Last night in Tampa, Florida was another horrible debate. Brian Williams asked a series of pointless questions about sugar subsides, manned missions to Mars, and the candidate’s “path to the nomination.” I’m not going to go into it any further detail because we’ve written about these dumb leftist moderators ad nauseum. Who can be shocked that Brian Williams turned in another Gossip Girl performance?
The most obvious change in last night’s debate was the audience. There was no cheering or jeering. I prefer the hushed tones instead of the near gladiator style debates that were held in South Carolina. These are supposed to be debates and not an angry mob scene. Newt Gingrich is threatening to pull out of the remaining debates if the crowd continues to be silenced. It’s understandable that Gingrich prefers the red meat style debate audiences since he’s basically carved a path to the nomination by seizing the heart of the mob.
In 2008, I thought that the Democrats brainless adulation of Barack Obama could never be topped, but the rise of Newt Gingrich is at least a close 2nd. Americans are increasingly skipping the details and settling for the narrative. You see this in almost every avenue of American culture. We are prisoners of the moment.
The Rick Perry campaign died weeks ago, but he’s been one the most entertaining characters in the race. Tonight there is a debate in New Hampshire. It’s difficult to see anything happening in these debates to stop the Romney Express. Maybe Perry has a secret plan. Here’s a picture he posted on twitter today.
Say what you want about Perry, but he seems to be the most genuine guy in the race. When most politicians take photo-ops with guns it looks a bit ridiculous, but I wouldn’t want Perry aiming at me.
In the end Perry waited too long to get in the race. His debate problems were more or less the product of being unprepared. The lack of preparation is what happens to candidates who jump in the race late. One of the main reasons Romney is clear frontrunner today is because his dirty laundry has been out there for everyone to see for years.
We’ve seen the rise and fall over a lot of candidates over the last six months. Voters keep flocking to imaginary candidates. Then they’re dismayed that the person isn’t perfect. I could save everyone a lot of time. No one is perfect.
These so-called moderators shed no light whatsoever on the Republican candidates or their policy positions. Their intent was to divert attention away from the abject failure that is the Obama administration and focus on the Republican candidates' warts, especially Newt Gingrich's. It's time for these pretentious, shallow mainstream media people to go away.
I was one of a few people who caught the Republican debate on ABC Saturday night. It was awful, mainly because moderators Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos continued to prove how irrelevant, out of touch and shallow the so-called mainstream media really is.
The style of questioning was more appropriate for American Idol, The X Factor and Jersey Shore than it was a serious debate among people vying for the highest office in the land. Rather than substantive policy questions, the entire debate was geared toward the usual Gossip Girl nonsense… “So and so said you’re an idiot. Do you agree with that?”
So, for 15 or 20 minutes we were treated to the spectacle of the candidates nitpicking each other instead of addressing the issues that really matter to voters. It got so bad that Gardasil came up again. It was exhausting to watch the pointless back and forth.
When health care came up, we had to suffer through the usual rehash of Romneycare and Newt’s flirtation with the individual mandate. I really don’t care what either candidate did or believed in the past about health care. What I really want to know is what their ideas about health care are going forward.
The low point of the evening came when the so-called moderators asked how important marital fidelity was in a presidential hopeful. This was an obvious dig at Newt and a blatant attempt to get the other candidates to take turns ripping on Newt. (Ironic, wasn’t it, that Stephanopoulos worked for a serial adulterer; I don’t recall the mainstream media or Stephanopoulos being overly concerned about marital fidelity and the presidency then.)
Perry was asked first, and blathered on about how faithful he is, etc. His response should have been: “Why don’t you ask Newt since you’re so obviously talking to him? I’ll pass on this until you ask a real policy question.” The candidates should have nipped the ridiculous questions in the bud and asked the moderators to ask real ones. Instead, they took the bait.
Say what you will about Donald Trump, but I trust this modern-day P.T. Barnum to ask better questions than clowns like Stephanopoulos, Sawyer, Williams, Cramer and Cooper.
