Image 01 Image 03

Republican / Tea Party Florida Debate (Added: End Game Probing Analysis

Republican / Tea Party Florida Debate (Added: End Game Probing Analysis

Will not be “live blogging” it, but will have some observations.

Feel free to comment.

At the 8:30 break:  Great line by Newt, Obama scares seniors every day.  He made a strong substantive point, which is that why should be have to live in a system where a President can threaten to withhold social security benefits.  It goes to the heart of individual autonomy.  My wife responded, “Newt for V.P.”   I think he’s earning that spot but may also be the comeback kid in this primary season.  He’s dominating the debate in the early part because he refuses to take Wolf Blitzer’s bait and getting into tit-for-tat with other candidates.  Romney just isn’t good attacking; Perry pretty much laughed him off and Romney looked bad.  He should learn from this, make his own case and don’t take the moderator’s bait.  Perry dealt well with the Ponzi scheme issue.  Herman Cain came across well.  All in all, Newt starred, Perry was good, Romney not so much.

At the 8:50 break:  Mostly blah, blah, blah.  Newt excellent again, Herman Cain close behind relating his family and work history.  Perry and Romney less of the emphasis.  Bachman is almost non-existent on stage.  Romney still not good at attacking Perry, just doesn’t come across well.  As I was watching, I kept thinking, why is this just a two person race?  Newt, for all his baggage, is great on stage, and Herman Cain always is a present pleasant surprise.

At the 9:20 break:  Perry on the “almost treasonous” comment, explains that using the Fed for political purposes is wrong and being used by this administration to cover up bad fiscal policy.  Blitzer overstated what Perry had said, claiming Perry wanted Bernanke tried for treason.  Newt nailed it again, when Blitzer brought up oil industry “loopholes,” Newt said I thought you were talking about GE, and every “green credit” is a tax loophole; I favor people who create energy.

Perry was good on the Gardasil issue, saying it was a mistake and would do it differently; that’s how candidates need to deal with mistakes, admit it and stop digging.  Bachmann was horrible (in my view, others probably disagree) on Gardasil, referring to “little girls who have a negative reaction to this drug” don’t “get a mulligan.”  Bachmann suggested Perry did it for campaign donations, Perry said it was Merck and donations had nothing to do with it.

Bachmann exhibited profound lack of understanding of the constitutionality issue as to mandate.  It is a federal e problem, not a state issue (depending upon what a particular state’s constitution says).  She didn’t seem to understand the federal/state distinction, and just kept saying “it’s unconstitutional” even if done by a state.

At 9:45  break:  Perry on immigration pretty much endorsed Dream Act, stood by it.  This could be a problem for him.  Bachmann hit him pretty good on it.  Perry came back and said it’s not like the Dream Act, that it’s a state’s rights issue for people who are pursuing citizenship.  I’m not familiar enough with the Texas law — any commenters have something to add on this?

Huntsmann said that Perry made a treasonous comment by saying can’t secure border.  What?  I guess it was a jab at Perry’s comments about Bernanke.

Newt on national security — civil war in Mexico, underestimated threat in Middle East, and national industrial base to be competitive with China.  Ron Paul — we’re under threat because we occupy so many countries; what would we do if China did to us what we do to others.  Santorum went after Paul, said he has blamed U.S. for 9/11, it’s irresponsible, we were not attacked because of our actions but because of who we are and what we stand for.  Paul quoted bin Laden on bases in Saudi Arabia and over Palestine.  Audience booed loudly.

End Game Probing Analysis:  I thought it was an interesting debate. Perry clearly was under fire most of the night, but better he deals with these issues now and works out kinks in his answers.  Romney was okay, just okay.  Newt again was the star, Herman Cain close behind.  Bachmann seemed like someone drowning who’s grasping at anything.  Ron Paul was Ron Paul.

