Posted on 12/16/2011 8:02:44 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I can't guarantee you that this will be the last video we post from last night's debate, but it's probably going to be the most memorable — after Rick Perry's gestalt-grasping clip in which he declared himself the “Tim Tebow of the Iowa Caucuses,” that is. In this clip, Michele Bachmann goes after Ron Paul on Iran and national security as if she takes him seriously. Paul is reduced to sputtering a non-sequitur about how wrong it is to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims, which isn’t at all what Bachmann said, and more or less becomes unable to complete most of his own sentences, the majority of which are also non-sequiturs. No matter what one thinks of Bachmann, you can’t deny her ability to get under the skin of other candidates:
One of my favorite moments in this debate came when Paul tells Bachmann that the “UN” never said any such thing, and then in the next breath says they weren’t telling the truth when they did. It provoked a few laughs from the audience and a whole avalanche of derision on Twitter. The mask well and truly slipped for Paul in this final debate.
So how did the Republican candidates do? Mitt Romney started off strong and was having one of his best debates in weeks until Chris Wallace asked him about his position switches on abortion, gay rights, and gun laws. He gave a good answer on his transformation to pro-life, but left himself wide open on gay rights. Rick Santorum had his best moment of the debate when he methodically walked through what Romney actually did and said on defending marriage. That didn’t turn the night into a disaster, but Romney didn’t finish strong. Santorum did well last night, too, and given his blanketing of Iowa for the last several months, might have given voters there a reason to give him a second look.
Gingrich had a better debate all the way through, but he took a few slings and arrows along the way. He took some hits on Freddie Mac again, especially from Bachmann, but gave a good rebuttal to those attacks — although clearly no one is thinking that Freddie Mac hired him as a historian. Bachmann scored on the argument that one doesn’t have to be a formal lobbyist to influence people in Washington, and it seems foolish to argue that Freddie Mac didn’t hire him as a consultant for his influence on public policy as a former Speaker. No one is buying the “historian” idea. Otherwise, Gingrich gave a feisty and charismatic performance, or at least charismatic in Gingrich’s terms. He didn’t do any damage to himself, and at the least Gingrich gave himself some room to reclaim a little of his lost momentum.
Rick Perry had the best risk/reward outcome in the debate. As I predicted, no one on stage went on the attack against Perry, and that meant Perry didn’t have to go on the attack against anyone else. The Tebow reference was obviously planned, and brilliant; it’s catchy, timely, easily understood as a deep underdog prevailing through faith in himself and God despite being dismissed by everyone else as the clock starts running out. Perry didn’t get quite as much face time as other candidates, but he made the most of it. After two good debates, and this latest especially strong performance, Perry now gets to do the retail politicking at which he excels without having to engage in any extemporaneous exchanges with other candidates. He could turn this into a comeback, and really be the Tim Tebow of the Iowa Caucuses. Don’t count him out.
As for Bachmann, she had a good evening as well, but made a couple of big mistakes. After scoring points on Gingrich on Freddie Mac, she overshot the mark by accusing Gingrich of trying to elect Republicans who back infanticide. Gingrich slapped back at Bachmann for not getting her facts straight, which has been a problem for Bachmann in the past. Even though Bachmann has regularly attacked other candidates for not telling the truth, at least as she sees it, she protested that her status as a candidate for President of the United States means that her facts are straight, and that it’s “outrageous” to suggest otherwise:
Bachmann earlier had cited Politifact as stating that she had all her facts straight in the last debate, a strange thing to do since Politifact has been roundly critical of Bachmann’s debate claims for months. Sure enough, immediately after the debate, they gave her a Pants On Fire rating for that claim:
At that point, Bachmann jumped back in. “Well, after the debates that we had last week, PolitiFact came out and said that everything that I said was true. And the evidence is that Speaker Gingrich took $1.6 million. You don’t need to be within the technical definition of being a lobbyist to still be influence-peddling with senior Republicans in Washington, D.C., to get them to do your bidding.”
Wait… what? We said that “everything” Bachmann had said was true?
Actually, that’s not what we said.
At the Dec. 10 debate she was referring to, PolitiFact checked two claims from Bachmann and rated them Mostly True and Pants on Fire.
The fact-check she may have been referencing was, “In 1993, Newt Gingrich ‘first advocated for the individual mandate in health care. And as recently as May of this year, he was still advocating’ for it.” We rated that one a Mostly True.
But we also rated her claim that Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, “put into place socialized medicine.” We found that was ridiculously false and rated it Pants on Fire.
Her comment about our ratings was also a bit of a non-sequitur. Neither of the two items we checked addressed the subject at hand — Gingrich’s work for Freddie Mac, what he thinks of Freddie Mac today, or whether Gingrich was ever a lobbyist.
