-
Laughing to Keep From Crying
May 17, 2013 | 1 comment
-
I’m Melting, Melting!
May 16, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Delaware’s Unclaimed Property Racket: John Gotti Would Be Proud
May 16, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Rep. Cleaver: GOP Concerns with IRS Due to Obama’s Skin Color
May 16, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Lawsuit Accuses IRS of Stealing Medical Records of 10 Million Americans
May 15, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I’m sorry to disagree with my friend, and sincere Rick Santorum supporter, Quin Hillyer, who suggests that Wednesday’s Republican debate was “no game changer.”
Having heard a little more than an hour of the Republican debate on Wednesday evening, my gut reaction was that it was a disaster for Rick Santorum and a solid night for Mitt Romney. Santorum was booed repeatedly while cheers for Romney sounded more enthusiastic than anything I’ve heard since Florida.
Ron Paul did tremendous damage to Santorum by questioning the sincerity of principle of a candidate who runs for president on a platform of repealing things he did while in Congress, arguing that such behavior shows one to be a “fake” fiscal conservative. It was a most effective line of attack despite Santorum’s attempts to defend himself by quoting his ratings among various conservative groups which measure voting records of members of Congress.
On the other hand, Ron Paul also picked off that old scab of his dangerous denial of the reality of Iran’s nuclear intentions and their inexorable progress in that direction. He remains disqualified from holding the office of president for that reason.
Newt was very good as always…but so what?
A couple of hours later, I see that political bettors at intrade.com agree with me: Rick Santorum’s odds of being the Republican nominee have plummeted from 13 percent to 6 percent, with Romney moving up from 74 percent to 79 percent. (Gingrich also gained a point, now up to about 4.5 percent.) Similarly, Romney’s betting odds for winning the upcoming Michigan primary spiked up about 10 points, from below 70 percent to hearly 80 percent, with Santorum plunging from about 31 percent to 21 percent.
Sorry, Quin, tonight was a game-changer, and did more for Romney’s chances than any debate so far in this election cycle.
View all comments (87) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/23/santorums-disastrous-debate
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Consternated Conferences
- We Have Her Example
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
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
michael corleone| 2.23.12 @ 12:23AM
This debate was not a game changer for one simple reason -- people who don't like Romney will not like him any more after this debate. He could attack Santorum on earmarks, Arlen Specter, or the Bridge to Nowhere -- they are all peripheral issues. People do not like Romney because of Romneycare/Obamacare, which is the most important issue of this election season. Santorum reminded them about them again tonight.
If you despise Obamacare, its a pretty safe bet you despise Romneycare. And no debate is going to change that. The base knows that if the GOP nominates Romney for this race, there is no reason for the existence of the GOP.
But I may be wrong -- either way, we will see the verdict on Tuesday.
mjs_pa| 2.23.12 @ 12:30AM
I tend to agree with you. 70% of republicans don't want romney. Tonight debate didn't change that.
Jack in Wi.| 2.23.12 @ 1:45AM
No pro war chickenhawk has a chance to win. Obama will be running as the peace candidate again and will crush guys like Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. 75% of the people want out of these wars. All this war talk by the Republicans is destroying the pary. Nobody wants to die for another war for Israel and nobody wants 20 dollar a gal. gas.
2Anglico| 2.23.12 @ 9:44AM
Jack, you convinced me! After 3 or 4 million uses of the word "chickenhawk", you finally won me over. Now, so I don't slip back toward supporting Israel, why don't you come up with a good derogatory name for them? Name calling, now that's a REAL game changer!
Truthiness| 2.24.12 @ 11:03AM
No one's looking to convince people like you. You're sheeple. America first!
Mike from Wall Street| 2.23.12 @ 1:07PM
We'll see how long that lasts after the shooting starts in the Middle East and gasoline goes to $6 a gallon!
Jack in Wi.| 2.23.12 @ 1:40AM
Ron Paul is the only American patriot running. All the rest are chicken hawk, stooges of AIPAC. Iran is no threat to anyone. It hasn't got a nuclear weapons program, as has just been reaffirmed by all our intellegence agencies, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the head of the NSA. The active miitary gives 75% of their contributions to the guy who puts them first, Ron Paul. If Israel firsters, like Ross and Arron want to die in a war with Iran they should go to Israel and enlist. I think the American military wants nothing to do with another war in the Middle East. There well could be a mutiny in the military if they try to lie us into another war with Iran like they did with Iraq.
Crassus| 2.23.12 @ 10:11AM
Hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 11:20AM
ARRRRGH! "ZE CHOOOOOOOS" are coming to get us! Everybody RUN! They're out to force us all to eat lox & bagels!!!