Probably a pipe dream, but I think there are openings for this to be more than a two-way race.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


[…] we laugh at the chickens coming home to roost, tonight we will be watching the CNN/Tea Party Republican debate in Florida. The Republican debate will be on at 8:00 p.m. ET. Tonight will probably be a Social Security pie […]

MSNBC is usuaally figuratively “Parental Blocked” here. I recorded the Reagan Library debate. I could only watch 5 to 10 minutes. I deleted the recording and found a transcript of all the candidates. Identifying a transcript of this debate will be one of my first tasks. I rank CNN only marginally better than MSNBC.

We’ve already seen the setup of the “Main Show” as Perry v Romney, and from the looks of things the candidates have bought into the Meme of “Social Security — Ponzi”.

It’s other questions I have and issues. If the media figures to play the candidates or slap them with Social Security, then I want to see the media reaction to an FDR ‘selling’ social security as Insurance, but having their Solicitor General defend it in the Supreme Court as ‘just another tax’ then as the followup question why the first Obama Solicitor General used that case [HELVERING V DAVIS] as a paint-by-numbers defense of Obamacare. That was the Florida Obamacare case where the judge was very lay-readable eloquent in his last 5 pages of 78 writeup.

Prof I know you don’t like to ‘talk shop’ here, and for my part Alligator Wrestling, Law, and Medicine are three things I’ve spent most of my life trying diligently to avoid.

What’s transpired since the 2008 election of a ‘great constitutional legal’ (sarc) has led me to review in detail American twentieth century History, Politics, my issue beyond Jobs&Economy for the 2012 Election and how to rectify the getting-off-track that started with the 100 years ago 1912 Presidential Election.

This is NOT a two-person race. The media is telling us that it is, and selecting our candidates for us. When they slight the other candidates, like Cain, for example, they winnow our field to whom they want to go up against Obama and whom they think he can beat. Once they get finished destroying the people they offered us on a platter, of course. They censor our candidates in a way they never censor Democrat ones.

“and Herman Cain always is a present surprise.”

Is this a pun or a typo?

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | September 12, 2011 at 9:20 pm

Well, I hope this debate turns out better than those other media manipulated, three ring circus, pre-game puppets shows, they had..

The media played those Republican Presidential wannabe’s, like a violin.. and they just went along with it, like the puppets they are.. The only person who looked Presidential, was Gov. Palin, as she plays the media, the media does not play her.. and then she gave a Presidential Speech at the Iowa Tea Party rally, instead of playing puppet, to the media’s puppeteering…

While everyone else is making a fool of themselves as a puppet, and a pregame puppet show, manipulated by the media.. Gov. Palio was making Presidential Speeches, like this one at the Iowa Tea Party Rally.

By Anand Giridharadas-
NY Times op-ed writer


“She (Gov. Palin) made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.

Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.”

Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.

Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.

Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.”


TPP4E, next time, quote Palin directly. Don’t filter her through the LSM, particularly the NYT.

Perry won. Mitt probably carried it on points, but Perry won it on the whole. If his debate-to-debate improvement continues at this rate, he doesn’t have anything to worry about.

Newt–so smart, so good at this stuff, so unelectable.

Ron Paul–so crazy.

Michelle–I think she lost ground.

Didn’t see it, we’re busy here. Thanks for the good comments.

Newt, for all his baggage and he carries some, understands democracy in his soul. He’d eat Obama’s lunch in a debate (though, don’t know his taste in arugula). The other prominent pols who do are Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. These old guys react instinctively when our democracy is offended but they’d be vulnerable for the simple reason that they’ve all done something. Among the “younger set” Herman Cain, Alan West, and Marco Rubio promise the same sensitivity but haven’t been around long enough to have high visibility in the public arena. I sense that they all just get it. It is a great bunch. There’s a long way to go and we have to survive the next fourteen months but optimism is in order.

Interesting. As Bachmann falters, there certainly is room for a strong third — but who could imagine that it might be Newt! Stranger things have happened. If Santorum got a bump up from the basement, it might be him.