If Rick Perry goes on to win the GOP nomination it will be the greatest comeback of all time. Tonight’s debate will not be remembered for anything except Perry’s inability to name the third agency he would eliminate. No one will remember what Perry had to say after this…
Frankly an in depth analysis of this debate is unnecessary. Rick Perry is the only talking point.
Last night’s Bloomberg/Washington Post GOP debate was painful. I doubt the debate changes anything, mostly because no one watched it. Bloomberg isn’t a big network. The moderators were terrible and the questions equally as terrible. I really can’t believe I sat through it all. I won’t be able to watch next week’s debate in Las Vegas, but after this I’m thankful.
After four debates with Rick Perry I’m not sure what else can change. Rick Santorum apparently works for Mitt Romney’s campaign. In the candidate question session Santorum directed his question toward Herman Cain and not the current frontrunner. Without a doubt Mitt Romney is the best politician in the race. He almost never answers a question directly. Ask him why his capital gains tax is more liberal than President Obama and he says he doesn’t believe in taxing the middle class. Ask him what he’d do if there was another economic downturn and he says he doesn’t answer hypothetical questions.
The biggest revelation is the fact that Mitt Romney and Herman Cain both think TARP was a good idea. They spin this endorsement by stating that the funds weren’t administered correctly. The hole in this argument is that when that much money is thrown around it’s never administered efficiently. That’s the reason it’s a bad idea. The reason Romney and Cain don’t want to answer a hypothetical question is because they’d do the same thing again. Hop on board the Tea Party Express!
As for Rick Perry, he was a non-entity. It reminded me of Michele Bachmann in the first debate after Perry jumped in the race. Like Bachmann was before, Perry was almost forgotten. Apparently he has a plan coming in a few days regarding energy and a balanced budget amendment. The question is whether he’s capable of communicating it. Last night he wanted to bring up energy every time he was asked a question.
If Rick Perry doesn’t make some headway in the next debate it’s going to be very difficult for his candidacy to go anywhere. Will the Tea Party abandon Herman Cain when they learn he’s a former member of the Federal Reserve who believes that TARP was a good idea and that he wants to bring back Alan Greenspan? Or, is the idea of a Romney administration enough to keep building momentum?
I was too tired last night to write a recap of last night’s FOX News/Google debate in Orlando, Fla., but it was a big debate. Rick Perry was terrible last night. He didn’t just fade; he didn’t show up. Perry stumbled through almost every question. Instead of getting better, he seems unprepared to answer the simplest of questions.
Perry’s big splash in the race has crippled Michele Bachmann’s candidacy. Mitt Romney is the one really benefiting from Perry’s entrance in the race. Suddenly Romney appears presidential and safe. As Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Bachmann beat up on Perry, Romney just watches with glee. The GOP establishment is falling over themselves trying to say it’s over for Perry, but that’s just hyperbole. However, Perry really need to step up his game in these debates.
Perry’s two biggest problems are the vaccination business and immigration. Bachmann has got all she can out of the HPV vaccination. The best part? Bachmann is sinking fast. Perry has a real problem with immigration. Illegal immigration is a complex topic. There’s no concensus on how to solve it; however, Perry might get buried on it because Santorum Bachmann, and Huntsman are unrelenting in their attack on Perry. I’ve written about Perry’s luck in politics in Texas, but he’s gonna need a healthy dose of it to survive these attacks. On the flip side, Perry’s stance on immigration is likely to be a plus in the general election, if he ever makes it that far.
This race is Mitt Romney’s to lose at this point. The establishment is on his side. He’s the best politician in the field. You have to be a great politician to change your positions as often as he has in the past ten years. One last thing that Mitt Romney has going… he’s left-handed. Since President Ford, the United States has elected two right-handed presidents (Carter, Bush 2). President Reagan was ambidextrous, so maybe we should be looking for that trait in a candidate.
