If Ann Coulter’s frantic unhinged rants on Bill O’Reilly’s and Sean Hannity’s show are any indication of Team Romney’s current mood and moral, Florida is Mitt Romney’s Alamo.
From Matt Drudge, who apparently has ties to Romney advisor Matt Rhoades, to the National Review and all the lesser imps in between, it is apparent Romney is sounding the bugle and rallying the troops to man the walls for a last stand in Florida. Why else would some of the greatest conservative names and publications write blistering articles about Newt Gingrich they know themselves to be filled with half truths and childish innuendo? What is it these parties stand to lose that has them alienating the conservative base, their followers, and their subscribers.
Examples are everywhere and plentiful. This one is from Ann Coulters latest ode to Mitt Romney titled “Re-Elect Obama: Vote Newt!”
“This is the sort of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small-town pharmacists refer to as “drug seekers” and Ron Paul supporters.”
If I did not know any better I would have gotten the impression that Ann Coulter was calling Gingrich supporters drug addicts. I can only assume Ann Coulter is officially declaring her retirement after this primary if Romney is not the nominee. No one would make such idiotic comments about potential buyers of her books if she intended on writing one in the future. My advice to Ms. Coulter is to take a look in the mirror and You Tube her latest appearances before she starts labeling others “drug seekers”.
Matt Drudge has used the powerful Drudge Report with banner headlines attacking Newt Gingrich for days now. Blogs like Power Line and Hot Air run constant anti-Gingrich pro-Romney articles daily. One gets the impression that upon reading these blogs that a disclaimer of “My name is Mitt Romney. I not only approve of this message, I paid for it.” should be written in italics at the bottom of the page. To be sure the anti-whoever pro-Romney bent on these blogs has been going on for a while now. But since Newt Gingrich took down South Carolina, they have ramped up efforts to discredit him to such a furious clip that it is almost hard to keep up on why one should be hating Gingrich. Ethics charges, in which Gingrich was cleared of, crowd control at debates, to bringing up his and his wifes hair, nothing is off limits anymore. Soon we will see chickens, ducks, and sheep being catapulted over the walls of one of these debates Monty Python’s “Holy Grail” style trying to keep Gingrich and the audience out. Its like a high school hazing complete with adolescent antics, name calling, hormonal rage, and less planning. Credibility now seems to be an afterthought to these people.
The only explanation I can come up with is that Florida truly is Mitt Romney’s Alamo. Everything hinges on him winning Florida and his followers are treating it as such. Romney may continue if he loses, desperately hoping that Newt Gingrich will explode, which is another argument against Newt Gingrich I have yet to see an example of, but for the most part the Republican Establishment will themselves be moving on to their own Anyone-But-Romney candidate. The signs are already there that this is underway and Mitch Daniels seems to be plan B. What happens to Romney’s band of loyal pundits is any ones guess. I would recommend a nice long vacation, maybe some counseling. Some I fear will be wearing white sleeveless jackets in padded rooms while they are “away” trying to sort things out.
We will know soon enough.
He is just a fat guy in Maine.
It’s all about power and money, Michael.
For forty years the Democrats held power. The Republicans occasionally were thrown a bone, given cover and some pork to keep their constituents quiet. Meanwhile the congress was enriching themselves at the expense of the nation. The centralized government kept growing and growing…
In 1980 Ronald Reagan is elected President. Newt Gingrich, elected in 1978, joined with others to ally with President Reagan and build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority – the Reagan Revolution – which directly led to the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy
Gingrich becomes Speaker of the House and the Democrats went nuts! Budget cuts, less pork. For the first time in a very long time the Republicans actually had to govern and take responsibility. The Dems were outnumbered.
The 1998 budget was scheduled for a $1 Billion cut and congress saw the gravy train leaving the station. No more getting rich at the public’s expense.
So it became “get rid of Newt Gingrich” even to the extent of manufacturing lies about him. He was exonerated of all those phony ethics charges, but the media continues to smear him year after year after year.
And now, older and wiser, he is back with plans to radically downsize government, devolve Federal power to the States and the corrupt in Washington, D.C., are AGAIN trying to save the status quo.
Point fingers all you want but Newt is the epitome of the inside the beltway sycophant, who parlayed his 15 minutes of fame into millions of dollars of special interest money from Washington special interests. He’s a nut, short answer, and Elliot Abrahms has the better long answer.
Don’t like Mitt either.
Stuck in the middle with no-one.
Personally I see it more the other way: If Gingrich loses Florida, he has a tricky time finding another win before Super Tuesday. His polling in Minnesota looks good, but he has no organization there (and no negative ads have run yet…), and the other states in the interim (Colorado, Arizona, Michigan, Maine, Nevada) are less good for him than the South. With the momentum from back to back wins, I think that doesn’t matter and he could take some of those states anyway, and if he didn’t he’d still have a lot of credibility (and delegates) going in to Super Tuesday. If he loses Florida then he risks a string of caucus losses following, at which point the media and the RNC will be only too happy to write a premature obituary for his campaign.
