Debate Wrap: Romney By A Length

Debate Wrap: Romney By A Length

. . . and the debates keep coming. Last night was the first of two debates this week from South Carolina. It was an interesting night and it will be interesting to see if this changes the race. Romney continues to roll and Perry helped himself a lot. Newt did well, sort of. The rest, not so much. Let’s discuss.

● Loser: Juan Williams. Juan was the biggest loser because he proved he’s a race baiter extraordinaire. All he talked about was racism: cutting taxes is racist, being white is racist, not offering money to poor blacks is racist, telling blacks they need jobs is racist, the word “poor” is code word for “black” and is racist, repeating Obama’s words is racist, and criticizing Obama is racist. Juan even suggested that Romney betrayed his own race (he’s part Mexican) because he’s opposed to illegal immigration and won’t pander to Hispanics on that issue. Juan needs therapy.

● Winner: Mitt Romney. Romney won the debate, hands down. Not only did he handle the other’s attacks on him well, but he continues to come across as increasingly more conservative (and thoughtfully conservative). For example:

When they attacked his Bain Capital record, Romney pointed out that Bain bought over 100 different businesses and turned most of them around (22 ended up in bankruptcy). The steel mill he shut down in South Carolina only closed after seven years of Bain trying to turn it around, it failed because of Chinese dumping of steel, and Bain later managed to open a newer mill in Indiana. This, he pointed out, gave him solid knowledge of how the economy really works and of the threat posed by China. He also mentioned that Bain’s companies created more than 120,000 jobs.

He then mentioned that his success as Bain led to him being asked to rescue the Olympics, which he did. And during his time as Governor of Massachusetts, the state had a 4.7% unemployment rate, a balanced budget, they reduced taxes nineteen times, and filled a “rainy day” fund with $2 billion. In effect, he went from success to success to success and proved he could succeed in the real economy, succeed at fixing bureaucratic messes, and succeed in running a state dominated by Democrats. That’s a solid sales pitch which easily defused the attacks on Bain.

In addition to defending his record, Romney continues to take solid conservative positions on taxes, regulations, deficits, foreign policy, military strength and even social issues. Moreover, he keeps making excellent conservative promises in each debate. This time he promised to (1) halt ALL “Obama era regulations,” effectively reversing Obama’s term, (2) push for voluntary self-directed retirement accounts, and (3) get rid of all campaign finance laws. It was another strong night for him.

● Winner: Rick Perry. Apparently, Rick Perry has a retarded twin named Goober Perry. For some strange reason, they let Goober handle the debates up to this point. Last night, Rick stepped in and the difference was remarkable. It’s not that Rick said anything substantive, he didn’t, but for once he sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Indeed, he made it clear that he favors lower taxes and less regulation. He attacked the regulatory abuses of the EPA, Obama’s Labor Board’s attacks on Boeing, and the Justice Department’s interference in state voting issues. He attacked something he called Obama’s war against organized religion. He said Obama’s claim that the border with Mexico is secure is ludicrous and that traffic only slowed because this is the worst economy in 40 years. He defended the soldiers who urinated on the Taliban corpses by contrasting this with the Taliban killing and desecrating Americans. And most interestingly, he made the point that it’s not the government’s responsibility to fix housing and said (roughly): “the best way to get the economy going is not to think about how much we can push the government into the economy, but instead to think of ways to get it out of the economy.”

If this Rick Perry had showed up early on, he would be cruising to an easy win. But he didn’t. So now the question is, does this help Perry or not? Can he steal back voters who have fled to megalomaniac Gingrich or socialist Rick Santorum? It’s not clear, but Rick probably bought his campaign more life after the debacles of Iowa and New Hampshire.

● Sort of Loser: Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is a frustrating candidate and last night really displayed why. He is capable of excellence in debating, especially at flipping sucker punches back onto hapless fools like Juan Williams and really taking them down. BUT there’s never any substance to his answers. Instead, he just makes a lot of noise attacking the questioner, mentions Ronald Reagan a dozen times, and then leaves an impression that he would do something different than Obama or the questioner. . . but he never actually tells you what he would do. Example:

Q. “Newt, should the government sell strawberry ice cream?”
A. “I find it insulting that you would ask such a blatantly biased question at a time when few Americans can afford ice cream of any type, and I certainly am not like Obama who doesn’t even realize that strawberry ice cream exists.”
Q. “But should the government sell it?”
A. “Look, I worked with Ronald Reagan and I’m not like Obama.”

Newt’s performance reeks of bread and circuses, but the clown act serves him well with a public that long ago lost the ability to spot substance. He was quite entertaining last night, but as you’ll see below, he lost because of Perry’s surge.

● Loser: Ricky Santorum. Ricky again exposed himself as a socialist and a liar. He spent the night denying his own votes and pretending he actually led the charge against the things he voted for. In one particularly galling moment, he tried to deny his vote to force states to let felons vote by (1) attacking Romney for being a governor of a state that lets felons vote (something Romney did not support or sign into law), (2) somehow wrapping himself in the Tenth Amendment and declaring this a state issue, and (3) suggesting it was racist not to let felons vote. In effect, he denied his own vote, accused Romney of doing what only Rick himself had done, accused Romney of not being a conservative because he lived in a state which did what Rick tried to force upon every state, and then flipped it around and accused Romney (and conservatism) of racism for not doing what Rick now denies that he himself did. . . by hey, it’s a state issue. This happened all night on issue after issue and I’ve come to believe Rick is a pathological liar with no sense of shame.

Rick was also rude, as usual, and debates like an angry child. He also has a habit of flip-flopping in the middle of answers. And even beyond that, Rick’s a socialist. He does not trust you to invest in your own retirement, he wants the government to do it for you. He wants to micromanage the economy and stated very clearly that he believes certain companies should be given tax breaks and others not depending on which competitive forces he thinks are at play. But don’t worry, he assured us, he is all for capitalism once he and the government have fixed the economy.

Worse yet, Rick will latch onto any liberal attack and run with it. Last night, he played the race card twice, first when he attacked Romney for wanting to keep felons from voting, which Rick suggested was racist against blacks, and when he played along with Juan Williams’ equation that “poor equals black” and thus not giving money to the poor equals racism. Rick also suggested very strongly that he supports affirmative action.

There is some speculation that Rick is playing for the VP slot, but only a fool would pick the toxic Santorum as a running mate, especially with Allen West saying yesterday that he’s open to being on the ticket.

● Loser: Ron Paul. Paul is insane and last night was just too much. Once again he suggested our problems in the Middle East were because we started it by bombing these countries. Then he played the race card by suggesting that the war on drugs is racist and that our criminal justice system is racist. So not only is Paul’s foreign and military policy suicidal, and his economic policy little more than extreme platitudes, but now he’s playing right into liberal smears on conservatism.

Conclusion

Last night helped Romney once again. Not only did he continue to seem presidential, but the anybody-but-Romney camp will remain split and in disarray. With Paul draining away 15% of the vote and Romney earning a consistent 40%, the only hope of the anybody-but-Romney forces is for one of the other three to emerge as the ABR champion. But Gingrich, Santorum and Perry are all horrid candidates, which is preventing any of them from becoming the natural challenger to Romney. Moreover, with Perry showing actual competence last night, he will likely steal back lost supporters from Santorum and Gingrich and thereby stop either of them from pulling ahead.

And in truth, I must say Romney really is earning the nomination. With each passing debate he becomes a better debater and sounds more conservative. He has slowly but surely raised my comfort level with him.

Thoughts? (fyi, there’s another debate Thursday night. . . ugh.)

. . . and the debates keep coming. Last night was the first of two debates this week from South Carolina. It was an interesting night and it will be interesting to see if this changes the race. Romney continues to roll and Perry helped himself a lot. Newt did well, sort of. The rest, not so much. Let’s discuss.

● Loser: Juan Williams. Juan was the biggest loser because he proved he’s a race baiter extraordinaire. All he talked about was racism: cutting taxes is racist, being white is racist, not offering money to poor blacks is racist, telling blacks they need jobs is racist, the word “poor” is code word for “black” and is racist, repeating Obama’s words is racist, and criticizing Obama is racist. Juan even suggested that Romney betrayed his own race (he’s part Mexican) because he’s opposed to illegal immigration and won’t pander to Hispanics on that issue. Juan needs therapy.

● Winner: Mitt Romney. Romney won the debate, hands down. Not only did he handle the other’s attacks on him well, but he continues to come across as increasingly more conservative (and thoughtfully conservative). For example:

When they attacked his Bain Capital record, Romney pointed out that Bain bought over 100 different businesses and turned most of them around (22 ended up in bankruptcy). The steel mill he shut down in South Carolina only closed after seven years of Bain trying to turn it around, it failed because of Chinese dumping of steel, and Bain later managed to open a newer mill in Indiana. This, he pointed out, gave him solid knowledge of how the economy really works and of the threat posed by China. He also mentioned that Bain’s companies created more than 120,000 jobs.

He then mentioned that his success as Bain led to him being asked to rescue the Olympics, which he did. And during his time as Governor of Massachusetts, the state had a 4.7% unemployment rate, a balanced budget, they reduced taxes nineteen times, and filled a “rainy day” fund with $2 billion. In effect, he went from success to success to success and proved he could succeed in the real economy, succeed at fixing bureaucratic messes, and succeed in running a state dominated by Democrats. That’s a solid sales pitch which easily defused the attacks on Bain.

In addition to defending his record, Romney continues to take solid conservative positions on taxes, regulations, deficits, foreign policy, military strength and even social issues. Moreover, he keeps making excellent conservative promises in each debate. This time he promised to (1) halt ALL “Obama era regulations,” effectively reversing Obama’s term, (2) push for voluntary self-directed retirement accounts, and (3) get rid of all campaign finance laws. It was another strong night for him.

● Winner: Rick Perry. Apparently, Rick Perry has a retarded twin named Goober Perry. For some strange reason, they let Goober handle the debates up to this point. Last night, Rick stepped in and the difference was remarkable. It’s not that Rick said anything substantive, he didn’t, but for once he sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Indeed, he made it clear that he favors lower taxes and less regulation. He attacked the regulatory abuses of the EPA, Obama’s Labor Board’s attacks on Boeing, and the Justice Department’s interference in state voting issues. He attacked something he called Obama’s war against organized religion. He said Obama’s claim that the border with Mexico is secure is ludicrous and that traffic only slowed because this is the worst economy in 40 years. He defended the soldiers who urinated on the Taliban corpses by contrasting this with the Taliban killing and desecrating Americans. And most interestingly, he made the point that it’s not the government’s responsibility to fix housing and said (roughly): “the best way to get the economy going is not to think about how much we can push the government into the economy, but instead to think of ways to get it out of the economy.”

If this Rick Perry had showed up early on, he would be cruising to an easy win. But he didn’t. So now the question is, does this help Perry or not? Can he steal back voters who have fled to megalomaniac Gingrich or socialist Rick Santorum? It’s not clear, but Rick probably bought his campaign more life after the debacles of Iowa and New Hampshire.

● Sort of Loser: Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is a frustrating candidate and last night really displayed why. He is capable of excellence in debating, especially at flipping sucker punches back onto hapless fools like Juan Williams and really taking them down. BUT there’s never any substance to his answers. Instead, he just makes a lot of noise attacking the questioner, mentions Ronald Reagan a dozen times, and then leaves an impression that he would do something different than Obama or the questioner. . . but he never actually tells you what he would do. Example:

Q. “Newt, should the government sell strawberry ice cream?”
A. “I find it insulting that you would ask such a blatantly biased question at a time when few Americans can afford ice cream of any type, and I certainly am not like Obama who doesn’t even realize that strawberry ice cream exists.”
Q. “But should the government sell it?”
A. “Look, I worked with Ronald Reagan and I’m not like Obama.”

Newt’s performance reeks of bread and circuses, but the clown act serves him well with a public that long ago lost the ability to spot substance. He was quite entertaining last night, but as you’ll see below, he lost because of Perry’s surge.

● Loser: Ricky Santorum. Ricky again exposed himself as a socialist and a liar. He spent the night denying his own votes and pretending he actually led the charge against the things he voted for. In one particularly galling moment, he tried to deny his vote to force states to let felons vote by (1) attacking Romney for being a governor of a state that lets felons vote (something Romney did not support or sign into law), (2) somehow wrapping himself in the Tenth Amendment and declaring this a state issue, and (3) suggesting it was racist not to let felons vote. In effect, he denied his own vote, accused Romney of doing what only Rick himself had done, accused Romney of not being a conservative because he lived in a state which did what Rick tried to force upon every state, and then flipped it around and accused Romney (and conservatism) of racism for not doing what Rick now denies that he himself did. . . by hey, it’s a state issue. This happened all night on issue after issue and I’ve come to believe Rick is a pathological liar with no sense of shame.

Rick was also rude, as usual, and debates like an angry child. He also has a habit of flip-flopping in the middle of answers. And even beyond that, Rick’s a socialist. He does not trust you to invest in your own retirement, he wants the government to do it for you. He wants to micromanage the economy and stated very clearly that he believes certain companies should be given tax breaks and others not depending on which competitive forces he thinks are at play. But don’t worry, he assured us, he is all for capitalism once he and the government have fixed the economy.

Worse yet, Rick will latch onto any liberal attack and run with it. Last night, he played the race card twice, first when he attacked Romney for wanting to keep felons from voting, which Rick suggested was racist against blacks, and when he played along with Juan Williams’ equation that “poor equals black” and thus not giving money to the poor equals racism. Rick also suggested very strongly that he supports affirmative action.

There is some speculation that Rick is playing for the VP slot, but only a fool would pick the toxic Santorum as a running mate, especially with Allen West saying yesterday that he’s open to being on the ticket.

● Loser: Ron Paul. Paul is insane and last night was just too much. Once again he suggested our problems in the Middle East were because we started it by bombing these countries. Then he played the race card by suggesting that the war on drugs is racist and that our criminal justice system is racist. So not only is Paul’s foreign and military policy suicidal, and his economic policy little more than extreme platitudes, but now he’s playing right into liberal smears on conservatism.

Conclusion

Last night helped Romney once again. Not only did he continue to seem presidential, but the anybody-but-Romney camp will remain split and in disarray. With Paul draining away 15% of the vote and Romney earning a consistent 40%, the only hope of the anybody-but-Romney forces is for one of the other three to emerge as the ABR champion. But Gingrich, Santorum and Perry are all horrid candidates, which is preventing any of them from becoming the natural challenger to Romney. Moreover, with Perry showing actual competence last night, he will likely steal back lost supporters from Santorum and Gingrich and thereby stop either of them from pulling ahead.

And in truth, I must say Romney really is earning the nomination. With each passing debate he becomes a better debater and sounds more conservative. He has slowly but surely raised my comfort level with him.

Thoughts? (fyi, there’s another debate Thursday night. . . ugh.)

Debate Wrap: Romney By A Length

View Detail

Republican Candidates Fall For Smear, Again

Republican Candidates Fall For Smear, Again

Some people never learn. These people are called failing Republican candidates. This time the media smeared Mitt Romney and like a pack of jackasses these candidates bought into it hook, line and sinker and promptly set about blasting Romney. . . and capitalism. Ug.

Here’s the set up. The Washington Post and other liberal outlets reported the other day that Mitt Romney said he likes to fire people. In fact, as presented by the leftist Post, the quote reads: “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

That sounds kind of Grinchy. But it’s not actually what Romney said. Here’s what Romney said:

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

This is not what the Post described it as. Romney is not saying he likes firing people. He is saying he likes having choices as a consumer. He likes having the ability to change companies when he doesn’t like the service being provided and he wants Americans to have that power when it comes to health insurance companies. This is how all Americans think.

Of course, this didn’t stop the idiots from jumping on the liberal smear-version.

Rick Perry, who really is proving to be a total dipsh*t, turned the “I like to fire people” portion of the quote into a ringtone that people could download. Then he channeled Karl Marx and said this about Romney’s time at Bain:

“Allowing these companies to come in and loot the, loot people’s jobs, loot their pensions, loot their ability to take care of their families and I will suggest they’re just vultures. They’re vultures that sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton. I don’t think they want someone who has killed jobs in South Carolina on the altar of making more money for themselves and their company.”

It doesn’t even make sense what Rick is saying, how could Romney make money buying companies and letting them fail? This is Oliver Stone “I know nothing about finance but I hate it” thinking. But even worse, this is Marxism. Rick is criticizing the very idea of capitalism here. He is saying that somehow it’s wrong (1) to buy another company, (2) to fire employees, and (3) to seek profit.

Gingrich piled on, saying: “If somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism.” This is, of course, nonsense as well because no one gives a company away for nothing so someone else can suck millions of dollars out of it. Huntsman jumped on this too just as stupidly.

The Club for Growth, the driving force behind much of modern economic conservatism, blasted these attacks:

“[The] attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital are disgusting. Because of the efforts of Bain Capital, major companies like Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and the Sports Authority now employ thousands of people and have created billions in wealth in the private economy. Attacking Governor Romney for participating in free-market capitalism is just beyond the pale for any purported ‘Reagan Conservative.’”

Ron Paul also has properly defended Romney.

“I think they’re wrong. I think they’re totally misunderstanding the way the market works. They are either just demagoguing or they don’t have the vaguest idea how the market works. . . You save companies, you save jobs when you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt. And they don’t understand that.”

Gingrich, by the way, finally backed away from attacking the “I like to fire people” quote claiming that he didn’t know it had been taken out of context, but he has yet to repudiate his sudden embrace of Marxism.

This is frustrating. Once again, these candidates fall for an MSM smear without ever bothering to ask whether there is any truth to the smear. What’s worse, they knee-jerk attack Romney by blasting capitalism. All this does is reinforce liberal propaganda -- capitalism is evil and heartless and profit is bad. This is shameful and it hurts conservatism.

It’s no wonder 58% of Republicans want more choices.

Romney, by the way, had a devastating response to Gingrich and Perry:

“It is no surprise that, having spent nearly half a century in government between them, Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry have resorted to desperate attacks on a subject they don’t understand. We expect attacks on free enterprise from President Obama and his allies on the left — not from so-called ‘fiscal conservatives. Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry seem to think that running against the private sector is the way to revive their floundering campaigns.”

Yep.

Some people never learn. These people are called failing Republican candidates. This time the media smeared Mitt Romney and like a pack of jackasses these candidates bought into it hook, line and sinker and promptly set about blasting Romney. . . and capitalism. Ug.

