Here are some video highlights from tonight’s debate. I’ll add more as they become available:
- The $10,000 Bet
- Newt responding to Romney attack, the Kennedy line
- Newt defending Israel and his Palestinian comments:
- Perry standing up for Newt on Palestinian comment, best of night
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Perry and Santorum, bravos. Gingrich needs to rest his voice before next debates; he was obviously tired.
I couldn’t watch it tonight, but I like what I see in the video clips.
I thought Perry and Santorum were the clear winners tonight. Perry had his best night yet. I was really surprised by Santorum, who has come across as whiny and bitter in the past, but tonight, he came across as good-natured and confident.
Newt’s game plan was to stay positive. Newt should have stuck with that game plan. Newt didn’t come across well tonight as the frontrunner – he went from being “uncle Newt” back to the “old Newt.”
Romney had some good responses, but wooo, that $10,000 bet offer was… awkward.
Bachmann I thought had really progressed as a candidate until she reinforced the flake-meme. She’s going to replace the “9-9-9 plan” with her own “win-win-win plan.” Just wow that is bad.
Paul is still Paul.
I thought Newt did stick with his game plan. He didn’t join in the carping and sniping. I thought Newt responded forcefully and honestly, and kept good humor.
The main way the other candidates were attacking Newt required them to mischaracterize Newt’s positions. I thought Newt responded with full explanations, insisted on a chance to give full responses, but also kept good humor.
For example, when they were talking about the “career politician” meme which Mitt (among others) is trying to tie onto Newt (and for heaven’s sake, give it a rest), and Newt said Mitt would have been a career politician, except Mitt lost to Teddy Kennedy, and Mitt Romney responded that he, MItt, also could have had a career as a football player for the NFL if he’d only been able to get on a team, and Newt laughed and it looked genuine to me.
I support Newt and I think Newt is very likely to be the nominee. And I think Newt will win a decisive victory in November if he’s the nominee.
The overall tone of the debate was reminiscent of olden days debates, with people snarking and sniping at each other. Yuck. I drove across town to see it and we ended up watching the end of “THE CAINE MUTINY” instead, because the energy onstage was so boring. I’m looking for solutions to our national problems, not some infighting and slick campaign slogans and cute side-swipes between candidates. Get out the short knives! could have been the slogan of the night for MIchele Bachmann, for example
Part of the reason I support Newt is because he has asked for us all to realize that, whoever is the nominee, we need to be a team. I’m interested in the character of each of these candidates in terms of the scope of the solutions they are offering.
I know I could pick up any really important things later online.
And while I’m thinking about this, it is unseemly to me that two leftist liberals are the “moderators.” They were somewhat less disrespectful than usual, as far as I saw, which is good I SUPPOSE; maybe because the debates have sort of been evolving, with audiences who actually support the candidates, who CHEEER for the candidates when they agree with the candidates, instead of prepared audiences of liberals, pre-selected so there is no energy in the room for the candidates. AND I realize thAT ABC doesn’t HAVE anyone but liberals to ASK.
HOWEVER, I’m looking forward to a debate someday, that will held by FOX NEWS, in which DEMOCRAT candidates are lined up like schoolchildren and questioned by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, who pretend to be “journalists,” and told to “adhere to the rules” like wayward children, while THE DEMOCRAT candidates snipe at each other and carp at each other. Why does that never happen?
George Stephanopoulis, he of Bill Clinton White House fame, and Diane Sawyer, best friends with Oprah Winfrey, obvious leftitst, want a Republican elected like they want the Graf Zeppelin to crash and burn in their front yards. So come on, their energy is always going to reflect that, and people are sensitive to energy.
Also — listen, I imagine that running for office like this must be stressful beyond belief. I imagine Michele Bachmann has all kinds of consultants telling her to attack Newt and Romney.
But tonight, Michele Bahmann diminished herself in my eyes with slogans and calling Romney and Newt “Newt Romney.” Oh, please.
Michele Bachmann knows better. I think she is a better person than that. I think she is being coached. Her numbers aren’t that high. Attack, Michele, attack!! NO. No. Don’t.
Her message is important, but she is unlikely to be the nominee. She’s acting like a politician who thinks the electorate can be won over by some slogans. She lost a lot of my respect tonight, and also in a previous debate when she mischaracterized what Newt had said about his plan for addressing illegal immigration, and Newt corrected her, right there onstage, and she mischaracterized it again immediately.
