Posted on 12/11/2011 6:24:20 AM PST by libertarian neocon
Last night's debate was very contentious and it was amazing how everyone kept piling on Newt Gingrich, even on issues in which they agreed with him. Take the discussion about Newt's comments on the "Palestinians". For example, Newt had previously said that the "Palestinians" were an "invented people" (not that individual "Palestinians" were invented but that there has never in history been a distinct culture or group known as "Palestinians"). The big criticism there was that he was telling the truth but maybe he shouldn't have. So now even Republican candidates have to be politically correct? They can't say something that is completely true because it could ruffle some feathers? I think non-establishment Republicans will be more behind Newt than ever after this exchange on this issue. They want someone who will stand up and tell the truth about the world, about our economic situation and our fiscal future and not let political correctness guide our narrative:
{Video on website}
Anyway, here is my take of how individual candidates did:
Gingrich - Definitely the winner despite constant attacks by everyone else. He really defused Romney's career politician schpeel by pointing out that Romney would be in his 17th year as Senator right now if he had defeated Ted Kennedy in 1994 (i.e. Romney wanted to be a career politician but just couldn't do it). Also, Gingrich probably cemented a lot of the pro-Israel vote with his performance last night, standing up for his very true comments despite a barrage of attacks.
Romney - Wanna bet $10,000 that he doesn't win? Who the heck bets $10,000 over anything? Either you bet $10 or you bet $10 billion (if you're really sure). Also, he came across as very wishy washy in the Israel discussion with the only definite difference between Obama and Romney being that he would criticize Israel is private instead of in public. Once again, I get the feeling that Romney is a pretend hawk.
Perry - Had a good debate. For Perry. I think people have become used to his senility because I haven't seen anyone mentioning his confusion of whether Obama had 2 or 3 choices of what to do about the drone that was captured by the Iranians (it was just as painful as when he forgot about the Department of Energy and got lost listing Romney's flip-flops in previous debates). But the substance of what he said still was pretty good and he was honest enough to defend Newt when he agreed with him in the "Palestinian" segment. If only his IQ was about 20 points higher he would be running away with this thing.
Bachmann - Did a very good job with her "Newt Romney" speech saying how neither are true constitutional conservatives. Unfortunately, I felt any momentum she was gaining was shot down by Santorum's comment that she never actually achieved anything in the house, losing all of her battles. In other words, she is as ideological and consistent as Ron Paul but with a similar record of legislative achievements: zero.
Santorum - Did a pretty good job but never really shined. Also, I didn't think it was wise to take Mitt's side on the Israel issue. We know he completely agrees with Newt but chose Mitt's side due to political expediency.
Paul - He really is seeming senile recently. He always seems to need things to be repeated. Also, he doesn't seem as sharp as usual. I remember at the Huckabee Forum when he couldn't name a constitutional amendment he doesn't like (not even the one allowing a federal income tax???).
>> Bachmann did have a great statement on the Palestinian question, where she went into some detail on conversations with the Palestinian authority on textbooks that advocate the killing of jews. The moderators seemed to panic and try to talk over her so she couldn’t get the point out, but she persisted and made a strong point. >>
Um no, the moderators were getting bored at this point (as was the audience) and noticed that what she said had nothing to do with the question asked. She avoided the question because she knew Newt was correct and being the little catty b-tch she is, she could not bring herself to admit it so she sort of semi changed the subject.
Hell I dislike Newt. I sure as heck don’t trust the slithering snake in the grass.
But I’ll vote for him.
“Bachmann gets herself into trouble when attacking the front-runner.”
Really? From where I’m sitting it looks like she’s been shooting them all down.
Most of the questions, especially this one, was intended to get the candidates to attack each other and ignore Obama.
Sawyer and Stephanopolous specifically let Gingrich go last.
Perry took the bait on the fidelity question, but turned it into an attack on Obama for the Palestinian question.
“Look at what passes for success in DC these days. John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham, Barney Frank.”