You never disappoint, Jackboot.
Mike from Wall Street| 2.23.12 @ 12:54PM
I agree...Romney is about as exciting as a Barbie "Ken" Doll and just as plastic!
WL| 2.23.12 @ 12:24AM
You are wrong. Intrade also has Obama as the favorite to win the general election too...
I guess we should all put our Republican campaign buttons in the attic and go home until 2016 because intrade says so.
Don't get me wrong, sir, I do get your points.
But you are wrong....
WL| 2.23.12 @ 12:25AM
You are correct MC...Kaminsky is WRONG.
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 12:25AM
I think tonight helped Romney.
WL| 2.23.12 @ 12:27AM
We'll see...but if Romney wins Michigan as you think he may...I'm tuning out until the general because I think that may be the ballgame.
I will actually tune out for about 24 hours, then be right back in here arguing with everybody!!!
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 12:32AM
Yup, it's wait and see time.
One thing more than troubling is that so many of the issues covered in the debates are repetitive. There are so many other issues that crave coverage.
Proud Mormon| 2.23.12 @ 12:30AM
This debate just highlighted what everyone knew, Rick Santorum is a fraud. He even retracted his 2008 Satan speech before the debate. Also Rick became a bit to catholic for non-catholic tastes and his debate performance tonight reflects his last campaign 59-41 anyone?
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 12:31AM
He's not a fraud.
Carlist| 2.23.12 @ 10:41AM
Oh yeah!
Ask Pat Toomey about "Mr. Pro-life's"
choice for the G.O.P. senate nomination
in 2004.
Brooklyn| 2.23.12 @ 11:52AM
Santorum could make it up to Toomey when he supports him for reelection when he's president.
Your Excellency| 2.23.12 @ 1:04AM
What does your angel boney moroni think?
Paul| 2.23.12 @ 9:31AM
You have got to be kidding! Rick became a bit too catholic? I am not catholic, but that comment seems a bit much after a largely Mormon populated city came out cheering for Romney before he even finished his first sentence. Even he made a joke about it. This was a turn out the masses and put Santorum in his place event. Don't pretend that this was Romney's finest hour. I am a Santorum supporter and I believe Gingrich won the debate last night.
mzk1| 2.24.12 @ 4:09AM
Using the audience is rediculous. It was obvious that the other three candidates had recruited their supporters to pack the audience, and the Santorum team missed out there.
mjs_pa| 2.23.12 @ 12:32AM
a bit too Catholic from some named Proud Mormon?
Newt Supporter | 2.23.12 @ 12:38AM
I agree with you Ross that Quinn is wrong and that this was the beginning of the end for Santorum. I take exception however to your marginalizing Newt's performance. I predict that Santorum's loss will be Newt's gain. Oh and I declare you a false conservative in the tank for Romney. It's time for America to focus on what we would win with Romney, rather than on just winning. Remember, Romney has been endorsed by the RINO that he couldn't beat in 2008, that couldn't beat Obama.
michael corleone| 2.23.12 @ 12:43AM
I think there is a better than even chance the Newt drops out right before MI/AZ or Super Tuesday and endorses Santorum just to screw Romney.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.23.12 @ 12:44AM
Newt Supporter:
First, from the point of view of betting odds (which I realize is very different from polling data, especially right now), it really doesn't matter if Newt gets Santorum's support since Romney has 7 times the betting odds of Newt and Rick combined.
Second: While I am definitely not "in the tank" for Romney, I have made no secret of the fact that my primary motivation is to beat Obama and that I think Romney most likely to do so.
Third, I have said repeatedly on these pages that I am a libertarian. Thus, calling me a "false conservative" is pointless since I have never called myself a "real conservative."
Fourth, I'm no more of a John McCain fan than you are, but that particular endorsement hardly seems relevant.
Newt Supporter | 2.23.12 @ 1:07AM
I know Romney being best to beat Obama is the conventional wisdom but that wisdom has failed every time. Forget about betting odds and think along the lines of the investing concept of beta. Low beta loses, and high beta either wins big or loses big. Newt, Santorum, and Paul are all high beta candidates and low beta Romney can only win if we drag him across the finish line and since Obama is the worst POTUS ever. All other low beta, party out of power candidates since WW II have lost. Think Mondale, Dole, Kerry, and McLame. If if still don't get the idea see this article Safe + Moderate does not = Electable for a technical explination. http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....?nopager=1
R Martin| 2.23.12 @ 7:36AM
This is all so sad, even pathetic. We are left to argue over a cadre of B and C list candidates when there are plenty of quality Republicans who could easily defeat the toxic Obama. May I suggest two: Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio. An excellent ticket, by the way.
mzk1| 2.24.12 @ 4:10AM
May I suggest that they are only B/C list because they actually had to run and face scrutiny. Everyone wants "generic Republican" to run, but she doesn't exist.
