Can somebody give me a synopsis of what happened in the last 25 minutes of the debate? I tried to stay up, but yesterday I overdid it on my PT run and my body just totally would not allow me to stay up. Still feel like garbage this morning. So my notes are for the first hour or so?
First, ABC had a clear agenda. First part was to let Paul make a fool of himself with the foreign policy questions (not difficult to do). Second part was to make Santorum look like some radical right-wing social extremist. My take.
6. I thought Paul was going to lose it last night and walk off the stage. He really showed his 76 years of senility last night. Speech was slurred, etc. There’s one clip I thought he was going to have a stroke. With Bachmann out, appears Paul took up the “attack dog” mode. I think he was more vicious last night than usual. Kudos to Newt and Santorum for stomping him down. I got the feeling that Romney was enjoying this exchange because Paul seemed to be doing his dirty work.
5. Has anybody figured out that at some point, Huntsman has tried to adopt Paul’s foreign policy. That’s what it sounds like. Why this guy is still on the stage is a joke. If he gets 13% in NH, Paul: 22%, and Romney 40%, that’s 75% of voters in NH that are morons.
4. Didn’t see anyone go after Romney. 3 more debate chances too, but time is running out here. He just goes along with the debate and does the “safe” thing everytime, and the manufactured Stephanopolous incident made him look good.
3. Santorum was good. For those that didn’t like Bachmann, notice that when Santorum casts his differences, he manages to do so while crediting Newt and others at the same time. I suppose we’ll start hearing about how he moves his arms too much when he talks. He got the better of the exchange with Paul, and held his own on the social issues. I didn’t think he was wobbly at all.
2. Okay, Perry got more speaking time than I thought he did, and they’re trying to turn the whole Iraq comment into a gaffe? WTF? Perry’s main point was that it’s important to keep a strong presence in Iraq to ensure the Iranians don’t overrun the country which they most certainly will if they get the chance, and drive up the price of oil. Perry’s comments complemnented Newt’s remarks on getting America “energy independent” and not “kowtowing to the Saudi prince”.
Newt went back to the original debate forumla he used in the previous months. From what I can remember, got the two largest applauses from what I watched. His usual “attack the media” comment this time was on their ignorance of the rampant Anti-Christian-biogtry in the media and the other was on the Catholic Church adoption programs being shut down in Mass after gay marriage was adopted. Still, was a disappointed he didn’t go after Romney. Hopefully he is saving it for the SC debates.
By the way...new Newt drinking game: take a shot whenever Newt uses the word “Fundamentally”. I promise you will be hammered by the end of the debate.
Finally, the real winner of last night’s debate was the New Orleans Saints.
parkssp, included the entire transcript of last night’s debate and also Newt’s answers to some..not all of the questions.
Gingrich highlights in last nights debate
STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Speaker, do you agree, send back troops into Iraq right now?
GINGRICH: Well, no. But let me put it in context.
I was very honored today to have Bud McFarlane come to introduce me at our veterans rally. Bud was for five years Ronald Reagan’s national security adviser, and I worked with him in the ‘80s on the strategy to defeat the Soviet empire.
Here’s the key thing to remember. If you’re — if you’re worried about the Iranians in Iraq, develop a strategy to replace the Iranian dictatorship and Iraq will be fine. If you want to stop Wahhabism, get an American energy policy so no American president ever again bows to a Saudi king, and then you can put pressure on the Saudis, because you have enough American energy. Stop...
(APPLAUSE)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich, I know you agree with Governor Romney again on his views on President Obama, but how would your plans on job creation distinguish you from Governor Romney?
GINGRICH: Well, you’re talking about infrastructure?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Infrastructure. And more broadly, job creation.
GINGRICH: But — but — but let’s stick with infrastructure then, because I think it’s a very big, very important topic. You cannot compete with China in the long run if you have an inferior infrastructure. You’ve got to move to a twenty first century model. That means you’ve got to be — you’ve got to be technologically smart and you have to make investments.
So for example here, the Northern Pass project ought to be buried and should be along the states right of way. Which means you’d need these modern techniques to bring electricity from Quebec all the way down to Boston in a way that also preserves the beauty of northern New Hampshire. I would have an energy program designed to get us free from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, two-thirds of the government revenue from that would go to debt reduction and to paying off the debt.
One-third would go to infrastructure, which would give you the ability to have an infrastructure investment program that would actually get us back on track and you look at places like the highways you’re describing, the bridges the governor just described. If you don’t have some systematic investment program, then you are not going to be able, I think, to compete with China and India.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich, you just heard Governor Romney...
(APPLAUSE)
STEPHANOPOULOS: — make his case. He’s...
(APPLAUSE)
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve made the case on several occasions that he’s not the man to carry that message for the Republican Party.
Why not?
GINGRICH: Well, look, I think that’s a good message and I agree with him. A — a little bit harsh on President Obama, who, I’m sure in his desperate efforts to create a radical European socialist model, is sincere.
(LAUGHTER)
GINGRICH: But, you know, I think “The Wall Street Journal” captured it the other day in their dialogue, when their editorial board met and they said I had a very aggressive pro-jobs program, zero capital gains, 12.5 percent corporate tax rate, 100 percent expensing for all new equipment to dramatically modernize the system, abolish the death tax.
And they said that, by contrast — this is their words, not mine — that Governor Romney’s program was timid and more like Obama. Now, I would think those are fighting words. And, frankly, if he wants to fight with “The Wall Street Journal” on that, I wouldn’t blame him.
But I do think there’s a difference between a bold Reagan conservative model and a more establishment model that is a little more cautious about taking the kind of changes we need.