She’s smart as can be. She’s a tax lawyer. She clearly cares about conservatism and the country. But she must know she is mischaracterizing Newt. I’m very disappointed. I didn’t think she could be the presidential nominee this time, but I was very impressed with her in the beginning, and hoped she would have an important role to play no matter what happens. Whereas now, not so much.
Anyway, namaste all you boys and girls. Ciao.
Hope Change, Newt didn’t stick to his game plan of not attacking his fellow Republicans. In fact, Newt was actually BOOED by the audience when he attacked Romney.
If Newt had stuck to playing “Uncle Newt,” he would have done well. But he just didn’t. Being catapulted to frontrunner status, and being attacked, is too much for Newt’s ego.
It is certainly possible to defend oneself from accusations without attacking the accuser. But Newt doesn’t do that. Instead, he uses a passive/aggressive “stealth attack” which isn’t so stealthy after all, and the crowd saw through it. And they didn’t like it, because no one likes the “old Newt,” which is the “true Newt.”
I actually thought “Newt Romney” was quite clever, and I don’t think it was unfair. Newt and Mitt have shared some liberal beliefs in the not distant past. Most know about Romney, but many don’t know this about Newt.
I don’t think Bachman has the experience to be considered a serious presidential candidate, however. If all it takes is a conservative outlook, then we could run some bloggers that would be as good or better than her.
Plus I don’t think Gingrich actually answered the mandate question. He just talked around it.
I’m impressed by Newt’s history lesson. It is not at all easy to overcome appeals to emotion and the selective history from which they are derived.
Next thing you know, we will be discussing the primary method by which Islam has spread throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia, India, etc, and what it left in its wake.
Frankly, I am surprised by how effectively its history and present is obfuscated.
Personally, I would prefer everyone apologize to each other and humanity would move on. Unfortunately, there is no indication that will happen any time soon. The individuals and groups who perpetuate and profit from a selective history have too much invested in their deception.
Oh well. The “Palestinians” will continue to be marginalized by the sins of their “leaders,” unless America and NATO decide to invade another Arab nation. Then they can perform a reset and the people can begin anew their historical conflicts.
So why, after all that, does Gingrich still support a “Palestinian” state?
Romney said….The place where we could spend our precious tax dollars on a tax cut….?
Oh Mitt.. you’ve bought into the idea that allowing people to keep their own damned money = government spending.
We are never going to roll back government if we keep electing people who believe they are entitled to our earnings.
Good point.
Wow, great catch – I completely missed that.
Perry just seems to get under Romney’s skin and make him lose his cool.
That $10,000 bet Romney made was epic stupidity.
“I can’t be caught gambling, I’m running for office for Pete’s sake.”
;^)
OMG, Newt’s Kennedy line was the best!
I’ve got to be honest that I was never fond of McRomney. He reminds me so much of McCain. All I hear & see of him is how he’ll do anything to be president. It’s one thing to have that belly fire, but with him it seems to be his only goal. I don’t get the sense he wants to be president so he can do (fill in the blanks). But the more I get to know him the more I can’t stand the guy. Every time I see & him the more I wish Sarah Palin had decided to get in the race.
Some good exchanges last night. Newt presents himself as the adult somehow..Ward Cleaver if you will. Romney is sort of like Wally…still stumpling along figuring out what he neeeds to say etc. Perry as Eddie Haskell with a real gift of getting to the bottom line..as with his Newt defense…that suggests..lets not make the ME problems about something Newt said…and he’s right.
For me? Newt wins…Perry and Romney tied for 2nd.
No, Perry is the John Wayne of the field; a strong man of action and few words.
Perry 2012 with Newt as history advisor. Maybe Romney can have a cabinet post.
Send McRomney back to the private sector.
Forget about the Paulbots for a minute to make an observation at point 13:19-13:20, what Newt does while Paul is talking, tells EVERYTHING: Newt is is the pocket of the liberals. Watch closely. He winks, conspiratorial with the moderator. Ron Paul, whether you agree or not has served this country for a zillion years, taking almost nothing compared to the all other DCers and should be shown respect. Newt is a horse’s ass from now on to me (and he was not before this almost-missed eye-opener. Mitt does the same crud when others are talking negative about him. He stands by and smiles a condescending smile that my mother would have slapped me for using, but this connectedness between Newt and the moderators is very obvious and intimate. Wolf in sheep’s clothing. Man, disappointed.
here is the video I forgot to post above. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ViemRlo0Q&feature=player_embedded
Uhm, could it possibly be that he was winking at his wife?