Finally, Newt Gingrich has been the best in all three debates in September. Gingrich’s problem is that he’s too unpredictable to support. It’s a shame, because he’d crush Obama in a debate.
I just finished watching the GOP debate on MSNBC. It was a painful exercise. There are too many people on the stage that have no chance of being elected. The questions were often from outer-space. Every question to Ron Paul was a joke. It’s as if Brian Williams has never heard libertarian theory. He asked Paul about abolishing FEMA, TSA, and Homeland Security. All of the questions were phrased as if “you don’t really believe that do you?” Paul has a reason to be insulted. However, Paul also claimed that a border fence is dangerous because it could be used to keep Americans in the country!
I suppose the biggest talking point from the debate will be Rick Perry stubborn insistence that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The fact that this is even remotely controversial is the reason the nation is in the predicament it’s in. The fact that Mitt Romney is willing to pander on this issue may mean he’s more electable, but ultimately I’m not going to vote for someone who believes that Social Security is successful when it’s taking over 12% of my income, income that I’ll never see a dime of in the future.
My last observation is on climate change. Jim Huntsman, who had no business being on the stage, claimed that 98 of a 100 climate scientists agree that humans are causing the Earth to warm at an alarming rate. Instead of pouncing on this ridiculous claim Brian Williams asked Rick Perry to name prominent skeptics! Really unbelievable stuff. That’s pretty much all I have. It was nice of MSNBC to have a Hispanic news anchor come on stage to ask questions about illegal immigration Apparently, MSNBC believes the only issue Hispanics care about is illegal immigration. Lean forward!
Winners: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry
Losers: Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, MSNBC
This is about as "intelligent" as it gets at the Facebook group Intelligent Women and Men Against Sarah Palin. I'll never forget the most important lesson I learned about intelligent debate: If you disagree with someone, just tell them to shut up, or call them names. Works every time!
They say ignorance is bliss, but apparently it becomes more “blissful” the more “intelligent” you are, or say you are. The ever-tolerant left wing is alive and well in its efforts to destroy one human being, in this case Sarah Palin, simply because that person doesn’t buy into their Utopian objectives.
For whatever reason, Sarah Palin is a lightning rod for the self-proclaimed “intelligent” among us, consisting primarily of the hipster dufus crowd that sees every political issue through the prism of the propaganda they were taught in college.
A typical post on the Sarah Palin-hating Facebook group, Intelligent Women and Men Against Sarah Palin, says, “Someone should overturn a rig on her and her damn family and let them see how ‘easy’ it is to ‘recover’ and ‘go on’…….F’ING IDIOT!….get OFF THE STAGE…..YOUR SCENE IS OVER!!!!!!!”
I guess this is what passes for “intelligent” commentary at Intelligent Women and Men Against Sarah Palin. The rest of the writings and rantings are no more illuminating than that one. In fact, that’s about as “intelligent” as it gets.
These are people who never see the other side of an issue and simply spout hateful missives about people and policies they care not to delve into themselves. I believe “shallow” would be the more pertinent word, as in Shallow Women and Men Against Sarah Palin.
Me? I’m neutral about Sarah Palin. I agree with her on most issues, but she hasn’t shown much depth in her ideological reasoning. Ironically, just like the groups aligned against her, her positions don’t appear to be very well thought out, other than “it sounds right.”
Like me, she has taken a stand against increasing government growth and interference. But at the same time I haven’t heard a rational defense of this position other than the fact that she’s against it.
When asked to name her favorite founding father, she said, “All of them.” While that might be true, it shows that maybe she hasn’t really thought all that much about the founders or the founding principles of the nation.
In the same way, the leftists at Intelligent Blah Blah Blah on Facebook provide no reasonable defense of their positions, other than calling anyone who disagrees with them Teabaggers, Baggers, anti-choice, Nazis, F’ing idiots and other vulgar word combinations, as well as original stuff like, “How’s that drill-baby-drill thing working out for you?” It’s like reading Bizarro Palin.
Recent Comments