And right now I’m watching Palin on Fox. She is sticking up for Bachmann on her attack on Perry over Gardasil and sticking it to Perry for “crony capitalism” involving the drug makers. She is sounding more like a candidate with a campaign theme if opposition to corruption, crony capitalism, waste, fraud, etc.

    retire05 in reply to JEBurke. | September 12, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    I saw Palin on Greta’s show. Odd that Palin was commenting on the fact that one of Perry’s FORMER aides went to work for a lobbying firm that represented Merck, but never mentioned that her own running mate in the Alaska governor’s race was none other that a lobbyist who was working for one of the biggest lobbying firms in American and who was representing the oil companies at the same time he was running for Lt. Governor on the same ticke as Palin.

    Merck gave Perry a grand total of $5,000.00 out of a $30 million campaign fund. How does that work out? Also, in Texas, many positions are granted by committees of the legislature, not by the Governor, and darn sure not by FORMER aides.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to retire05. | September 13, 2011 at 1:01 am

      This lobbyist has a name -Sean Parnell – you keep omittibf that & trying to paint him as a lobbyist. Sean was Palin’s lieutenant Gov -voted in on the same tcket – & Gov replacement in 2009. The Alaskans have oked everything for he was voted back in. If you have probs with this take it up with them.

      Futhermore – an Aide is not necessarily equal. Some are much more inner circle & can take with thenm (& sell ) insights into people & policies.

      I have no problem with Gardasil. I was working in a school here in 2004 /5 when it was administered for free with a 99.5 % take up. Texans can be stupid.

        Yeah, us Texans are stupid, as we go to work at a higher rate that other states.

        The fact remains, Parnell (who I have named many times before) was a lobbyist for the oil companies and did not quit his lobbying job until the day before he was sworn in as Lt. Governor.

        If Palin seems to have a problem with lobbyists, why did she choose one to be her running mate?

      Juba Doobai! in reply to retire05. | September 13, 2011 at 12:07 pm

      You want to tar Palin with this brush, man up and do it. Show us where Parnell affected her fight against the oil companies and the corrupt bastards club. You can’t, but you can smear by implication, huh. That’s what you Perrybots have in your storehouse, bring it. Palinistas will be waiting for you to show your hand, and we’ll trump every card.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 12, 2011 at 10:13 pm

This was the best debate yet. The differences between the candidates showed. No clear winner to me. I think Perry may have been damaged by the Gardasil issue and immigration.

I’d love to see Herman Cain get some traction in the polls.

I was not thrilled about Romney being the nominee 6 months ago. He’s starting to change my impression of him. I thought he looked strong at the beginning when he wrestled control of the debate out of Wolf Blitzer’s hands as he went after Rick Perry on social security. If he’s the nominee, I’m starting to think I could vote for him with a clear conscious.

Bachmann got some shots in on Perry, but she’s really starting to come off as a one issue candidate – repeal Obamacare. Her star is fading.

Social Security payroll taxes take approximately 13.5% of the average workers pay. If you took 10% of your pay and put it away every month and spent 3% on a long term disability policy, would you retire secure? My guess is… yes you would.

I met Rick Perry a few years ago at an event in the town where I live. He is genuine and he seems to be honest. I like him and I was rooting for him tonight. And then I saw something.

Suppose that President Obama had been there with the fawning media giving him every opportunity to attack and then dodge as he chooses. Who could have handled him? Tonight it would have been Newt.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to BillyTex. | September 13, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Since 2008, it’s been Sarah Palin beating Obama with a hardwood stick. Newt? Where the rubber meets the road, he’ll not bring it to Obama.nothing like fear of the R A C …. word.

“it’s a state’s rights issue for people who are pursuing citizenship”

If we learned anything from the Arizona experience, citizenship is a federal matter.

1. As of this writing Romney retains a narrow lead at Intrade.

2. The highly illiquid Intrade contract for the NY-9 election gives the Republican a 70-90% chance of winning; the Democrat, 20-30%. Fwiw.