Here’s the set up. The Washington Post and other liberal outlets reported the other day that Mitt Romney said he likes to fire people. In fact, as presented by the leftist Post, the quote reads: “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

That sounds kind of Grinchy. But it’s not actually what Romney said. Here’s what Romney said:

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

This is not what the Post described it as. Romney is not saying he likes firing people. He is saying he likes having choices as a consumer. He likes having the ability to change companies when he doesn’t like the service being provided and he wants Americans to have that power when it comes to health insurance companies. This is how all Americans think.

Of course, this didn’t stop the idiots from jumping on the liberal smear-version.

Rick Perry, who really is proving to be a total dipsh*t, turned the “I like to fire people” portion of the quote into a ringtone that people could download. Then he channeled Karl Marx and said this about Romney’s time at Bain:

“Allowing these companies to come in and loot the, loot people’s jobs, loot their pensions, loot their ability to take care of their families and I will suggest they’re just vultures. They’re vultures that sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton. I don’t think they want someone who has killed jobs in South Carolina on the altar of making more money for themselves and their company.”

It doesn’t even make sense what Rick is saying, how could Romney make money buying companies and letting them fail? This is Oliver Stone “I know nothing about finance but I hate it” thinking. But even worse, this is Marxism. Rick is criticizing the very idea of capitalism here. He is saying that somehow it’s wrong (1) to buy another company, (2) to fire employees, and (3) to seek profit.

Gingrich piled on, saying: “If somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism.” This is, of course, nonsense as well because no one gives a company away for nothing so someone else can suck millions of dollars out of it. Huntsman jumped on this too just as stupidly.

The Club for Growth, the driving force behind much of modern economic conservatism, blasted these attacks:

“[The] attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital are disgusting. Because of the efforts of Bain Capital, major companies like Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and the Sports Authority now employ thousands of people and have created billions in wealth in the private economy. Attacking Governor Romney for participating in free-market capitalism is just beyond the pale for any purported ‘Reagan Conservative.’”

Ron Paul also has properly defended Romney.

“I think they’re wrong. I think they’re totally misunderstanding the way the market works. They are either just demagoguing or they don’t have the vaguest idea how the market works. . . You save companies, you save jobs when you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt. And they don’t understand that.”

Gingrich, by the way, finally backed away from attacking the “I like to fire people” quote claiming that he didn’t know it had been taken out of context, but he has yet to repudiate his sudden embrace of Marxism.

This is frustrating. Once again, these candidates fall for an MSM smear without ever bothering to ask whether there is any truth to the smear. What’s worse, they knee-jerk attack Romney by blasting capitalism. All this does is reinforce liberal propaganda -- capitalism is evil and heartless and profit is bad. This is shameful and it hurts conservatism.

It’s no wonder 58% of Republicans want more choices.

Romney, by the way, had a devastating response to Gingrich and Perry:

“It is no surprise that, having spent nearly half a century in government between them, Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry have resorted to desperate attacks on a subject they don’t understand. We expect attacks on free enterprise from President Obama and his allies on the left — not from so-called ‘fiscal conservatives. Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry seem to think that running against the private sector is the way to revive their floundering campaigns.”

Yep.

Republican Candidates Fall For Smear, Again

View Detail

Welcome Back Peeps! :)

Welcome Back Peeps! :)

Welcome back! We’ve missed you! Hopefully everyone had a nice Christmas?! Anyhoo, here’s a quick update on what you missed followed by a brief discussion of negative campaigning. This will all be on the year-end test...

Wha’d I Miss?

● The big news is that Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska announced his retirement. This is great news for several reasons. First, I suspect Nelson had a solid chance of getting re-elected. Nelson was down in the polls, but polls this far out are unreliable because they are little more than a means of registering a protest. And come election time, people rarely look at the past but instead focus on the future. That’s where things like seniority, client services, and comfort level with candidates all come into play and Nelson scored well in those. Secondly, if Nelson had won, then the MSM narrative would have been that ObamaCare obviously wasn’t a problem with voters. This cuts that off.

● Speaking of ObamaCare, the Supremes have agreed to hear the ObamaCare case, and they’re giving it an unprecedented three hours for oral argument. Except in rare instances, each side normally gets 30 minutes.

● Still speaking of ObamaCare, there are more problems arising. Remember how the plan calls for subsidizing everyone’s healthcare? Well, it turns out the bill was written poorly and this may not be possible. Even the Obama people admit it will require a Congressional fix to solve this problem. That ain’t happening. So even if the Supremes don’t strike it down, ObamaCare may collapse under Obama/Reid’s incompetent drafting.

● Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum and Perry all failed to get their names on the Virginia ballot. This shows a lack of seriousness as candidates which should alarm their supporters. Gingrich then doubled-down on stupid by blaming one of the people he hired to get signatures. Apparently, this individual submitted 1,200 fake signatures. . . like ACORN. But this shows Gingrich’s stupidity. First, everyone knows you hire people to cross-check the names against voter rolls. What competent candidate could let someone get away with making up 1,200 fake names? Secondly, Gingrich played too fast and loose with the rules by only giving himself about an 11% margin of error. This is stupid. Romney and Paul gave themselves 50% margins. In any event, Gingrich sued and apparently will be let on the ballot if he agrees to stop crying.

● Rick Perry also sued Virginia for not protecting him from his own stupidity. Nice conservative values there, Rick: when you don’t follow the rules and things don’t work out. . . sue. Perhaps a homosexual/teletubby conspiracy slipped Rick litigious pills? In any event, recent reports have his whining working and he too will be let on the ballot.

● American Idol Kelly Clarkson endorsed Ron Paul. While I would have preferred she picked a different Republican, I am thrilled that a young, single female in the pop music world would endorse a non-leftist.

● A new video has emerged of Gingrich praising RomneyCare when it was passed and saying it would lead to great things.

Negative Campaigning

Negative campaigning is a tricky thing. Almost everyone professes to hate negative campaigning and it’s pretty clear that truly negative campaigns backfire on the candidates who wage them. But on the other hand, negative ads do work.

In fact, negative ads can be so effective, that some blame them for bringing about the current cynical state of our politics. I understand the logic in this -- if everyone attacks everyone else, then everyone is brought down in the public’s estimation and there’s nothing positive to latch onto -- but I don’t actually buy this argument. I think the cynical state of our current politics is a reaction to the lack of clear ideological choice, deep-seated corruption in both parties, and Democrats and Republicans blatantly lying about their intentions.

But what constitutes a negative ad? The Economist just wrote a stupid little piece in which they “worried” (read: hoped to promote the idea) that the Republican candidates were becoming so negative that no one would support them in November. Interestingly, the ad they discuss is a Ron Paul ad about Gingrich which shows:

● Gingrich sitting with Pelosi “warning of the dangers of climate change”;
● Gingrich bragging about receiving “speaking fees of $60,000 a pop”; and
● A voiceover pointing out that “Gingrich once supported the individual health mandate.”

This is hardly “going negative.” These are legitimate policy questions. Does Gingrich or does he not support global warming legislation? He did before and he’s hazy on it now. That’s a pretty important issue. Gingrich claims to be an outsider, yet he’s bragging about his speaking fees at large corporate gatherings. Is it not valid to question who his supporters are? And how can Gingrich’s support for the central abuse of ObamaCare not be a policy issue? (Also, isn’t it funny that supporting a Democratic agenda is “going negative”?)

The reality is none of this is negative. Negative is false statements, distortions of records, and baseless smears hinting that someone is a racist, a harasser, a philanderer or a bigot. Negative is repeating isolated, context-less quotes from decades ago and pretending they represent a lifetime record. Negative is smearing a candidate’s family or invading their bedroom. Negative is suggesting Barry Goldwater is unstable and will start a nuclear war, suggesting Ronald Reagan is old and senile or that he cut a deal with the Iranians, and publishing fake rumors about affairs that never happened, spreading lies about military records, and springing stories about a drunk driving arrest 40 years prior. Negative is NOT pointing out that your opponent supports political policies with which you disagree.

I am not a believer in negative campaigning. I think it cheapens your victory and destroys your mandate, and positive candidates will always be better leaders. But I also think we need to stop calling the pointing out of policy disagreements negative campaigning. And we really need to stop letting the MSM spin any criticism of another candidate as negative just so they can drive the narrative that Republicans are all negative.

(P.S. Don't forget, Star Trek Tuesdays start tomorrow morning at the film site.... 9:00 AM, be there.)

Welcome back! We’ve missed you! Hopefully everyone had a nice Christmas?! Anyhoo, here’s a quick update on what you missed followed by a brief discussion of negative campaigning. This will all be on the year-end test...

Wha’d I Miss?

● The big news is that Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska announced his retirement. This is great news for several reasons. First, I suspect Nelson had a solid chance of getting re-elected. Nelson was down in the polls, but polls this far out are unreliable because they are little more than a means of registering a protest. And come election time, people rarely look at the past but instead focus on the future. That’s where things like seniority, client services, and comfort level with candidates all come into play and Nelson scored well in those. Secondly, if Nelson had won, then the MSM narrative would have been that ObamaCare obviously wasn’t a problem with voters. This cuts that off.

● Speaking of ObamaCare, the Supremes have agreed to hear the ObamaCare case, and they’re giving it an unprecedented three hours for oral argument. Except in rare instances, each side normally gets 30 minutes.

● Still speaking of ObamaCare, there are more problems arising. Remember how the plan calls for subsidizing everyone’s healthcare? Well, it turns out the bill was written poorly and this may not be possible. Even the Obama people admit it will require a Congressional fix to solve this problem. That ain’t happening. So even if the Supremes don’t strike it down, ObamaCare may collapse under Obama/Reid’s incompetent drafting.

● Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum and Perry all failed to get their names on the Virginia ballot. This shows a lack of seriousness as candidates which should alarm their supporters. Gingrich then doubled-down on stupid by blaming one of the people he hired to get signatures. Apparently, this individual submitted 1,200 fake signatures. . . like ACORN. But this shows Gingrich’s stupidity. First, everyone knows you hire people to cross-check the names against voter rolls. What competent candidate could let someone get away with making up 1,200 fake names? Secondly, Gingrich played too fast and loose with the rules by only giving himself about an 11% margin of error. This is stupid. Romney and Paul gave themselves 50% margins. In any event, Gingrich sued and apparently will be let on the ballot if he agrees to stop crying.

● Rick Perry also sued Virginia for not protecting him from his own stupidity. Nice conservative values there, Rick: when you don’t follow the rules and things don’t work out. . . sue. Perhaps a homosexual/teletubby conspiracy slipped Rick litigious pills? In any event, recent reports have his whining working and he too will be let on the ballot.

● American Idol Kelly Clarkson endorsed Ron Paul. While I would have preferred she picked a different Republican, I am thrilled that a young, single female in the pop music world would endorse a non-leftist.

● A new video has emerged of Gingrich praising RomneyCare when it was passed and saying it would lead to great things.

Negative Campaigning

Negative campaigning is a tricky thing. Almost everyone professes to hate negative campaigning and it’s pretty clear that truly negative campaigns backfire on the candidates who wage them. But on the other hand, negative ads do work.

In fact, negative ads can be so effective, that some blame them for bringing about the current cynical state of our politics. I understand the logic in this -- if everyone attacks everyone else, then everyone is brought down in the public’s estimation and there’s nothing positive to latch onto -- but I don’t actually buy this argument. I think the cynical state of our current politics is a reaction to the lack of clear ideological choice, deep-seated corruption in both parties, and Democrats and Republicans blatantly lying about their intentions.

But what constitutes a negative ad? The Economist just wrote a stupid little piece in which they “worried” (read: hoped to promote the idea) that the Republican candidates were becoming so negative that no one would support them in November. Interestingly, the ad they discuss is a Ron Paul ad about Gingrich which shows:

● Gingrich sitting with Pelosi “warning of the dangers of climate change”;
● Gingrich bragging about receiving “speaking fees of $60,000 a pop”; and
● A voiceover pointing out that “Gingrich once supported the individual health mandate.”

This is hardly “going negative.” These are legitimate policy questions. Does Gingrich or does he not support global warming legislation? He did before and he’s hazy on it now. That’s a pretty important issue. Gingrich claims to be an outsider, yet he’s bragging about his speaking fees at large corporate gatherings. Is it not valid to question who his supporters are? And how can Gingrich’s support for the central abuse of ObamaCare not be a policy issue? (Also, isn’t it funny that supporting a Democratic agenda is “going negative”?)

The reality is none of this is negative. Negative is false statements, distortions of records, and baseless smears hinting that someone is a racist, a harasser, a philanderer or a bigot. Negative is repeating isolated, context-less quotes from decades ago and pretending they represent a lifetime record. Negative is smearing a candidate’s family or invading their bedroom. Negative is suggesting Barry Goldwater is unstable and will start a nuclear war, suggesting Ronald Reagan is old and senile or that he cut a deal with the Iranians, and publishing fake rumors about affairs that never happened, spreading lies about military records, and springing stories about a drunk driving arrest 40 years prior. Negative is NOT pointing out that your opponent supports political policies with which you disagree.

I am not a believer in negative campaigning. I think it cheapens your victory and destroys your mandate, and positive candidates will always be better leaders. But I also think we need to stop calling the pointing out of policy disagreements negative campaigning. And we really need to stop letting the MSM spin any criticism of another candidate as negative just so they can drive the narrative that Republicans are all negative.

(P.S. Don't forget, Star Trek Tuesdays start tomorrow morning at the film site.... 9:00 AM, be there.)

Welcome Back Peeps! :)

View Detail

Debate Wrap: We’re Doomed (with bonus rant)

Debate Wrap: We’re Doomed (with bonus rant)

For those of you fortunate enough to miss it, we had another debate on Saturday night. To put as positive a spin on this as possible, at least we now know six people who should not be President. The debate summary and a bonus rant follows! :)

● Overall Impression: What?! For the first half of the debate, I wondered whether I had damaged my brain. Everyone was speaking, but no one made any sense. They seemed to spout random thoughts, mindless slogans, and pure idiocy. It was nonsense. Sadly, it turns out my brain wasn’t the problem.

● Loser: Newt/Romney/Perry/Bachmann. Childish, petty and vile. They spent the night calling each other names: serial hypocrites, liars, whatever. There was NO (0.0%) substance in this debate, there was no order in this debate. It was like listening to a group of whiners trying to tell you everything they hate about their boss in 20 seconds.

● Loser: Diane Sawyer/ABC. Sawyer either has a drinking problem or mental health issues. Her questions were rambling, confused and pointless. And most of them were borderline-retarded, like when she wondered aloud: “why can’t people who disagree just come together to agree for the good of the country.” Gee, I don’t know Diane. Why don’t we agree for the good of the country that you will hand me all your money while I beat you with a Jack Daniels bottle? Maybe that will help you answer this seemingly intractable quandary?!

● Winner: Pandering. The level of pandering was pathetic. It truly was a dignity free night. They all heaped fake praise on Iowa, calling its crappy colleges and cities the best in the nation and identifying their subsidy sucking politicians as personal heroes. In hindsight, it’s a bit of a shock none of the candidates wore overalls or tried to eat corn on stage.

And that was only the beginning. Newt tried to claim Libertarian instincts when he favored forcing people to buy health insurance and he tried to win over Perry’s supporters by telling us how Perry taught him about the Tenth Amendment. Perry thinks he’s the only Christian. Santorum and Romney laughably made plays for Paul’s supporters. And Michelle Bachmann took the cake when she kept praising Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 plan which she had previously derided as his “6-6-6 plan.” She even came up with a catchy new name for her plan: “the win-win-win plan.” Now she just needs a plan to go with the name.

● Loser: Yo’ Momma So Po’ Contests. At one point, Diane Sawyer slurred a question about whether or not the candidates had ever been poor. This was a stupid identity politics question, but that didn’t matter. The idiots were off to the races.

Rick Perry grew up in a septic tank. . . Mitt Romney wasn’t poor, but by God, he had a father who taught him how to be poor! Rick Santorum not only had a father who wanted him to be poor, but he had a mother who wanted him to be poor too. . . Michele Bachmann was raised by a single mother, below the poverty level, who put Michele to work in a mine at age 13. . . Ron Paul grew up during the Depression and had to have a real job (until his wife paid for his medical school). . . and Newt didn’t always fly in private jets and get lobbyist-created $500,000 expense accounts at Tiffany’s. This was like watching stereotyped “old rich white people” in films pretending they like rap.

● Least Loser: Ricky Santorum. Rick Santorum won in the sense of someone winning a nuclear war: he came across as least radioactive.

● Double-Down Loser: Perry/Romney. Perry claimed he read Romney’s book, which we know is impossible. He claims he read something offensive in it. Romney denied that. Perry said, “yuh huh!” Romney said, “Wanna bet $10,000 on it?” Perry looked panicky and thereby proved he’s a coward who doesn’t believe the things he says. Romney looked way-out-of-touch and came across like some jerk trying to buy a poker pot. What’s worse, they were arguing about a technicality in a book no one takes seriously.

● Winner: Herman Cain. This was our first post-Cain debate. And the utter childishness we endured is a testament to the power Cain had to keep these career politicians acting like adults. I guess the presence of a businessman makes all the difference. Essentially, Cain is to the other candidates what Peyton Manning is to the 0-16 Indianapolis Colts.

● Loser: Us. Not one of these clowns should be allowed to visit the White House, much less live there. And if it weren’t for the fact Obama is 100 times worse, I would probably endorse him at this point. . . that’s how bad the performances were last night. These people are clueless, gutless panderers with no ideas, no leadership ability and no sense of self-respect. Our democracy is becoming a joke.

BONUS RANT

Yahoo annoys me. Not only do they hide stories written by their ignorant, borderline- illiterate bloggers among wire-service stories, but they’ve started messing with their news headlines. Instead of the reputable headlines you find at other places -- things like “Romney Challenges Perry to Wager” or “Bachmann Praises Cain,” which are informative and tell you whether you might find the article interesting -- Yahoo has gone to headlines like: “The Shocking Thing Romney Did” and “Bachmann’s Amazing Claim.” These are headlines for stupid people. These are headlines you see at gossip rags: “Clooney’s Humiliating Mistake”. . . “Is Famous Star Gay?”. . . “What Matt Damon Doesn’t Want You To Know.” This is crap. These are teases spit out by celebrity gossips who get off on self-importance. They are designed to trick you into opening the article. They are a declaration by Yahoo that they think their audience are suckers. This is what the MSM is becoming now that it’s lost our trust.