Old Fan| 2.23.12 @ 12:56AM
Mr. Hillyer was a big Newt supporter. He is stuck on an anti-Romney bias which has hurt his reputation dramatically, including entertaining the idea (pushed by Newt) which targeted sound Private Enterprise as a way to debase Mr. Romney. It is sad to see many lose their credibility over this Primary. But pushing two career Politicians from the Beltway who are part of the problem, like Gingrich and Santorum, looks awful. The sound Private Sector PRoduct named Romney is an outstanding Free Market Capitalist. Ann Coulter is right. The fashion has grown amongst us, which is no longer conservative, but reactionary emotive folly. All obsessed with image and identity. Time to get it together. Rick is a terrible candidate, who defends his massive spending and Specter devotion, Gingrich was a major Fannie and Freddie influence peddler. Romney is the best Candidate as the debate showed again.
Jason| 2.23.12 @ 1:19AM
Another win for the president. A stage for the GOP and you showcase four old, white men who can't seem to stress their rage enough to satisfy the hate in their minion's minds. I'll bet you lost another million women tonight.
Needless to say, a white mold man will say I don't know anything about women. Truth is, you guys are blowing your wad.
William R| 2.23.12 @ 1:20AM
"On the other hand, Ron Paul also picked off that old scab of his dangerous denial of the reality of Iran's nuclear intentions and their inexorable progress in that direction"
You're a nickel and dime day trading shyster.
http://www.theamericanconserva.....over-iran/
Ross Kaminsky | 2.23.12 @ 1:51AM
Wow, William, that was a really intelligent, well thought out comment. I really do feel just terrible about myself now. Or not.
Carlist| 2.23.12 @ 10:50AM
Ross:
Should Leon Penetta, and the current and past heads of Mossad along with the folks who
composed the N.E.I. reports in 2007 and last year resign or be canned?
Ron Paul uses them as sources to "pick off the scab"
Who are your sources regarding Iran's alleged drive for nuclear weaponry?
William R| 2.23.12 @ 1:27AM
AIPAC Declares War
http://original.antiwar.com/gi.....lares-war/
Vern Crisler | 2.23.12 @ 1:28AM
Santorum did not have a "disastrous" debate performance. He just didn't clinch the deal, and that means Romney will stick around. Newt did the best and I hope voters wise up and make him the nominee, but the Republicans have chosen stupid candidates before, so it may not happen.
WTF| 2.23.12 @ 2:12AM
No way did Santorum have a bad debate. He exposed romney in fact for his insane Romneycare and support for TARP, etc. Big ticket items like that make debating how congress earmarks out funds seem like arguing over 2 cents of pocket change.
Fact is, Santorum supported and sponsored the balanced budget amendments as far back as 1994 and even called for a ranking republican to resign for not supporting it.
It's idiocy to call Rick big gov if you are Mitt Romney, since he's a clone of Obama almost.
aware| 2.23.12 @ 6:13AM
Hey Ross, got gold? Miners? Sell Scamtorum, buy gold.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.23.12 @ 8:36AM
aware, actually I have silver...
R Martin| 2.23.12 @ 10:08AM
Why silver? Jim Cramer calls it "junk".
Mike from Wall Street| 2.23.12 @ 12:58PM
Jim Cramer is an expert on "junk!"
aware| 2.23.12 @ 1:00PM
Excellent, Ross. Gold miners and physical silver. That Cramer calls it "junk" is the very best reason to have lots.
And you might want a little lead, too.
Casey Abell| 2.23.12 @ 8:02AM
When Hillyer tries to minimize a debate, you know it was a horrendous performance by Santorum. Hillyer's so far in the bag for Rick Sanctimony that we'll never get him out of it. We may never even find Hillyer again.
Gotta admit, Kaminsky does have a little courage to rip Rick Sanctimony on the Spectator (a.k.a Sanctimony For President).
Les Panek| 2.23.12 @ 8:13AM
Wow. Ross takes another shot at Santorum. I'm shocked. I can't believe it. I'm beside myself.
Okay, maybe not so much.
Article after article shows more venom than intellectual honesty. We get it: Ross likey Mitt lots and lots and Ricky is icky. Try making the case for a moderate mush without attacking the other candidates or taking up the false narrative of "electability".
No, don't bother, I'll just skip your posts from now on.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.23.12 @ 8:39AM
Les,
Nobody told you that you had to read my note to begin with.
