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???).
yep, all three of them.
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 Iowa. 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.
“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 dont think Bachmann was even there in the 1990’s. Santorum’s criticism of Newt was a bit weird but I guess he had to do it as he was trying to take credit for the same things. I guess Santorum was just getting desperate because if he doesnt place at least #3 in Iowa his campaign is completely done.
It was just you.;) You might be right about Santorum, but Bachmann wasn't elected to the House until 2006.
And Santorum's point that Bachmann hadn't "won" during that time, IE prevented either the bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, or Obamacare, didn't impress me. I doubt he could have done much better under those circumstances.
“Do you really think that anyone did not already know?”
I doubt that most people remember a scandal from over a decade ago involving a congressman.
In any case, Perry made the connection between cheating in private, cheating in business and cheating in public life. This is the bedrock of morality: either you are moral or you are not. Some people may think it irrelevant but Perry’s words will for sure resonate with Christians.
Newsmax
NH Union Leader Publisher McQuaid: Romney Is Getting ‘Desperate’ as Hopes Fade
Sunday, December 11, 2011 08:54 AM
By: Dave Eberhart
Although former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney appeared cool and collected during the relatively mild Republican presidential debate Saturday night as he sparred with new GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich, New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher Joseph W. McQuaid opines that Romney is indeed growing desperate — and is at least tacitly allowing his surrogates to take off the gloves.
http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx?nodeid=420560
If you were to take Sarah Palin, and remove all the self-deprecating humor and all the personal warmth, you get something like Bachmann. Every time I hear her (Bachmann) speak, I get the vibe of an angry teacher making the chalkboard squeak as she fiercely outlines weekend homework assignments on the wall.
LOL! I like Michele, but this was priceless!
***Perry took the bait on the fidelity question.***
Retired early and missed that exchange last night. Just caught a snippet on Fox. Perry sounded like an angry brother-in-law. How stupid for Perry to take the bait.
Would appreciate your recollection of the question, Perry’s pontificating and Newt’s response.
thx
sod
You may be right, I do sometimes confuse MB and RS. To me, they have the same strengths and the same weaknesses - and I think they are both off putting with their desperate snarkiness. Agree with their philosophy most of the time, but am not inspired to follow either across the street.
“Perry had his best night. If he had performed like this from the beginning, he would have Gingrich’s poll numbers.”
A few months ago, when it looked like Perry would be the nominee, I thought he would need Newt (or Santorum) in the VP slot. Now, maybe Newt (assuming he holds his current lead and ends up with the nomination) could choose Perry as VP to ‘balance’ the ticket.
Perry has what seems a great record in TX, a military service background, has been married faithfully to(IIRC) his high school sweetheart, and is, generally, a good ole boy. And, who would he have to debate? Crazy Uncle Joe?
In the alternative, Newt might select Kasich who now has executive experience, was Chmn of the Budget Committee when the budget got balanced (at least on paper), has a young, attractive family, and - need I add - is from a large electoral vote swing state.
The GOP is not hurting for good candidates.
“She fabricated lies against others”
They are not lies just because Newt says they are.
Fact check just posted an article showing that Newt lied and that he was in fact in favor of cap and trade.
Michele was right.
Michelle is good on the issues. I can’t fault her there at all. Now she is down in the polls and hanging on tight. It makes her appearances come off as shrill and desperate. She should just withdraw and save her own reputation. I wish she had soared to the top and stayed there, but I don’t get what I want. And I like Sarah even more than Michelle. Again, not getting what I want. Instead I am leaning towards Newt.
lol nice one
I think there’s even more to it. I think Newt does appreciate the purist instincts of MB and RS. He is secure enough in himself to admit it. It is also wise politically.
I think it’s a stunning contrast to MB and RS, who are way too insecure (and too low in the polls) to admit that Newt has actually accomplished a lot of stuff that they agree with.
Having said that, RS did say some stunning things in the close, where he remembered (finally) that Newt was THE INTELLECTUAL INSPIRATION for all of congress in the 80s and 90s.
The recipe for success is to have Newt in the White House and being held in check by purists in congress.
I really wish I could take credit for that line - I mean I really do - but alas it was another Freeper who used it before I a week or so ago.
“Is it just me, or were Bachmann and Santorum trying to simultaneously take credit for things done in congress in the 90s”
Actually, it’s just Santorum and Newt.
So Newt balanced the budget, passed welfare reform, and was responsible for 4.2% unemployment? The man was only the house speaker with one vote.
His talking points are coming right out of the Clinton reelection playbook.
She also tends to make opportunistic slaps at the others and then it becomes apparent she really isn't up on what she claims - I call it her "peroxide blonde" moments and she's had a few too many for me.
It's a shame because she really is the most balanced conservative of the bunch.
>> So Newt balanced the budget, passed welfare reform, and was responsible for 4.2% unemployment? The man was only the house speaker with one vote. >>
Yes, he was “ONLY” the house speaker (educated folks call it Speaker of the House BTW) during a time when that was perhaps the single most powerful figure outside of being President. He did it at a time when he had clearly been the intellectual force behind the Republican caucus for years. He did it at a time when he was the single focus of the hatred of the main stream media and of Democrat politicians.
When you try to compare the Speakership of Newt to the Speakership of Boehner - you simply demonstrate a withering ignorance of history and a total lack of being able to process different times in history.
But damn, you demonstrate both so aptly.
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.