Posted on 12/15/2011 4:21:09 PM PST by kristinn
The last debate before the January 3rd Iowa caucuses is being held tonight in Sioux City.
We get seven candidates at this debate: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman.
Fox's Bret Baier anchors the debate. Fox News panelists questioning the candidates: Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly and Neil Cavuto.
LOL your trying to tell me Gingrich will make all of the house and senate go part time and take large pay cuts and retire and do term limits? No more insider trading within and cut they’re staff down? No way will he. It would be like telling good friends of many years that they will be losing $$$$$$ and the gravy train is over.
I heard Megyn once explain how her name came to be spelled that way ... her mother wanted the name “Meagan” but was still doped up after the delivery and used the ‘gyn’ for her gynocologist. It made sense to her mom at the time.
It’s a comment like yours which makes the task of spreading the message of conservatism beyond the base incredibly difficuly.
“bat wing eyelashed prom babe with the Barbie look?”
I’d expect to read something like this in the NYT or HuffPo, not FR. You show a lot of ignorance in directing this kind of personal attack on Bachmann.
“But it’s clear he doesn’t care one bit about what the establishment of the party thinks.”
Given the history, I think there are a WHOLE BUNCH of Republican Establishment in DC that are TERRIFIED of Newt getting the nod, and becoming President.
Not because he can defeat Obama, but because they fear his REVENGE.
Yeah he is good alright He is good utilizing his grey hair and political career status by thinking he can use a certain tone and say THOSE ARE NOT THE FACTS and all will believe him because he is old and grey haired.Bachmann called him to the carpet and he squirmed like a liar.He is smart but we need real change.
“I think his record shows he’ll do what’s best for the country.”
Like supporting and voting for the FED Dept of “Education?” Like joining Pelosi to produce a fraudulent commercial for global warming? Like making a couple million consulting for Fannie and Freddie?
I don’t trust him. Never will again. He was my district rep who I supported and voted for years. When I was last called years ago to donate again, I said sorry. I am supporting the closest to a Constitutional Conservative I can get. Newt ain’t it. Newt is a progressive socialist’s next best friend.
Ya’ll can vote for him. If he wins, I will hold my nose. At least you will have been forewarned. We deserve better. Give us a Constitutional Conservative!!!!! Do we not have one?
Judging by the comments here, I’m afraid that tactic appears to be working.
It is extremely despressing.
What would happen if that’s how you described Palin?
You say ‘doped up’, how about Complete Paralysis from The Ribs Down, imagine you in that situation and THAT’S when they force all the forms and documents to sign on you, after 12 hours of just-kill-me-now contractions.
“Bachmann called Gingrich out.She has done the same to Romney contrary to the wacko comments on here”
Bachmann is trailing badly in Iowa. If she doesn’t finish first or second in Iowa, she’s finished.
As the legendary Mrs. Whiskers is fond of pointing out, if you have to say it ("I'm a serious candidate")...
Cheers!
Like it or not bachmann has done herslf in...and you are wrong to go after Freepers about this...very wrong...many were supporting her.
It doesn’t matter how conservative an indivdual is if they can’t deliver the message to others and persuade them to their thinking. She’s been far too busy slamming other candidates than she has presenting her positions..and that falsely.
Further she’s been coming across desperate..and it shows time and again...addtionally tonight you could see she was “happy” to finally be given opportunity to speak and yet she used too much of that to slam others.
Of course she destroyed Paul tonight...she always picks one or two and goes at it. No surprise she came out swinging this time either.
And for the record...Palin isn’t running...she has nothing to do with Bachmanns own self-destructive comments and behavior. They rest in her own lap.
Additionally....why would anyone bother calling a station on Bachmann...waste of time...and most don’t base their vote on what Lavin or Rush, HAnnity or any of them might think...we do think with our own heads.
You answered a post that said: ““...Newt taught war strategy to generals.”
with”
NO! Really? When did this happen; I’ve never heard or read of it.”
Newt grew up as an ‘Army Brat’, his father (step father who adopted him) in the European Theater. Military personnel move, on average, every 3 years - he lived, fro ex: in France and in Germany.
Gingrich has taught at the United States Air Force’s Air University, for over two decades. He is the longest-serving teacher of the Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course. He is an honorary Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Professor at the National Defense University and teaches officers from all of the defense services. Gingrich informally advised Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld on strategic issues, on issues including the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - so when he talks about “Palestinians” he knows what he’s talking about - Gingrich is also a guiding coalition member of the Project on National Security Reform.
