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???).
Well, I just finished watching the debate and I think Bachmann won and Perry came a close second.
This was by far the best Perry debate and surprisingly, Ron Paul also did very well (not many questions on foreign policy).
Bachmann’s “Newt Romney” line was brilliant. She said that both men agree too much with Barack Obama to be effective challengers and she’s right.
The segment about marital infidelities was probably very damaging to Gingrich. Perry came down on him very hard and he was right about what he said.
At one point Steffy quoted some Pali wretch who said that Newt’s position would provide ammunition to acts of terror for years to come.
It’s like Palin’s target talk, writ large. From now on, allahu akbar means “Newt Gingrich made this happen!”
And America made 9/11 happen. Same basic argument.
Gingrich answered promptly and effectively, as if he anticipated it. “How would you know the difference?” (They were already committing regular acts of terror.) But he needs to grab this by the horns. The media is waiting hungrily for the next schoolbus to blow up, so they can link it to Newt Gingrich.
Well, that makes one of you.
Bachmann gets herself into trouble when attacking the front-runner.
When Perry was leading, she said Guardasil causes mental retardation.
When Cain was leading, she said 9-9-9 was a VAT.
Now that Gingrich is leading, she says he wants amnesty for 11 million illegals.
Bachmann mis-truths/uninformed statements have are beneath her. I think she is smarter than this.
Santorum was a disappointment in agreeing with Romney and taking Diane Sawyer’s bait to attack Gingrich.
Perry had his best night. If he had performed like this from the beginning, he would have Gingrich’s poll numbers.
Ron Paul dithered badly on his answer to Gingrich’s Palestinian comment and made himself more irrelevant.
Romney destroyed his campaign. He admitted he would have been a career politician and his bet with Perry was stupid.
The only thing helping Newt (and whoever gets the nomination after his mouth blows up his campaign) is that Obama is in office. ABO: Anybody but Obama.
A somewhat more centrist statist like Gingrich is preferable to Obama’s leftist statism, I guess...
I got tired of waiting for you guys. Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaMqDJ0zZbc
One of the worst things about Bachmann is that she makes a good point but then rambles on for way too long. She zinged Mitt and Newt more than once but she just goes on and on and on and you forget what she said at the begining.
“Bachmann gets herself into trouble when attacking the front-runner.”
Remember when she called 999, 666? Now she is acting like she liked it all the time. If she wants to act principled and not like a politician, she should stop doing stuff like this.
“I got tired of waiting for you guys. Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaMqDJ0zZbc";
Thanks for the link!
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
I learned some things before my first marriage ended in a disaterous divorce; I can be wrong and sleep in my bed or I can be right and sleep on the couch.
Michele (rhetorically) sleeps on the couch a lot.
“The segment about marital infidelities was probably very damaging to Gingrich.”
Do you really think that anyone did not already know?
>> One of the worst things about Bachmann is that she makes a good point but then rambles on for way too long. >>
This phenomenon is known as Bachmann Turnoff Overdrive.
Also, it seems to me that some folks up there are starting to think Gingrich is going to win, and are ogling the second spot or perhaps a position in the Administration. I could see Santorum ending up with some foreign policy position in a Gingrich Administration should Gingrich win.
“Bachmann mis-truths/uninformed statements have are beneath her.”
She’s a damned liar.
“I think she is smarter than this.”
Just not smart enough to be a good liar.
What he means is, those who dislike Newt were given a few minutes to marinate in their dislike, thus disliking him even more.
To everyone else, the segment was either meaningless or even handled pretty well by him.
“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.”
That is the best description of Bachman I’ve seen, all Walk and no Talk.
I noticed that when Steffi gave Romney and Paul the chance to repeat their TV ad attacks against Newt, they both backed off and weren’t willing to repeat the charges to his face. Cowardly...
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.