"Foot in the butt that shouldn't be here"?
Posted on 11/12/2011 2:25:13 PM PST by katiedidit1
Next GOP Debate Will Be Tonight
Published: 1:17 AM, 11/12/2011
Last updated: 1:22 AM, 11/12/2011
Source: The Greeneville Sun
The latest in the series of televised debates among the candidates for the Republican nomination for President is scheduled for tonight.
The debate is taking place at Wofford College in Spartanburg, S.C., and will focus on national security and foreign policy.
The debate is being hosted by CBS News and the National Jo urnal, and will begin at 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the CBS Television Network.
(Excerpt) Read more at greenevillesun.com ...
Forget I said that; I can’t get the video to work, looks like CBS screwed that up too!
I still love Bachman and see her as the “total package.” There’s just nothing she says I can find fault with. Plus, she not only has experience, it’s current experience. She’s right in the midst of what’s happening now, so she could hit the ground running knowing exactly who her friends are and who to contact to get the job done.
Unfortunately, I don’t think enough Republicans agree with me to make it work.
Looks like the YouTube Nazis already yanked it. Bastards.
Hopefully, we're electing a President to LEAD the pack, not need to find others to get him up to speed.
We have no idea who those people might be. They would be the defacto "president."
We can't afford a proxy government, even for a few weeks.
Elections are about choosing the right person - or the person we perceive as such - to have the expertise to hit the ground running - most especially at this time in our country.
We have had an on-the-job-taining 'resident in the WH for 3 yrs now. He appointed an army of czars to help him. How's that working for us?
There are a lot of people though who do attack other candidates. It’s a lot more fun, and easier, than defending your own candidate.
If I were a Perry supporter, and I suppose that could still happen if he can pull off a few more debates like this one, I would take heart that even though Perry is “toast”, supporters of other candidates feel it is very important to attack Perry every chance they get — even more than Romney, it turns out.
LOL...just had to laugh at that picture.
Well that’s 90 minutes of my life I won’t get back. Worst debate so far, and that’s saying a lot. 60 minutes of it live, with 20 minutes of commercials leaves 40 minutes for the 8 candidates. The moderators took at leat 15% of that asking questions and interrupting, so in reality we had 40 minutes minus 15% = 34 minutes divided by 8 candidates = 4.25 minutes total speaking time per candidate. It’s ridiculous, and the candidates all had difficulty wrapping up their answers while Scott Pelley talked over them saying “Your time is up! Your time is up!” Lord have mercy. The MSM game is to hold all the candidates to 30 second sound bites, suitable for endless loop replays in the hopes that some of them will make at least one big flub.
So, tonight there were no flubs. Michele Bachmann looked lovely. She must have a new hair and make-up artist. Ricky Perry had his best showing to date, the first time with no incoherent rambling, brain freezes, or “heartless” gaffes. Newt slapped the moderator around quite well, as expected. Cain neither hurt nor helped himself tonight. Santorum and Huntsman both whined about not having equal time, as usual. Ron Paul got nutty with his isolationism, as he often does, and that untamed caterpillar above his right eye is still trying to escape his face. It’s distracting...but that may work in Paul’s favor.
Hopefully the next debate on CNN, with the Heritage Foundation as a co-sponsor, will offer more.
It’s an official CBS video, so I don’t think Youtube yanked it. I think it’s a placeholder page that CBS will eventually stick the video in.
He said the communist government. Its pretty clear.
1. Bachmann: Despite Pelley best efforts to stifle her, she showed a total command of foreign policy facts and the situational realities in Iraq and Afghanistan. She won't benefit from it, but she aced the F.P. debate.
2. Gingrich: Also strong command of facts, but major slip up when he detailed potential covert actions in Iran, and then said they were all "deniable". Not good at all. Great jab at smarmy Pelley, though.
3. Cain: Admitted he knows nothing about the subject, and twice I expected him to fall on his arse, but he didn't. The first when he was rescued himself with the Aegis proposal, a good one. Second with his strong response to the waterboarding question. No gaffes.
4. Perry: His reminding the audience of his gaffe (something his team clearly scripted) was effective and warm. His knowledge of the subject is weak, but he handled questions well. Didn't get tripped up by Israel foreign aid Tweet. "Comeback Player" award.
5. Romney: Showed strong grasp of subject, but suprisingly dull and unoriginal. Close-ups showed him furrowing brow, looking confused and tired. Too bad Mormons can't drink coffee.
6. Santorum: Held up the multilateral school of foreign policy, as usual. Amazing how what was conventional wisdom just a few years back (Pakistan must be our friend) seems merely naive and silly now. Santorum also failed to impress by continuing his annoying plugs of himself at every turn ("I was the first...I showed leadership...I was the only one"). His grandstanding was even more anoying next to Newt's frequent compliments to other candidates.
7. Huntsman: 1/3 tough, 1/3 new world order, 1/3 Ron Paul? Please decide, Jon! you just sound mushy and foolish. For fun, check out SNL's "How you Pay?" send up of Huntsman.
8. Paul: Just dreadful, as usual with this subject. Although, as always, I agree with his insistence to declare war "the old fashioned way: using the Constitution". Bush should have done it, and that's the way the Founders intended it.
Maybe he expected the electorate to have a little intelligence, that might have been overreaching.
HA.
I also wore my CKV...( “computer kevlar vest”)..!
Who listens to Ann Coulter?
"Foot in the butt that shouldn't be here"?
Hi. AiT.
I am sure we can get the info to whoever needs it if they don’t.
And perhaps you should look up the definition of surrender, because that's what we're going to do if we vote for Mitt Romney.
Why you think a vote for Mitt will be any different than a vote for Obama, is a mystery to me. He has proven beyond all doubt that he's a statist, hiding behind a facade of conservatism. He's no more conservative than any run of the mill Democrat.
We vote for Mitt, and we'd better hope like hell that we've got a fire breathing Congress full of TEApublicans to twist his liberal arm to the breaking point on every single issue, because he will sell us out to his globalist masters faster than you can say Massachusetts.
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.