Or lets just go along with your “he was winking at the moderator” theory – could he have possibly been getting acknowledgement of his being able to respond to the comments? A “you will get to respond nod/motion” and wink in a “got it” acknowledgement type thing…
No, you’re right, those possibilities are just illogical, and instead its clearly a sign that he, just like the rest of the entire world, is actually conspiring to take down Ron Paul…
(((why must all Ron Paul supporters be like this??? He could be taken at least a little more seriously if his supporters could just stay serious themselves!)))
Darkstar58; Your last line was just a bit on Alinsky side, don’t you think? I mean, go back and read. How did I open the comment? Are others here supposed to be discouraged from speaking up on the wink for fear of being labeled the dreaded Paulbot? You were being just plain ugly, snarky, and ugly. (Of course you will be inclined to not believe I am not a Ron Paul supporter)
Call me Snarky or Ugly all you want, but don’t forget you came into this discussion with:
tells EVERYTHING: Newt is is the pocket of the liberals. Watch closely. He winks
and that, well, “tells EVERYTHING” (as you would put it)
He could have been winking at his wife. It could have been an acknowledgement of him getting to speak. Shoot, it could have just been a bug or his eyelashes sticking together. But nope – its a Liberal conspiracy, damn it! He (the man Liberals hate more then anyone who ever walked the planet – other then Jesus, of course) is really just a Liberal Plant to steal the election, right? Because that wink “tells EVERYTHING”
My Bad. Should have spoken more clearly and said verifies everything liberal that haunts Newt.
Up to this point, I was overlooking so many obvious things; things many of us were pointing out before he ran. Once he ran, it seems many just quit labeling him a RINO. But….
I was not referring to anything in your original answer except the last line. Coming into the discussion with, “tells EVERYthing…..” does not validate or vindicate your last line. It was exactly as I pointed out. Alynsky. There was nothing in what I said that would identify me with being a Paul supporter and someone commenting negatively on Newt’s actions towards Paul should not get them made fun of as little mini lesson to others as to what they will be labeled should they see any ugliness or connectedness between Newt and the moderators. N.O.T. Nice.
Yes, you are a Paul supporter – its about as clear as the nose on ones face.
This sentence alone pretty much proves that:
“Ron Paul, whether you agree or not has served this country for a zillion years, taking almost nothing compared to the all other DCers and should be shown respect.”
But the fact that you twice try to lead us to believe you are not a Ron Paul supporter (“Forget about the Paulbots…” and “Ron Paul, whether you agree or not…”) despite Ron Paul having absolutely nothing, what-so-ever, to do with your post, and would have never even been brought up by a non-Paul supporter… well, those are tells.
Providing a link to a Ron Paul pushing website’s upload just adds to evidence.
And the entire beyond idiotic premise of “Newt blinked – he’s obviously such a Liberal and that just proves it. Very obvious. He’s such a horses ass for blinking. Wolf in sheeps clothing, wolf in sheeps clothing. Conspiracy!!!” is clearly a nonsensical attempt to bring Newt down to someones level – with the terms used, conclusions drawn and illogical topic to begin with, leading one to instantly think Paul-supporter. (stereo-types exist for a reason; they generally describe the most noteworthy of a group)
So, like I said, your post “tells EVERYTHING”. Meanwhile, your “Alinsky, Alinsky, Alinsky…” claims after I called you out left no doubt in my mind.
Besides, in the extremely unlikely event that I am wrong, I have done nothing to you that you have not initially done to Newt – see how that works yet?
Ahh, Darkstar. You can look around the internet and read comments by canusee and see no Paulbot. Breaking down your analysis as to how what I wrote makes me an incognito Paul supporter My remarks in CAPS:
“This sentence alone pretty much proves that:
“Ron Paul, whether you agree or not has served this country for a zillion years, taking almost nothing compared to the all other DCers and should be shown respect.” AND THIS PROVES I AM A PAUL SUPPORTER? HOW AGAIN? TO CONCLUDE THIS FIRST IT MUST BE IDENTIFIED IF I HOLD THE SAME LEVEL OF RESPECT EXTENDED TO NEWT OR ROMNEY OR ANY OTHER ZILLION YEAR DCer, NOT? SO, HOW DOES THIS PROVE I AM WHAT YOOZ SEZ I AM?