If I understand the TX legislation correctly, the students are eligible for in-state tuition if they are pursuing US citizenship. TX isn’t granting the citizenship.

I also don’t think the Gardisil thing will hurt Perry that much. He gave his mea culpas – better than ObamnyCare… Bachmann and Santorum are upset not because HPV is communicable, but because it is an STD. As much as I detest the idea of my 12 year old daughter having sex someday, the fact is, she will at some point.

fwiw, Ace was saying Gardisil cost $360 dollars (during the previous debate live-blog), and insurance companies cover mandated school vaccines but not non-mandated ones. If that’s the case, it seems this was an issue of trying to save parents money while still giving them a choice via the opt-out. If this is true, its makes the decision a whole lot more understandable and Perry needs to start mentioning it. I haven’t checked all that out myself, but Ace doesn’t have a habit of making crap up.

In the long run, I don’t think it really hurts him in a general election. I was initially upset about the vaccine issue, but I’ve kinda changed my mind about it (which doesn’t often happen).

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | September 13, 2011 at 1:15 am

    Yes Gardasil is $360. It is provided free here to all females 10-26 & males 16-?.

    It is a triple injection. It was developed in Australia & the first recipients are healthy 10 years on .

    BTw you don’t need penetrative sex -the virus can be transferred via “heavy petting” as it were.

The whole Gardisil issue was because Texas is a strong Christian state and parents were not willing to accept that little Janie just might have sex without their knowing it. But other states, 10 I believe, also made the Gardisil innoculation mandatory. It was only a couple of years later, when the research showed that it was not a “miracle” drug without side affects, did those state remove the requirement. That was long after the Texas legislature ruled against it.

As for in-state tuition for the children of illegals who met certain requirements, Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma and a few others enacted that ruling the same time Texas did. These kids, all high school graduates, have to be on a path to citizenship, at least in Texas. Now, being an illegal brought here at age 2 doesn’t guarantee you will be granted citizenship, but the chances are you will be if you are a good student and never caused any trouble.

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to retire05. | September 13, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    The Perry sycophant who whines about “vitriol” dismisses those who oppose the government dictating children’s health choices as ignorant or in denial about their children’s sex lives. Typical.

[…] comment on GE, along with his full answer on taxes.Newt Gingrich had the best quote of the night. William Jacobson described it:Great line by Newt, Obama scares seniors every day. He made a strong substantive […]

The Gardasil issue, so long as it is framed as a public health issue, should not hurt Perry. He did try to ram it through in the face of public opposition, which would be more problematic if his opponents were not focusing on the social issues. At the end of the day, we all want at least the other kids to be immunized for everything practicable. I am not sure how this can be framed as a left/right issue.

I agree with you about Gingrich and Cain doing really well. Perry did much, much worse than I had hoped. I thought that he handled the Gardisil stuff very clumsily. And I don’t think his comments on immigration or his education programs were very helpful. He was surprisingly inarticulate. I hope he improves.

I was glad to see a Republican stand up for immigration. I believe in low taxes, limited government, and plenty of immigration. Somebody has to pay social security and Medicare taxes, after all.

groundhogchick05 | September 12, 2011 at 11:37 pm

I still like Perry. Cain and Newt also got my attention. I will vote for my future british blue cat to be President if either Romney, Huntsman, Paul or Bachmann is the nominee. They were despicable tonight (along with Santorum).

If I didn’t know what Newt had been down to the last decade, he’d get my vote based upon his debate performances and House record. Cain did 2nd best, but he’ll be gone before the primary reaches my state. Bachmann helped herself with her ObamaCare repeal lines, but she’s really shooting herself in the foot over Gardasil.

After the next debate, I hope Huntsman and Santorum aren’t invited. I’d like the candidates with “some” chance, even futures, to get more time.