In Aliens Sigourney Weaver asks: “Did IQs drop sharply while I was asleep?” I get that felling all the time.

For those of you fortunate enough to miss it, we had another debate on Saturday night. To put as positive a spin on this as possible, at least we now know six people who should not be President. The debate summary and a bonus rant follows! :)

● Overall Impression: What?! For the first half of the debate, I wondered whether I had damaged my brain. Everyone was speaking, but no one made any sense. They seemed to spout random thoughts, mindless slogans, and pure idiocy. It was nonsense. Sadly, it turns out my brain wasn’t the problem.

● Loser: Newt/Romney/Perry/Bachmann. Childish, petty and vile. They spent the night calling each other names: serial hypocrites, liars, whatever. There was NO (0.0%) substance in this debate, there was no order in this debate. It was like listening to a group of whiners trying to tell you everything they hate about their boss in 20 seconds.

● Loser: Diane Sawyer/ABC. Sawyer either has a drinking problem or mental health issues. Her questions were rambling, confused and pointless. And most of them were borderline-retarded, like when she wondered aloud: “why can’t people who disagree just come together to agree for the good of the country.” Gee, I don’t know Diane. Why don’t we agree for the good of the country that you will hand me all your money while I beat you with a Jack Daniels bottle? Maybe that will help you answer this seemingly intractable quandary?!

● Winner: Pandering. The level of pandering was pathetic. It truly was a dignity free night. They all heaped fake praise on Iowa, calling its crappy colleges and cities the best in the nation and identifying their subsidy sucking politicians as personal heroes. In hindsight, it’s a bit of a shock none of the candidates wore overalls or tried to eat corn on stage.

And that was only the beginning. Newt tried to claim Libertarian instincts when he favored forcing people to buy health insurance and he tried to win over Perry’s supporters by telling us how Perry taught him about the Tenth Amendment. Perry thinks he’s the only Christian. Santorum and Romney laughably made plays for Paul’s supporters. And Michelle Bachmann took the cake when she kept praising Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 plan which she had previously derided as his “6-6-6 plan.” She even came up with a catchy new name for her plan: “the win-win-win plan.” Now she just needs a plan to go with the name.

● Loser: Yo’ Momma So Po’ Contests. At one point, Diane Sawyer slurred a question about whether or not the candidates had ever been poor. This was a stupid identity politics question, but that didn’t matter. The idiots were off to the races.

Rick Perry grew up in a septic tank. . . Mitt Romney wasn’t poor, but by God, he had a father who taught him how to be poor! Rick Santorum not only had a father who wanted him to be poor, but he had a mother who wanted him to be poor too. . . Michele Bachmann was raised by a single mother, below the poverty level, who put Michele to work in a mine at age 13. . . Ron Paul grew up during the Depression and had to have a real job (until his wife paid for his medical school). . . and Newt didn’t always fly in private jets and get lobbyist-created $500,000 expense accounts at Tiffany’s. This was like watching stereotyped “old rich white people” in films pretending they like rap.

● Least Loser: Ricky Santorum. Rick Santorum won in the sense of someone winning a nuclear war: he came across as least radioactive.

● Double-Down Loser: Perry/Romney. Perry claimed he read Romney’s book, which we know is impossible. He claims he read something offensive in it. Romney denied that. Perry said, “yuh huh!” Romney said, “Wanna bet $10,000 on it?” Perry looked panicky and thereby proved he’s a coward who doesn’t believe the things he says. Romney looked way-out-of-touch and came across like some jerk trying to buy a poker pot. What’s worse, they were arguing about a technicality in a book no one takes seriously.

● Winner: Herman Cain. This was our first post-Cain debate. And the utter childishness we endured is a testament to the power Cain had to keep these career politicians acting like adults. I guess the presence of a businessman makes all the difference. Essentially, Cain is to the other candidates what Peyton Manning is to the 0-16 Indianapolis Colts.

● Loser: Us. Not one of these clowns should be allowed to visit the White House, much less live there. And if it weren’t for the fact Obama is 100 times worse, I would probably endorse him at this point. . . that’s how bad the performances were last night. These people are clueless, gutless panderers with no ideas, no leadership ability and no sense of self-respect. Our democracy is becoming a joke.

BONUS RANT

Yahoo annoys me. Not only do they hide stories written by their ignorant, borderline- illiterate bloggers among wire-service stories, but they’ve started messing with their news headlines. Instead of the reputable headlines you find at other places -- things like “Romney Challenges Perry to Wager” or “Bachmann Praises Cain,” which are informative and tell you whether you might find the article interesting -- Yahoo has gone to headlines like: “The Shocking Thing Romney Did” and “Bachmann’s Amazing Claim.” These are headlines for stupid people. These are headlines you see at gossip rags: “Clooney’s Humiliating Mistake”. . . “Is Famous Star Gay?”. . . “What Matt Damon Doesn’t Want You To Know.” This is crap. These are teases spit out by celebrity gossips who get off on self-importance. They are designed to trick you into opening the article. They are a declaration by Yahoo that they think their audience are suckers. This is what the MSM is becoming now that it’s lost our trust.

In Aliens Sigourney Weaver asks: “Did IQs drop sharply while I was asleep?” I get that felling all the time.

Debate Wrap: We’re Doomed (with bonus rant)

View Detail

Debate Wrap Up: 89 Seconds And Counting

Debate Wrap Up: 89 Seconds And Counting

The current debate system is a joke, as highlighted by Saturday’s foreign policy debate. There isn’t enough time to get anything useful from the candidates, the format encourages speaking in soundbites, the division of time is incredibly biased, and the questions asked are awful. Here is your debate wrap up and a few complaints.

● Unequal Time: If you’ve watched the debates, then you noticed there are too many people on stage to get any useful flow of discussion or meaningful answers. In fact, the candidates are being asked to speak in soundbites. But before we get to that, have you noticed that the distribution of time is highly skewed toward Romney and Perry? Here’s some proof.

A University of Minnesota study has determined how much time was given to each candidate in the last three debates before this week. Here are the results:

41 min. Romney
34 min. Perry
24 min. Bachmann
22 min. Huntsman
21 min. Cain
21 min. Gingrich
21 min. Santorum
18 min. Paul

Fascinating, isn’t it? Romney gets twice as much time as anyone except Perry. In last Tuesday’s debate, Romney actually got 25% of the total time, leaving the other seven to divide the rest. In Saturday’s debate, Ron Paul was given a grand total of 89 seconds to speak. . . less than one second for every minute of the debate.

After the debate, Bachmann’s campaign produced an email proving that CBS intentionally minimized candidates. In an email inadvertently copied to Bachmann’s staff, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson was lukewarm about a post-debate interview with Bachmann hoping he could get a higher-tiered candidate. Interestingly, he mentions in this internal e-mail that Bachmann would not be getting many questions during the debate: “let’s keep it loose though since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else.”

Why invite her at all?

● Inadequate Time: Even beyond the issue of the time being divided unfairly, the real issue is the completely inadequate time in these debates. How in the world can you explain how you would reform health care in 30 seconds? How can you explain what’s gone wrong with Obama’s foreign policy and what you would do different to solve both Afghanistan and Pakistan in 30 seconds?

Unfortunately, this leads to speaking in soundbites, which tell us nothing. Newt in particular has mastered this art, and that’s one thing that keeps me nervous about him. Indeed, Newt’s answers all follow this pattern: Attack the moderator for asking the question and complain about being unable to answer in the short time given. Huff. “Reluctantly” agree to answer and spit out a rapid succession of key words and phrases to give the impression Newt has significant knowledge about the issue and that he was prepared to give a lengthy response before he “shockingly” learned he would only be given 30 seconds to respond. Finish with soundbite. The next time he does this, ask yourself if he actually told you anything? The answer is no, he didn’t.

Romney, by comparison, goes straight to soundbite speak. He spits out lots of words and generic thoughts that mean nothing: “I’ll be tough with people that deserve it and rebuild our relationship with our friends while maintaining America’s interests.” Does that actually mean anything? No. Being tough could be anything from nuking them to sending a harsh letter, and how do you rebuild a relationship with a friend, whoever that is, and rebuild it into what? And what are America’s interests? This is placebo-speak. Newt finishes his responses the same way.

Moreover, the questions are horrible: How do you make decisions? Do you believe in torture? Should we ever go to war? How do we “fix” Pakistan? These are softball, meaningless questions that are so vague they cannot lead to genuinely useful answers.

● Saturday’s Performances: Finally, you want to know how the debate went, so here's a summary.

● Gingrich: Gingrich won. He had excellent soundbites and sounded the most knowledgeable. He also had an excellent answer, which he and Cain seemed to share, about how to handle Iran -- covert action to disrupt their nuclear program including killing scientists and supporting Iranian opposition groups. He also said when an American joins a terrorist group and goes to war against the United States, they have no civil rights and our military can kill them just like any enemy combatant -- it's sad this even had to be explained to the MSM. Newt also has adopted Cain’s happy outlook and has nothing but love for everyone else on stage. That plays well.

● Cain: Cain had a great night because he had solid answers (though the neocons continue to mock him). In particular he led off on Iran and his answer was a home run (see Newt's answer above). He also gave a solid answer about how he would make decisions, which is listening to knowledgeable people with a variety of opinions and choosing among them. He gave a good answer on torture too, which is he wouldn’t allow torture, but he doesn’t think waterboarding is torture.

● Romney: Romney offered many platitudes. He believes in sanctions against Iran. . . and war, though he won’t call it that and he won’t say when it would become an option.

● Perry: Perry wasn’t drunk or drugged, but he made it clear he still doesn’t understand the difference between Texas and Washington -- his answer to how he would make decisions was that he knows good people in Texas. He had a great applause line about zeroing out foreign aid, BUT he actually backtracked immediately and said each country could then explain why they needed aid. . . so “zero” is actually “no change.”

● Bachmann: Bachmann tried to bury us with minutia by listing lots of troop numbers. Yawn. She also said the US has nowhere to put people it captures in the field, which is laughably stupid.

● Santorum: Santorum exposed yet another serious flaw in his thinking when he said he would only hire people who think like he does. Those are called “yes men,” and Santorum sounds increasingly like someone who should never be trusted with power. He also continues to whine that if all those evil Republicans in Washington hadn’t opposed him over and over, the world would be nearly perfect today.

● Paul: Paul didn’t promise to disarm. To the contrary he said that if we need to go to war, then he would go to Congress, get the authority and win it and get it over with.

● Huntsman: I’m going to say something nice about Huntsman, though it pains me. Huntsman was more honest than the others. On instances like how to handle China to the elimination of foreign aid, the other candidates said things to rile up the pitchfork crowd, but always quietly reversed that in the small print. Huntsman was the only one to be honest about these issues and went straight to the small print. For that, he deserves credit. Unfortunately, his foreign policy sounds a lot like Obama’s.

The current debate system is a joke, as highlighted by Saturday’s foreign policy debate. There isn’t enough time to get anything useful from the candidates, the format encourages speaking in soundbites, the division of time is incredibly biased, and the questions asked are awful. Here is your debate wrap up and a few complaints.

● Unequal Time: If you’ve watched the debates, then you noticed there are too many people on stage to get any useful flow of discussion or meaningful answers. In fact, the candidates are being asked to speak in soundbites. But before we get to that, have you noticed that the distribution of time is highly skewed toward Romney and Perry? Here’s some proof.

A University of Minnesota study has determined how much time was given to each candidate in the last three debates before this week. Here are the results:

41 min. Romney
34 min. Perry
24 min. Bachmann
22 min. Huntsman
21 min. Cain
21 min. Gingrich
21 min. Santorum
18 min. Paul

Fascinating, isn’t it? Romney gets twice as much time as anyone except Perry. In last Tuesday’s debate, Romney actually got 25% of the total time, leaving the other seven to divide the rest. In Saturday’s debate, Ron Paul was given a grand total of 89 seconds to speak. . . less than one second for every minute of the debate.

After the debate, Bachmann’s campaign produced an email proving that CBS intentionally minimized candidates. In an email inadvertently copied to Bachmann’s staff, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson was lukewarm about a post-debate interview with Bachmann hoping he could get a higher-tiered candidate. Interestingly, he mentions in this internal e-mail that Bachmann would not be getting many questions during the debate: “let’s keep it loose though since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else.”

Why invite her at all?

● Inadequate Time: Even beyond the issue of the time being divided unfairly, the real issue is the completely inadequate time in these debates. How in the world can you explain how you would reform health care in 30 seconds? How can you explain what’s gone wrong with Obama’s foreign policy and what you would do different to solve both Afghanistan and Pakistan in 30 seconds?

Unfortunately, this leads to speaking in soundbites, which tell us nothing. Newt in particular has mastered this art, and that’s one thing that keeps me nervous about him. Indeed, Newt’s answers all follow this pattern: Attack the moderator for asking the question and complain about being unable to answer in the short time given. Huff. “Reluctantly” agree to answer and spit out a rapid succession of key words and phrases to give the impression Newt has significant knowledge about the issue and that he was prepared to give a lengthy response before he “shockingly” learned he would only be given 30 seconds to respond. Finish with soundbite. The next time he does this, ask yourself if he actually told you anything? The answer is no, he didn’t.

Romney, by comparison, goes straight to soundbite speak. He spits out lots of words and generic thoughts that mean nothing: “I’ll be tough with people that deserve it and rebuild our relationship with our friends while maintaining America’s interests.” Does that actually mean anything? No. Being tough could be anything from nuking them to sending a harsh letter, and how do you rebuild a relationship with a friend, whoever that is, and rebuild it into what? And what are America’s interests? This is placebo-speak. Newt finishes his responses the same way.

Moreover, the questions are horrible: How do you make decisions? Do you believe in torture? Should we ever go to war? How do we “fix” Pakistan? These are softball, meaningless questions that are so vague they cannot lead to genuinely useful answers.

● Saturday’s Performances: Finally, you want to know how the debate went, so here's a summary.

● Gingrich: Gingrich won. He had excellent soundbites and sounded the most knowledgeable. He also had an excellent answer, which he and Cain seemed to share, about how to handle Iran -- covert action to disrupt their nuclear program including killing scientists and supporting Iranian opposition groups. He also said when an American joins a terrorist group and goes to war against the United States, they have no civil rights and our military can kill them just like any enemy combatant -- it's sad this even had to be explained to the MSM. Newt also has adopted Cain’s happy outlook and has nothing but love for everyone else on stage. That plays well.

● Cain: Cain had a great night because he had solid answers (though the neocons continue to mock him). In particular he led off on Iran and his answer was a home run (see Newt's answer above). He also gave a solid answer about how he would make decisions, which is listening to knowledgeable people with a variety of opinions and choosing among them. He gave a good answer on torture too, which is he wouldn’t allow torture, but he doesn’t think waterboarding is torture.

● Romney: Romney offered many platitudes. He believes in sanctions against Iran. . . and war, though he won’t call it that and he won’t say when it would become an option.

● Perry: Perry wasn’t drunk or drugged, but he made it clear he still doesn’t understand the difference between Texas and Washington -- his answer to how he would make decisions was that he knows good people in Texas. He had a great applause line about zeroing out foreign aid, BUT he actually backtracked immediately and said each country could then explain why they needed aid. . . so “zero” is actually “no change.”

● Bachmann: Bachmann tried to bury us with minutia by listing lots of troop numbers. Yawn. She also said the US has nowhere to put people it captures in the field, which is laughably stupid.

● Santorum: Santorum exposed yet another serious flaw in his thinking when he said he would only hire people who think like he does. Those are called “yes men,” and Santorum sounds increasingly like someone who should never be trusted with power. He also continues to whine that if all those evil Republicans in Washington hadn’t opposed him over and over, the world would be nearly perfect today.

● Paul: Paul didn’t promise to disarm. To the contrary he said that if we need to go to war, then he would go to Congress, get the authority and win it and get it over with.

● Huntsman: I’m going to say something nice about Huntsman, though it pains me. Huntsman was more honest than the others. On instances like how to handle China to the elimination of foreign aid, the other candidates said things to rile up the pitchfork crowd, but always quietly reversed that in the small print. Huntsman was the only one to be honest about these issues and went straight to the small print. For that, he deserves credit. Unfortunately, his foreign policy sounds a lot like Obama’s.

Debate Wrap Up: 89 Seconds And Counting

View Detail

Debate Wrap: The Education of CNBC

Debate Wrap: The Education of CNBC

Another debate is in the books. We learned little. CNBC made fools of themselves. One candidate imploded spectacularly. A couple impressed. And the rest were there too!

●Epic Loser: Rick Perry. Do you remember the “agony of defeat” guy from Wide World of Sports? Rick Perry just topped him. For the first half of the night, Perry proved he doesn’t realize that being President won’t be like being Governor of Texas where even the Democrats are solid conservatives. Then it happened. Perry proudly claimed he would eliminate three departments if elected. He named two. . . and then he froze. For about a minute, he was unable to tell us which agency he passionately wanted to eliminate, and he couldn’t think of a way to end his sentence either. He just stood there stunned like Wiley Coyote with his arm pointed at Ron Paul and two fingers stuck up in the air. Finally, he said, “Oops.” Then someone suggested “the EPA” and he heartily agreed, only to admit a moment later that wasn’t the agency and he still couldn’t think of the name of his nemesis. Rick. . . quit.

●Winner: Newt Gingrich. Newt was the big winner, just edging out Cain. Newt was on fire. He was calm and brilliant. He showed both the breadth and depth of his knowledge and he took down the CNBC hacks with devastating wit:

● He took down Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer with: “it’s sad the media doesn’t report accurately on how the economy works.” Both Cramer and Bartiromo had shown a lot of economic ignorance, like when Cramer demanded from each candidate: “do you really believe a company can make a profit and create jobs at the same time!!!” Uh. You pretty much have to Jim or you fail and all the jobs go away.

● Or when he blasted Maria’s ridiculous question asking the candidates to tell her in 30 seconds how they would fix health care (18% of the economy): “My colleagues have done a terrific job of answering an absurd question!!” Maria didn’t like that.

● Or when he crushed a sleazy question by John King on what Gingrich told Fannie and Freddie (King wrongly implied Gingrich was paid $300,000 by Fannie and Freddie to act as their lobbyist): “I gave them advice which they absolutely didn’t follow.”