BTW Michael, I see you’re in Maine. Hope you can post a firsthand report of the caucuses when they happen next week (as I understand it they’re spread out over a whole week for you guys).
@Satin Doll: I’m guessing you didn’t read any of the linked negative stuff, then? Newt doesn’t look like such an ally of Reagan as you are trying to paint him. Of course if you have a counter to Abram’s piece then let it rip, but it sounds more like you have your fingers in your ears saying ‘la la la I can’t hear you NRO!’.
@bbartlog:
Says the ron paul lover…
The fact that Ann believes the obvious BS Mitt says speaks volumes about her. I have never really paid attention to her or read her books. It seems I was right to do so.
Michael Re. Daniels did you mean to say Repub. establishment’s “anyone but Gingrich?”
Race goes on no matter the winner in Fla. Last minute drop and endorsement from Santorum would greatly help Newt(similar to Perry boost in S.C.) Not likely
Rubio leans Romney and even the “perception” is helping Mitt in final days.
Tonight’s debate the most important to date.Polls show it too close to call. As Bbart suggests Newt needs it slightly more than Mitt.
“It’s beyond astonishing: a political party whose heart is all about conservatism, in a fight to the death over two candidates neither of whom has ever been a conservative in any consistent and serious sense. Romney, of course, was not even a Republican in the 1980s, and in his 1994 U.S. Senate race he was still distancing himself from President Reagan. I won’t rehearse all the liberal positions he held as governor of Massachusetts in the 2000s (though he did convert to pro-life, as Ann Coulter reminds us). Gingrich, meanwhile, began his political life in the 1960s as a Rockefeller Republican, in the 1990s was an exponent of Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock ideology (the diametrical opposite of any and all conservatism, as I explained in a talk in 1995), and in the 2000s partnered up with Al Sharpton for a national speaking tour. See my summary of Sharpton’s vile role in the Tawana Brawley affair and the false charge of rape and kidnapping against Steven Pagones for which he has never repented but which he repeated AFTER Pagones defeated him in a law suit years later).
Philip Klein writes at the Washington Examiner:
In 2009, Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton went on a nationwide tour together, from the White House to multiple cities, to promote education reforms also being pushed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In one video from the tour, Gingrich said, “I really appreciate the leadership Rev. Sharpton is showing all across America.” Just last month, Gingrich called into Sharpton’s TV show to wish him a happy birthday and shower him with praise. “I had such a great time going around America with you” to push education reform, Gingrich told Sharpton. “I will never forget it for the rest of my life. You were tremendous on those trips…. I watched you speak up with courage and with toughness on behalf of children in a way that all my life I will remember and I will honor you for the way you were willing to take on interests on behalf of children.”
I’m looking forward to hearing pro-Gingrich conservatives square their support for Gingrich with his extravagantly expressed affection and admiration for one of the most vile individuals in America.
And by the way, there is an honorable way out of this quandary. One could say, “I know that Gingrich (or Romney) is objectionable, and I don’t accept or approve of any of his objectionable acts / positions / characteristics. But we have to have a nominee, we have to defeat Obama, and these are the candidates who have been presented to us. To my mind, Gingrich (or Romney) offers the best chance of defeating Obama, and therefore I support him, but my support for him does NOT mean that I tolerate or accept the objectionable aspects of his record and character.”
If people would speak this way, they could support Gingrich or Romney without throwing away their principles. But that’s not what people do. Instead, they feel that in order to support an objectionable person, they must drop their objections to those objectionable things, and so they end up abandoning whatever standards they might have once adhered to. And this is what will happen if the GOP nominates Gingrich. It will say that it has no problem with his marital record, that serial adultery doesn’t matter in a president, that adultery doesn’t matter and so on. And thus it will become impossible for the Repubican party ever to be a party of family values and social conservatism again. ”
LA
I think Newt is probably a better debater under pressure than Romney. Romney’s early (better) performances were not that high stakes for him, while he was somewhat flustered in the last debate before the SC primary.
Will be interesting, for sure. I missed two of the last four debates but I’ll be watching this one.
@Hard Right: Supporter, pup, not ‘lover’. Plenty of things wrong with Ron Paul. Still the best of a bad lot IMO.
@bbartlog:
Large numbers of former Reagan administration members have endorsed Newt Gingrich. I’m supposed to be wowed by Eliot Abrams? Get real.
You can listen to Nancy Reagan speak about Newt Gingrich and make up your own mind whether she’s biased.
As for me, I am not going to be influenced bypeople who have had past differences with Newt Gingrich and are now practicing child-like vengeance at the expense of this nation’s future.