But the fact that you twice try to lead us to believe you are not a Ron Paul supporter (“Forget about the Paulbots…” and “Ron Paul, whether you agree or not…”) despite Ron Paul having absolutely nothing, what-so-ever, to do with your post WELL, SINCE IT WAS INDICATED TWICE BY ME THE POST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RON PAUL, WHICH IT DOES NOT, IT IS YOUR CHOICE TO TAKE ME AT FACE VALUE OR NOT. YOUR CHOICE TO NOT DOES NOT MAKE IT FACT I AM A PAUL SUPPORTER, and would have never even been brought up by a non-Paul supporter… well, those are tells. WHY WOULD OPINING NEWT’S BEHAVIOR NEGATIVELY TOWARD PAUL NEVER BE BROUGHT UP BY A NON-PAUL SUPPORTER? SURE COULD USE AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS ONE. Providing a link to a Ron Paul pushing website’s upload just adds to evidence. AND THIS PROVES A RONBOT HOW?? HOW ABOUT THE CLIP WAS ON FACEBOOK & I ACTUALLY LOOKED FOR A CLIP OF JUST THE PART POINTED OUT AND COULD ONLY FIND ONE CLIP OF ANY KIND FROM PAUL (BREITBARTTV ON JOBS)? SO IN ORDER TO SHOW WHAT BUGGED ME ABOUT NEWT IN THE CLIP (I WAS DISAPPOINTED TO SEE NEWT DO THIS) PUT UP THE ONLY DOCUMENTATION. SHEESH, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE LOOKED AT VIDEOS UP ON OBAMA SITES AND LINKED FOR OTHERS? YEP, THAT MAKES US KOOLADE DRINKERS. SOMEONE NOT TAKING PAUL SERIOUSLY, WOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT OTHER VIDEOS INFLUENCING PEOPLE. SOMEONE NOT TAKING PAUL SERIOUSLY KNOWS PEOPLE AT THIS SITE MOST LIKELY WILL NOT EVEN WATCH THE OTHER VIDEOS, LET ALONE BE INFLUENCED BY THEM. AS STATED TWICE THIS WAS NOT ABOUT PAUL.
And the entire beyond idiotic premise of “Newt blinked – he’s obviously such a Liberal and that just proves it. Very obvious. He’s such a horses ass for blinking. Wolf in sheeps clothing, wolf in sheeps clothing. Conspiracy!!!” is clearly a nonsensical attempt to bring Newt down to someones level – with the terms used, conclusions drawn and illogical topic to begin with, leading one to instantly think Paul-supporter. (stereo-types exist for a reason; they generally describe the most noteworthy of a group)
OH, I CONCUR, IT IS IDIOTIC TO HAVE A PREMISE OF “NEWT BLINKED” AS EVERYONE BLINKS. BUT EVEN SO, YOUR DETERMINING ANOTHER’S TWO-CENTS WORTH, BASED ON STEREOTYPING, DOES NOT PROVE OR MAKE ONE A PAUL SUPPORTER OR A POSTER WITH THE HIDDEN AGENDA TO SLYLY ATTEMPT A CONVERSION TO CANDIDATE PAUL. NO ‘FACT’ HERE. AGAIN, YOU NOT TAKING AT FACE VALUE MY DECLARATION OF NOT BEING A PAUL SUPPORTER, DOES NOT MAKE IT A FACT I AM.
So, like I said, your post “tells EVERYTHING”. Meanwhile, your “Alinsky, Alinsky, Alinsky…” claims after I called you out left no doubt in my mind. ON THIS SITE, WHICH I HAVE FOLLOWED SINCE THE PROFESSOR BEGAN AT THE OLD SITE, THERE HAS REGULARLY BEEN POSTERS POINTING OUT THEY ARE NOT FOR NEWT BECAUSE OF HIS RECORD, WHICH WHEN LISTED SHOWS IN SOME PRETTY BIG AREAS AS PROGRESSIVE. IN FACT IT IS THIS SITE I FIRST HEARD NEWT WAS ANYTHING BUT A DIE-HARD CONSERVATIVE! YOU DID NOT CALL ANYONE OUT. SOMEONE SHARED AN OPINE YOU DID NOT AGREE WITH AND YOU WROTE THE LAST LINE TO STEER AWAY, MAYBE, FROM A DISCUSSION ABOUT NEWT’S WINKING? YES, I REALIZE THAT IS CONJECTURE. I WOULD SAY YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL IN STOPPING A DISCUSSION OF NEWT’S NEGATIVES AND NOT JUST BY RONBOTS BUT BY ANYONE NOT FOR NEWT. YOUR METHOD TO STOP THAT DISCUSSION WAS TO TURN IT INTO A GOTTA-STOP-A-RONBOT. NOW, YOU CALLED ME OUT FOR WHAT? DO THE SEARCH. MY RECORD POSTING AT OTHER SITES WILL PROVE NOT A PAUL SUPPORTER.