I live in New Mexico so have I sympathy with Perry’s difficulty with the immigration issue. I have a problem with politicians and bloggers who are overly critical of how we (border states) are trying to deal with the issue in the face of zero help from the feds with enforcement of immigration laws and liberal legislatures, sanctuary cities, etc. (I live in a liberal conclave and sanctuary city-Santa Fe) On top, we have the feds engaging in fast and furious illegal activity and who knows what else. We will never deport millions of illegals and they are integral to our economy. That is a fact in California, Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico, and has been for decades. Then we have the (“legal”) citizens we have encouraged and incentivized for generations to not work who believe they are entitled to public assistance, especially if they drop out and have lots of kids before they can even buy a beer legally. This is an incredibly complex issue that cannot be solved in a 30 second answer in a debate or on a blog by the commentariat. Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, that means you.

I have been a supporter of Sarah Palin until tonight. The attack on Perry by Palin (on Greta following the debate) and Bachmann, both on the Gardasil issue is a cheap shot. There was an opt out. He actually owned it as a mistake. If that is what Palin wants to use as an example of crony capitalism, she has lost sight of the prize and is motivated only by her own blind ambition. I have a really hard time believing that Perry was motivated by crony capitalism when he signed the EO. Spare me the BS. How many politicians can either Palin or Bachmann list as having admitted making a mistake on national television? Has Sarah Palin ever made a mistake in her political career? Bachmann? Have either of them ever owned it? I doubt it. In my mind, Palin rendered herself irrelvant tonight. She lost me. Bachmann never had me.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to bengalmom. | September 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Oh please! You, a Palin supporter miffed because she attacked the man who could not have been reelected governor without her? Sell the next one. Perry is a crony capitalist and gardasil is the least of it. Perry is weak on national sovereignty and that’s cool with you. He’s down with American citizens paying for the education of anchor babies, and that doesn’t get you. But Sarah Palin knocking Perry, which knock has power cuz she made him and she can take him down, that makes you think she’s irrelevant? You and the rest of the LSM, Democrats, and the RINO’s don’t know what the word means because every issue stance coming out of the mouths of the jokers at the debate is one advanced by Palin. They all wait to hear what she says and parrot it cuz they know she knows how to beat Obama. Can you say ‘crony capitalism’? Can you say ‘zero corporate tax’? Irrelevant? The horse’s rear end!

StephenMonteith | September 13, 2011 at 1:09 am

First, you forgot to mention Rick Santorum’s answer to Rick Perry’s assertion that he “erred on the side of life”. Santorum was quite correct in saying that it doesn’t matter whether you use the legislature or an executive order (or, presumably, the judiciary) to impose a mandate; it’s just plain wrong.

Here’s a thing. Do you think Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum went after Rick Perry so strongly because he’s the frontrunner or because they genuinely are that opposed to him becoming the nominee? I mean, they haven’t attacked Mitt Romney that hard throughout the entire season so far, even when he was the man to beat. Is it possible, just possible, that when they drop out of the race (and they will), they’ll end up endorsing Romney over Perry?

As for Romney not doing that good a job attacking Perry, his “attacks” were substantive; just lacking a bit in style. Perry had a good line about Romney not doing that well with a poker metaphor, but the metaphor counted. I’d like to see how well Perry does creating jobs when he doesn’t have four aces in his hand. Most of the higher-paying jobs came to Texas from other states, like California, that had bad business environments. How does Perry propose, without a filibuster-proof majority of Congress on his side, to create a business environment across the country comparable with what he had in Texas? You can’t just shuffle jobs from one state to another when you’re president.

As for Newt Gingrich, he did a fine job answering questions about the president; but, unlike the top and even second tiers of candidates on the stage, he never had to answer a question about himself. That’s why he looked “better” than everyone else. He got to pick and choose from his lengthy history the best parts to present to the American people. If he had to face the frontrunner’s scrutiny, then it’s my considered opinion that he would not look so good.