Brit Hume’s son was gay, Matt Drudge is gay, and Ann Coulter is in the tank for the gay lobby, so of course they hate Gingrich’s guts. There is no reason I should read and believe negative screed paid for by Mitt Romney, the man without core values.
Nothing you will say, which I believe is biased and flat-out wrong, has any effect on my belief that Newt Gingrich is the only candidate with true leadership ability who can and will change Washington, D.C. He isn’t perfect. Who is?
Here is something to counter Eliot Abram’s piece http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/24/reagans-young-lieutenant
It seems this is going to be Romney’s Waterloo, going all out negative and regurgitating lies about Newt , which can easily be rebutted. Romney and his supporters are in panic mode.
@bbartlog, let me make this short and simple *not* (complex issue), since I was trying to address this (in between making a living and domestic chores) on the Fred Thompson endorsement thread.
This (the Abrams/HotAir etal) attack is blatant mischaracterization of the Newt/Reagan relationship. Newt has never portrayed himself as a clone of Reagan. What he does is cite that he teamed with Reagan on economic issues… such as when he founded the Conservative Opportunity Society in 1983. It was this organization of young, upcoming Republicans, dedicated to having the Republicans gain power in the House, that interfaced with Reagan, and was more dedicated to the Reagan economics.
Newt, to this day, still uses the Reagan economics as a model for today’s times. That has not changed, and he was lockstep with Reagan in that endeavor.
What people also do not know, and where the “Newt insulted Reagan” crap comes from is that Newt also co-founded the Congressional Military Reform Caucus in 1981 with Democrat Gary Hart. This is also a consistent principle with Newt, and also leads in to the second erroneous and inflammatory characterizations that Abrams suggested with his 2007 testimony at Congressional hearings.
Newt and many former/current military believed that since the Soviets had more man power and a formidable foe (as Reagan inherited a gutted military) that building up forces in the traditional ground army etal was not necessarily the way to win a nuclear war. Nor were they anti-strong US military. It was simply focused on a military to cater to current modern warfare.
Let me give you an excerpt from a 1985 essay by Newt’s co-founder of the CMRC that states the military reformists beliefs of that time… and still does to this day.
It is this same consistent “military reform” principle that led to Newt’s 2007 testimony, which covered with links and excerpts in my comments 7, 8 and 9 on the Fred Thompson thread. That Newt felt the predictable two sides of the coin on Iraq – those legislating defeat (the Dems) and those wanting to “stay the course” (the GOP) – were both inadequate in the larger context of the enemy, which was not confined to Iraq.
He specifically stated that he would never accept the legislating defeat argument, but that he also felt the planning was insufficient to win the larger war.
None of this is against my own principles, since I’ve been constantly saying the enemy is not just in Afghanistan or Iraq, but is a stateless global jihad movement that will require a different approach that the wars with nations we have fought in the past.
Because this all requires processing tons of intel that now comes thru many Info Age mediums at high volume, plus diplomatic roles with all the various foreign nations involved, that the State Department needed to be revamped to accommodate this diplomatic/info war for the 21st Century in order to *prevent* wars and conflicts before they start, and to thwart terrorist attacks.
Now we can debate where the balance of streamlining our military for this new type of warfare with a stateless enemy, and where the State Dept needs to be to accommodate, but I can’t say I disagree that retooling the military and State Dept is an off the edge suggestion for prevention of war.
But it’s a total lie to suggest that Newt was lockstep with Reagan in military reform when he wasn’t… and hadn’t been since his founding of the Congressional Military Reform Caucus back in 1981. He was in lockstep with Reagan on his economic proposals and attempt to get the GOP to power in the House.
And that’s all Newt has ever said in his speeches and debates… his relationship with Reagan on the economy. Not on the military.
I suppose if anyone ever asks him about the military reform differences, and the way he believed the Soviet Union should have been addressed, he’d tell you exactly where he stood. Reagan’s plan worked and in retrospect that’s a lesson learned. However I have no problems with Newt and others views of keeping a military modern and strong for the type of warfare faced. He made a wrong call in those days, but he still voted with the caucus on Reagan’s military approach… despite disagreeing.
and the so-called video of Newt bashing Reagan is bogus
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/video-of-newt-bashing-reagan-is-bogus.html
I have always liked Gingrich but independent voters, which are mostly lean dem, will not vote for him. We will re-elect obama with Newt. Any nominee will need most of the indes to win. The squishy independents are a majority group and we have no choice but to bring them in with a moderate looking Republican.
Romney has good organization skills and seems to be great at being the turn around guy and if he wins we can go for a Paul Ryan or Rubio in 2016. Mitt knows how to fix broken businesses and i think he can do great things for the country , if we have the control of Congress they can keep him in line.