But just a question: What part of my description of the event, esp. regarding Santorum since that's your concern, was wrong?
Was he not booed a fair bit, and didn't it seem like Ron Paul scored a blow against Santorum talking about running against repealing stuff that you (Santorum, that is) supported in Congress?
I don't think you can point to an iota of intellectual dishonesty in my note, though there's a fair bit in your comment.
As for "false narrative", all I can tell you is that I think electability matters in this election more than in most, and polls show that the majority of the GOP agrees with me. That does not prove I'm right, obviously, but it does prove that it's a legitimate discussion.
It's just not one to have with you.
Bob Grant| 2.23.12 @ 9:25AM
The reason Santorum was booed was because Ron Paul AND Mitt Romney aired all of his dirty laundry in front of a pro-Romney crowd.
Neither Romney nor Paul have NEVER had to experience that in 19 debates leading up to this one.
I thought he acquitted himself admirably.
Casey Abell| 2.23.12 @ 10:23AM
I thought Santorum acquitted himself terribly. Defensive, long-winded, petulant, irritating.
But leave that aside for now. What's really strange is the idea that Romney and Paul have never faced hostile questioning during the debates.
Romney even got ripped for not releasing his tax returns, for crying out loud. Not to mention many tough attacks on far more serious issues. Santorum has done a lot of the attacking himself.
Paul has similarly been creamed for his (IMO) goofball positions on defense and national security.
You don't like Romney and Paul. Fine. But they've taken plenty of attacks during the debates. Except they've usually handled them a lot better than Santorum did last night.
Indy| 2.23.12 @ 8:33AM
Anyone else curious about the Paul / Romney alliance? What has Romney promised Ron Paul?
Mimi| 2.23.12 @ 8:50AM
Did anyone see Mitt, happily go over to Ron Paul after the debate.. pat him on the back, shake his hand with a ton of glee! WOW they gave it away.. I wonder what Romney has promised Paul for doing the "dirty" work to Santorum....ie " He is a FAKE". The crowd seemed like they were bought and paid for by Mitt....you got to hand it to him he does do "SEVERE" prep-work!
Crassus| 2.23.12 @ 10:15AM
The answer to your question about what Mittenz has promised RuPaul is simple. He's promised to put Baby RuPaul on the ticket as his Veep so that old Smoke-a-Dope will lay off attacking him and carry the water against Santorum and Gingrich. Unfortunately, old Smoke-a-Dope has forgotten about Mittenz' penchant for flip-flopping.
Mimi| 2.23.12 @ 8:50AM
Did anyone see Mitt, happily go over to Ron Paul after the debate.. pat him on the back, shake his hand with a ton of glee! WOW they gave it away.. I wonder what Romney has promised Paul for doing the "dirty" work to Santorum....ie " He is a FAKE". The crowd seemed like they were bought and paid for by Mitt....you got to hand it to him he does do "SEVERE" prep-work!
Bob Grant| 2.23.12 @ 9:16AM
You have to give it to Mitt. He DOES have a machine, and not a bad one at that.
The way he goes after his republican opponents is no holds barred.
If he wins the nomination, he OWES IT to all republicans to operate this machine to maximum capacity. If he does, he will win over many who didn't support him in the primary.
Mike from Wall Street| 2.23.12 @ 1:22PM
Legalized drugs???
Le Cracquere| 2.23.12 @ 8:34AM
I suspect that anyone who's even WATCHING the debates at this point is a political junkie who already knows who he's voting for. The critical mass of primary voters isn't likely to be influenced by any more debates unless someone drops a genuinely campaign-ending gaffe. In light of that, I'm not sure Santorum hurt OR helped himself with the voting public at large.
Don| 2.23.12 @ 11:52AM
I am definitely a political junkie, and definitely decided in my support. However, I did find my preferences shifting among the other candidates through the debate (down Santorum, up Gingrich). It helps me to see them in person and interacting occasionally off script.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 8:40AM
From Mr. Kaminsky's Post:
"Ron Paul did tremendous damage to Santorum by questioning the sincerity of principle of a candidate who runs for president on a platform of repealing things he did while in Congress, arguing that such behavior shows one to be a "fake" fiscal conservative."
This is rich, coming from the candidate who would load bills up with pork after realizing they stood a good chance of passing. Sorry, Ross. I've got to disagree. That farce of a debate was no game changer, nor a big deal. We'll see how the polls & the results bear it out though.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 8:42AM
William R. Babbles:
""On the other hand, Ron Paul also picked off that old scab of his dangerous denial of the reality of Iran's nuclear intentions and their inexorable progress in that direction"
You're a nickel and dime day trading shyster."
And you're an anti Semite schmuk.