Final analysis: Romney did better than it looks like he did simply because he’s not as glib as Perry; Santorum and Bachmann may in fact be “true believers” against Perry’s nomination; Ron Paul will never be the nominee as long as he keeps talking about OBL’s “excuse” for attacking America; and neither Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, nor Herman Cain will win the nomination this time around, though they all have a good shot at 2016 (assuming the GOP loses this year).

    The most important thing about Perry’s record on jobs is that – to stretch the metaphor – holding 4 aces, he didn’t throw all 4 aces away and draw to the 6.

    Whether Perry knows how to create jobs might be an open question, but what’s important is that he’s proven he knows how not to destroy them.

    And that, of course, is answer to the first question: no Gov and no POTUS creates jobs, business people do that. All the POTUS can do is make sure neither they nor anyone else gets in the way.

    And we know Perry understands that.

    Santorum was quite correct? States have police power (unlike the Fed) – they impose mandates all the time, especially on public health and safety matters.

      StephenMonteith in reply to Owen J. | September 13, 2011 at 9:57 am

      Yes, he was correct. If you want to mandate that people get vaccinated against Small Pox, something you get from just touching someone else, then go ahead. That’s a genuine public health crisis and deserves extraordinary measures. But to order twelve year-old girls to get vaccinated against a sexually-transmitted disease? Santorum was right; it should have been opt in, not opt out. And Perry proved that he still hasn’t learned his lesson, because he says his only mistake was using an executive order instead of the legislature.

    Bachmann and Santorum went after Perry because their poll numbers are tanking. If Bachmann wants to stay relevant, she has to go after the front runner, and that is still Perry.

    It should also be noted that Texas was creating jobs prior to 2010, when a filibuster proof Republican congress was elected in Texas. Until last year, the Republicans may have held the majority, but it was a slim majority.

    It boils down to this: Romney and Huntsman both claim to have created jobs in their states while governor. Yes, they did, but that was before the market crash of Sep/Oct, 2008. Texas continued to create jobs AFTER the market crash.

    And Romney doesn’t want to talk about the affects that Romneycare has had on his state. Debt to GDP in Massachussets is now over 25% while in Texas it is around 18%. Public debt per citizen is over $14,000 in Mass., around $8,500 in Texas. Massachussets may have the lowest number of uninsured, but at what price to responsibile citizens? And what about the money that was poured in the Mass health care by the Obama stimulus package?

    I find it odd that immigration was not a top-tier issue until Rick Perry got into the race. Huntsman didn’t go after Perry on in-state tuitions for the children of illegals because Utah enacted that rule before Texas did, along with New Mexico, Oklahoma and a few other states. And for those who say it is wrong, I suggest you Google Francisco Canseco.

    Rodney Johnson was a decorated Houston Police officer. He was murdered by an illegal immigrant. When Governor Perry ran in his last election, Officer Johnson’s wife, also a Houston Police office, campaigned for Governor Perry. I guess she didn’t realize what some claim, that he is soft on illegals.

      StephenMonteith in reply to retire05. | September 14, 2011 at 11:51 am

      As I pointed out, many of the jobs that were created in Texas under Perry, especially in the last two years, immigrated there (see what I did with that word?). Gowalla moved to Texas from California, as did other companies. They did so not because Rick Perry was governor, but because Texas has a business-friendly environment that has been in place for decades. Those are jobs that Perry could never have created as president because they were already in America; just in a different part. The challenges a president faces are far different than those a governor faces.

      Romney knows what those challenges are. He’s far more experienced on the international stage than Perry is. He’s actually dealt with foreign countries as a businessman and as President and CEO of the 2002 Olympics. Perry’s dealt with Mexico; fine. Jon Huntsman’s dealt with Asia; great. Romney’s dealt with both, and with Europe, and the Mideast. Even Herman Cain’s business experience isn’t nearly as extensive as Romney’s, and Michele Bachmann’s certainly isn’t. Mitt Romney is uniquely qualified to be president. Rick Perry, on the other hand, is uniquely qualified to be Governor of Texas, and he should stay there.

