Here was my assessment:
End Game – no clear winner. Cain exceeded expectations but only because expectations were low. Perry redeemed himself but I doubt it will change perceptions. Newt and Romney were both good, Newt scored his usual slap at the moderator and it worked wonderfully. Scott Pelley started arguing when he didn’t like one of Newt’s answers, which will be the video of the night. CBS switched to internet only after 60 minutes, and then the live feed for the final 30 minutes was sketchy – major production fail.
Here is the video of the night:
Here are the debate Tweets of the Night:
(link)
(link)
And for the ultimate “I think I just threw up in my mouth” Tweet:
(link)
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
That smug look at :33 pretty much sums up the attitude of the MSM. Newt wiped up the floor and the parking lot with that stooge.
That clip was so satisfying that I need a cigarette!
The MSM really does think it knows stuff. Newt’s out to show them that they don’t.
I like the new, angry, Newt with a back bone!
Thank you, Professor, for posting this video!
Brilliant. He is the front runner from all of the candidates.
Either people respect individual dignity or they do not. If there is no statute of limitation on past transgressions, then there will never be any peace. There are no people with a heritage free from sin. The vast majority of people alive today are not responsible for past sins. To continue denigrating individual dignity is to repeat the sins of the past — it is the antithesis of enlightenment. The people who advocate and promote denigrating individual dignity should reconsider their positions.
Obama campaigned on the promise of redistributive and retributive change. He — as other left-wing (i.e., authoritarian) ideologues — has been a progressive success in both denigrating individual dignity and devaluing human life. It’s unfortunate that he never qualified whether the progress he sought to realize was positive or negative.
Truly idiotic. A progressive number of Americans are apparently unfamiliar with the concepts of redistributive and retributive change. As they dream of physical and fiscal instant gratification, they are wholly unaware that those two concepts empowered individuals suffering from delusions of grandeur to be responsible for the greatest destruction of human life in history and in less than 100 years. It was only matched by the imperial (another construct borne from an authoritarian ideology) ambitions held by Islam, but their total carnage was realized over a period exceeding 1000 years.
The above comment is applicable to the “Saturday Night Card Game” thread.
In this thread, he is also right to distinguish between citizens and citizen traitors. However, the authority to make that distinction rests with the judiciary. Would jurisdiction shift to the military, and therefore to the CiC, when the individual is located outside American sovereign jurisdiction?
I am not sure that the US civilian courts have the final say in making the distinction between who is and is not an enemy combatant. Once you take up arms and enter in to the command structure of an organization fielding illegal combatants you have moved outside the realm of the civilian courts…
I am less concerned with the classification of enemy combatants, than the following:
Article 3, Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
This authority is assigned to the judiciary, and is applicable, presumably, to American citizens within their jurisdiction.
I am arguing that there are at least two well defined jurisdictions: civil and military. That the latter takes precedence when the jurisdiction is not within the first.
With the classification of enemy combatant, which is apart from the classification of traitor, the citizen acting against their nation receives an enhanced criminal status, which is adjudicated and executed through the military.
I think we perceive the situation similarly, as a distinction between two jurisdictions.
“However, the authority to make that distinction rests with the judiciary.”
No it does not. The President is Commander in Chief, and Congress makes all law, including the UCMJ. Each has a voice in such matters.
In the specific instance of a known enemy operating on foreign soil the courts have a very limited voice. If POTUS chooses to have that person captured and brought back to face a civilian court, so be it. But that is a choice, and others are available.
The combatant could also be declared a military target and attacked, Should that attack lead to capture upon surrender in the field of combat then the combatant might also face military tribunal.
If only Newt really believed most of the stuff he said I could probably support him. But he doesn’t…
http://patterico.com/2011/11/12/turning-an-elephant-into-a-newt/
Nice find concerning Newt. Thank you!
Perhaps, the only thing Newt believes in is Newt.
Alas, I came to that conclusion exactly several years ago about Newt. And while Newt talks a good game, just like he did with the “Contract” nearly 20 years ago, he has no intention of governing as an actual conservative. But he is smart. Yet perhaps he is too clever by half if he thinks he is going to fool the majority of TEA Party people this time around…
I didn’t watch the debate. But if Rick Klein’s tweet is associated with the video clip posted, the tweet doesn’t make much sense.