Ultimately, Gingrich won because he gave the strongest performance. This will continue to solidify him as the alternative to Cain for conservatives, which will keep him in the race and may let him overtake Cain when Perry/Bachman/Paul and Santorum start quitting. Don’t be surprised if he draws neck and neck with Cain soon.

●Winner: Herman Cain. Everyone wanted to know how Cain would handle THE question. He was brilliant. He tossed it away by pointing out the public wants to hear about important matters and said America deserves better than character assassination. An upset Maria Bartiromo immediately tried to assassinate his character with the sleazy tactic of asking Romney if he would hire Cain given Cain’s answer. The audience booed her. This is significant because it tells us Republican primary voters despise the gotcha game the media is playing with Cain and want to move on.

Beyond that, Cain explained why his 9-9-9 plan works: (1) it eliminates $430 billion Americans waste manipulating the tax code each year, (2) it eliminates hidden taxes, and (3) it gets Washington out of the game of picking winners and losers. He argued it would make America more competitive against China: “the tax code is what sends jobs overseas.” He also shot down the argument it would result in higher rates by first questioning the stupidity of the idea that this was a unique problem to his plan (this argument can be used against any plan) and then by saying the transparency of his plan would make it harder for politicians to get away with raising rates -- an argument against the tax code tinkerers.

Cain was jovial and knowledgeable -- something which tells us he’s not affected by the harassment issue. My one criticism is he needs to speak more broadly than just his 9-9-9 plan or it will start to sound like snake oil... it can’t cure everything.

●Winner: Ron Paul. Ron Paul was excellent. He made the great point that the areas where we have problems (housing bubble, student loans, stock market bubbles, health care) are all the direct result of government intervention and government money. And when the government helps one group it often hurts another, such as when the government keeps interest rates low to help banks, it cheats the elderly who rely on interest for income. The CNBC crew were oddly stunned to hear this. Call it a teachable moment.

●Draw: Romney. On one hand, Romney’s a clear winner because he continues to come across as acceptable. But I suspect he’s actually a loser. His current strategy is like a prevent defense in football: rather than trying to win the nomination, he’s just trying to survive while the others all lose the nomination. The problem with this strategy is he’s letting others decide his fate for him. Right now, that works because people haven’t made up their minds -- so 25% support keeps him tied for the lead. But once the other 75% begin to settle on one or two candidates, 25% won’t be enough and he will have blown his chances to win people over.

This strategy also confirms the fear conservatives have that Romney has no leadership skills. You see this whenever he gets criticized because he starts to dance because he’s afraid to defend his beliefs. He had no response when CNBC pointed out that his tax plan accepts the Democratic premise that progressive taxes are good and the implicit class warfare arguments. At one point, he firmly agreed with Ron Paul about health care, only to turn to Jello moments later when he was asked if that means he no longer believes there’s a role for government to provide insurance to the uninsured.

His answer to the Cain question also demonstrates the problem. Bartiromo sleazily asked him to attack Cain (“would you hire Cain as a CEO given his answers”). A leader would have seized the moment: “I don’t know what Herm did or not, BUT I think it’s obscene the way the media.....” Romney didn’t do that. Instead, he said it wasn’t his place to comment. If he doesn’t think it’s his place to comment when an American citizen is being slandered by the media, then why would we want him as a our leader?

Last night, it struck me for the first time that this prevent defense wasn’t working anymore. Romney seemed a lot less relevant than before. So I suspect he may eventually look back on last night as the moment his candidacy started to slip away.

●Loser: Maria Bartiromo/CNBC. CNBC sells itself as a no-nonsense pro-business channel. Their claim is based on having more knowledgeable reporters and deeper analysis than others. Last night was full of nonsense “gotcha” questions, cheap shots, and whiny, abusive and shrill comments. Maria and Jim Cramer were particularly rude and proved they don’t actually understand economics.

●Loser: Michele Bachmann. Bachmann continues to talk about her tax plan, which doesn’t exist. If you ask her any question, she whines her way through all of her talking points, always in the same order, and she’s never seemed less relevant than last night.

●Loser: Rick Santorum. Rick can’t win the nomination. So presumably, he’s playing to raise his profile for fundraising purposes. But Rick is not helping himself. In the last couple debates he was simply obnoxious, talking over people and making unfair attacks. Last night, he smugly fell in love with himself. Then he declared himself an advocate of the poor by throwing the Republican Party under the bus. He didn’t understand what “picking winners and losers” means or why it’s bad. He also chastised the others for wanting to cause problems with China, after saying last time he wanted to start a trade war with them. He also promises subsidies to his favored industries while saying his plan (which also doesn’t exist) would eliminate subsidies. And yet, Mr. Inconsistent attacks the others for not being consistent in unspecified ways.

●Loser: CNBC. Finally, CNBC gets a thumbs down for not streaming this over the net.

Another debate is in the books. We learned little. CNBC made fools of themselves. One candidate imploded spectacularly. A couple impressed. And the rest were there too!

●Epic Loser: Rick Perry. Do you remember the “agony of defeat” guy from Wide World of Sports? Rick Perry just topped him. For the first half of the night, Perry proved he doesn’t realize that being President won’t be like being Governor of Texas where even the Democrats are solid conservatives. Then it happened. Perry proudly claimed he would eliminate three departments if elected. He named two. . . and then he froze. For about a minute, he was unable to tell us which agency he passionately wanted to eliminate, and he couldn’t think of a way to end his sentence either. He just stood there stunned like Wiley Coyote with his arm pointed at Ron Paul and two fingers stuck up in the air. Finally, he said, “Oops.” Then someone suggested “the EPA” and he heartily agreed, only to admit a moment later that wasn’t the agency and he still couldn’t think of the name of his nemesis. Rick. . . quit.

●Winner: Newt Gingrich. Newt was the big winner, just edging out Cain. Newt was on fire. He was calm and brilliant. He showed both the breadth and depth of his knowledge and he took down the CNBC hacks with devastating wit:

● He took down Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer with: “it’s sad the media doesn’t report accurately on how the economy works.” Both Cramer and Bartiromo had shown a lot of economic ignorance, like when Cramer demanded from each candidate: “do you really believe a company can make a profit and create jobs at the same time!!!” Uh. You pretty much have to Jim or you fail and all the jobs go away.

● Or when he blasted Maria’s ridiculous question asking the candidates to tell her in 30 seconds how they would fix health care (18% of the economy): “My colleagues have done a terrific job of answering an absurd question!!” Maria didn’t like that.

● Or when he crushed a sleazy question by John King on what Gingrich told Fannie and Freddie (King wrongly implied Gingrich was paid $300,000 by Fannie and Freddie to act as their lobbyist): “I gave them advice which they absolutely didn’t follow.”

Ultimately, Gingrich won because he gave the strongest performance. This will continue to solidify him as the alternative to Cain for conservatives, which will keep him in the race and may let him overtake Cain when Perry/Bachman/Paul and Santorum start quitting. Don’t be surprised if he draws neck and neck with Cain soon.

●Winner: Herman Cain. Everyone wanted to know how Cain would handle THE question. He was brilliant. He tossed it away by pointing out the public wants to hear about important matters and said America deserves better than character assassination. An upset Maria Bartiromo immediately tried to assassinate his character with the sleazy tactic of asking Romney if he would hire Cain given Cain’s answer. The audience booed her. This is significant because it tells us Republican primary voters despise the gotcha game the media is playing with Cain and want to move on.

Beyond that, Cain explained why his 9-9-9 plan works: (1) it eliminates $430 billion Americans waste manipulating the tax code each year, (2) it eliminates hidden taxes, and (3) it gets Washington out of the game of picking winners and losers. He argued it would make America more competitive against China: “the tax code is what sends jobs overseas.” He also shot down the argument it would result in higher rates by first questioning the stupidity of the idea that this was a unique problem to his plan (this argument can be used against any plan) and then by saying the transparency of his plan would make it harder for politicians to get away with raising rates -- an argument against the tax code tinkerers.

Cain was jovial and knowledgeable -- something which tells us he’s not affected by the harassment issue. My one criticism is he needs to speak more broadly than just his 9-9-9 plan or it will start to sound like snake oil... it can’t cure everything.

●Winner: Ron Paul. Ron Paul was excellent. He made the great point that the areas where we have problems (housing bubble, student loans, stock market bubbles, health care) are all the direct result of government intervention and government money. And when the government helps one group it often hurts another, such as when the government keeps interest rates low to help banks, it cheats the elderly who rely on interest for income. The CNBC crew were oddly stunned to hear this. Call it a teachable moment.

●Draw: Romney. On one hand, Romney’s a clear winner because he continues to come across as acceptable. But I suspect he’s actually a loser. His current strategy is like a prevent defense in football: rather than trying to win the nomination, he’s just trying to survive while the others all lose the nomination. The problem with this strategy is he’s letting others decide his fate for him. Right now, that works because people haven’t made up their minds -- so 25% support keeps him tied for the lead. But once the other 75% begin to settle on one or two candidates, 25% won’t be enough and he will have blown his chances to win people over.

This strategy also confirms the fear conservatives have that Romney has no leadership skills. You see this whenever he gets criticized because he starts to dance because he’s afraid to defend his beliefs. He had no response when CNBC pointed out that his tax plan accepts the Democratic premise that progressive taxes are good and the implicit class warfare arguments. At one point, he firmly agreed with Ron Paul about health care, only to turn to Jello moments later when he was asked if that means he no longer believes there’s a role for government to provide insurance to the uninsured.

His answer to the Cain question also demonstrates the problem. Bartiromo sleazily asked him to attack Cain (“would you hire Cain as a CEO given his answers”). A leader would have seized the moment: “I don’t know what Herm did or not, BUT I think it’s obscene the way the media.....” Romney didn’t do that. Instead, he said it wasn’t his place to comment. If he doesn’t think it’s his place to comment when an American citizen is being slandered by the media, then why would we want him as a our leader?

Last night, it struck me for the first time that this prevent defense wasn’t working anymore. Romney seemed a lot less relevant than before. So I suspect he may eventually look back on last night as the moment his candidacy started to slip away.

●Loser: Maria Bartiromo/CNBC. CNBC sells itself as a no-nonsense pro-business channel. Their claim is based on having more knowledgeable reporters and deeper analysis than others. Last night was full of nonsense “gotcha” questions, cheap shots, and whiny, abusive and shrill comments. Maria and Jim Cramer were particularly rude and proved they don’t actually understand economics.

●Loser: Michele Bachmann. Bachmann continues to talk about her tax plan, which doesn’t exist. If you ask her any question, she whines her way through all of her talking points, always in the same order, and she’s never seemed less relevant than last night.

●Loser: Rick Santorum. Rick can’t win the nomination. So presumably, he’s playing to raise his profile for fundraising purposes. But Rick is not helping himself. In the last couple debates he was simply obnoxious, talking over people and making unfair attacks. Last night, he smugly fell in love with himself. Then he declared himself an advocate of the poor by throwing the Republican Party under the bus. He didn’t understand what “picking winners and losers” means or why it’s bad. He also chastised the others for wanting to cause problems with China, after saying last time he wanted to start a trade war with them. He also promises subsidies to his favored industries while saying his plan (which also doesn’t exist) would eliminate subsidies. And yet, Mr. Inconsistent attacks the others for not being consistent in unspecified ways.

●Loser: CNBC. Finally, CNBC gets a thumbs down for not streaming this over the net.

Debate Wrap: The Education of CNBC

View Detail

2012 Campaign Weekly Round Up!

2012 Campaign Weekly Round Up!

Lots of interesting news this week from the 2012 Campaign, one item in particular has me truly fascinated. . . a debate! Then there’s the other stuff. Bachmann continues to implode. Perry offers a plan to entrench liberalism. Santorum has indigestion. And George Will slapped Mitt Romney. Read on. . .

● Item One: Lincoln Douglas II (electric boogaloo)! The big COOL news is this: Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain have agreed to engage in a “modified Lincoln-Douglas debate” in Texas on November 5.

Bill O’Sullivan, the treasurer of the Texas Tea Party Patriots explains that: “We initially wanted a forum with all of the candidates. But when we heard Gingrich say he wanted a more serious debate, like the Lincoln–Douglas debates, we wanted to do that, especially since watching the recent superficial debates has been frustrating.”

The debate will involve both men going back and forth, “in a respectful way,” with no moderator. Sadly, no network has agreed to broadcast this debate (HINT: INTERNET BILL!!!), but I would LOVE to see this.

● Item Two: Flatsnake Oil Rick Perry. Last week Rick Perry told us he wants a flat tax. This week he finally released the rate. Who knows what next week's fortune cookie might bring?! His plan apparently calls for a 20% flat tax with a $12,500 deduction per individual OR household (plus all the usual deductions). This is a HORRIBLE idea:

○ 1) This makes the problem of 47% of Americans not paying any taxes much worse. This plan takes at least another 48 million people off the tax roles, which increases the number who pay no taxes to 62%. Way to entrench liberalism Rick!

○ 2) This doesn’t produce anywhere near the income needed. Hence, it is fantasy meant to dazzle you only. Do not take internally.

○ 3) This creates a massive marriage penalty, something Republicans worked for decades to fix.

○ 4) Perry's deductions only apply if you aren't rich, which he defines as making $500,000 a year. In other words, Perry plays right into the Democrats' class warfare strategy.

○ 5) Ricky also doesn't address what constitutes income or valid deductions, which is where people with lobbyist blood (like Perry) make sure their friends like GE pay no taxes.

Somebody drag Rick back to Texas before he hurts himself.

● Item Three: Irritable Bowel. Ricky Santorum says a Ron Paul nomination would “give me indigestion.” Ironically, that’s how I feel about Santorum. . . only the pain would be lower and involves too many tacos. In fact, I would prefer the rollercoaster of a Paul presidency and his attempts to dismantle the government to the stifling idiocy of a Santorum presidency and his Jihad against the scary, essence-sapping homosexuals in our midsts.

● Item : Mutiny On The Bachmann. For months now, Bachmann has been experiencing a steady flow of staffers quitting her campaign. Many have taken the highly-unusual step of calling her a liar on the way out. Indeed, I recall one of her senior Congressional staffers very politely explaining that he still supported her, but he just got sick of trying to explain away her constant lies and fictions to the press.

Now Bachmann’s entire New Hampshire staff has quit on her and badmouthed her in the process. She promptly went on the radio and denied this had happened and tried to blame other campaigns for smearing her, going so far as to say that she had “called the New Hampshire staff” and they “said that isn't true.” This was yet another lie. So yesterday, the ex-staff released a letter in which they describe the campaign as “rude, unprofessional, dishonest, and at times cruel.”

● Item : Duller Than Dirt Squared. George F. Will has always struck me as the dullest man alive. In fact, I’m pretty sure the first question doctors ask about coma patients is “were they listening to Will?” So when the Willster tells you someone else is dull, you should listen. You’ve probably stumbled upon the essence of dull, or at least dull extract. Will just slammed Mitt Romney by describing him as the GOP’s own Michael Dukakis: “[Cain] is rising as more and more Republicans come to the conclusion that the Republican Party has found its Michael Dukakis -- a technocratic Massachusetts governor running on competence, not ideology.” Ouch! Careful George, Mitt might strongly disagree with your premise in a very stern letter.

● Item : Rolling In The Mud. I can't tell you how little I respect Karl Rove. If he gives you an opinion, you can put money on it being wrong. He’s now after Herman Cain because that's how Rove stays relevant. To that end, he’s declaring Cain “finished” because of five “gaffes” Cain supposedly made. Three of these involve foreign policy minutia, which doesn’t resonate with people. And the other two are Rove’s interpretation of Cain’s statements and require you to assume Cain doesn’t know the difference between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” and doesn’t understand his own 9-9-9 plan. Obviously, this is bull.

However, Herm is making a mistake: he’s letting the establishment’s yammering heads get him frustrated and he’s shooting back. Cain needs to ignore them and stay positive -- counterattacking should be done by Cain's friends, not Cain. When the candidate gets dragged down into the mud, they cannot win no matter what they say. So let the pigs like Rove wallow . . . no one listens to them anyway.

Lots of interesting news this week from the 2012 Campaign, one item in particular has me truly fascinated. . . a debate! Then there’s the other stuff. Bachmann continues to implode. Perry offers a plan to entrench liberalism. Santorum has indigestion. And George Will slapped Mitt Romney. Read on. . .

● Item One: Lincoln Douglas II (electric boogaloo)! The big COOL news is this: Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain have agreed to engage in a “modified Lincoln-Douglas debate” in Texas on November 5.

Bill O’Sullivan, the treasurer of the Texas Tea Party Patriots explains that: “We initially wanted a forum with all of the candidates. But when we heard Gingrich say he wanted a more serious debate, like the Lincoln–Douglas debates, we wanted to do that, especially since watching the recent superficial debates has been frustrating.”

The debate will involve both men going back and forth, “in a respectful way,” with no moderator. Sadly, no network has agreed to broadcast this debate (HINT: INTERNET BILL!!!), but I would LOVE to see this.

● Item Two: Flatsnake Oil Rick Perry. Last week Rick Perry told us he wants a flat tax. This week he finally released the rate. Who knows what next week's fortune cookie might bring?! His plan apparently calls for a 20% flat tax with a $12,500 deduction per individual OR household (plus all the usual deductions). This is a HORRIBLE idea:

○ 1) This makes the problem of 47% of Americans not paying any taxes much worse. This plan takes at least another 48 million people off the tax roles, which increases the number who pay no taxes to 62%. Way to entrench liberalism Rick!

○ 2) This doesn’t produce anywhere near the income needed. Hence, it is fantasy meant to dazzle you only. Do not take internally.

○ 3) This creates a massive marriage penalty, something Republicans worked for decades to fix.

○ 4) Perry's deductions only apply if you aren't rich, which he defines as making $500,000 a year. In other words, Perry plays right into the Democrats' class warfare strategy.

○ 5) Ricky also doesn't address what constitutes income or valid deductions, which is where people with lobbyist blood (like Perry) make sure their friends like GE pay no taxes.

Somebody drag Rick back to Texas before he hurts himself.