He loves our military and is the only one that has mentioned the murderous, Taliban favoring ROE that our Usurper in chief put in that has resulted, the first year - 2009 - in DOUBLE our KIA’s from the previous worst year of the war. IN 2010, it tripled and this year, may top that.
That’s one of the first things he would do - kill those ROE. (As CIC, there’s probably not many officers that would not know him - a big plus.)
NO other candidate or any moderator picks up on it - I’ve an idea they don’t have a cle what ROE are, let alone what the current ones are.
Mark Levin has been digging into this establishment Republican business more and more. I didn’t get to hear much of his show tonight but he pointed out that Rich Lowry wrote an article for National Review in 2006 praising Newt and basically asking him to run for president...
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218263/run-newt-run/rich-lowry
Then we get this article from Lowry this month, bashing the “old Newt,” one that Lowry had no real problems with in 2006!
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285596/myth-new-newt-rich-lowry?page=3
I don’t really understand what’s changed and I didn’t get to hear if Levin drew any conclusions about it.
One other thing I don’t understand is this idea that next year’s election should be “about” Obama, and for that reason we should nominate a candidate who doesn’t have an attention-grabbing personality. It’s like that actress character in the Tim Burton Ed Wood movie who agreed to play in Ed Wood’s movie but told him she didn’t want to be filmed in a way that got her noticed. That’s not a recipe for success.
What is the harm of a candidate like Newt that draws media attention? Won’t the biggest problem next year be getting our message out? If we elect a boring candidate that doesn’t get enthusiasm or big ratings, the media is going to keep the focus on Obama. And it will be a relentlessly positive focus. The ONLY chance we have is to put up a candidate who is such a lightning rod that the media will be unable to resist covering him. That way he will get air time and he will be able to get his message out.
I also think any general election swing voter wants to know why our candidate is better than Obama. They don’t just want to hear about how bad Obama is. We cannot simply run a negative campaign that puts the focus solely on Obama without explaining what our alternative is. Romney is going to be so tongue-tied trying to explain how his positions have evolved and why they’ve changed that he’s going to have a heck of a time explaining his “current” positions in any depth. Obama will keep bringing the focus back to what Romney did in Massachusetts and how it’s very similar to some of the things Obama did. That right there makes the argument ABOUT ROMNEY, not about his platform and not about Obama. Romney can try to talk around it, but suddenly we have a much harder time defining to the voters what our alternative to Obama is.
It seems to me Newt is much better positioned in this respect. The attacks on him, if you believe the RINOs, will be about his personality much more than any confusion on his positions. Therefore it becomes easy for Newt to dismiss the personal attacks and say he wants to move onto the real substance of the campaign.
It’s better right now to have a candidate who has PERSONAL problems in his past than one who has problems WITH HIS POSITIONS. It’s a more serious time now and we’re not looking to elect a Miss America. People will have less patience for the personal attacks and more interest in the policies, so it’s much more important we have a candidate who doesn’t have confusing issues with his POLICIES like Romney does. Obama flat out WINS on personality against ANY of our candidates. Polls consistently show the public likes Obama as a person, but they don’t like his policies. Therefore how can we win by putting up a guy whose advantage is that he’s a squeaky-clean, clean-cut guy that’s wishy-washy on policy? Our strategy HAS to be to beat Obama on the ISSUES because we simply will not beat him if we try to do it on charisma and likability.
Incidentally, while the down-scale commentators on FOX have been leaning RINO, O’Reilly, Hannity and Greta have been much fairer. All of them seem willing to defend Newt and often have a quizzical expression on their face trying to understand just why he’s being attacked from so-called Republicans so much. Hannity was very animated last night about being upset and frustrated that the establishment was trying to pick the winner, and said that his audience was overwhelmingly e-mailing him that sentiment.
“Would like to know who they would fill their administration with.”
Newt said he’d appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State Of course he took a lot of flak for that. Beyond that I haven’t heard any talk of who would be in the various candidate’s Administrations if elected.
A vote cast in the 1970s and yet you supported and voted for him for years. Now it makes him no good?
Like making a couple million consulting for Fannie and Freddie?
Yet your attack points clear. The money, an average of $160K per year over a ten year period, went to his company, not to him directly, and was from Freddie only.
Like supporting and voting for the FED Dept of “Education?
Gingrich explained the how and why, and what has happened since, very well at the last debate.
You weren’t listening, were you.
I used to like her, but she seems to be in way over her head. What do you want to bet that she comes out in support of Mitt?
Seems to me that she adds nothing to the field. She’s got to know that...
Thanks for the reply. My ham-handed explanation needed the help. ;o)
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.