The moderator asked a question with a premise that Newt believes is faulty. How can he answer a faulty question without first pointing out the faults in the question?
I don’t see how that’s blasting the moderator. Whatever.
Newt gets stonger and stronger with each debate. I just hope he can withstand the heat when the MSM pile on of him begins in earnest.
Ari is one of my favorite public figures. So, it is a bit disappointing to see him line up with Mitt.
Some are cringing that Cain responds to questions saying he would have to check with others, his generals, etc. But, this is what those with executive experience realize is necessary.
This may not be the most viscerally appealing response by Cain but it is the most mature answer.
“Some are cringing that Cain responds to questions saying he would have to check with others, his generals, etc. But, this is what those with executive experience realize is necessary.
This may not be the most viscerally appealing response by Cain but it is the most mature answer.”
This is exactly what an executive should do. He makes decisions based on information which in turn would indicate that he’s a good listener.
The “everyday knowledge base” comes from those that are below the executive level that’s really where the answers lie.
Cain’s responses did not reassure me. That is not to say he can’t figure it out in the future, but one of president’s most critical jobs is to set forth a strategic vision for the US, and that is not best done by consulting with the “right people”. It should come from the top.
Reagan and Bush (W) did that extremely well; Bush (H.W) did it OK; Obama has been a complete failure; Clinton was worse than a complete failure.
It’s good that Cain does not really pretend to be an expert in this area and admits he will have seek advice and learn about it. But even though domestic issues are at the fore, there are critical and thorny foreign policy issues and much damage done by Obama that needs to be mitigated. I’m not confidant Cain can effectively do that. I have my doubts about Romney in that sphere also, but less so.
Wrong!
Reagan delegated and also took advise seriously.
In my judgement, an executive who works 9-5 regularly is successful whereas one who works twelve to fifteen hours a day is struggling.
Regarding both Bush’s… Both were weak to mediocre presidents. Clinton was an appeaser and sleazebag in general and O’bammy,,, Well, the campaigner-in-chief is an incompetent micro manager when he hasn’t a clue on what management is all about.
Cain would be fine in the executive suite in DC as he was elsewhere IF he listens… All the answers already exist, you just have to be able to ferret them out..
Please do not compare Cain to Reagan. It is intellectually dishonest.
Reagan had a substantial body of work which exhibited his beliefs. He would seek advice on technical points but he would not seek advice on what action to take.
It was Reagan who privately advocated sending Stinger missiles to help the Mujahadeen take out the Soviet Hind helicopters. When the government bureaucrats balked, it was Charlie Wilson who eventually got it done. The Stinger casing which took out the first Soviet Hind used to hang in Wilson’s office.
Take the story of the line “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”. Reagan’s advisors (chiefly George Schultz) took the line out but it was Reagan who kept putting the line back in. I guess Cain would capitulate to his advisors.
Lastly, go to YouTube and watch Reagan’s speech, “A Time For Choosing”. If you think anyone in this field comes close to Reagan’s clarity and beliefs, you are deluding yourself. This is why Ari Fleischer’s remark is problematic.
Reagan was a man of great principles; not to be confused with a candidate with great ego and arrogance who is determined to wing it.
Any executive that makes decisions without consulting his advisers is a fool. I personally do not want a life or death decision being made without consultation. The final decision, however, is with the executive.
Owenj, you forgot Jimmy Carter. He makes Clinton and Obama look good. How sad is that?
Newt is the only one of all the candidates, who is consistent in his abilities to address and answer any question with ease, as he has vast amounts of knowledge, expertise, skill, experience, and wisdom, as well as being extremely articulate and precise in his statements. He has no fear of the media, and knows the how to play the media, more than the media knows how to play him.. thus he slammed that liberal moderator against the legal wall.
I think they will think twice the next tine they try to make Newt look like a fool, with their gotcha political rhetorical BS questions.. and I loved it, every minute of it.!!
You go Newt !!! All the way to the White House.!!
The GOP should consider what it should want from these so-called debates. Newt addressed the problem tonight of the media trying to force the candidates into a intramural brawl; and his efforts largely succeeded. This time, the other candidates might finally have understood that Newt’s approach towards the MSM was what was needed. The differences between the various candidates, without the brawling, will become apparent over the next several weeks and that will allow us voters to better determine who we like as the GOP nominee.