Don| 2.23.12 @ 11:59AM
CC, that's more than a bit reactionary. You can not simply equate the challenging of war against Iran with anti-semitism. Unless there's something I missing here, that's just not fair to Babbles or to Jews.
Jack McGrath| 2.23.12 @ 8:54AM
I agree that Ron P did a number on Rick S. Rick, you need to explain your vote to send funds to PP, more than that it was part of a bigger bill.
Do not agree that Mitt R did well. He only succeeded in firming up his title as "Master of the Cheap Shot". Mitt, I don't know if it's your doing or your advisors', but get off making charges that have been answered, e.g., Santorum's support of Spector.
Newt G and Ron P came off best in this debate. By the way, I don't agree that it was superfluous or went too long.
Jack McGrath| 2.23.12 @ 8:59AM
Ross, boos and cheers from an audience mean nothing. How infantile can you get?
George S| 2.23.12 @ 9:04AM
What bettors think? Is that what passes for political analysis nowadays?
Bob Grant| 2.23.12 @ 9:07AM
Ross,
The problem with Romney is I doubt he changed the minds of people who continue to believe he's insincere.
He seems too "eager" to prove his conservative bona fides. He reminds me of the car salesman desperate to make that last sale before the month ends.
I also believe his temperament will come into question. Did you see how he handled that last question? How he treated John King who gently reminded him to stick with the question? ...Very off-putting.
Brooklyn| 2.23.12 @ 11:41AM
Bob,
A couple of weeks ago Romney said he would tie the minimum wage to inflation. No conservative thinks like that.
Marco2| 2.23.12 @ 9:08AM
An excellent post, Mr. Kaminsky. Santorum is so obviously bush league that it must be embarrassing for some of his boosters to try to hold him up. All this bull about true conservativisim, etc., just a cover for their religious bigotry, I;m afraid
Fiscal| 2.23.12 @ 9:32AM
The truth is that all of the candidates are severely flawed. Paul was right that he was the only true fiscal conservative on the stage, but he is unelectable because the party base likes wars and prefers religious dogma to personal liberty. Besides, he is not very "presidential" in his demeanor. The conservative rankings that Santorum referred to are heavily biased towards social conservatives and military hawks and fiscal conservatism has little to do with those rankings.
What the party is missing is what is called "a mensch" -- a real person -- not one who prefers to win at any cost. Obama will win a second term and it will be almost at the same level he won the first term because the economy is getting better.
What is really interesting is whether the attacks on Obama will hold in a debate against him. Romney's budget will cause significantly more deficits and virtually all of the economists who have scored it have said so. He is no different from Bush II in that respect. The reason he is not attacked on that issue is that the plans of the others (with the exception of Paul) are no better. We have the economic model of tax cuts and it comes no where close to giving the growth projected in those budgets. In fact, GDP does not grow with tax cuts. Medicare, Social Security, and the military comprise 2/3rds of the budget and I really don't hear aggressive plans to cut these things -- perhaps because 70% of tea partiers don't want cuts in these programs. You can't cut deficits without cutting these programs. What gets me really riled up is that they all berate Obama for cutting $500 billion from Medicare when they should be praising him for that. In that sense, Obama is more of a fiscal conservative than the guys on that stage.
We need someone like Chris Christie who looks like Mitt. In this day of six packs, getting a fat guy elected is virtually impossible. Paul Ryan is a great guy, but he would never get the role in this play because he comes across as a nerd, and not a commander. Remember, most people in this country are not political junkies. The best actor usually gets elected from Kennedy to Reagan to Clinton to Bush to Obama. Today, Presidents look the part -- they are tall, have good speaking voices, and smile. In this TV age, we do not vote for principles, we vote for the most convincing actor.
Bob Grant| 2.23.12 @ 9:47AM
The economy is getting better? What galaxy are you from?
rising gas prices; anemic GDP growth; distorted unemployment numbers - including moving people from unemployment to disability; a looming real estate crisis that's ready to sink the economy; an unresolved home mortgage crisis; an unresolved Global financial crisis....a president who is either unable or unwilling to adequately address these issues.
No, we don't need a "mensch". We need an adult, a leader, competence, ...and fiscally sane.
" we need someone like Christie who looks like Mitt" ....and guess who that would be >>>>> ROMNEY!!
Christie is every bit of a centrist you claim Romney is.
Fiscal| 2.23.12 @ 10:09AM
Economy is measured in GDP growth. When Obama became President we had NO growth. If you think government has much to do with economic growth, you've drunk too much Kool-Aid. It is the private sector and consumption that determines growth. The public still blames the Republicans for the economic downturn. Every problem you named were enhanced by the Bush administration. We were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month when Obama took office and that turned around.
