Posted on 01/07/2012 1:21:48 PM PST by katiedidit1
GOP New Hampshire primary debate tonight on ABC at 9pm ET
By Nate, on January 7th, 2012
Tonight will mark the first of two debates this weekend focused on the New Hampshire Republican primary. This evening's debate will take place at Saint Anselm College and is sponsored by ABC News, Yahoo! and WMUR. Sunday morning will feature a GOP debate broadcast on NBC at 9am ET (yes, am) but look for more details on that later today.
Air Time: Saturday, January 7th at 9pm ET / 6pm PT on ABC
Live Stream: WMUR and Yahoo! News
Participants: Santorum, Romney, Paul, Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman
Report from WMUR:
(Excerpt) Read more at 2012presidentialelectionnews.com ...
The debate’s long gone and I was long gone before your post which I read this morning.
Bless you.
You are so right about Gov. Perry and I had totally let myself forget the vicious attacks made on him by Cain.
Now that you’ve opened my eyes, I do see that this affected a lot of Cain supporters, who probably now think that it was really Perry who was messing with all those women.
Duh.
Like you, I despise seeing Cain appearing on the talk shows.
I think he ran for president to raise his profile so he could do this. I turn him off just like I turn off Obama and his minions.
Your post warmed my heart because you hit the nail on the head.
Yes, Perry is horrible. Did you know it was really him who was messing with all those women and blaming it on Cain.
I finally realize who and what you are.
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.
excellant description! to the point and very accurate.
thanks so much for clarifying.
Good morning. Thank you for posting the debate.
I didn’t get a chance to see it. From the posts here, please correct me if I’m wrong, but here’s my take:
1. No major gaffs from anyone.
2. Moderators seemed to favor Romney in giving him more time.
3. Ron Paul looked quite small.
4. Romney was his usual slick, stable boring self.
5. Santorum, Huntsman basically rattled on, not being concise most of the time.
6. Once again, as has always been the case, Newt stood out looking like an adult in comparison to the others.
7. Newt with his usual thick skin and temperment, went after the moderators a couple times to huge applause.
8. Perry did well.
9. No one really attacked Romney.
In summary, Romney will probably drop several points, mainly because he was at 41% to begin with, and Newt is sure to get some ground on him.
Huntsman looked weak and for all his campaigning will probably not gain much if any or lose.
Santorum is sure to lose ground as in comparison to Newt and Romney he looked the weaker, esp vs Newt.
I think Newt will do even better tonight.
Can any and all of the FRers who saw the debate comment, as unbiased as possible, on my summation?
Thank you.
she looks like she’s at a party with having one too many drinks and trying to be a young actress but is way past her prime.
Unfortunately, I’m afraid Newt might be your typical behind-the-back bully: he goes after people when they’re not around, then becomes a smarmy sycophant when face to face.
Bingo. I’d prefer a steady Santorum in the WH to an unpredictable, occasionally brilliant, occasionally WTH Newt. I hope we can coalesce around Santorum.
I like that combo!
You pegged it pretty well. But Romney was also verbose and almost MORE phony than usual. Each sentence sounded frayed with age and repetition. Santorum grabbed each of his turns and did try to express himself in too many words, but said a lot of good things. I thought he was pointed and on target, though not enough at Romney. Santorum and wet did the best. Paul seemed more cocky than usual.
Wet = newt.
That drunk-like pretend Marilyn Monroe act goes a long way to sleeping your way to the top!
Good point. I wish Santorum would hire a speaking coach to help him understand when to stop talking. He’s a great guy, from my perspective, he is right on the issues, and he is smart as a whip. But, he needs to learn how to stop droning on.
“Tell me, WTF are you doing at FR if those issues are “not on your list?” The first two are cornerstones of the conservative cause.”
I was asked what has Perry done that makes me doubt he was a conservative. I didn’t put those issues on the list, because, like Ann Richards, he knew enough to be pro-life and pro-gun, if he wanted to last more than a week in Texas politics. I’m talking about nearly everything else he’s done to anger conservatives, including the Texas Tea Party.
“Perry did not call a 2nd Special Session because of the cost of calling yet another Special Session of the TX legislature. I was thinking the tab for the first one was something like 1.23 million or some amount, but this is just from memory, so that amount may be off.
I realize some Tea Partiers were of the Opinion that Perry could just keep calling Special Session after Special Session until it was passed, but what would keep Strauss, the Rino Speaker of the House from making sure it died a third time. I mean it was DOA in the regular session, and the special session, right? did Some people think the third time would be the Charm?”
The thing was that Perry did call three special sessions in a row, in 2007 (I think), when he really wanted to pass a business tax, but kept getting bucked by the legislature. Eventually they yielded and got him his tax. Perry knew what a pain in the next the special sessions are for the legislators (and very costly), so he simply kept calling them until they buckled.
In this case, the Sanctuary City bill was not the reason for the special session - it was something to do with school financing. The legislature had (conveniently) forgot to get to it int he regular session. So the special session spent the entire time on the school financing thing, and at the very end...as in last day or so, they couldn’t round up enough people (or something like that) to get it passed without a supermajority (something extraordinary, by legislature rules...if you want to do something very quickly), so it (conveniently) died again.
A second special session, on this topic would have made it impossible for the Republicans (who have HUGE majorities in both houses) to sweep it under the rug again. But it didn’t happen. As to the cost - we’re losing cops in Houston and Dallas because of it. Just their funerals would probably take care of the cost.
I wonder how it went. Last thing I remember before blacking out was listening to an abc commentator and hollering, “He said it AGAIN!”
Even the talking heads were talking up their “fundamentals.”
Obviously he hasn't "done nothing." If anything, he's done too much.
If you read Burke or Kirk, glacial change legislatively, IOW not being a meddling technocratic activist, is the primary mark of a true conservative.
A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. - Edmund Burke
All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter. - Edmund Burke
Since you come from California, we'll allow you some time to recover from your ills. =)
Huntsman is a RINO because the first thing that he did after Hussein was immaculated (while the conservative movement was reeling and trying to recover and figure out how to endure the coming socialism) was to jump feet first into embracing the Kenyan Communist’s offer to be his point man in China.
Huntsman happily galloped into the Hussein era to work in Beijing, implementing the policies of the worst President in at least 165 years.
There it is! Good job!
Catching up on the debate thread, Bobbie, I must say your posts really stand out! Bless your heart!
What a wonderful recipe of instructions on how the Texas Governor should have, and could have done everything just so!
It is a wonder indeed how the Lone Star State managed at all whilst you were living that "long time" in California.
Indeed, one expects California ought to be completely restored to Reagan's Red State status under your direction out there, and Texas should be dragging bottom what with such a Marxist-Leninist as Rick Perry being governor here for a "long time"!
One thing I missed in the thread, though. Who exactly was the uberconservative alternative to Perry we were supposed to install (other than your fine self, of course)?
If you're upset as I am with the TSA and don't want to fly, then I'd recommend I-10, 20 or 40 West for you to get you back where everyone talks Perry down the way you do.
Bless YOUR heart, sam paine. You said it all.
The demented should be ignored but sometimes they just goad one into responding.
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.