What’s the point of electing a constitutional conservative if they don’t get anything done? I think an effective 90% conservative will be better for us than an ineffective 100% conservative.
Again, that makes one of you thinking that way.
Santorum won this debate. Newt did best on several debates - but yesterday he did not impress me.
I am sick and tired of having no choice but to vote for the best of the worst.
Bachmann attacks like a mental patient, making things up.
She fabricated lies against others that reveals a serious flaw in her character....as serious as Newt's infidelity.
>> What’s the point of electing a constitutional conservative if they don’t get anything done? >>
It allows the nauseatingly self righteous to luxuriate in the purity of their own irrelevance.
Is it just me, or were Bachmann and Santorum trying to simultaneously take credit for things done in congress in the 90s while trying to make sure Newt (who, um, was ONLY the DAMNED SPEAKER) was part of the problem?
I disagree. I listened carefully to that question and all the answers. In fact, Newt’s infidelity weighed heavily on me. Not after last night, though.
Michelle sounds like a broken record. And that is sad, as I really, really like her. She sounds shrill.
Perry redeemed himself a bit, but making it through a debate in which you were mostly ignored isn’t something to brag about.
Romney came off as a small, spiteful man. Sad.
All in all, Newt was the clear winner, despite the MSM darlings coming at him with their knives drawn.
I had a hoot watching last night. I laughed, I yelled out...it was a great debate.
Newt won again. In fact, Newt has probably won every debate. Whether you agree with him or not, he takes the discussion to another level. I found myself looking up the origins of the Palestine identity. Has there ever been a candidate that has ever run that teaches you about history like Newt. Newt’s opinions have a foundation in history where the others just can’t even go there. Just think, he’s constantly winning debates over mostly like minded opponents. Imagine what he’ll do to Obama. Newt will give the nation an education and a desperate reminder why capitalism still is the better choice than socialism and absoulutely bury Obama when they meet. This burial might be just as important as actually winning the election, because the mindset of the nation has been tempted to look at socialism and if keep going down that path, we are doomed.
Only you and a few of your like minded sycophants could have possibly taken those impressions away from that debate.
Nicely put, reminds me of the words of Lady Atreides in Frank Herbert's Dune - "I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections."
There are more than a few freepers who enjoy this sort of poisoning, see the scores of posts by those whose contribution to the nomination process consists of endless bellyaching about how they will hold their breath until they turn blue if America fails to endorse their personal dreamboat candidate.
“From where I’m sitting it looks like she’s been shooting them all down.”
You better get yourself a new chair.
Amen!:)
“It allows the nauseatingly self righteous to luxuriate in the purity of their own irrelevance.”
That was just downright pretty.
>> Newt won again. In fact, Newt has probably won every debate. Whether you agree with him or not, he takes the discussion to another level.......Newt’s opinions have a foundation in history where the others just can’t even go there.....Imagine what he’ll do to Obama. Newt will give the nation an education and a desperate reminder why capitalism still is the better choice than socialism and absoulutely bury Obama when they meet. ....
....This burial might be just as important as actually winning the election, because the mindset of the nation has been tempted to look at socialism and if keep going down that path, we are doomed....
And you have just nailed THE SINGLE REASON Newt has surged and why it is a good thing. THE BURIAL OF LEFTIST IDEAS is more critical than EVER in our history - and the interest in the debates will mean they are bigger than they’ve ever been.
It is why I am supporting Newt in spite of his problems and inconsistencies. If we don’t have someone to take down not only Obama, but his entire mindset in an intellectually coherent manner, we are doomed as a nation.
Newt is smart. When asked who has inspired him during the campaign, he reached out to the very conservatives giving Santorum and Perry credit. He complimented probablt a very popylar governor in owa. He helped voice a message that most of Israel and many Jews is porobaly true. He looked for some kind of limited amnesty based on a World War II selective service program to reach out to moderates. If you are a strict conservative, you may think you have all your principals in place, but the only way you can win a general election is to have everyone think like you. Whether you like it or not, there has to be some degree of moderation to attract independents and moderates. That’s just reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.