I think Mitt will do what the people want. He’s not scary like the marxist obama. Lets get obummer out then look toward 2016. Mitt is a calm , tough, business man and thats what the country needs now. We have to show the indes they should never vote for any dim dem again.
NO the “He can not win because of Independent” again.
We have not even gotten to where there is an ad against Obama, and the GOP candidates are all each other alive.
A rock can beat Obama right now , unless from some kind of a miracle the economy booms and unemployment falls.
We are only shooting ourselves in the foot by following the narrative of the MSM that someone cannot win because of poll numbers.
@bbartlog: Unfortunately the caucus in my area is on a day that I work. I can say that on local talk radio pro-Newt Gingrich ads a running almost every other commercial break. It seems as if Romney has either determined the North East locked up or that he needs his resources elsewhere going by the lack of pro-Romney ads I hear on the radio in my area.
He might have focused on TV, too. Or be advertising on radio you don’t listen to… they’ve gotten pretty good at targeting the demographics that are best for them, though of course in the bigger/earlier states they’ll just saturate the media.
Anyway, bummer about the caucus schedule. Surprises me they’d put it in the workweek like that (or maybe you work outside the usual 9-5 in which case I guess just bad luck for you).
I’m just not comfortable with the idea of Mitt Romney picking a Supreme Court Justice. I think Newt Gingrich would find an originalist for us. I also think he stepped on a lot of toes during his speakership. The massive assault on Newt over the last couple days reflects a panic attack from the people who gave us Bob Dole and John McCain IMHO.
IF, as the rumors indicate, Santorum were to drop out before the vote in FLA, then Romney would lose to Newt.
But, as it is, it looks like the moderate will win FLA as the two conservatives split FLA’s conservative vote.
Ron Paul is not a factor.
I have also heard a report that Santorum did not file to be on Kentucky’s ballot.
And I heard another rumor that Obama may not qualify for Georgia’s ballot! (see info on case with Judge Michael Malihi presiding)
I think NEWT has still more sides of him to show, I think is not only “DEFENSE”
HE HAS A MAGNANIMOUS side very pronounce, but of course the opponent MEDIA, won’t care to show it,
because it would be favorable for his profile, but it will certainly be good when he get the PRESIDENCY,
which demand strong high spirited human, with compassion and hard decision making abilities sometimes on the same issue to be resolve,
and quickly, which he has shown to have done in past career government demands.
for example; given a billion dollars to NEWT GINGRICH FOR HIM TO ONLY CAMPAIGN,
NEWT would have invest it in the jobs market and stayed in the WHITE HOUSE TO DO HIS CAMPAIGN,
WHILE OVERLOOKING THE GOVERNMENT BUSYNESS,
there is the difference, he is all AMERICAN, FOR ALL AMERICA,
What is quite interesting over at Free Republic you will get banned from posting if you are a Romney supporter.
It has become a cult just like the left. I did not see it coming.
J-Bots
@Nan G: Santorum (and Paul) still have until Tuesday to file for the Kentucky ballot, and both expect to do so apparently. Given the closeness of the race I’m not sure Paul is a non-factor exactly, but I’m also not sure who he’s taking votes from… in the case of Santorum it’s obvious that his presence hurts Gingrich; if he drops most of his voters go to Newt as the anti-Romney. Normally the establishment encourages people to drop out (if they can’t win), but it wouldn’t surprise me if Santorum is being encouraged to hold on at least until after Florida.
@JimR: lol, I hear same thing would happen in 2008 if you posted in support of RP. You might try redstate.com instead, I think they tolerate a wider range of opinion, though as anywhere you can get banned there too.
I agree, bbartlog. In fact, if you consider the portion of the young voters who are primarily on board because of his foreign policy/anti-war position, he might actually be stealing from Obama.
But I have to say that the only redeeming factor from the Brian Williams moderated FL primary (that guy should be prohibited to have that position….) was watching Ron Paul and Newt. Really made me laugh… their back and forths. Starting from the moment when RP said he liked what he was hearing from Newt on the Fed and Treasury and there was common ground there… now if he could just pull him over to the RP foreign policy view. LOL
I’d still love to see RP as a Treasury Secretary, or even Fed Reserve… then he could shut himself down and out of a job. heh
@Satin Doll, #1:
And for those 40 years, the national debt was small and manageable.
At what point in time did it begin to shoot upward? What tax policy changes coincided with each new surge in deficits and debts?
We’ve heard the same tired rhetoric about reduced deficits and out-of-control debt from republicans during every presidential campaign since Ronald Reagan’s. Every time they’ve been elected, deficits and debt have surged–even with a republican majority controlling both houses of Congress.
Maybe the 2012 slogan should be “This time we really mean it.”
http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
Oh fer heavens sake, Greg… do try to pick a talking point and stick to it.
