state of affairs, that we can right this ship, and take our country back.. but we all have to vote~ and it must be for conservatives who run in the Republican party.
No third party~ it will only split the vote, and give us Obama II.
I think we all realize these facts, and I pray it's what we'll do, and successfully oust the present C.E.O.!
Margie| 8.12.11 @ 2:26PM
I forgot to say~ it isn't JUST conservatives who are waking up, but just regular decent Americans who may not consider themselves conservative~ yet they actually live their lives as conservatives~ and those who call themselves independent or even Liberal~ they are all being faced with Obama's actions and NOT liking it one bit!!
Hook| 8.12.11 @ 5:42PM
I agree with your analysis, Mr. Tabin, but I also believe that the real problem is the media backing our joke of a president. Whoever gets the nomination will be brutally attacked by the NYTimes, NBC, ABC, CBS,MSNBC crowd. CNN is trying to be more neutral and they have become real boring.
I believe Obama will lose but I cannot figure out who best Repub candidate will be. I hear that Palin is going to ride shotgun for Perry but not be his running mate.
Solo| 8.13.11 @ 10:25AM
Simon...you make some great points. We should take back the narrative from the media and other 'talking heads'. They have their own self-serving agenda and it seldom matches with ours (the people).
I'd vote for any one of them over Obama, warts and all. And yes, we all have flaws and no candidate is perfect. I'm still "shopping around" for the right pick. But...there are two candidates right now who stand out as particularly bad picks, imo.
One has a detailed policy to articulate but that policy is dangerously naive' and detached from reality, particularly on foreign policy.
And the other has no damned plan at all, no record of accomplishment and no clue--just meaningless canned talking points.
These two also just happen to be polling as # 1 and #2 in the Iowa straw poll. Let's admit it to ourselves that this isn't grounds for much optimism.
The only bright spot in all this is as you have correctly pointed out: The Iowa straw poll is largely meaningless, (Praise Jesus!) But...if we were picking a candidate based on its results, we'd be royally screwed!
In my humble view, this Primary season needs 5 things:
Rick Perry
Sarah Palin
Chris Christie
Marco Rubio and
Paul Ryan
Now THAT would be a primary worth getting excited about. Any one of, or any combination of, that group would clean Obama's clock!
Not one among the current crop has a snowbird's chance in Hell of beating him (except perhaps Romney--Lord help us). And...deep down inside...we all know it!