● Item Three: Irritable Bowel. Ricky Santorum says a Ron Paul nomination would “give me indigestion.” Ironically, that’s how I feel about Santorum. . . only the pain would be lower and involves too many tacos. In fact, I would prefer the rollercoaster of a Paul presidency and his attempts to dismantle the government to the stifling idiocy of a Santorum presidency and his Jihad against the scary, essence-sapping homosexuals in our midsts.

● Item : Mutiny On The Bachmann. For months now, Bachmann has been experiencing a steady flow of staffers quitting her campaign. Many have taken the highly-unusual step of calling her a liar on the way out. Indeed, I recall one of her senior Congressional staffers very politely explaining that he still supported her, but he just got sick of trying to explain away her constant lies and fictions to the press.

Now Bachmann’s entire New Hampshire staff has quit on her and badmouthed her in the process. She promptly went on the radio and denied this had happened and tried to blame other campaigns for smearing her, going so far as to say that she had “called the New Hampshire staff” and they “said that isn't true.” This was yet another lie. So yesterday, the ex-staff released a letter in which they describe the campaign as “rude, unprofessional, dishonest, and at times cruel.”

● Item : Duller Than Dirt Squared. George F. Will has always struck me as the dullest man alive. In fact, I’m pretty sure the first question doctors ask about coma patients is “were they listening to Will?” So when the Willster tells you someone else is dull, you should listen. You’ve probably stumbled upon the essence of dull, or at least dull extract. Will just slammed Mitt Romney by describing him as the GOP’s own Michael Dukakis: “[Cain] is rising as more and more Republicans come to the conclusion that the Republican Party has found its Michael Dukakis -- a technocratic Massachusetts governor running on competence, not ideology.” Ouch! Careful George, Mitt might strongly disagree with your premise in a very stern letter.

● Item : Rolling In The Mud. I can't tell you how little I respect Karl Rove. If he gives you an opinion, you can put money on it being wrong. He’s now after Herman Cain because that's how Rove stays relevant. To that end, he’s declaring Cain “finished” because of five “gaffes” Cain supposedly made. Three of these involve foreign policy minutia, which doesn’t resonate with people. And the other two are Rove’s interpretation of Cain’s statements and require you to assume Cain doesn’t know the difference between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” and doesn’t understand his own 9-9-9 plan. Obviously, this is bull.

However, Herm is making a mistake: he’s letting the establishment’s yammering heads get him frustrated and he’s shooting back. Cain needs to ignore them and stay positive -- counterattacking should be done by Cain's friends, not Cain. When the candidate gets dragged down into the mud, they cannot win no matter what they say. So let the pigs like Rove wallow . . . no one listens to them anyway.

2012 Campaign Weekly Round Up!

View Detail

Jokers To The Left of Me, Clowns To The Right

Jokers To The Left of Me, Clowns To The Right

Last night’s debate was a disgrace. Newt tried to blame CNN at the end for using a back and forth format that encouraged bickering. He’s wrong. CNN had nothing to do with it. Several candidates (including Newt) made conscious decisions to act like jackasses. They acted disgracefully and honestly need to drop out.

● Winner: Obama. The big winner last night was Obama as the Republicans as a group came across like liars, fools and angry children. Also, our biggest idiots (Santorum, Bachmann) both fell for Obama’s Iran-Mexico diversion even as everyone else on the planet has decided Holder made it up. Bravo.

● Not Loser: Mitt Romney. If you look at Romney in isolation, he came across as knowledgeable and well-briefed, and defended himself well. On the minus side, I don’t recall anything he said and he never came across as conservative. But the real problem last night was the nastiness of the entire debate. This was a debate filled with cheap shots, lies, unprofessional conduct and childish behavior. Even though his performance was solid, Romney gets downgraded for guilt by association because no one looked good. I do, however, give Romney a slight win over Cain because Romney seemed more in control.

● Not Loser: Herman Cain. Cain was smart, knowledgeable and relentlessly positive. He defended himself well and always remained a gentleman. He displayed his sense of humor about electrifying the fence to Mexico and during the unfair attacks on his 9-9-9 plan. He proposed a real healthcare solution (not just “repeal ObamaCare”), i.e. allowing insurance across state borders, loser pays laws, and allowing patients and doctors to make decisions. And he refused to apologize for telling the OccupyWallStreet kids that it’s their own fault they don’t have jobs -- he said they should blame Obama, not bankers.

But the mud was too thick last night. Each of the others used numbers from a leftist think tank and liberal arguments to attack his 9-9-9 plan. It was bizarre to hear conservative Ron Paul defend progressive tax rates. Bachmann and Santorum falsely claimed Cain’s sales tax is a VAT. Newt pretended it was hopelessly complex. And Romney and Perry tried to mix in state taxes to confuse the plan. Essentially, seven supposed conservatives either knowingly lied or used the liberal ideas they have themselves criticized to attack a solidly conservative plan. Even worse, these attacks were done in smarmy, condescending ways. It was shameful. I thought the pile-on effect hurt Cain, though CNN's Gloria Borger thought Cain defended himself extremely well.

A bigger problem came when he suggested he would negotiate with terrorists. He actually said he would consider a hostage trade for a captured American soldier depending on the circumstances -- and the truth is every leader negotiates with terrorists. But since this was hypocrite night, the others jumped on this even though they would do the exact same thing. Cain backpedaled. He should have stood his ground. The public can accept views with which they disagree, but they don’t like backpedaling. Cain also seemed to backpedal on the TARP issue. He says he supported the concept, but not the execution. Personally, I don’t think that plays well for a man who is known as a straight shooter.

● Ron Paul: Not much new to report here. Paul wants to bring the troops home from Korea and Japan, causing an arms race in Asia. Other than that, he was mostly right all night, but still 10% insane. Last night’s secret word was “inflation.”

● Loser: Newt. Newt reminded us why people don’t like or trust him. He claims to be an outsider, yet he attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and then advocated “targeted” tinkering with the current code instead. Welcome back to K Street Newt, we missed you.

Then he got caught lying about supporting the individual mandate for health insurance when he attacked Romney for including such a mandate in RomneyCare. Romney shot back saying he got the idea from Newt. Newt acted outraged and called that “a lie.” Except it wasn’t. Newt danced for a while and then had to admit he did in fact support and advocate the idea. And he tried to explain his lie away by saying Romney had falsely said “Newt” came up with the idea when it was really “Newt AND the Heritage Foundation.” Only a corrupt politician would think that’s a valid distinction.

Newt also pandered to the Religious Right by saying he wouldn’t trust anyone who doesn’t pray. . . though he didn’t specify how many minutes of prayer are required. Finally, he tried to blame Anderson Cooper for his own misbehavior and that of the other children.

● Total Loser: Rick Perry. Perry’s performance was pathetic. He interrupted and spoke over people. He took nasty cheap shots all night and even went back to the same ones after they were discredited. He got booed repeatedly. He kept talking about his “plan,” which he apparently released last week or might release next week, depending on which Perry you believe. The only economic idea he could mention was drilling for oil. He tried to attack Romney for hiring illegal aliens, which turned out to be a contracted lawn service and then tried to leverage this into making himself sound tough on illegal immigration -- until Romney pointed out that Perry wrote an editorial supporting amnesty. Perry also got caught lying about supporting TARP. He tried to blame all of Texas’ problems on the federal government, but offered no solutions. He smugly tried to redefine conservatism to fit him. And he tried to go toe to toe with Romney in verbal gotcha and got destroyed. The boy is stoopid. Rick needs to find an exit strategy pronto.

● Total Loser: Michele Bachmann. Bachmann is proving to be a politician in the worst sense. She's a clueless hypocrite who doesn't understand the Constitution. She's incapable of answering direct questions. Her whole platform depends on emotional appeals based on irrelevancies. And worst of all, she speaks in disingenuous generalities and then attacks anyone who won’t ante up to her pandering. Here are some examples.

She attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too extreme and then proposed eliminating the entire tax code. Huh? And as usual, she gave no hint what she would replace it with. Why? Two reasons. First, she doesn’t have a clue. Secondly, the only thing it could be replaced with is a sales tax. . . like the one she keeps slamming Herman Cain for proposing. Also, despite being a former attorney for the IRS (which actually means nothing -- she was just a debt collector), she doesn’t understand the difference between corporate income tax, a sales tax and a value added tax. And after attacking Cain's 9-9-9 plan for “raising taxes on millions of people,” she then said she wants 100% of Americans to pay taxes -- which would raise taxes on at least 145 million people. Also note that she hasn't proposed even a hint of a plan how she would do this.

Bachmann jumped on Cain for the supposed “negotiate with terrorists” thing even after he clarified his statement and denied that’s what he meant. Then she tried to one-up herself by stupidly claiming she’s so tough she wants to demand “reimbursement” from Iraq and Libya for what it cost us to invade both countries -- that's how World War II started.

She also dubiously claimed she will ban immigrants from getting “any government benefits” (which would violate the Constitution) and she equally dubiously claimed she could fix the “anchor baby” problem through legislation without changing the 14th Amendment.

● Total Loser: Rick Santorum. Santorum is a disgrace. He's a whiny fake who tries to disrupt the other candidates by talking over them, by mischaracterizing their statements and plans, by hitting them with liberal talking points, and by making illogical, disingenuous, contradictory and hypocritical attacks. All he’s done is poison the debates. And for the record, while Rick claims he’s the only one ever to win in a swing state (cough cough Romney and Bachmann) and he claims he did better than Bush, let me remind you how his last election went: 2006 Bob Casey 59%, Rick Santorum 41%. Get bent Rick.

Conclusion

What really struck me last night was the difference between the professional politicians and the businessmen. The businessmen kept trying to promote their ideas and tried to stay positive, though Cain succeeded more than Romney at that. The professionals (excluding Paul) used gotcha questions, false logic, cynical emotional appeals, lies, distortions and distinctions so fine they were nonexistent. They were angry. They offered nothing but the same old, same old. And frankly, it made me sick watching them. Am I wrong?

Last night’s debate was a disgrace. Newt tried to blame CNN at the end for using a back and forth format that encouraged bickering. He’s wrong. CNN had nothing to do with it. Several candidates (including Newt) made conscious decisions to act like jackasses. They acted disgracefully and honestly need to drop out.

● Winner: Obama. The big winner last night was Obama as the Republicans as a group came across like liars, fools and angry children. Also, our biggest idiots (Santorum, Bachmann) both fell for Obama’s Iran-Mexico diversion even as everyone else on the planet has decided Holder made it up. Bravo.

● Not Loser: Mitt Romney. If you look at Romney in isolation, he came across as knowledgeable and well-briefed, and defended himself well. On the minus side, I don’t recall anything he said and he never came across as conservative. But the real problem last night was the nastiness of the entire debate. This was a debate filled with cheap shots, lies, unprofessional conduct and childish behavior. Even though his performance was solid, Romney gets downgraded for guilt by association because no one looked good. I do, however, give Romney a slight win over Cain because Romney seemed more in control.

● Not Loser: Herman Cain. Cain was smart, knowledgeable and relentlessly positive. He defended himself well and always remained a gentleman. He displayed his sense of humor about electrifying the fence to Mexico and during the unfair attacks on his 9-9-9 plan. He proposed a real healthcare solution (not just “repeal ObamaCare”), i.e. allowing insurance across state borders, loser pays laws, and allowing patients and doctors to make decisions. And he refused to apologize for telling the OccupyWallStreet kids that it’s their own fault they don’t have jobs -- he said they should blame Obama, not bankers.

But the mud was too thick last night. Each of the others used numbers from a leftist think tank and liberal arguments to attack his 9-9-9 plan. It was bizarre to hear conservative Ron Paul defend progressive tax rates. Bachmann and Santorum falsely claimed Cain’s sales tax is a VAT. Newt pretended it was hopelessly complex. And Romney and Perry tried to mix in state taxes to confuse the plan. Essentially, seven supposed conservatives either knowingly lied or used the liberal ideas they have themselves criticized to attack a solidly conservative plan. Even worse, these attacks were done in smarmy, condescending ways. It was shameful. I thought the pile-on effect hurt Cain, though CNN's Gloria Borger thought Cain defended himself extremely well.

A bigger problem came when he suggested he would negotiate with terrorists. He actually said he would consider a hostage trade for a captured American soldier depending on the circumstances -- and the truth is every leader negotiates with terrorists. But since this was hypocrite night, the others jumped on this even though they would do the exact same thing. Cain backpedaled. He should have stood his ground. The public can accept views with which they disagree, but they don’t like backpedaling. Cain also seemed to backpedal on the TARP issue. He says he supported the concept, but not the execution. Personally, I don’t think that plays well for a man who is known as a straight shooter.

● Ron Paul: Not much new to report here. Paul wants to bring the troops home from Korea and Japan, causing an arms race in Asia. Other than that, he was mostly right all night, but still 10% insane. Last night’s secret word was “inflation.”

● Loser: Newt. Newt reminded us why people don’t like or trust him. He claims to be an outsider, yet he attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and then advocated “targeted” tinkering with the current code instead. Welcome back to K Street Newt, we missed you.

Then he got caught lying about supporting the individual mandate for health insurance when he attacked Romney for including such a mandate in RomneyCare. Romney shot back saying he got the idea from Newt. Newt acted outraged and called that “a lie.” Except it wasn’t. Newt danced for a while and then had to admit he did in fact support and advocate the idea. And he tried to explain his lie away by saying Romney had falsely said “Newt” came up with the idea when it was really “Newt AND the Heritage Foundation.” Only a corrupt politician would think that’s a valid distinction.

Newt also pandered to the Religious Right by saying he wouldn’t trust anyone who doesn’t pray. . . though he didn’t specify how many minutes of prayer are required. Finally, he tried to blame Anderson Cooper for his own misbehavior and that of the other children.

● Total Loser: Rick Perry. Perry’s performance was pathetic. He interrupted and spoke over people. He took nasty cheap shots all night and even went back to the same ones after they were discredited. He got booed repeatedly. He kept talking about his “plan,” which he apparently released last week or might release next week, depending on which Perry you believe. The only economic idea he could mention was drilling for oil. He tried to attack Romney for hiring illegal aliens, which turned out to be a contracted lawn service and then tried to leverage this into making himself sound tough on illegal immigration -- until Romney pointed out that Perry wrote an editorial supporting amnesty. Perry also got caught lying about supporting TARP. He tried to blame all of Texas’ problems on the federal government, but offered no solutions. He smugly tried to redefine conservatism to fit him. And he tried to go toe to toe with Romney in verbal gotcha and got destroyed. The boy is stoopid. Rick needs to find an exit strategy pronto.

● Total Loser: Michele Bachmann. Bachmann is proving to be a politician in the worst sense. She's a clueless hypocrite who doesn't understand the Constitution. She's incapable of answering direct questions. Her whole platform depends on emotional appeals based on irrelevancies. And worst of all, she speaks in disingenuous generalities and then attacks anyone who won’t ante up to her pandering. Here are some examples.

She attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too extreme and then proposed eliminating the entire tax code. Huh? And as usual, she gave no hint what she would replace it with. Why? Two reasons. First, she doesn’t have a clue. Secondly, the only thing it could be replaced with is a sales tax. . . like the one she keeps slamming Herman Cain for proposing. Also, despite being a former attorney for the IRS (which actually means nothing -- she was just a debt collector), she doesn’t understand the difference between corporate income tax, a sales tax and a value added tax. And after attacking Cain's 9-9-9 plan for “raising taxes on millions of people,” she then said she wants 100% of Americans to pay taxes -- which would raise taxes on at least 145 million people. Also note that she hasn't proposed even a hint of a plan how she would do this.

Bachmann jumped on Cain for the supposed “negotiate with terrorists” thing even after he clarified his statement and denied that’s what he meant. Then she tried to one-up herself by stupidly claiming she’s so tough she wants to demand “reimbursement” from Iraq and Libya for what it cost us to invade both countries -- that's how World War II started.

She also dubiously claimed she will ban immigrants from getting “any government benefits” (which would violate the Constitution) and she equally dubiously claimed she could fix the “anchor baby” problem through legislation without changing the 14th Amendment.

● Total Loser: Rick Santorum. Santorum is a disgrace. He's a whiny fake who tries to disrupt the other candidates by talking over them, by mischaracterizing their statements and plans, by hitting them with liberal talking points, and by making illogical, disingenuous, contradictory and hypocritical attacks. All he’s done is poison the debates. And for the record, while Rick claims he’s the only one ever to win in a swing state (cough cough Romney and Bachmann) and he claims he did better than Bush, let me remind you how his last election went: 2006 Bob Casey 59%, Rick Santorum 41%. Get bent Rick.

Conclusion

What really struck me last night was the difference between the professional politicians and the businessmen. The businessmen kept trying to promote their ideas and tried to stay positive, though Cain succeeded more than Romney at that. The professionals (excluding Paul) used gotcha questions, false logic, cynical emotional appeals, lies, distortions and distinctions so fine they were nonexistent. They were angry. They offered nothing but the same old, same old. And frankly, it made me sick watching them. Am I wrong?

Jokers To The Left of Me, Clowns To The Right

View Detail

Yet Another Debate Wrap Up

Yet Another Debate Wrap Up

Last night saw yet another fascinating Republican debate. Most of the attacks were on Cain or Romney. Perry attacked Romney as did Bachmann. Paul and Santorum attacked Cain. Huntsman focused on Perry. Gingrich focused on the Fed. Romney focused on Obama. Cain focused on his own plans. And the moderators attacked Romney, Cain and Perry. In the end, I think Cain was a huge winner, even though that may not be immediately apparent, and the race is now between Romney and Cain.

● Cain: Cain needed to show he could take the pressure of being number two. He did. At no point did he fall flat on his face or lack for answers. His two worst moments came:

● When a moderator asked why he told the unemployed it was their own fault they didn't have jobs. This mischaracterized Cain’s comment, which was aimed at the idiots squatting on Wall Street, but it still sounded bad and his explanation wasn’t particularly strong.

● When Ron Paul attacked him for being on the Kansas City Fed, Cain gave an ok (not great) answer that the Fed didn’t act then like it does now. That won’t satisfy Fed-deniers.

Cain defended other attacks quite nicely, such as:

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for raising only $2 trillion in revenues instead of the $2.2 trillion claimed, Cain shot back with one of the best lines of the night: “The problem with that analysis is that it’s incorrect.”

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being “regressive” and making “food and milk and beer” more expensive, Cain made the solid point that eliminating the payroll tax would more than offset that. I like that he didn't apologize for imposing a “regressive” tax.