Maybe Bachmann was simply trying to burnish her image as a truth teller. However, using PolitiFact to back up that assertion is a bit unusual. Her PolitiFact report card shows 59 percent of her statements rated have earned either a False or Pants on Fire. She has earned five Trues, three Mostly Trues, six Half Trues, seven Mostly Falses, 19 Falses and 11 Pants on Fires.
That’s so easily checkable that it’s almost unbelievable that Bachmann would cite Politifact as a specific authority on the subject. Has she not read their site and their evaluations of her statements? Their evaluations certainly put paid to the notion that being a presidential candidate means one should just assume you have your facts straight, too.
As for Jon Huntsman, it’s hard to see why he bothered to show up. He isn’t competing meaningfully in Iowa anyway. Huntsman didn’t offer any compelling narrative or responses last night, so he would have done better for his campaign to stay in New Hampshire and do some retail politicking in a state he’s taking seriously.
Twelver Shiites believe they can force the Twelfth Mahdi to appear by igniting chaos and destruction.
Amadinnerjacket is a Twelver, as are most of the ruling clerics in Iran.
They believe the Twelfth Mahdi is in “occlusion” and has been for several centuries.
They believe he will show up to usher in the “peace of islam”.. i.e. Shariah for all, slaughter for ‘infidels’ and destruction of the ‘enemies of islam’.
These are not rational people we are dealing with.
They honestly believe that by killing large numbers of people they can make their ‘messiah’ appear.
Look up twelver shi’a.
It’s a real trip.
I just listened again. Bachman stated "We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon. They will use it to wipe our ally Israel of the face of the map and they've stated they will use it against the United States of America."
So did I my FRiend, I also remember the air raid siren tests on the last Friday of every month at 10:00 AM
The difference then is we were facing an enemy who wanted to win, to live and had much to lose. Iran want to martyr its self to bring about the 12th Imam, or Mahdi.
Yes, the odds of dying in a terror attack for you and me are pretty high, but what American City and how many American lives are you willing to risk too test your theory? What about an EMP attack launched from a ship off the Atlantic?
What we are facing with Iran and islam in general is in no way comparable to the cold war, two totally different enemies.
What we should be doing and missed a tremendous opportunity to do so was/is aid the Iranian (Persian) people in toppling their mad mullah regime, otherwise all out, maybe nuclear war will be a certainty.
Or do we wait until we have no choice, we are weak and our enemies know our every vulnerability? I choose the former.
If Iran gets a nuke, that is exactly where we'll be, we will have no choices.
>
This is interesting, in case you missed it:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/14/us-will-leave-iraqi-airspace-clear-for-strategic-i/
I think that Bachmann falsely made the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel and the US seem absolutely confirmed, real and immediate. So if one believes that how do they not act?
Will a President Ron Paul stand still and say -— this isn’t our business because if Iran wants to go to war with Israel, it’s Israel’s problem, not ours? They have the capability to fight back, so leave them alone. We can’t spend money and lives on this foreign war that does not concern us, not when our debt is nearing $20 trillion. Ron Paul seems to be giving me the impression that that’s EXACTLY what he would do. At least he’s not giving me the confidence, not based on his rhetoric and body language that he won’t react that way.
And that is your impression and I respect that even if I don't agree with it.
IMHO, it's because Ron Paul is a physician. He's dealt with life and death every day of his career -- learning how to cure a problem without killing the patient -- he's a thinker. It's all been life & death to him, which is why he doesn't rile or physically posture when dealing with things like that in ways that I see others do. It's not about ego posturing or aggression. But in all honesty, if God forbid all hell broke loose in some hypothetical scenario in that auditorium last night and no one knew what was happening or what to do, I'd put my bets on following that old man to safety rather than any of the others. He's the one who'd keep his cool and risk his butt if necessary.
The one who scares me on this issue with his body language and attitude is Newt. He reminds me of someone I'm related to -- a smart-ass, self-important sneering little dictator who'd fold when the heat is on -- who thinks he's smarter than everyone else on every subject, but he's not, he's an empty windbag. I've known guys like him -- in life and in business and the only thing frightens me about them is how easily they fool people with their supposed "intelligence" that is supposed to take the place of having any real core values whatever other than self-preservation.
But again, those are all impressions -- yours and mine. Different, but while you can argue facts, you can't argue with people's feelings about things.
I promise that I will read it but not right now. Today is my birthday, so I am going to take some time off of politics for now to go enjoy myself. Later!
Happy Birth Day FRiend!
Wadda ya doin here, go enjoy your day!
Point is?
Correcting your response.
Before you make Ron Paul the guy you would want to follow and call Bachmann the only liar in this exchange, you ought to ALSO consider the false accusation that Ron Paul made last night when he said that someone in the panel is declaring WAR on 1.2 Billion Muslims and saying all Muslims are the same ( as he did in the debate ).
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE THE SAME OR THAT WE WILL GO TO WAR WITH ALL 1.2 MILLION MUSLIMS. NOT BACHMANN, NOT SANTORUM and NOT GINGRICH.