Gov. Pawlenty’s fall from grace should serve as an object lesson for the other candidates; he really failed when he grabbed onto the media’s desire to see him attack Rep Bachmann, which he then did; he was toast then.
Lastly, someone in the GOP should put a stop to these never ending series of debates. The MSM is hoping that the GOP will shoot itself in the foot and that would then assist their guy, Obama, to victory. And, the GOP seems to be going along with the Scott Pelley’s of the MSM without even a whimper, except for Newt’s open resistance.
Why the GOP presidential candidates are submitting themselves to the liberal biased media is beyond me. CBS, MSNBC, CNN, ABC are hardly “neutral.”
Why not a PBS debate sponsored by the league of Women Voters? Maybe not ideal but certainly better than the current crop of offerings.
Better yet would be a reform of the way we elect anyone. A process that was no longer than six to eight weeks before an election would be welcome relief from the extended nonsensical season(s) we now endure…
Good video of Newt and he’s absolutely correct.
Problem is that as smart as Newt is, within eighteen months of a Gingrich presidency, you’d hate him. He has a habit of “head inflation” closely associated with the inflated ego syndrome.
I see a Cain presidency with Newt as VP managing the congress.
I have a dream…
The only Reagan that Mittendz channels in his heart of hearts is Ronnie Reagan Jr.
[…] Legal Insurrection) GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]
I like that Newt has a clear sense of right and wrong with regard to foreign policy. His trademark habit of swiftly correcting and scolding everyone is refreshing honesty to some but strikes many as pompous sanctimony (perhaps an indication of underlying autocratic tendencies). He’s not going to win the general-impression-of-likeability poll for Prez.
But my immediate impression on seeing Newt rebuke the smug ‘moderator’ is that he is perfectly suited to do the same with our foreign enemies… in the role of Secretary of State.
I think Perry and Newt were well ahead of the other candidates, with Newt probably having the absolute win, and Perry having the “vs. Expectations” win, but being very close to Newt for the absolute win. Perry’s “foreign aid starts at zero” was the substantive sound bite of the night, and his “I’m glad you remembered [the Department of Energy]” moment was up there with Newt’s “rule of law” moment, and did him a lot of good in putting his flub behind him.
Cain was pretty awful. His answer to every question was, “I will do what my advisers tell me to do.” That doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence. What will he do when his advisers disagree? Majority vote? Who gets to vote? This is particularly troublesome because two of his top campaign aides have been particularly gruesome, and so it doesn’t look good for him to be able to pick “top advisers.”. If that beats expectations, I’m not sure why anyone would vote for him.
re arifleischer. there are whole bunch of people in romney for him to channel depending on who he’s talking to. the only one not in there is romney.
i’ve been trying to figure out why i dislike romney. one anologue is john kerry. kerry directed his whole life to becoming president. even as a young man his actions were gauged by their effect on his eventual presidential run. so nothing he had ever done was genuine or real, IMHO. if my memory is correct, he restaged and filmed one of his escapades in vietnam. who does that? and for what purpose? bill clinton did the same kinds of things. he met JFK once and resolved that he too would be president someday. do any of these kinds of people do anything that is genuine?
i have always had a distrust of people who think their calling in life is to tell other people how to live. look at a majority of people that go to law school. many take political science as an undergrad then attend law school. not for the purpose of being a lawyer but for the purpose of being a politician.
I get that vibe from romney. he seems to have set a path for himself so that he would be able to check the boxes. romney may have channeled his inner reagan but romney channels whoever gets him there. obama channeled his inner romney with obamacare and romney advisers and his holdren appointment.
reagan did not start and direct his life to the ultimate goal of becoming president. his core principles led him to that path. his principles preceded his presidential ambitions.
I stopped watching the msm debates. What was Pelley’s reply to Newt’s spanking?
[…] Bill Jacobson tweeted the video clip, Joan of Argghh responded in his comment section: That clip was so satisfying that I need a cigarette! By JDZ […]
[…] Legal Insurrection GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]
Did anyone else notice how frequently the “lefter-ator” cut of Michele Bachmann last night? I did and today I saw this: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=367437.
Makes things a lot more clear…