To the first, the national debt wasn’t feeling the effects of the ponzi scheme entitlement programs and retirees yet. duh… Ponzi schemes work great until they bite you in the butt because the top of the pyramid is larger than the bottom.
To the second… “At what point in time did it begin to shoot upward?”…. Well that’s downright hilarious. Because we all know that you think the utopia we call American was perfect until Dubya strode into town. But when you listen to your peers, they say it all went downhill under Reagan… when the the House (who originates the spending) was controlled by the Dems for all his two terms.
Which of course nullifies your statement:
And just how many sessions since the 1930’s do you think that is, Greg? Hint… use the Wikipedia Congressional history of control by the parties and start counting. But I’ll make it easy for you, since 1931, and out of 39 sessions – and including this Congress – the GOP has held the House (the spending chamber…) NINE times.
For the Senate, and in the same period, the GOP has held majority 11 times, and one year there was a tie.
Conversely out of 39 sessions and eight decades, the Dems have controlled the House for 30 session, and 28 for the Senate.
lawdy… fish in a barrel
Ron Paul takes the #OWS vote
@greg
What a load of horse hockey. Look at revenues as a fraction of GDP and you’ll see no evidence that reducing the high tax rates of the 1960s and 1970s had a significant effect on them. Meanwhile the entitlement programs enacted by the Democrats have been like ticking bombs, with the bill coming due…well shucks, right about now! Look at the breakdown of budget line items over the last 40-50 years. You’ll see that defense has continued to fall, eventually falling below half the budget in the 1970s, while social spending rises from 1/3 the budget to 2/3 today. Now look at the forward projects. Then, do the math on those forward costs and try to back-figure what the tax rate needs to be if concentrated on a small number of people to pay all the bills. Hint: it’s over 90%, which obviously will not be collected.
Doug
hi,
it could be why so many hesitate and withold their payements of taxes, they are waiting for next PRESIDENT, to be sure their taxes won’t be spent by an out of control spenderolic
BYE
@Stix:
Stix, maybe he will.
I watched a couple of videos of OWsers who riled against Jews as the OWs movement grew.
Now, it comes out that Ron Paul has been actually selling that infamous anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Meetings of the Elders of Zion, for the last three years!
Profiting off it, too!
This page has a screen grab of the Ron Paul web site.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/26/the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-ron-paul/
Will Ron Paul again claim he doesn’t know how content got on his own site?
Will he just take down the page and shut up about it?
Are there enough anti-Semites out there for Ron Paul to acknowledge this and explain it?
@Doug, #28:
Uh huh.
And how do our republican friends propose to deal with that situation, which is largely a transient matter of demographics and Baby Boomers?
If they manage to diminish the revenue stream by diverting FICA taxes into private investments–a prospect which, no doubt, totally delights the private interests running the financial industry–how do they propose to pay current Social Security recipients without drawing more heavily on general revenues? (Which, according to the rules of arithmetic, would inevitably result either in higher taxes, or a higher national debt.)
I agree that there’s a load of horse hockey hidden around here somewhere. There’s an unmistakable scent in the air.
@Galloway:
mittens romneycare won’t beat comrade downgrade.
Everyone mark your calendars. In the above statement, Greg admits he’s never listened to the various proposals to address entitlements, which the Dems have blocked at every turn and covered their ears while screaming that the SS Trust Fund is solvent.
In the next breath, Greg fully admits that SS is a ponzi scheme which depends upon collecting from today’s workers to pay for yesterday’s workers/today’s retirees.
There is hope after all…..
BTW, Greg.. how’s that history of Congressional control working out for ya? Eight decades of dominant Democrat rule, combined with enough of the GOPers helping them make really dangerous fiscal mistakes… like banking that the younger generation will always outnumber the aging.
Yep. Collecting from today’s workers pays for current retirees. Later on, collecting from tomorrow’s workers will pay for tomorrow’s retirees.
This makes at least as much sense as the idea that we can ALL play the stock market, and EVERYONE will be a winner. (Actually it makes a lot more sense.)
But back to my question:
Where do republicans plan to get the money to make up for lost FICA taxes, if they switch over from a trust fund to private investment accounts? They all say that they would continue to pay all current retirees and all of those within a few years of retirement under the current program rules. That money would have to come from somewhere besides current FICA taxes.
My apologies if one of the candidates has actually given a concise answer to that question, and I’ve somehow missed it.
From Greg:
Thank you for that second confirmation of a legislative Ponzi scheme, Greg. You finally got there…
Then I can safely assume that you disagree with Obama that the rules are not already the same for everyone?
There we go to the heart of a “solvent” SS Trust Fund, which has been stolen by Congress, turned into securities and spent in the general funds. To get the funds back, they have to cash them in. Short term.. .probably do’able. Long term and a longer build up of even more boomers? It gets worse. Sooner is better than later, and will result in less re’borrowing to repay the stolen funds.