To say that we have to stand up to Iran DOES NOT MEAN we want to make war on ALL 1.2 Billion Muslims. Ron Paul is striking at a straw man here.
So clearly, Ron Paul is NOT being truthful.
The difference in opinion lies in whether Iran’s leader DID threaten to wipe Israel off the map.
You might believe Iran’s leaders harbor not such ambitions, but others do ( and they have their reasons to do so ).
So, I will grant that Bachmann has her facts wrong, but hey, Ron Paul isn’t immune from exagerrated accusations as well.
BTW, how is Ron Paul so sure that Iran is not imminently at the point of obtaining nukes? The fact is Ron Paul’s assertion that “they have no evidence” may ALSO be wrong.
Otherwise, why would the The IAEA expressed concerns in their recent report about the “military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program? ( if there is no evidence ( as in ZERO), why would the IAEA express concern about military dimensions?)
What if Iran is HIDING their evidence?
In fact, the IAEA flagged a number of DUAL USE technologies under development by the Iranians that could have military applications.
All we can say for now is we don’t have hard evidence.
That does not mean that we should not prepare for such a possibility.
RE: And that is your impression and I respect that even if I don’t agree with it.
Well if you don’t agree with it, there is one way for you to bring me to your side .... I need you to tell me and show where in Ron Paul’s previous statements he said that IF ( emphasis ) Iran were to threaten Israel and go to war with her, he would help Israel militarily....
Go on, just give me that money quote.
Why do I doubt Ron paul on this? I’ll tell you why...
Previously, Ron Paul said that with the countries around Iran, like China, Israel, India having nuclear weapons, why wouldn’t Iran want a weapon, as they’d be given more respect internationally?
This says a lot -— He seems unconcerned that the Ayatollahs in Iran who have a theology of ushering the last days, will have nukes. He seems to think that they will be as rational as the Indians or Chinese.
BTW, I DO realize that Ahmadinejad did insist that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. He did insist that their nuclear research is for peaceful activities.
I AM AWARE OF THAT.
The question is this -— Do we believe him? My answer is NO.
Ron Paul seems to say YES.
And this is where we part ways.
In fact, In a Sioux City Republican debate, Asked what he would do if given proof that Iran had obtained a nuclear bomb, Paul kept to his isolationist ground that he wouldn’t engage in another war in the Middle East.
In other words, my suspicion that Ron Paul would leave Israel alone to fend for herself HAS GOOD SUPPORT based on his statements.
Now, if you personally don’t think the USA has any obligation to help Israel against her enemies, why don’t you just say so?
At least everyone in this thread will know that this is where you stand. But please... you have ways to go to convince me that my impression about Ron Paul believing that Israel is not our business, is wrong headed.
When did it get to be “conservative” to waste billions blowing up things in the middle east, only to spend billions building roads and schools over there, when the roads are crumbling over here. We are out of money.
I'm sure it'll be much cheaper when Iran makes good on the whole destroy the Great Satan and "Death to America" thing.
If we want security, pull troops out of Iraq and put them on the border with Mexico. The people invading from the south believe they own the land. Get the heck out of the middle east and every where else and take care of what is happening at home.
Ron Paul believe in open borders. There is a reason why NumbersUSA gives him a failing grade. And there is no reason why we can't take out Iran's nuclear program, seal our borders, and deport illegals as Michele Bachmann wants.
What were we doing to Muslims when the Barbary States declared war on the US in the 18th Century?
Paul needs his eyes checked because Iran hates the Great Satan. Selling out Israel may buy us a generation, but Iran will always find a reason to attack. REfusing to allow Muslims to come to the US, or simply refusing to pay the jizya and convert are also justifications.
Ritter was a compromised pedophile.
Your comment is nonsense, the Gov’t is responsible for Defense spending, but that doesn’t mean it gets a blank check!
Interesting article. Maybe Israel will use this one year opportunity to deal with Iran -- and I have no problem with that. I'd say, "Go Israel! You think that Iran's nuke potential is a threat to you, you have every right to do what you think is necessary to preserve and protect your sovereign country!"
What I'd have a problem with is us doing it or directing/using Israel to do it. Because, I think that we (the US policy wonks) are using Israel for everything and anything we want to do in the ME, and we are leaving Israel holding the bag for our policies.
If I were Netanyahu after that debacle with Obama some months back, I'd have left the White House giving Obama & the US the three fingered salute. Israel doesn't need us -- we need Israel to "morally" justify our ME presence. And I believe that we are actually doing Israel more harm than good.
Just because the Gov't is responsible for Defense spending doesn't mean they can spend whatever they want.
Defense spending is necessary but it is still government spending and hence a drain in the economy.
No one is talking about the private vs public sectors, so stop raising a red herring.
Define exactly what you mean by Government intrusion in the free market through Defense spending.
Never said that-you can’t read.
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.