● When Romney attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too simple and claiming simple is not good, Cain turned this on Romney by asking him if he knows all 59 points in his own plan. Romney didn’t and instead came up with the “7 pillars” of his plan and thereby proved that simple is better.

● Several of the underlings jumped on the idea Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would give Congress a new source of revenue by creating a national sale tax, but this only emphasized how deeply entrenched in the system their mindsets are. Following their logic, we shouldn't try anything.

Cain had a brilliant line too: “The capital gains tax is a wall that stands between people with ideas and people with money.”

Cain didn’t blow anybody away, but he did show solid skills and he proved he won't trip himself up. He also did such a masterful job of selling his 9-9-9 plan that every other candidate talked about it constantly, as did the moderators, and it even came up in questions that didn’t involve him. He made his 9-9-9 plan THE take away from this debate and that will prove to be a huge win, even if it isn’t immediately obvious.

● Romney: Romney just needed to be smooth and for the most part he succeeded. BUT the problem with Romney was on full display again last night. He would say something great and then he would keep talking until he backtracked out of it. He also imploded during the TARP question because he danced so long around whether he would do another Wall Street bailout that it became clear not only that he would do another bailout, but it was also clear he was trying to lie to us.

Newt also had a solid hit on Romney by pointing out that “on page 47” of his plan (a slap at Romney’s inability to describe his 59 point plan) Romney plays into Obama’s class warfare argument by promising capital gains tax cuts “to people who don’t have capital gains.” Romney missed Newt’s point and tried to defend this by saying he favors the middle class because the rich can take care of themselves. . . conceding Obama's case.

In the plus category, Perry took a shot at Romney over RomneyCare being like ObamaCare, but Romney’s defense was even better this time than last: (1) we didn’t raise taxes like Obama does, (2) we only insured poor people, we didn’t try to force everyone onto it, (3) this is a state issue, and (4) Massholes like the system 3-1. Whether those are true points or not, they remained un-refuted and made this a dead issue.

Romney also had a great shot at Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman when he said, “I would not be in this race if I had spent my whole life in government.” He then detailed some of the companies he founded.

● Perry: Perry really needed to shine to stop his nosedive. He failed. He barely spoke last night and when he did it was all generic. In particular, he mishandled his pending economic plan. He didn’t seem to know what’s in it and he just kept promising that he would release it soon as if he didn’t want to spoil the surprise. When it was pointed out that he should be able to tell us what’s in it, he responded with a very bad answer, claiming he’d only had eight weeks to work on it, whereas Romney’s had six years. Frankly a candidate who understands what they believe can detail an economic plan off the top of their head.

The moderators also smacked Perry by saying that the way Texas develops business is similar to Solyndra. Perry’s response was basically “everybody’s doin’ it,” which will only add more fire to the cronyism charge.

● Paul: Ron Paul had another bad debate. He had little to say as Newt stole his thunder. When he spoke, he made good points, but they weren’t memorable.

● Gingrich: Newt was the most interesting last night. He repeatedly tried to win over Paul supporters with angry broadside attacks on Ben Bernanke and the Fed, and he tried to win over Palin supporters by defending her even though no one else had mentioned her. Neither group are traditionally Newt people, so he’s clearly trying to branch out. Paul seemed a little stunned by this.

● Santorum: Santorum needs to go. He kept interrupting and he bizarrely continues to paint himself as an outsider. He also did things like blast everyone at the table as insiders and then (in the same sentence) attacked Cain for his lack of experience. Huh? Also, after blasting all the horrible insiders, he bragged how his years as an insider would let him pass his plan. . . whatever that plan actually is. Then he said he wanted to go to war with China, though I think he meant he wanted to fight a trade war, which isn’t much smarter. And his economic plan seems to be to make people get married.

● Bachmann: Bachmann and Santorum came across as lifer politicians with bland platitudes and repeatedly using candidate speak, e.g. “I just spoke to a man who told me blah blah blah.” This is something annoying people do when they've been in politics too long. Bachmann also needs to stop telling us she has 5 biological kids and 24 foster kids and that she was an attorney for the I.R.S. It's become like Al Bundy talking about scoring 4 touchdowns in one game.

Bachmann's attack on Cain's plan also struck me as a negative. She said if you turn Cain’s 9-9-9 plan around, “the devil is in the details.” Ha ha ha. First, that's trite and she has no comedic timing. Secondly, how does that make sense? The beauty of Cain’s plan is the lack of hidden details, it’s the tinker-with-the-current-system advocates who are playing with details. Third, what does she know of details as her “plan” (a term I use loosely) has none -- it's pure platitude. She should join Santorum on the short bus back home.

● Huntsman: Huntsman remains a sniveling jerk. He takes hypocritical cheap shots and radiates smugness, and he continues to adopt Democratic rhetoric to attack the candidates. Last night he said Cain’s 9-9-9 plan sounded like a pizza price, which is a standard attack you’ll find in the leftist blog world.

● Speculation: Finally, there was more evidence for my theory that Cain and Romney have a deal. Cain inexplicable bailed Romney out on TARP and then while seemingly criticizing Romney in the direct question section actually gave Romney an open platform to discuss his economic plan. Romney then used his question against Bachmann, when tactically, he should have blasted Cain. My guess is Cain doesn’t think he’ll win, so he’s agreed he will eventually bow out and endorse Romney in exchange for becoming the VP.

Thanks to everyone who participated last night and thanks to T-Rav and his sockpuppets!

Last night saw yet another fascinating Republican debate. Most of the attacks were on Cain or Romney. Perry attacked Romney as did Bachmann. Paul and Santorum attacked Cain. Huntsman focused on Perry. Gingrich focused on the Fed. Romney focused on Obama. Cain focused on his own plans. And the moderators attacked Romney, Cain and Perry. In the end, I think Cain was a huge winner, even though that may not be immediately apparent, and the race is now between Romney and Cain.

● Cain: Cain needed to show he could take the pressure of being number two. He did. At no point did he fall flat on his face or lack for answers. His two worst moments came:

● When a moderator asked why he told the unemployed it was their own fault they didn't have jobs. This mischaracterized Cain’s comment, which was aimed at the idiots squatting on Wall Street, but it still sounded bad and his explanation wasn’t particularly strong.

● When Ron Paul attacked him for being on the Kansas City Fed, Cain gave an ok (not great) answer that the Fed didn’t act then like it does now. That won’t satisfy Fed-deniers.

Cain defended other attacks quite nicely, such as:

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for raising only $2 trillion in revenues instead of the $2.2 trillion claimed, Cain shot back with one of the best lines of the night: “The problem with that analysis is that it’s incorrect.”

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being “regressive” and making “food and milk and beer” more expensive, Cain made the solid point that eliminating the payroll tax would more than offset that. I like that he didn't apologize for imposing a “regressive” tax.

● When Romney attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too simple and claiming simple is not good, Cain turned this on Romney by asking him if he knows all 59 points in his own plan. Romney didn’t and instead came up with the “7 pillars” of his plan and thereby proved that simple is better.

● Several of the underlings jumped on the idea Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would give Congress a new source of revenue by creating a national sale tax, but this only emphasized how deeply entrenched in the system their mindsets are. Following their logic, we shouldn't try anything.

Cain had a brilliant line too: “The capital gains tax is a wall that stands between people with ideas and people with money.”

Cain didn’t blow anybody away, but he did show solid skills and he proved he won't trip himself up. He also did such a masterful job of selling his 9-9-9 plan that every other candidate talked about it constantly, as did the moderators, and it even came up in questions that didn’t involve him. He made his 9-9-9 plan THE take away from this debate and that will prove to be a huge win, even if it isn’t immediately obvious.

● Romney: Romney just needed to be smooth and for the most part he succeeded. BUT the problem with Romney was on full display again last night. He would say something great and then he would keep talking until he backtracked out of it. He also imploded during the TARP question because he danced so long around whether he would do another Wall Street bailout that it became clear not only that he would do another bailout, but it was also clear he was trying to lie to us.

Newt also had a solid hit on Romney by pointing out that “on page 47” of his plan (a slap at Romney’s inability to describe his 59 point plan) Romney plays into Obama’s class warfare argument by promising capital gains tax cuts “to people who don’t have capital gains.” Romney missed Newt’s point and tried to defend this by saying he favors the middle class because the rich can take care of themselves. . . conceding Obama's case.

In the plus category, Perry took a shot at Romney over RomneyCare being like ObamaCare, but Romney’s defense was even better this time than last: (1) we didn’t raise taxes like Obama does, (2) we only insured poor people, we didn’t try to force everyone onto it, (3) this is a state issue, and (4) Massholes like the system 3-1. Whether those are true points or not, they remained un-refuted and made this a dead issue.

Romney also had a great shot at Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman when he said, “I would not be in this race if I had spent my whole life in government.” He then detailed some of the companies he founded.

● Perry: Perry really needed to shine to stop his nosedive. He failed. He barely spoke last night and when he did it was all generic. In particular, he mishandled his pending economic plan. He didn’t seem to know what’s in it and he just kept promising that he would release it soon as if he didn’t want to spoil the surprise. When it was pointed out that he should be able to tell us what’s in it, he responded with a very bad answer, claiming he’d only had eight weeks to work on it, whereas Romney’s had six years. Frankly a candidate who understands what they believe can detail an economic plan off the top of their head.

The moderators also smacked Perry by saying that the way Texas develops business is similar to Solyndra. Perry’s response was basically “everybody’s doin’ it,” which will only add more fire to the cronyism charge.

● Paul: Ron Paul had another bad debate. He had little to say as Newt stole his thunder. When he spoke, he made good points, but they weren’t memorable.

● Gingrich: Newt was the most interesting last night. He repeatedly tried to win over Paul supporters with angry broadside attacks on Ben Bernanke and the Fed, and he tried to win over Palin supporters by defending her even though no one else had mentioned her. Neither group are traditionally Newt people, so he’s clearly trying to branch out. Paul seemed a little stunned by this.

● Santorum: Santorum needs to go. He kept interrupting and he bizarrely continues to paint himself as an outsider. He also did things like blast everyone at the table as insiders and then (in the same sentence) attacked Cain for his lack of experience. Huh? Also, after blasting all the horrible insiders, he bragged how his years as an insider would let him pass his plan. . . whatever that plan actually is. Then he said he wanted to go to war with China, though I think he meant he wanted to fight a trade war, which isn’t much smarter. And his economic plan seems to be to make people get married.

● Bachmann: Bachmann and Santorum came across as lifer politicians with bland platitudes and repeatedly using candidate speak, e.g. “I just spoke to a man who told me blah blah blah.” This is something annoying people do when they've been in politics too long. Bachmann also needs to stop telling us she has 5 biological kids and 24 foster kids and that she was an attorney for the I.R.S. It's become like Al Bundy talking about scoring 4 touchdowns in one game.

Bachmann's attack on Cain's plan also struck me as a negative. She said if you turn Cain’s 9-9-9 plan around, “the devil is in the details.” Ha ha ha. First, that's trite and she has no comedic timing. Secondly, how does that make sense? The beauty of Cain’s plan is the lack of hidden details, it’s the tinker-with-the-current-system advocates who are playing with details. Third, what does she know of details as her “plan” (a term I use loosely) has none -- it's pure platitude. She should join Santorum on the short bus back home.

● Huntsman: Huntsman remains a sniveling jerk. He takes hypocritical cheap shots and radiates smugness, and he continues to adopt Democratic rhetoric to attack the candidates. Last night he said Cain’s 9-9-9 plan sounded like a pizza price, which is a standard attack you’ll find in the leftist blog world.

● Speculation: Finally, there was more evidence for my theory that Cain and Romney have a deal. Cain inexplicable bailed Romney out on TARP and then while seemingly criticizing Romney in the direct question section actually gave Romney an open platform to discuss his economic plan. Romney then used his question against Bachmann, when tactically, he should have blasted Cain. My guess is Cain doesn’t think he’ll win, so he’s agreed he will eventually bow out and endorse Romney in exchange for becoming the VP.

Thanks to everyone who participated last night and thanks to T-Rav and his sockpuppets!

Yet Another Debate Wrap Up

View Detail

Tuesday Night At The Debates!!

Tuesday Night At The Debates!!

In case you haven’t heard, there’s another Republican debate tonight -- 7:00 pm EST, on BloombergTV. So watch for periodic interruptions from Hugo Chavez Bloomberg himself as he tries to declare himself President. Tonight’s debate will be in New Hamster and could be fairly interesting. This will be Cain’s first test as the field’s punching bag. Perry needs to prove he’s not finished. Romney needs to find Waldo. And the rest need to find graceful exit strategies. Join us here for a play by play. . . join us.. In the meantime, here’s an update on recent events and some bad boxing nicknames:

● Mitt "the Rambler" Romney: Romney has been mocking Obama for creating a “Where’s Waldo economy” in which “finding a good paying job in this economy is harder than finding Waldo in one of his books.” This is of course a horrible analogy made about a book that hasn’t been culturally relevant in 15 years. Nice work Romney. . . way to show us groovy cats that you’re the bees knees.

At the Citadel, he gave a foreign policy speech in which said: “This century must be an American Century.”.... which is a mutual fund. After that it got a little confusing. He has four principles that he claims he will follow in foreign policy, but these were extremely generic. He will use American power with clarity and resolve to support our friends and promote capitalism. He intends to be a leader in multinational organizations, and he wants a strong military. You tell me what that means.

● The Herminator: Cain continues to surge in the polls. Most national polls have him in second place and climbing, though a couple had him in first place. Two separate polls released this week have him moving into second place in liberal New Hampshire: Romney 38%, Cain 20%, Paul 13%, Perry 4%. This will make Cain the candidate all the other conservative will shoot at, just as they attacked Perry before him. How he handles the heat could well determined his future. A failure tonight would likely stop his momentum dead and kill his candidacy.

Meanwhile, in establishment land, The Washington Post is trying to mock him as the “flavor of the month” and scoffs that “conservatives will tire of him at some point and once again search for the next big thing.” Thus proving that the Post is indeed clueless about conservatives. We are looking for a good candidate, we don't have ADD like liberals do.

It also scoffs that Cain can't fool the Post about his lack of foreign policy experience and it notes that candidates who don’t know foreign policy always fail. . . assuming you ignore Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama, each of whom had squat in the way of foreign policy experience when they took over.

● Texas Trainwreck Rick Perry: Most pundits are saying Perry needs to win big tonight or he’s finished. For his part, Perry is taking this debate very seriously. He has reportedly been practicing against a stand-in for Romney. . . who did indeed dress like Waldo. He also apparently intends to follow Commentarama’s advice and issue a “significant economic plan” next week. Personally, I’d release it right now, before the debate, but what do I know?

Perry went through a bit of an embarrassment last week when Perry supporter Evangelical leader Robert Jeffress decided to tell the world that Mormonism is a cult and thus, we should not vote for Romney. Perry’s campaign quickly issued a statement disavowing this comment: “The governor does not believe Mormonism is a cult,” and urged us to vote for Romney. Jeffress is now being compared to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

● St. Ron Paul: In a bit of a shocker, Ron Paul won an informal straw poll at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit. He won 37% of the vote. Cain came in second with 23%. Perry got fourth with 8% and Romney scored sixth with 4%. Paul isn’t exactly known for being a darling of the Religious Right, so how do we account for this? FRC leaders say Paul's support came from younger FRCVVS attendees. . . which doesn’t really answer the question, does it? Could Paul have more supporters than we think? Should we prepare for a Paul Presidency? Tune in November 2012 and find out!

● Jon Super-Butch Huntsman: Huntsman continues to pound his chest to prove to us that he’s not an effete liberal. He’s now promising to bomb Iran, and no, I’m not really kidding: “I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that.” To quote the late Al Davis, “just nuke ‘em baby!”

● Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and the other guys whose names I’ve forgotten, all continue to exist.

● The End Is Nigh: Finally, nothing you’ve just read matters. The Detroit Lions are 5-0, which means the world is ending. The Mayans were right. We’re screwed.

In case you haven’t heard, there’s another Republican debate tonight -- 7:00 pm EST, on BloombergTV. So watch for periodic interruptions from Hugo Chavez Bloomberg himself as he tries to declare himself President. Tonight’s debate will be in New Hamster and could be fairly interesting. This will be Cain’s first test as the field’s punching bag. Perry needs to prove he’s not finished. Romney needs to find Waldo. And the rest need to find graceful exit strategies. Join us here for a play by play. . . join us.. In the meantime, here’s an update on recent events and some bad boxing nicknames:

● Mitt "the Rambler" Romney: Romney has been mocking Obama for creating a “Where’s Waldo economy” in which “finding a good paying job in this economy is harder than finding Waldo in one of his books.” This is of course a horrible analogy made about a book that hasn’t been culturally relevant in 15 years. Nice work Romney. . . way to show us groovy cats that you’re the bees knees.

At the Citadel, he gave a foreign policy speech in which said: “This century must be an American Century.”.... which is a mutual fund. After that it got a little confusing. He has four principles that he claims he will follow in foreign policy, but these were extremely generic. He will use American power with clarity and resolve to support our friends and promote capitalism. He intends to be a leader in multinational organizations, and he wants a strong military. You tell me what that means.

● The Herminator: Cain continues to surge in the polls. Most national polls have him in second place and climbing, though a couple had him in first place. Two separate polls released this week have him moving into second place in liberal New Hampshire: Romney 38%, Cain 20%, Paul 13%, Perry 4%. This will make Cain the candidate all the other conservative will shoot at, just as they attacked Perry before him. How he handles the heat could well determined his future. A failure tonight would likely stop his momentum dead and kill his candidacy.

Meanwhile, in establishment land, The Washington Post is trying to mock him as the “flavor of the month” and scoffs that “conservatives will tire of him at some point and once again search for the next big thing.” Thus proving that the Post is indeed clueless about conservatives. We are looking for a good candidate, we don't have ADD like liberals do.

It also scoffs that Cain can't fool the Post about his lack of foreign policy experience and it notes that candidates who don’t know foreign policy always fail. . . assuming you ignore Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama, each of whom had squat in the way of foreign policy experience when they took over.

● Texas Trainwreck Rick Perry: Most pundits are saying Perry needs to win big tonight or he’s finished. For his part, Perry is taking this debate very seriously. He has reportedly been practicing against a stand-in for Romney. . . who did indeed dress like Waldo. He also apparently intends to follow Commentarama’s advice and issue a “significant economic plan” next week. Personally, I’d release it right now, before the debate, but what do I know?