And Christie IS a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE. We need to get those social issues out of the public debate because they should be left to the individual. If you truly want personal liberty, you won't force people to take health care, you will let people pursue happiness by marrying someone of the same sex, and you will let them make their own personal decisions about abortion.
Bob Grant| 2.23.12 @ 10:41AM
Government can certainly determine the state of the economy by sabotaging economic growth either by signaling a pro growth message, or punitive one via taxation; Attempts at redistribution; and regulation...among others.
I'm not a Ron Paul fan but he was spot on last night when he stated that government's involvement in the economy should end at regulating contracts. That's it!!
Christie is a fiscal conservative because the state of his state's economy dictate he's so. Face it, he's a a northeastern republican which means he's PRAGMATIC, just.like.Romney.
Mike from Wall Street| 2.23.12 @ 1:02PM
Ron Paul would be the best candidate...in the 19th Century!
Bob Grant| 2.23.12 @ 9:49AM
"a looming real estate crisis"...correction. That would be a looming COMMERCIAL real estate crisis...
Don| 2.23.12 @ 12:03PM
I doubt it... I think the next crises are likely: "resolution" of European sovereign debt; struggling US Treasury market; excessively defaulting US student loans; then a US and Japan sovereign debt crisis (followed by a collapse of the municipal bond market and a freezing of inter-bank and commercial lending - then, and only then, a struggle to finance commercial RE. Commercial real estate looks fine to me in the short term. :) Now how's that for speculation!
Bob Grant| 2.23.12 @ 12:43PM
Don,
Go to National Review and read Kevin Williamson's piece titled: Armageddon at the Strip Mall, Feb 4, 2012.
Read it and tell me the commercial real estate problem wont be a major crisis in the next 1-2 years. It has the potential to be another Black Swan event, similar to what happened in '08.
It's an interesting (and scary) piece about the mess the Commercial Real Estate market is in. It has the potential to take down large banks which dovetails with what you posted.
Sorry I'm unable to post the link but you can find it easily in NR's search engine.
Simon Templar| 2.23.12 @ 10:10AM
Last night's debate was very telling but I am not sure that it can be summed up as Ross would like as solely a complete disaster for Santorum. He may wish that, encourage that, but it still remains a mixed bag.
Now. Let's keep a few things in mind here. Ross is a liberatarian, not a conservative by his own admission. This is why he is comfortable with a Romney. He stands closest to his personal philosophy. Ron Paul would be his perfect candidate if he could just change his rhetoric on terrorism and foreign policy matters and tone it down.
Now, last nights photop of the candidates congratulating each other probably was the most illuminating image and statement of this whole campaign...Romney and Paul high fiving each other and Santorum and Gingrich warmly showing support to each other.
So, what does it say?
What we have here is basically a microcosm of the Republican party and the political landscape of today's differing philosophies and political strains within the "conservative" electorate itself.
First, one may ask just why or how can Romney be so chumming with Ron Paul. Ron Paul, remember, wails against the 'fake conservative' and thinks of himself as the pure real conservative. Then just what has he in common with a northeastern liberal republican that has come to conservativism by his own admission recently?
Well, that is because both of them are essentially progressives and share much more in common than they do with the others. Both are not conservatives. They both detest social conservatives and much of the conservative philosophy. The above poster proves my point; Ross clings to his gun and and spits on his bible. Most of what Romney says is absolute pandering to conservatives particularly on the social issues, foreign policy, and national security. These three areas are what they have in commmon. Both are willing to work with Progressives on all these issues and against conservatives and the wide base of the Republican voting bloc.
Now, the other two would be best categorized as pragmatic, flawed Reagan Democrats that represent the wide base of concerns of the anti-Romney seventy five percent of the Republican electorate. They are both people who have spent a great deal of time in politics slugging it out and sometimes taking compromising positions out of pragmatic political reasons to achieve their overall objectives. Santorum represents that large segment of working class social conservativism and there is no doubt about his sincerity in this area. Gingrich is also a player and represents the Reagan conservative, the experienced politician, the consumate politician and has made some mistakes along the way that he will readily admit if pressed on. He is the intellectual side of conservativism, the pragmatist, the power broker and the ambitious and fighting element in some conservatives. Both men share more in common then they do with the other two.
So, what we have is a Progressive Libertarian, a Progressive Republican, a working class Social Conservative, and a Reagan Traditional Conservative professional politician.
Those are your choices.
So my advive is two fold. Stop listening to the pundits, the smears, half truths, the politician's rhetoric, the polls...
Second, open your eyes, take a good look at them and yourself and make your decision and stick with it.