      StephenMonteith in reply to retire05. | September 14, 2011 at 11:54 am

      Oh, and by the way? Concerning the cost of RomneyCare to the people of Massachusetts, the bill that passed is not the bill that Romney signed. He vetoed no fewer than eight parts of the bill, all of which were overturned by the legislature. His successor, Governor Duval Patrick, simply made things worse once he took over the commonwealth. Any cost problems are solely the Democrats’ responsibilities.

Bachmann attacking Perry on immigration is just dumb and annoying. She’s never dealt with the issue but can say anything she likes to sound “bold” because she bears no responsibility for her words or her positions.

Perry has to deal with immigration in the Real World, not the House of Reps, and he does. Even if I don’t completely agree with his actions, the fact is, I don’t have to deal with it either; I’m not responsible and I don’t have all the facts the ground. What important to me is how Perry has approached the problem and how he followed thru with it, and given the realities in Texas, I don’t see evidence he went far wrong.

Bachmann is a decent Rep because she can stake out positions and try to move the pile, but that doesn’t make her leader. She insulated and she acts like it. She doesn’t act like someone who has a firm grasp of what it’s like to actually be in charge of anything.

Newt is good in debate — smart guy and great gadfly; knows how to debate. Of course history is full smart guys who were awful when placed on command. Newt should stick – or be stuck – to what he does best.

Romney is showing himself not to be a serious man. His attacks make him look like a shallow opportunist who isn’t even very good at that. Nor can I forgive his RomneyCare blunder and even if he were to do a mea culpa now I would not believe him – the time for that is long long past.

But more than anything we need a president who knows what it’s like to be at the pointy end of a situation – no more POTUS-on-training-wheels who will (at best) go fumbling thru the desk drawers looking for the “Complete Idiot’s Guide To Leadership” when the balloon goes up.

Only one declared candidate has that vital qualification; have to see if any of the others who do will step up.

Am I the only one who thinks Bachmann was right on her attack vector with Perry’s Executive Order? I watched the debate with a room full of womens… and they were unanimously upset at the news. Yes, there are voters who haven’t been listening, and will react strongly against Perry on this one. I thought he had handled it well by admitting the mistake… but dang it, he went back and started explaining why he thought it was a good idea. Look, Champ, admit the mistake, claim the good intentions card ONCE, and then stop digging.

He also needs to become more articulate about the whole discount tuition for illegal immigrants and their children. I can come up with three or four good reasons to do it, but Perry kinda dropped the ball there.

I’m still leaning for Perry. Cain did great. Newt did fine, but his performance did more good for the Republican Brand than it helped his campaign. Same with Santorum. Bachmann I thought did great tonight. Huntsman, on the other hand, had such sloppy attack lines that he sounded as goofy as Ron Paul. Yeah… I said it. Flame away, and we’ll all know what you are.

Overall, I was impressed by the debate. Lots of good Right Wing arguments got aired that are usually not heard on a National Channel. Compare the passion, the fireworks, the clearly stated plans heard tonight with any of Obama’s last six speeches and the result is clear:

Obama was the biggest loser by far.

    Hard to say. I’d have more respect for Bachmann if she’d ever gotten her hands dirty with the grimy biz of leadership.

    To me, this is job interview and in any interview three of the most important questions are: “What did you screw up? Why did you screw it up? What did you learn from it?”

    Perry’s explanation helped me understand that and gave me more confidence in him. Romney’s failure to do so has ruled him out.

I know Newt is not polling well, but he is our Donald Trump that will say things about Obama and the media that no others dare say. I say keep him in for a good long while, then find him a place in the next Administration.
Otherwise, I have mixed feelings about the overall debate. But, I am still firmly in the “Anybody But Obama” camp.