Greg, there have been many proposed plans. None have gotten enough press, and have been prevented from reaching the floor for debate by your party. I’m not going to post links to all of them here for you. You’re a voter, and your responsibility should be to do the yeoman’s work in exploring alternative options for solutions in order to cast an informed vote. Freedom isn’t free, and it isn’t achieved by blindly following headlines and party talking points. None of us live and breathe to do your homework for you. As many like to say, “google is your friend”, tho that’s a search engine I don’t use myself. However I’m sure it can direct you to much reading material.
Suggest you go to Google, and type in the below Boolean code:
+republican +entitlements +reform +proposals
Then read any of the 31.6 million responses that come up.
All I have to say is that this debate was atrocious Almost as bad as the last one. Now I remember why is skipped so many if these things. they are just out to make all the GOP candidates look bad
@Greg:
You said;
“My apologies if one of the candidates has actually given a concise answer to that question, and I’ve somehow missed it. ”
Huh. Actually, I’d say that if your past track record is any indication, such as this;
that it’s not that you missed it, but that you found it, but failed in your reading comprehension again.
@MataHarley:
I don’t care how many links he actually finds, or actually goes to, or actually reads. With his lack of reading comprehension, he’s liable to come back here and completely misrepresent anyone’s plan for fixing SS.
@Stix: I didn’t think the moderation was too awful… though I guess I’m biased towards moderation that gives Paul more equal time, which this did. Strange dynamic though, everyone attacking Newt, everyone except Paul attacking Mitt, and both Mitt and Newt bending over backwards to be nice to Paul. Triangulation I guess, they want his voters if they can get them and don’t really care if he gains a few % in Florida.
Not sure how Santorum’s performance will go over… to me it seemed over the top loud and angry, but maybe it will play well with others. Ron had some good one-liners but may have come across too jokey at times; to his benefit he didn’t have to expound too much on foreign policy (aside from Cuba where his answers are within the mainstream).
Overall I think Mitt came out ahead of Newt here.
“How is your religion going tio platy a role for you as president” WTF. Might as well ask them why you hate anyone that is not Christian.
This is why the GOP should hold their own debates with people that actually ask questions that are relevant and what people want to hear.
I could give a rat’s ass about religion. How are you going to stop the bloated government? What is your plan to change the antiquated tax system? How are you going to get a hold on SS and Medicare.?
Not why is your wife going to be a good First wife. These debates are a joke and only continue to keep the circular firing squad going on our side.
Stix, I didn’t catch the first 50 minutes, so I’ll be watching the second broadcast. But from what I saw, I have to agree. The best debates were in SC so far.
Right now listening to the CNN analysis… not that their’s necessarily agrees with my own. But I’m doing this backwards. Hearing post debate chit chat, before hearing the debate.
One thing I’ve noticed is that since Sept 2011, the viewership for the debates has dropped to half (about 3 million, vs 6 million when it started). So I’m guessing that, at this point, the on the ground campaign will come into effect. Generally I give it about 3-4 days after a debate, but by then the primary has arrived.
So it’s another “fasten your seatbelt… it’s going to be a bumpy ride” moment.
@bbartlog, I agree that I was somewhat royally PO’ed at the first USF debate where Williams virtually ignored both Santorum and Ron Paul. I have to say that RP seemed somewhat less personable during the first three states’ debates. Lately, he’s been letting his sense of humor show. You know, that was Dole’s problem during his campaign. Hang, most of us never figured out he even had a good sense of humor until it was all over. And I always think that when Paul stays on the fiscal, instead of the foreign policy, message, his contributions are valuable and better received.
But I am finding it somewhat interesting – this FL psuedo “bonding” lately between RP and Newt. As RP said in the first FL debate, he and Newt run similar on the Fed Reserve/Treasury/economic front, but differ in the foreign policy. I would think that if RP drops out, some of his supporters would go Newt’s way. Most especially if he endorsed. But I don’t expect him to do that.
From the short amount that I saw of the first run, I’m with you on Santorum. Strikes me as he’s somewhat desperate, assailing both, in order to present himself as the superior choice. Can’t blame him since that’s what campaigns are about. But I don’t think he handles it well, or with any classy aplomb… and I don’t think it’s received as well as the CNN analysts think. Thus why I’ve always thought that Santorum would be mincemeat when up against Obama. He strikes me as being too emotional, and less intellectual in his presentations.
For the Cain supporters, I’m finding Cain disappointing. He refuses to endorse when he knows it will make a difference. I’m still of the mind that he harbors hope of a return-by-popular-demand re’entry. And that ain’t gonna happen.
So when and where Cain could make a difference, he’s refusing to. That’s really too bad.