BUT AS LONG AS YOU CONTINUE INSISTING I AM, AND I CONTINUING DENYING WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT NEWT NEGATIVELY. ALSO, YOU MAY HAVE EVEN BEEN SUCCESSFUL AT KEEPING OTHERS FROM ENGAGING A NEW POSTER ANYTIME HE POSTS BECAUSE, WITH THE WAVE OF YOUR MAGIC WAND, I AM A PAULBOT! ALL MUST STAY AWAY FROM AGREEING ON ANYTHING A PUBLICLY ANOINTED RONULON SAYS. SUBTLE LESSON DO NOT SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT NEWT OR YOU MAY BE MOCKED AND PUSHED INTO THE RON-BOX.
Besides, in the extremely unlikely event that I am wrong, I have done nothing to you that you have not initially done to Newt – see how that works yet? NO, I DO NOT SEE HOW THAT WORKS. I SAW AN ACTION OF NEWT’S, FORMED AN OPINION AND WROTE ABOUT THAT OPINION.ON A BOARD THAT IS ABOUT OPINIONS OF POLITICAL CANDIDATES, ABOUT WEIGHING THE PROS AND CONS. YOUR LAST LINE WAS NOT DISCUSSING THE SHARING OF OPINIONS BUT WAS WHAT? ONE THING, IT DEFINITELY IS NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF THIS SITE. AND DOES NOT GIVE CREDIT TO ALL THE WONDEROUS, INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS YOU MAKE HERE; MANY TIMES I HAVE READ YOUR COMMENTS AND WISHED FOR A ‘LIKE’ BUTTON. YOU ARE EXCELLENT IN ORGANIZING YOUR THOUGHTS (USUALLY) AND CONVEYING THEM. YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESORT TO THE, YES ALINSKY-STYLE, REMARKS. I HAVE COME TO RESPECT YOUR OPINION AND WOULD GIVE PONDEROUS THOUGHT TO A REBUTTAL FROM YOU, BUT YOU NEVER GAVE ANYTHING EXCEPT THE SUGGESTION HE MAY HAVE BEEN WINKING AT HIS WIFE AND GAVE ME THE “GO AWAY PAULBOT“ PUNCH. ACTUALLY, I DID GIVE YOU CREDENCE AND WENT BACK AND LOOKED. SEVERAL TIMES. IN MY LOWLY OPINION, NEWT WAS WINKING TOWARD THE MODERATORS. MAYBE MY ‘SPIDEY RADAR’ WAS A LITTLE OFF AND IT WAS NOT, AFTER ALL, VALIDATION FOR ME THAT NEWT IS THE MEDIA POCKET. IT PLAYS WELL TO HIS ADVANTAGE TO HAVE THEM ON HIS SIDE. GOOD STRATEGICALLY. OK. I CAN SEE THAT. (Gonna get off caps now . Yeah) So, what bugged me? Why did it turn me off.? Could it be that for all of Newt’s rhetoric of not fighting one another, but about being against Obama, he chose to wink in a , “We will just let the kook finish.” moment with the moderators and the audience? It was not nice and, in my opinion, was against Newt’s own announced approach, not respectful, and to use a phrase I recently came across, was a “silent bully”. (or maybe it was “sneaky bully”). It was not deserved and not any of the candidates should be treating by another candidate like that. What I don’t get is why be mean spirited about the little guy, so to speak? It did not make Newt look like a front runner. (my opinion). It was not gracious, particularly coming from the candidate saying it is about being against Obama and the Republican candidates should avoid yadayads,and would have been out of place towards any of the candidates. I can not begin to say all the negatives I have about Mitt, yet, I would have shown the same if it was he and not Paul. (and you most likely would not have insisted, like it was some dirty little thing to be, a “mittbot”.
See, this is why I’d love to see a Perry/Newt ticket.
Perry does the right things, even if he tends to put his foot in his mouth. Gingrich, even if he hasn’t always done what needed to be done, says the things that must be said. Together, I believe they would complement eachothers strengths and weaknesses beautifully.
[…] to intimidate an opponent by making a bet in a debate on TV? […]