“I thought he had handled it well by admitting the mistake… but dang it, he went back and started explaining why he thought it was a good idea.”

Anti-Perry people would like to treat it as an easy question that he blew. It wasn’t – there’s a good deal of complexity and nuance to what happened, plus the decision he made was echoed in more than a few other places. To simply say “admit you blew it and then stop” is the weasel way of making sure people never hear both sides.

Overall, I was impressed by the debate. Lots of good Right Wing arguments got aired that are usually not heard on a National Channel. Compare the passion, the fireworks, the clearly stated plans heard tonight with any of Obama’s last six speeches and the result is clear:

Obama was the biggest loser by far.

YES. Very gratifying. I agree, MrMichael. Also re Bachmann and Perry.

#1 Gingrich; #2 Bachmann or Perry; #3 Cain. Santorum did better, but he talks too much in terms of himself instead of the issues.

Ron Paul needs to pack it in already.

This is now the 4th debate out of 4 that Newt has starred in. It has gone from “What is Newt doing here?” to “Newt was great but all the baggage…”

I ask, what baggage? The divorced-his-dying-wife slander? Not true in the least. They were divorced some time before the cancer was diagnosed. Ask her daughter. Or the wife, who is still alive.

[…] Ace said, there is a reason they call it the stupid party. Who schedules a debate when Monday Night Football opens? Plenty of time to debate. Jindahl endorsed Rick Perry yesterday. […]

Sarah Palin totally gets it

“Yes I too am excited about Rick Perry’s “welfare is a Ponzi scheme” speech. Even more so over the fact that, far from frightening off the voters, his honesty appears to be making them more enthusiastic. The problem for Rick is that his stout words are in severe danger of being eclipsed by an even finer speech by Sarah Palin at Indianola, Iowa. (Thanks to Richard North for drawing it to my attention). It was so inspirational, so true that it prompted even her traditional enemy the New York Times to ask:

Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there?

I think there is. I think if she goes on like this, all bets for Perry, Bachmann, Paul are off. I think President Palin might just be the only game in town.”

Bachmann exhibited profound lack of understanding of the constitutionality issue as to mandate. It is a federal e problem, not a state issue (depending upon what a particular state’s constitution says). She didn’t seem to understand the federal/state distinction, and just kept saying “it’s unconstitutional” even if done by a state.

Given that the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to the states, how much of that separation is still there? I suspect that Bachmann is highlighting that issue also.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to SDN. | September 13, 2011 at 10:09 am

    I thought Bachmann’s response to the question, “If you’re elected president, what will you bring to the White House?” was interesting.

    She said she would bring a copy of The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

    That’s a strange response (to me). It makes it sound like she’s not aware that the Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, and that when we talk about the Constitution, we generally consider it in its whole — as amended.

    Are the amendments ratified after the Bill of Rights chopped liver and not worth bringing to the White House?

    As she likes to present herself as a “strict constitutional conservative”, it just struck me as odd. I know I’m being a nit and this doesn’t matter, it was just weird.

Perry handled himself quite well, and is getting better and better in this format. Perry is growing on me, while the others are not. Additionally, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the fact he is “doubling down” on his SS/Ponzi scheme analogy. It shows an amalgam of leadership, backbone, and understanding. His comments to Romney about poker were my personal favorite lines. I would like Huntsman to exit the stage, if Johnson and others not polling significantly are not permitted. Newt should remain, as he nails the media exceptionally well.

workingclass artist | September 13, 2011 at 7:54 pm

Bachmann jumped the shark on this Gardisil issue. She is looking like an anti-vaccine craaazy now.

Palin going after Perry over implied Crony Capitalism on Greta will backfire on her too as she heads to Irrelevancy Country.

Funny…but Alaska took federal funds to push Gardisil while Palin was the governor.

Bottom line Palin won’t run in 2012 & her best shot at future pundit employment is if Perry loses the race. Palin becomes virtually irrelevant if Perry wins….Burning bridges is all she’s got.