@johngalt, #36:
With regard to the comment in question, I’d respond that we’re all guilty of occasional moments of faulty reasoning. For someone to think that they never are is far more serious problem.
@MataHarley, #37:
No doubt there have been many broad proposals. The question that I’ve asked, however, is a very simple, straightforward, and fundamental one, that has–to my knowledge–never received an equally simple and straightforward answer.
I’m highly skeptical of any proposed “solution” that doesn’t begin by clearly stating the problem and outlining the logical solution upfront.
You tend to set a bar that unreachable, and therefore you use it to justify your deliberate choice to remain ignorant of other alternatives, Greg. hey… that’s your choice. But I give you no points for being an informed voter. I’m well aware that voting requirements are set by the States, and cannot discriminate per our Constitutional rights. But I swear… I run into voters like you, and I mutter that in another parallel universe, I’d love to demand an intelligence test on the issues before allowing anyone to vote. I have little patience for lazy voters who take this important right for granted, and exercise little respect for the responsibility of their choices.
There is no “straightforward” answer to your question because all the proposed solutions have differed. And everyone already knows what the problem is from the start… it’s an unsustainable system that depends upon the younger generation (the bottom of the pyramid) always being sufficiently larger than the top of the pyramid. Restating the obvious should only be necessary for the mostly politically and economically illiterate.
Some solutions share some common ideas INRE a choice between the existing system, or an opt out choice. There’s private accounts that you contribute to instead of the SS Trust Fund (ergo keeping it out of the hands of Congress for general revenue spending via accounting shell games). However all of these accomplish them in different ways, and in different incremental steps.
So sorry it’s not a “yes and no” answer… but that’s the reality.
But now that’s you’ve finally admitted it’s a Ponzi scheme that is not sustainable, you should be lobbying your Congress representatives to bring alternative solutions for genuine entitlement reform to the floor for debate. The entitlement reform has only been off the table by your party, not the GOP. Learn the truth, and do something about it.
@Stix, now that I’ve seen the debate in it’s entirety, I don’t see Romney as “the winner”. Frankly, based on what I know of the political issues, then consider the answers I want to hear, I thought Ron Paul and Newt both had a good night.
Romney was aggressive, may have gotten a few below the belt jabs (meaning applause for untrue statements presented well), but I didn’t find him impressive. What I did think is that his debate coach is trying to tweak up his style. Too bad he still doesn’t possess the substance.
Newt’s problem was being slightly better or even even with Romney wasn’t what he needed for the debate viewers. But I found his answers to be consistent and informative on his proposals. Don’t even think he lost on the Fannie/Freddie/taxes issue. Since Mitt decided to make dismantling Fannie and Freddie an issue, complaining about their contribution to the housing collapse, then that opens up the fact that he was a beneficiary of their bad behavior.
And I don’t think “blind trusts” works here. As a politician, he has the full rights to tell his investment broker/attorney/accountant what to *not* invest in since he was running an eternal campaign. If he felt strongly for so long that Fannie/Freddie was a problem, he should have said “don’t invest in Fannie/Freddie”. And that carrys over into another Obama’esque trait Romney consistently demonstrates… it’s always someone else’s fault. Whether the ads, his finances… whatever.
But overall, I think that Santorum won the Fannie/Freddie tax issue with his “WTF are we doing?” answer.
While I’m unaware that Newt’s ads say Mitt’s immigration policy is “anti- immigration”, I will agree with him that Mittens and Santorum have the immigration policies I like the least of all four. However Mitt was a cornered rat on his ads against Newt. A serious “pants down” moment there. He was also clueless on the new loans to unqualified buyers. Nope… that’s not Fannie and Freddie.. that’s FHA/HUD… a different federal entity. Getting loans thru Fannie and Freddie is like pushing an elephant thru the eye of a needle.
Santorum couldn’t keep his relatives straight. First it was his grandfather who was an immigrant. Later it was his father. ????
Santorus also spoke with forked tongue on Cuba and hostile nations… specifically Cuba. First he says no no no to any trade relations. Then he says he would encourage an economic relationship with hostile/despot nations (like Cuba?) to effect change. huh?
Another faux pas was when he suggested Newt, that going from state to state and “promising” things, was the way we got into trouble. As Newt artfully pointed out, the purpose of the campaign was to travel to states, and to learn their specific issues and needs. When Newt is aware that the Panama Canal is going to create opportunities for Jacksonville and SC ports, and thereby imports/exports and jobs, you have to wonder why the rest of them aren’t doing their research? Do they not listen or feel it matters?