Perry went through a bit of an embarrassment last week when Perry supporter Evangelical leader Robert Jeffress decided to tell the world that Mormonism is a cult and thus, we should not vote for Romney. Perry’s campaign quickly issued a statement disavowing this comment: “The governor does not believe Mormonism is a cult,” and urged us to vote for Romney. Jeffress is now being compared to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

● St. Ron Paul: In a bit of a shocker, Ron Paul won an informal straw poll at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit. He won 37% of the vote. Cain came in second with 23%. Perry got fourth with 8% and Romney scored sixth with 4%. Paul isn’t exactly known for being a darling of the Religious Right, so how do we account for this? FRC leaders say Paul's support came from younger FRCVVS attendees. . . which doesn’t really answer the question, does it? Could Paul have more supporters than we think? Should we prepare for a Paul Presidency? Tune in November 2012 and find out!

● Jon Super-Butch Huntsman: Huntsman continues to pound his chest to prove to us that he’s not an effete liberal. He’s now promising to bomb Iran, and no, I’m not really kidding: “I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that.” To quote the late Al Davis, “just nuke ‘em baby!”

● Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and the other guys whose names I’ve forgotten, all continue to exist.

● The End Is Nigh: Finally, nothing you’ve just read matters. The Detroit Lions are 5-0, which means the world is ending. The Mayans were right. We’re screwed.

Tuesday Night At The Debates!!

View Detail

Suckers For Chris Christie

Suckers For Chris Christie

Christ Christie is reconsidering whether or not to run for the Presidency. Ok. I don’t think the Democrats will give him the nod over Obama, but he’s entitled to try. Wait, he’s thinking about running as a Republican? And there are conservatives pushing him? Grrr.

Rick Perry is flaming out. After Perry’s horrible debate performance, Herman Cain cleaned his clock in the Florida straw poll (37% Cain, 15% Perry) and Romney took him out in Michigan (51% Romney, 17% Perry). This has created an opening if someone else with strong name recognition wants to jump in. And to some people that means Christie.

Apparently, several big money types, including Rupert Murdoch and the billionaire Koch brothers have spoken to Christie about running. A group of 50 business leaders including Ken Langone, Jack Welch, Charles Schwab and Mort Zuckerman appealed to him in person. Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal has been pimping him as well. So has The Weekly Standard and Bill Kristol. Even Ann Coulter, normally a thoughtful conservative, is a fan of Chris Christie and encouraged him to run as recently as this summer.

Mitch Daniels, who is generally conservative, has been agitating for someone new to jump into the race as well, and he just had a private meeting with Christie. Said Daniels of Christie, “he’s different, right?” Yes he is, but not in a good way.

Listen conservative suckers, this has to stop. Christie is barely even a RINO, much less a conservative. They think he’s a pro-life conservative who appeals to conservatives, moderates and liberals because he has Tea Party ideas, but isn’t ideological and won’t “demagogue” on issues like abortion or immigration. But that's not true. Consider these FACTS (read: not delusions) about Christie:

● Christie has been a tax raiser. His first budget included $250 million in new taxes and eliminated $1.3 billion in property tax refunds.

● Christie has been a big spender. Christie claims he cut spending by 9% ($2.56 billion), but spending actually increased by 6%. And even that relies on gimmicks like delaying $3 billion in payments a couple weeks into the next budget and forcing $1.2 billion in spending down to the local level through unfunded mandates.

● Christie took $1 billion in stimulus money, after promising he wouldn’t. And he borrowed $750 million to build schools in Democratic districts, after promising he would never borrow money.

● Christie took on the unions right? Wrong. There don’t appear to have been any job cuts and salaries went up 7% per year.

● He believes in global warming. In the past, he claimed he wasn’t sure, but now he claims he’s always been sure:

“In the past I’ve always said that climate change is real and it’s impacting our state. (lie) There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing. (wrong) This decade, average temperatures have been rising. (wrong) Temperature changes are affecting weather patterns and our climate. (wrong) . . . When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts. (false logic)”

● Christie favors unspecified gun control because he “wants to make sure that we don’t have an abundance of guns out there.”

● Christie favors amnesty for illegal aliens:

“Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime. The whole phrase of ‘illegal immigrant’ connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime. . . It is not.”

* * *

“What I support is making sure that the federal government plays each and every one of its roles: Securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, and having an orderly process — whatever that process is — for people to gain citizenship. It’s a very easy issue to demagogue and I’m just not going to participate in that.”

● He appointed liberals to all of his key positions. He appointed liberal Democrat Paula Dow as Attorney General of New Jersey. He appointed a global warming enthusiast as Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. He appointed an ObamaCare supporter as Commissioner of the Department of Health and Senior Services.

● He tried to appoint a Kinseyan (sexual perversion advocacy, masquerading as science) as Director of the Department of Children and Families.

● He fired the only conservative in his cabinet (Brett Schundler, his Commissioner of Education) for failing to grab Stimulus money which Christie had previously promised he would not accept.

So how is he different than Obama?

Let me say this to the conservative glitterati: do your damn research! Stop falling for soundbites and false images. Politicians have records and you need to examine them. If you don’t, then you end up choosing the wrong people, people who will destroy and discredit conservatism. . . people like your latest crush, Chris Christie.

Christ Christie is reconsidering whether or not to run for the Presidency. Ok. I don’t think the Democrats will give him the nod over Obama, but he’s entitled to try. Wait, he’s thinking about running as a Republican? And there are conservatives pushing him? Grrr.

Rick Perry is flaming out. After Perry’s horrible debate performance, Herman Cain cleaned his clock in the Florida straw poll (37% Cain, 15% Perry) and Romney took him out in Michigan (51% Romney, 17% Perry). This has created an opening if someone else with strong name recognition wants to jump in. And to some people that means Christie.

Apparently, several big money types, including Rupert Murdoch and the billionaire Koch brothers have spoken to Christie about running. A group of 50 business leaders including Ken Langone, Jack Welch, Charles Schwab and Mort Zuckerman appealed to him in person. Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal has been pimping him as well. So has The Weekly Standard and Bill Kristol. Even Ann Coulter, normally a thoughtful conservative, is a fan of Chris Christie and encouraged him to run as recently as this summer.

Mitch Daniels, who is generally conservative, has been agitating for someone new to jump into the race as well, and he just had a private meeting with Christie. Said Daniels of Christie, “he’s different, right?” Yes he is, but not in a good way.

Listen conservative suckers, this has to stop. Christie is barely even a RINO, much less a conservative. They think he’s a pro-life conservative who appeals to conservatives, moderates and liberals because he has Tea Party ideas, but isn’t ideological and won’t “demagogue” on issues like abortion or immigration. But that's not true. Consider these FACTS (read: not delusions) about Christie:

● Christie has been a tax raiser. His first budget included $250 million in new taxes and eliminated $1.3 billion in property tax refunds.

● Christie has been a big spender. Christie claims he cut spending by 9% ($2.56 billion), but spending actually increased by 6%. And even that relies on gimmicks like delaying $3 billion in payments a couple weeks into the next budget and forcing $1.2 billion in spending down to the local level through unfunded mandates.

● Christie took $1 billion in stimulus money, after promising he wouldn’t. And he borrowed $750 million to build schools in Democratic districts, after promising he would never borrow money.

● Christie took on the unions right? Wrong. There don’t appear to have been any job cuts and salaries went up 7% per year.

● He believes in global warming. In the past, he claimed he wasn’t sure, but now he claims he’s always been sure:

“In the past I’ve always said that climate change is real and it’s impacting our state. (lie) There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing. (wrong) This decade, average temperatures have been rising. (wrong) Temperature changes are affecting weather patterns and our climate. (wrong) . . . When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts. (false logic)”

● Christie favors unspecified gun control because he “wants to make sure that we don’t have an abundance of guns out there.”

● Christie favors amnesty for illegal aliens:

“Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime. The whole phrase of ‘illegal immigrant’ connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime. . . It is not.”

* * *

“What I support is making sure that the federal government plays each and every one of its roles: Securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, and having an orderly process — whatever that process is — for people to gain citizenship. It’s a very easy issue to demagogue and I’m just not going to participate in that.”

● He appointed liberals to all of his key positions. He appointed liberal Democrat Paula Dow as Attorney General of New Jersey. He appointed a global warming enthusiast as Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. He appointed an ObamaCare supporter as Commissioner of the Department of Health and Senior Services.

● He tried to appoint a Kinseyan (sexual perversion advocacy, masquerading as science) as Director of the Department of Children and Families.

● He fired the only conservative in his cabinet (Brett Schundler, his Commissioner of Education) for failing to grab Stimulus money which Christie had previously promised he would not accept.

So how is he different than Obama?

Let me say this to the conservative glitterati: do your damn research! Stop falling for soundbites and false images. Politicians have records and you need to examine them. If you don’t, then you end up choosing the wrong people, people who will destroy and discredit conservatism. . . people like your latest crush, Chris Christie.

Suckers For Chris Christie

View Detail

Last Night At The Debate

Last Night At The Debate

Last night saw yet another Republican debate. Who won? Who lost? Who should quit now? And a couple surprise thoughts! All this and more will be yours in this very special episode of Last Night At The Debate.

● Winner: Romney came across as confident and conservative. He ran to the right of Perry on immigration and states rights. He had a solid control of the facts and some seriously pithy moments. For example, he latched onto one of Perry’s backtracks and said: “there’s a Rick Perry out there saying [the opposite of what you just said,] you better find that Rick Perry and get him to stop saying that.” Everyone laughed and Perry had no idea how to respond. Romney won a lot of people last night.

● Winner: The Hermanator was brilliant. He’s got a strong set of ideas and a compelling personality. His 9/9/9 plan is so well designed from a marketing perspective that it’s the only plan anyone remembers. His discussion of his cancer truly personalized why ObamaCare needs to go. His attack on the EPA “regulating dust” was one of the best received moments all night. And he offered a strong, clear and moral foreign policy. He not only had a command of the issues, he had a commanding presence. Cain should leapfrog Bachmann and maybe Perry if Perry falls as far as seems likely.

● Toast: Put a fork in Rick Perry, he’s done. Seriously. . . he’s the Hindenburg of candidates. Perry came across like he was drugged. He looked intimidated and sleepy. He sounded pissy. He never answered a single question, choosing instead to make whining attacks on Romney. All that was missing was Nixonian sweat to make the total implosion complete. I honestly expect this debate finished him. Consider these self-inflicted wounds:

● He stands by giving illegal aliens instate college rates. Perry tried to argue these people would be an economic burden unless they got education. Then Santorum slapped him down by pointing out that Perry was subsidizing illegals at rates people in the other 56 states can’t get. Zap.

● Perry tried to claim opponents of subsidizing illegal aliens “have no heart.” Well, f@#$ you, sir. Frank Lutz’s focus group HATED that.

● Perry had a couple good attacks on Romney but they fell flat because he kept tripping over his words. All night, he sounded a lot like Bush when Bush got into trouble in debates.

● Perry’s attempt to dodge his horrid answer on Social Security was a disaster. Now he claims he was only talking about creating state programs for government workers rather than privatizing the whole system. . . which Romney pointed out isn’t what Perry said in his book.

● Loser: Fox News. The acoustics were horrible, like the debate was held in a cave. Everything echoed and was hard to hear. Their format was horrible and created a dull, disjointed debate: (1) they asked individual questions of candidates, which prevented any sort of back and forth, and (2) they took so long getting to each you all but forgot about people. And they wasted time on stupid and confusing Google promotions. CNN made Fox look like amateurs.

● Toast: Michele Bachmann all but vanished last night, and she had problems. In particular, they re-opened the vaccine wound by questioning her story about the Gardasil vaccine causing retardation in a 12 year old. She tried to distance herself from that by claiming she was just repeating what she had been told -- not a good answer. She was also asked why she avoided answering a question at the last debate about how much of a person’s income they should be allowed to keep. She responded first by saying she wanted to answer and her answer would have been “all of it” (implying a 0% tax rate). Then she immediately said that “of course” some of it is needed to run the government. . . and then she dodged the question a second time.

● Winner/Loser: Gary Johnson had a couple good moments, including the best line of the night: “my neighbor’s dog has produced more shovel-ready jobs than this administration.” BUT he came across as highly uncomfortable and he said he would cut the military budget by 43%, which probably kills him. He’s like a less refined, less smooth version of Ron Paul.

● Winner: Ron Paul not only gave some brilliant answers (and some paranoid ones), but he easily fended off the possibility that Johnson would replace him with the Paul crowd. The USS Ron Paul sails on.

● Winner: Newt continues to impress. His answers are smart and workable. He reminded people that he balanced the budget and millions of jobs were created when he was Speaker. He’s pushing states’ rights strongly and he focuses on Obama.

● Winner: Joe Sixpack. Once again, the questions from the audience were great (except for one whiner from Michigan). I love Americans.

● Loser: Santorum collapsed on the don’t ask don’t tell repeal. Not only did he seem scared to even talk about gays, but he ended up suggesting the policy had to be put back in place to protect the military. . . except he would allow those currently in the military to stay. Huh? Basically, he lost both sides.

● Winner: Bev. Bev nominated herself for Vice President and that seems to have gone over well with Commentarama fans.

● Interesting Thought: At one point, Romney seemed to flirt with Cain. . . no, not in that way. This raises the suggestion of a Romney/Cain ticket. That might be enough to win over conservatives to Romney. Let’s see if there are any signs of a follow up.

Thoughts? Predictions?

P.S. Thanks to T-Rav and everyone else who participated last night. You all made a rather dull debate much more entertaining.

Last night saw yet another Republican debate. Who won? Who lost? Who should quit now? And a couple surprise thoughts! All this and more will be yours in this very special episode of Last Night At The Debate.

● Winner: Romney came across as confident and conservative. He ran to the right of Perry on immigration and states rights. He had a solid control of the facts and some seriously pithy moments. For example, he latched onto one of Perry’s backtracks and said: “there’s a Rick Perry out there saying [the opposite of what you just said,] you better find that Rick Perry and get him to stop saying that.” Everyone laughed and Perry had no idea how to respond. Romney won a lot of people last night.

● Winner: The Hermanator was brilliant. He’s got a strong set of ideas and a compelling personality. His 9/9/9 plan is so well designed from a marketing perspective that it’s the only plan anyone remembers. His discussion of his cancer truly personalized why ObamaCare needs to go. His attack on the EPA “regulating dust” was one of the best received moments all night. And he offered a strong, clear and moral foreign policy. He not only had a command of the issues, he had a commanding presence. Cain should leapfrog Bachmann and maybe Perry if Perry falls as far as seems likely.

● Toast: Put a fork in Rick Perry, he’s done. Seriously. . . he’s the Hindenburg of candidates. Perry came across like he was drugged. He looked intimidated and sleepy. He sounded pissy. He never answered a single question, choosing instead to make whining attacks on Romney. All that was missing was Nixonian sweat to make the total implosion complete. I honestly expect this debate finished him. Consider these self-inflicted wounds:

● He stands by giving illegal aliens instate college rates. Perry tried to argue these people would be an economic burden unless they got education. Then Santorum slapped him down by pointing out that Perry was subsidizing illegals at rates people in the other 56 states can’t get. Zap.

● Perry tried to claim opponents of subsidizing illegal aliens “have no heart.” Well, f@#$ you, sir. Frank Lutz’s focus group HATED that.

● Perry had a couple good attacks on Romney but they fell flat because he kept tripping over his words. All night, he sounded a lot like Bush when Bush got into trouble in debates.

● Perry’s attempt to dodge his horrid answer on Social Security was a disaster. Now he claims he was only talking about creating state programs for government workers rather than privatizing the whole system. . . which Romney pointed out isn’t what Perry said in his book.

● Loser: Fox News. The acoustics were horrible, like the debate was held in a cave. Everything echoed and was hard to hear. Their format was horrible and created a dull, disjointed debate: (1) they asked individual questions of candidates, which prevented any sort of back and forth, and (2) they took so long getting to each you all but forgot about people. And they wasted time on stupid and confusing Google promotions. CNN made Fox look like amateurs.

● Toast: Michele Bachmann all but vanished last night, and she had problems. In particular, they re-opened the vaccine wound by questioning her story about the Gardasil vaccine causing retardation in a 12 year old. She tried to distance herself from that by claiming she was just repeating what she had been told -- not a good answer. She was also asked why she avoided answering a question at the last debate about how much of a person’s income they should be allowed to keep. She responded first by saying she wanted to answer and her answer would have been “all of it” (implying a 0% tax rate). Then she immediately said that “of course” some of it is needed to run the government. . . and then she dodged the question a second time.

● Winner/Loser: Gary Johnson had a couple good moments, including the best line of the night: “my neighbor’s dog has produced more shovel-ready jobs than this administration.” BUT he came across as highly uncomfortable and he said he would cut the military budget by 43%, which probably kills him. He’s like a less refined, less smooth version of Ron Paul.

● Winner: Ron Paul not only gave some brilliant answers (and some paranoid ones), but he easily fended off the possibility that Johnson would replace him with the Paul crowd. The USS Ron Paul sails on.

● Winner: Newt continues to impress. His answers are smart and workable. He reminded people that he balanced the budget and millions of jobs were created when he was Speaker. He’s pushing states’ rights strongly and he focuses on Obama.

● Winner: Joe Sixpack. Once again, the questions from the audience were great (except for one whiner from Michigan). I love Americans.

● Loser: Santorum collapsed on the don’t ask don’t tell repeal. Not only did he seem scared to even talk about gays, but he ended up suggesting the policy had to be put back in place to protect the military. . . except he would allow those currently in the military to stay. Huh? Basically, he lost both sides.

● Winner: Bev. Bev nominated herself for Vice President and that seems to have gone over well with Commentarama fans.

● Interesting Thought: At one point, Romney seemed to flirt with Cain. . . no, not in that way. This raises the suggestion of a Romney/Cain ticket. That might be enough to win over conservatives to Romney. Let’s see if there are any signs of a follow up.

Thoughts? Predictions?

P.S. Thanks to T-Rav and everyone else who participated last night. You all made a rather dull debate much more entertaining.

Last Night At The Debate

View Detail

That's (Republican) Debatable! With 12% More Players!

That's (Republican) Debatable! With 12% More Players!