Big Hurt| 2.23.12 @ 10:43AM
"Santorum was booed repeatedly while cheers for Romney sounded more enthusiastic than anything I've heard since Florida." Can you say stacked audience?? Don't make us out for fools, Kaminsky.
And, it's funny that you attempt to give credence to Paul's attempts to paint Santorum as "fake" (although he is by far the most sincere of these candidates), while disregarding Mitt Romney's patent hypocrisy, his outright lies in these debates, and his record of flip-flopping.
Peppermint Tea| 2.23.12 @ 10:47AM
No, what we have is:
1. A successful businessman turned politician trying to please the most customers;
2. A working class politician who believes in morality & freedom but traded his votes and support;
3. A cranky grandpa who couldn't modify his position-even for a shot at the presidency;
4. A silver-tongued megalomaniac who wants a shot at the prize, but has baggage.
Number 3 eliminates himself. Number 4 could be dangerous. Either Number 1 or Number 2 is fine with me. Number 1 seems more upbeat and positive. Nice work, Ross. (You're my hero--how can I be a day trader?)
Nock| 2.23.12 @ 10:57AM
Ron Paul was brilliant last night. He was the only one up there who wasn't warmongering. Best line: I tried the Moral and the Constitutional argument with you people, now I'll try the economic." Too bad these people are so bloodthirsty and warmongering that they will trample the constitution and bankrupt the country just so we can fight Israel's wars for them. Why does Iran hate us? The CIA coup of 1953, that's why, when we butted in and deposed their democratically elected prime minister. How many times has Israel invaded Lebanon? Anybody? 10 times?
Don| 2.23.12 @ 12:05PM
At least they didn't boo the idea of peace last night... :(
Brooklyn| 2.23.12 @ 11:14AM
I hope itis not a game changer, but I'm afraid it might be. For the informed, nothing new was exposed. As a Santorum supporter, I wish my guy could have handled the attacks with aplomb, but he didn't. Several writers pointed out a differnt way of handling it, but quarterbacking from the easy chair is easy. When Romney said that Spector was the 60th vote for Obamacare, Santorum could have said, no, I would have been the 41st vote to stop it, but I didn't get reelected because of my support of the war effort. He could have given a concise positive narrative of his record in the Senate, but he didn't. He could have said that with a big spending President and Congress he could only reign in cost so much as a fiscal conservative , such as creating a free market for drug perscriptions for seniors which reduced costs significantly and provided personal medical accounts. But he didn't. He could have said earmarks has always been the way members of Congress sent back some of the tax money their constituents put in. But he didn't. He could have segued back to the real economic backbreakers, such as Obamacare and energy and business regulations. But he didn't. There are other things he could have said. But quarterbacking from the sidelines is easy. I'm afraid that Santorum didn't gain any supporters with this performance, and Romney probably gained some.
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 11:28AM
It was a game changer for Santorum.
Now occasionally empty-headed cheerleaders like THE OTHER MCCAIN may persist in thinking that Santorum's train is moving right along, ------------ but it's impossible for others not to observe the Santorum train is off the rails and in a ditch.
I'm not sure by the way that his situation last night could have been improved upon. He had Ron Paul on his right hitting him, and when he gave off, Romney chimed in blasting him from the seat to his left.
He got tag-teamed, -------- big time.
That exasperation he exuded last night was entirely natural.
Maybe he'd have done better if he gave his emotions greater rein, let real anger burn through. It couldn't have been worse than his long-winded, meandering exasperation.
GGinPA| 2.23.12 @ 11:36AM
Not Romney. Please. He slithers too much.
Don| 2.23.12 @ 11:48AM
Unlike the other contenders, Ron Paul would not unilaterally volunteer the US Army to be the defacto army of Israel. His revolution is that he would focus on American security interests instead of sending Americans to die for Israel's political class.
More directly on your point, there IS no proof that Iran has a bomb yet - something you don't dispute with fact. It is also HIGHLY doubtful on any rational analysis that Iran would use it if they could and did develop it. Finally, you gloss over Paul's much more salient point, that while we are expending all of this energy and attention on a widely recognized NON-EXISTENT nuclear weapon, the Russian (former Soviet?) Nukes are floating around the world with few checks. This was PAUL'S point, and if you think about it IS a much more serious threat than a single nation working towards maybe, some day, a single nuclear bomb, which, by the way, they would have no means of delivering to anywhere but their own backyard.
Paul urged caution before America invades another country because of suspected "weapons of Mass destruction." Do not be duped so easily by those who would take your most honourable men and women to their deaths out of self-interest.