Then he screwed up on trying to tie Honduras to the Arab spring. He was right to say that Obama was siding with leftist despots on Honduras, but supporting the Arab rebels wasn’t supporting “leftists” in the eyes of the world. What was wrong about that was completely different than Honduras, because the US meddled with friendly allied despots. LOL (strange phrase, but true)
Ron Paul was hilarious. And again I’m seeing that Ron Paul/Newt coalition going on here. Paul was correct on the details of the “balanced budget” during Newt’s years. But so was Newt, as he pointed out that the numbers were balanced under the “definition” traditionally used. I was glad to see Newt concede that point, as many of us here have pointed out that Clinton’s “surplus” is also based around those traditional “definitions”.
And of course Paul’s “to the moon” type comment was priceless. Also good on the health care.
But here was the subtle admission of the evening’s debate…. the question INRE which Hispanic leaders. Newt ticked off many, but his comment about Rubio made me believe that it would be an attempt at a Newt/Rubio ticket if he were the nominee.
Oh, BTW… I think the audience was loaded with mostly Romney and Paul voters.
Mata And S.C was loaded with Newt supporters? Gingrich/Rubio good luck Newt will be lucky if Marco doesn’t blow him out of the water in the next 3 days.
@Dantes: You said:
Um, you might want to brush up on your history a tad bit more, Dantes. Newt got a lot accomplished in his four years as Speaker of the House.
@John S: I don’t need to worry about throwing away my principles by supporting Newt.
2 out of every 3 people, off welfare and back to work
11 million new jobs
balanced budget for four years
paid down $400 billion on the debt
passed the vast majority of the Contract for America through the House
pulled Clinton back towards the middle, away from the far left positions Clinton wanted to take
engineered the Republican Revolution
Yeah, he’s not a Conservative…
It is odd how Romney gets a pass on controversial decisions he has made before, yet when it comes to Newt, he is held to a different standard. I mean the MSM is treating (for now) Romney much like they did Obama; as if the American people are so dumb that they will fall in line and vote for him just because he gets the nomination.
As for his education tour with Sharpton:
.
.
@Satin Doll: Well said, Satin Doll.
@Galloway: You said:
When we put up a squishy milquetoast moderate, we lose.
Americans, when presented with a clear choice between a far left candidate and a Conservative candidate will pick the Conservative hands down.
@Greg:
While we ALL are guilty of it at points in our lives, the honest ones(to themselves) will at least admit it, instead of letting their opinions continue to stand upon that same faulty reasoning.
As for the SS problem, there have been, as Mata has stated, many proposals to fix the problem. And there is a problem, as your own comments have alluded to, even if you didn’t realize it. You said;
“Later on, collecting from tomorrow’s workers will pay for tomorrow’s retirees. ”
Well, considering that tomorrow’s retirees will be part of the baby boomer generation, and outnumber tomorrow’s workers, and the fact that the only thing in the SS “lock box” is a bunch of IOUs from Congress, there most certainly won’t be enough revenue from the workers to pay out to the retirees. So, there is a problem. And the liberal/progressive solution? Either “let it be and make no changes”, or “increase taxes to pay for it all”. Yet, you want to deride any possible solution that is at least viable on paper, and simply because it doesn’t come from the liberal/progressives in political power. How stupid does that sound?
@Richard Wheeler, you just never get past your snap judgment emotions sometimes, guy. Case in point, you attempt to portray Rubio as closer to Romney than Newt, or suggest his criticism of the ad was a sign of disapproval of him as a candidate.
Inconvenient facts:
1: Romney’s FL campaign staff leaders are the same guys who led Charlie’s Crist’s demise
2: Newt’s FL campaign manager is José Mallea, the same guy who chaired Rubio’s 2010 Senate campaign.
3: While Rubio is going to (wisely) remain officially neutral in the campaign, just in the past day or two, Rubio said:
4: Just yesterday, what Rubio said he liked about Newt’s campaign was that is was a “positive message”.
Now, considering the shared campaign staff, and the fact that Rubio – who swept FL against a pseudo conservative who ran 3rd party – likes a positive campaign, does it occur to you that Newt considers his advice about the wording of the ad against Romney valuable… coming from a winner? If Rubio likes a positive campaign, and believes that ad tends to muddle Newt’s message, why wouldn’t he suggest that isn’t a good idea?
Instead, you attempt to falsely suggest that Rubio is anti-Newt.
Facts are sticky things, eh?
Rubio may, or may not accept any offer of VP by a GOP nominee. If it’s Romney, it will be the same path that McCain took, being unpopular but picking a popular candidate. Whether that’s enough to redeem him, dunno. But Romney is still at the top of the ticket, and still unacceptable for many of us … let alone getting stuck with him as the nominee in 2016 as well. This pushes any possibility for a Rubio run until 2020 at the earliest, if Mitt doesn’t destroy the Republican brand in his eight years of Obama’lite rule.
“The squishy independents are a majority group and we have no choice but to bring them in with a moderate looking Republican.”
@galloway
Sounds erily like 2008