There’s another Republican debate tonight. If we ask nicely, perhaps T-Rav, Emperor of Sockpuppets, will do a play by play? If not, we’ll mock him mercilessly. Anyhoo, this debate will be in Florida, and given the outcry surrounding Rick Perry’s description of Social Security as a “Ponzi Scheme,” expect that to be a big issue. Also, welcome a new player! Here's what you need to know.

First, the race has turned into a two man race: Perry and Romney. The others are still technically in it, but the polls are beginning to coalesce around these two: Perry holds a 28% to 24% lead over Romney, with no one else in double digits. That’s not surprising, as that happens once front-runners emerge. What is surprising is that Romney is catching up. Perry's 11% lead is down to 4%.

More surprising, Tea Party people in South Carolina apparently are shifting away from Perry toward Romney. I think there are two primary reasons for this. First, Romney has done an effective job of defusing the RomneyCare issue. Whether his defense is true or not, he presented what sounds like a very credible distinction between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. That makes him less toxic, especially as he promises to repeal ObamaCare.

Secondly, Perry is suffering from an unending assault over cronyism -- and has yet to do a good job explaining this away. Cronyism is an issue that sticks in the craws of most Tea Party people. And with Warren Buffett, Solyndra and LightSquared dominating the right-wing blogosphere, cronyism remains a hot button issue. This hurts Perry, especially as no one has made a cronyism charge against Romney.

Does this mean Perry is finished? Hardly. It means Romney will be a stronger competitor than expected and rather than watching Perry run away with the nomination, either one can win this thing. Romney needs to pound away at the crony issue if he wants to win. Perry needs to disarm that issue and find a way to point out that Romney isn't really proposing conservatism.

The other candidates are probably done at this point unless Romney or Perry slips up and falls out. Alternatively, they need to find a way to shock everyone to such a degree they become “buzz-worthy.” Newt is planning to give the intellectual speech to end all speeches. . . but we’ll see. It’s hard to get traction when people assume you can’t win.

One guy who actually has an outside chance tonight is Gary Johnson. He’s the libertarian-leaning former governor of New Mexico. He will be allowed to participate because he cleared the 1% hurdle in the polls (McCotter didn’t). If he comes across as a sane version of Ron Paul or simply as a genuine conservative, he could literally surge into the race as voters still don’t seem happy with Perry or Romney.

The other issue that is hurting Perry is his description of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme. It is a Ponzi Scheme, but you can’t say that. Even Mitch Daniels, who is known for being truthful and breaking bad news to the public, described this as “too truthful.” A Ponzi Scheme (named after Charles Ponzi) is a fraud that takes the form of an investment that promises each investor more money than they put in, but which doesn’t earn enough money to pay what it promises. So long as enough new people get suckered in, the fraudster is able to pay what he promised to those already in the investment. But once the flow of new people slows, the whole thing collapses.

That’s exactly how Social Security works -- it pays people more than they paid in and it makes no money on its own. That was fine for decades, but when the baby boomers didn’t have enough kids, they triggered its collapse. Now we face a series of bad choices: cut the promised benefits, raise taxes, add more taxpaying workers (i.e. immigration), or let the system collapse. Unfortunately, voters are unwilling to accept any pain in finding a solution to this pending disaster. That hurts anyone who raises this issue, i.e. Perry.

But the real problem for Perry came when he proposed handing Social Security off to the states. Not only does this set off alarm bells for people who think they are going to get their benefits cut, but it sounds like an accounting gimmick that will crush state budgets. Romney is already pounding away at Perry on it. Indeed, Romney has asked Perry six questions, including how a state-run program would be administered or funded and how people could move from state to state under his plan. Look for this to come up a lot tonight (as the average age in Florida is 107).

Finally, I suspect you'll hear a lot about Israel as well, with Obama making such a mess of it, with Rick Perry using that issue to discuss foreign policy, and with Florida being heavily Jewish. Also, expect Perry to play to Hispanics tonight, who dominate parts of Florida. Perry did a fundraiser with Hispanic businessmen this week and is actively courting them. Other than that, expect a LOT of Bernanke bashing after he broke the stock market yesterday.

Bring your popcorn!

There’s another Republican debate tonight. If we ask nicely, perhaps T-Rav, Emperor of Sockpuppets, will do a play by play? If not, we’ll mock him mercilessly. Anyhoo, this debate will be in Florida, and given the outcry surrounding Rick Perry’s description of Social Security as a “Ponzi Scheme,” expect that to be a big issue. Also, welcome a new player! Here's what you need to know.

First, the race has turned into a two man race: Perry and Romney. The others are still technically in it, but the polls are beginning to coalesce around these two: Perry holds a 28% to 24% lead over Romney, with no one else in double digits. That’s not surprising, as that happens once front-runners emerge. What is surprising is that Romney is catching up. Perry's 11% lead is down to 4%.

More surprising, Tea Party people in South Carolina apparently are shifting away from Perry toward Romney. I think there are two primary reasons for this. First, Romney has done an effective job of defusing the RomneyCare issue. Whether his defense is true or not, he presented what sounds like a very credible distinction between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. That makes him less toxic, especially as he promises to repeal ObamaCare.

Secondly, Perry is suffering from an unending assault over cronyism -- and has yet to do a good job explaining this away. Cronyism is an issue that sticks in the craws of most Tea Party people. And with Warren Buffett, Solyndra and LightSquared dominating the right-wing blogosphere, cronyism remains a hot button issue. This hurts Perry, especially as no one has made a cronyism charge against Romney.

Does this mean Perry is finished? Hardly. It means Romney will be a stronger competitor than expected and rather than watching Perry run away with the nomination, either one can win this thing. Romney needs to pound away at the crony issue if he wants to win. Perry needs to disarm that issue and find a way to point out that Romney isn't really proposing conservatism.

The other candidates are probably done at this point unless Romney or Perry slips up and falls out. Alternatively, they need to find a way to shock everyone to such a degree they become “buzz-worthy.” Newt is planning to give the intellectual speech to end all speeches. . . but we’ll see. It’s hard to get traction when people assume you can’t win.

One guy who actually has an outside chance tonight is Gary Johnson. He’s the libertarian-leaning former governor of New Mexico. He will be allowed to participate because he cleared the 1% hurdle in the polls (McCotter didn’t). If he comes across as a sane version of Ron Paul or simply as a genuine conservative, he could literally surge into the race as voters still don’t seem happy with Perry or Romney.

The other issue that is hurting Perry is his description of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme. It is a Ponzi Scheme, but you can’t say that. Even Mitch Daniels, who is known for being truthful and breaking bad news to the public, described this as “too truthful.” A Ponzi Scheme (named after Charles Ponzi) is a fraud that takes the form of an investment that promises each investor more money than they put in, but which doesn’t earn enough money to pay what it promises. So long as enough new people get suckered in, the fraudster is able to pay what he promised to those already in the investment. But once the flow of new people slows, the whole thing collapses.

That’s exactly how Social Security works -- it pays people more than they paid in and it makes no money on its own. That was fine for decades, but when the baby boomers didn’t have enough kids, they triggered its collapse. Now we face a series of bad choices: cut the promised benefits, raise taxes, add more taxpaying workers (i.e. immigration), or let the system collapse. Unfortunately, voters are unwilling to accept any pain in finding a solution to this pending disaster. That hurts anyone who raises this issue, i.e. Perry.

But the real problem for Perry came when he proposed handing Social Security off to the states. Not only does this set off alarm bells for people who think they are going to get their benefits cut, but it sounds like an accounting gimmick that will crush state budgets. Romney is already pounding away at Perry on it. Indeed, Romney has asked Perry six questions, including how a state-run program would be administered or funded and how people could move from state to state under his plan. Look for this to come up a lot tonight (as the average age in Florida is 107).

Finally, I suspect you'll hear a lot about Israel as well, with Obama making such a mess of it, with Rick Perry using that issue to discuss foreign policy, and with Florida being heavily Jewish. Also, expect Perry to play to Hispanics tonight, who dominate parts of Florida. Perry did a fundraiser with Hispanic businessmen this week and is actively courting them. Other than that, expect a LOT of Bernanke bashing after he broke the stock market yesterday.

Bring your popcorn!

That's (Republican) Debatable! With 12% More Players!

View Detail

Thoughts On Yet Another Debate

Thoughts On Yet Another Debate

You may not know this, but there was a Republican debate last night -- between plays of the Dolphins-Patriots atrocity. Seriously, who schedules a debate during Monday Night Football? Not to mention, it's only been six days since the last one. Anyway, here are some thoughts on the debate.

● Up With (these) People: This group of candidates continues to impress. They mixed it up nicely, they made great points and they defended themselves well. It was a very spirited debate, but only rarely felt negative. There was also an awful lot of conservative philosophy discussed and explained last night. This was good for conservatism all around.

● The Hermanator: Herm is on fire! He was strong, credible, and made great points about the need to fundamentally remake our government. His advocacy of fixing Social Security by copying Chile’s model is fantastic. His 9/9/9 plan (9% income tax, 9% corporate tax, and 9% sales tax) is also great. I would absolutely choose him for VP at this point (or P).

● BullsEye of Newt: Newt was on fire too. He made excellent points all night, exposed a lot of mushy liberal-like thinking, and kept the attack focused on Obama. His best point came when the governors started arguing about who created more jobs. Newt reminded everyone that the government doesn’t create jobs. . . the private sector does.

● Insane in the Membrane: Ron Paul continues to raise legitimate issues we should be considering. . . then he veers off into crazytown. For example, last night, he raised the question of whether or not our foreign policy, in particular having troops all over the world and trying to fight ground wars against Islamic terrorism, are working. Those are valid questions that need to be asked. But then he advocated total isolationism on the theory that if we bury our heads in the sand, everyone will leave us alone. Um, no. Paul also killed himself with all but his most devoted followers by saying we brought 9/11 on ourselves and suggesting we bombed civilians in Iraq. In truth, he was making a more subtle point than that -- he was pointing out what al Qaeda itself claims as a motive -- but he picked the wrong time for a subtle discussion on a very emotional issue.

● Codename: Secret Liberal: Huntsman speaks in code. Last night he advocated "bringing in more workers" without using the words "open borders" or "immigration." He also took hypocritical cheap shots at other candidates -- like suggesting that Perry’s claim that you can’t really secure the border with a fence (a valid point) was “treasonous” ... even though Huntsman himself is for open borders.

● The Wolfman: Wolf Blitzer of CNN did a surprisingly good job moderating the debate. He kept things moving along nicely, got everyone involved, and was amazingly fair -- very few “gotcha” questions. (FYI, the left is attacking CNN for working with the Tea Party... "unethical".)

● Candidate For Sale: Perry took a pounding. He generally held up well, but not always. Paul blasted him for the growth of government and taxation in Texas and Perry had no real response. Perry also started well on the Gardasil vaccine issue, but withered under the constant (unfair) attacks. Perry also continues to give unsatisfactory evasions to the crony capitalism issue. For example, his best response to the issue was: “I raised $30 million. If you think I can be bought for $5,000, then I’m insulted.” Ok, what is your price, sir?

● Blah Blah Blah: Romney is getting better at answering the RomneyCare issue by listing significant ways it varies from ObamaCare. He’s also starting to take the gloves off, though he still seems like the most tentative guy on stage and he comes across as snide when he attacks. The main problem for Romney continues to be that he’s a technocrat and while his lips move a lot, you can’t remember anything he says.

● Illegals: Perry defended granting instate tuition to illegals (good economics, fairness, blah blah) and Huntsman explained granting drivers licenses to illegals (they were special licenses that identified these people as illegals).

On these issues, let me say that I actually think giving drivers licenses makes sense. Why? To protect people. These illegals will be driving whether we like it or not, and it just makes a lot of sense to have them in the system where they can be monitored, tested, taxed and forced to buy insurance. This makes it easier for law enforcement to do its job, and will protect other drivers / pedestrians -- right now, illegals run when they have an accident and that creates real problems for the people they hit.

Granting instate tuition, on the other hand, ticks me off. If you come from another state or legally come from another country, you need to pay out-of-state rates. So why should someone who is here illegally have MORE rights than someone who is here legally?

● Got Gas: Bachmann made a point in the first debate about bringing the cost of gas down to $2 per gallon. The MSM scoffed at her claim -- even though the economics is actually on her side. Regardless, there is an ingenious aspect to her point, which is worth noting. People understand the benefits of energy independence in an abstract way, but they can’t personalize it. But everyone understands $2 a gallon gas.

● Vaccinating Stupidity: There are valid reasons to criticize Perry for the vaccine issue. Specifically, his conduct raises questions of cronyism and his willingness to overstep his authority. BUT... to turn this into an broader anti-vaccine tirade as Santorum and Bachmann are doing is lunacy. To pretend that it violates people’s rights to force them to be inoculated against communicable diseases like small pox or to inoculate their children against easily-prevented debilitating diseases like polio is unconscionable idiocy.

● Vox Tea Populi: For once, the questions from the audience were really good. I guess that’s due to this being a Tea Party crowd and not a bunch of MSM-picked whiny, mindless liberals.

Finally, thanks to everyone who participated in last night's debate play by play and the “yo’ momma so liberal” contest that broke out.

Oh, one more thing. In the name of equal time, we've agreed to let HypnoBama have a few words with you:

Vote for me puny humans!

You may not know this, but there was a Republican debate last night -- between plays of the Dolphins-Patriots atrocity. Seriously, who schedules a debate during Monday Night Football? Not to mention, it's only been six days since the last one. Anyway, here are some thoughts on the debate.

● Up With (these) People: This group of candidates continues to impress. They mixed it up nicely, they made great points and they defended themselves well. It was a very spirited debate, but only rarely felt negative. There was also an awful lot of conservative philosophy discussed and explained last night. This was good for conservatism all around.

● The Hermanator: Herm is on fire! He was strong, credible, and made great points about the need to fundamentally remake our government. His advocacy of fixing Social Security by copying Chile’s model is fantastic. His 9/9/9 plan (9% income tax, 9% corporate tax, and 9% sales tax) is also great. I would absolutely choose him for VP at this point (or P).

● BullsEye of Newt: Newt was on fire too. He made excellent points all night, exposed a lot of mushy liberal-like thinking, and kept the attack focused on Obama. His best point came when the governors started arguing about who created more jobs. Newt reminded everyone that the government doesn’t create jobs. . . the private sector does.

● Insane in the Membrane: Ron Paul continues to raise legitimate issues we should be considering. . . then he veers off into crazytown. For example, last night, he raised the question of whether or not our foreign policy, in particular having troops all over the world and trying to fight ground wars against Islamic terrorism, are working. Those are valid questions that need to be asked. But then he advocated total isolationism on the theory that if we bury our heads in the sand, everyone will leave us alone. Um, no. Paul also killed himself with all but his most devoted followers by saying we brought 9/11 on ourselves and suggesting we bombed civilians in Iraq. In truth, he was making a more subtle point than that -- he was pointing out what al Qaeda itself claims as a motive -- but he picked the wrong time for a subtle discussion on a very emotional issue.

● Codename: Secret Liberal: Huntsman speaks in code. Last night he advocated "bringing in more workers" without using the words "open borders" or "immigration." He also took hypocritical cheap shots at other candidates -- like suggesting that Perry’s claim that you can’t really secure the border with a fence (a valid point) was “treasonous” ... even though Huntsman himself is for open borders.

● The Wolfman: Wolf Blitzer of CNN did a surprisingly good job moderating the debate. He kept things moving along nicely, got everyone involved, and was amazingly fair -- very few “gotcha” questions. (FYI, the left is attacking CNN for working with the Tea Party... "unethical".)

● Candidate For Sale: Perry took a pounding. He generally held up well, but not always. Paul blasted him for the growth of government and taxation in Texas and Perry had no real response. Perry also started well on the Gardasil vaccine issue, but withered under the constant (unfair) attacks. Perry also continues to give unsatisfactory evasions to the crony capitalism issue. For example, his best response to the issue was: “I raised $30 million. If you think I can be bought for $5,000, then I’m insulted.” Ok, what is your price, sir?

● Blah Blah Blah: Romney is getting better at answering the RomneyCare issue by listing significant ways it varies from ObamaCare. He’s also starting to take the gloves off, though he still seems like the most tentative guy on stage and he comes across as snide when he attacks. The main problem for Romney continues to be that he’s a technocrat and while his lips move a lot, you can’t remember anything he says.

● Illegals: Perry defended granting instate tuition to illegals (good economics, fairness, blah blah) and Huntsman explained granting drivers licenses to illegals (they were special licenses that identified these people as illegals).

On these issues, let me say that I actually think giving drivers licenses makes sense. Why? To protect people. These illegals will be driving whether we like it or not, and it just makes a lot of sense to have them in the system where they can be monitored, tested, taxed and forced to buy insurance. This makes it easier for law enforcement to do its job, and will protect other drivers / pedestrians -- right now, illegals run when they have an accident and that creates real problems for the people they hit.

Granting instate tuition, on the other hand, ticks me off. If you come from another state or legally come from another country, you need to pay out-of-state rates. So why should someone who is here illegally have MORE rights than someone who is here legally?

● Got Gas: Bachmann made a point in the first debate about bringing the cost of gas down to $2 per gallon. The MSM scoffed at her claim -- even though the economics is actually on her side. Regardless, there is an ingenious aspect to her point, which is worth noting. People understand the benefits of energy independence in an abstract way, but they can’t personalize it. But everyone understands $2 a gallon gas.

● Vaccinating Stupidity: There are valid reasons to criticize Perry for the vaccine issue. Specifically, his conduct raises questions of cronyism and his willingness to overstep his authority. BUT... to turn this into an broader anti-vaccine tirade as Santorum and Bachmann are doing is lunacy. To pretend that it violates people’s rights to force them to be inoculated against communicable diseases like small pox or to inoculate their children against easily-prevented debilitating diseases like polio is unconscionable idiocy.

● Vox Tea Populi: For once, the questions from the audience were really good. I guess that’s due to this being a Tea Party crowd and not a bunch of MSM-picked whiny, mindless liberals.

Finally, thanks to everyone who participated in last night's debate play by play and the “yo’ momma so liberal” contest that broke out.

Oh, one more thing. In the name of equal time, we've agreed to let HypnoBama have a few words with you:

Vote for me puny humans!

Thoughts On Yet Another Debate

View Detail