Your Inner Voice| 2.23.12 @ 11:48AM
"Disastrous"...Really? REALLY?!
Hmmm, Dude? Well, I guess we'll see, huh? Maybe just wishful thinking on the part of an Anarchy Party supporter who is repelled, like any soulless pragmatic(by definition, not supportive of principle or ideology), by So-Cons...
Fiscal| 2.23.12 @ 12:05PM
"Government can certainly determine the state of the economy by sabotaging economic growth either by signaling a pro growth message, or punitive one via taxation; Attempts at redistribution; and regulation...among others."
Anyone who has studied economics knows that the numbers just don't back up that statement. Both Democrats and Republicans redistribute wealth in order to get votes. The events you name only have a minimal effect on the margins. The same is true for stimulus as for tax cuts, they don't change the direction of the economy very much. IMO, we should have neither. We need to decide what we want government to do (in my case, I want it to do a lot less), and then pay for it. If that means tax cuts -- great. If that means an increase in taxes -- that fine as well -- as long as that's what we want done.
Both sides are presenting a "pro-growth" message. I prefer to look at the numbers to see what works. The problem is that both the Republican candidates AND Obama are partially right and mostly wrong. A person who actually does the homework and tells the truth cannot get elected. For example, since half of the cost of Medicare is for old people in the last year of life, I don't think it should pay for all of those procedures to delay the inevitable. If a person really wants those procedures, let them get private insurance to cover them. We'd cut Medicare by 30-40% that way and would not have to raise taxes. When it comes to the military, how many times do we have to go into countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., to realize that change must come from the inside -- we cannot force it. I call this military evangelism, and it is one of the reasons Christianity must be removed from choosing our battles. We absolutely know that eliminating corporate taxes and replacing that with a consumption tax will be more efficient and will benefit our country because we will be getting taxes from the sale of foreign good rather than taking them away from our corporations. But can you imaging someone running on the platform of killing old people, letting corporations get even more profitable (American corporations, that it), and not trying to eliminate Islam from the face of the earth?
All of this comes from an uneducated electorate who gets their information more from ideology than reality.
Mike from Wall Street| 2.23.12 @ 12:53PM
Romney still has the personality of a Barbie "Ken" Doll. All Plastic!
KG| 2.23.12 @ 2:31PM
If Iran wants nukes, it will get them--just as the USSR, China, and North Korea did. The only questions are when and how. And by the way, did the USSR, China, and North Korea destroy the world? Please. The idea that Iran would bring down the whole of Israel's 300 nuclear weapons on itself is idiotic--transparent military-industrial complex propaganda.
But, of course, Ron Paul is the only candidate who is saying that Israel should be allowed by the US to do whatever it wants against Iran in its own defense--just as he was the only Republican in the House who voted against censuring Israel for taking out Saddam's nuclear reactor. (Remember that?)
Meanwhile, you dopes oppose the only candidate who actually favors constitutional government and has opposed the prodigious spending that the Demopublicans have been engaged in since the '60s. You don't hear Ron Paul echoing Rick Santorum's promises that "If elected president, I will repeal the tens of trillions of unconstitutional boondoggles I inflicted on the country as a senator," do you? Why? Because he voted against Santorum's boondoggles. And Newt's.
I can't take anyone who votes for one of these machine politicians, while saying he's concerned for the Constitution and the debt issue, seriously. It's pure ... well, let's say "bologna."
David| 2.23.12 @ 4:48PM
Because Paul opposes a war with Iran he "remains disqualified from holding the office of president".
Why? Most Americans don't want a war with Iran. The military doesn't want a war with Iran. Paul receives more support from active military than all other candidates combined for his position of no war with Iran. So, precisely by whom is Paul disqualifed over this?
Here's the rub: when anyone points out that only Israel-firsters are pushing for war with Iran, they are slurred with anti-semitic innuendo (see all the comments here.) Why? I am in the military. I am conservative. I am not an anti-semite. I don't want a war with Iran. Why is everyone who wants this war, or who resorts to slurs/dismissals of others, so unwilling to talk about this? Why can't they ever make an argument that holds any water? Ahmedinejad wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the map"? He never said this (see wikipedia on what everyone agrees was said.) He denies the Holocaust? No he doesn't (and who should care if he did? He could deny the sun in the sky and it shouldn't mobilize a war effort.) He could attack the U.S.? There is a better chance that Canada will attack the U.S. Not only does Iran have nothing to gain and zero history of this, but the U.S. military would decimate his entire country before he even had the thought.)
It's time use reason here. Certain factions in Israel want this war and their supporters here in the U.S. (journalists and politicians) parrot their rhetoric (some out of ignorance-based fear, some out of cynical political expedience.)