Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Drake Debate Post-Op & Tweets of Night

Drake Debate Post-Op & Tweets of Night

Quick take:  Everyone performed well, but if Romney’s task was to take on and knock down Newt, he didn’t do it.  Romney was offered up the opportunity a number of times, and only tried once and it was weak.  It was not as cringe-worthy as when Tim Pawlenty failed to confront Romney about “Obamneycare,” but it wasn’t good.  Romney had the “gaffe” of the night, offering Perry at $10,000 bet (I kid you not) over what was in Romney’s book about health care.

This was not Newt’s best debate, but he had a few good moments, handling the issue of marital infidelity well, and hitting a home run on standing up for Israel.  Perry had his best night by far, was clear headed, and had the line of the night about Newt’s Palestinian comment.  Santorum was strong, I just don’t know if it will make a difference.  Michelle Bachmann was the most aggressive, coining the term “Newt Romney.”  But by attacking them both, she weakened her case against either.  Ron Paul was Ron Paul.

What will be the result at the polls?  I can’t imagine Romney closes the gap with Newt, but others might move up.  The problem is that there’s only so many not-Newt votes to go around.  Perry, Santorum and Bachmann all are seeking the same voters.

Now for some Tweets:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I’d say Newt went in prepared for defence and handled it well. It helps that the only person to try to take him on was George Steponallofus.

Diane Sawyer’s liver totally lost this debate.

Mitt’s facade is cracking, Newt’s new groove is working, and Perry is wrasslin’ Paul over the #3 spot.

Man, ABC is loving Newt. I guess Axelrod decided he’d be the weaker nominee.

Also, aren’t Mormons not supposed to bet money?

Given tonight’s performance, Newt now appears to be inevitable.

    Astroman in reply to Samuel Keck. | December 11, 2011 at 1:15 am

    Huh? By my recollection, Newt was flat-out booed at least once tonight.

      Samuel Keck in reply to Astroman. | December 11, 2011 at 10:29 am

      True that, but in today’s America, I could almost find it unusual for a politician not to be booed in such a setting; and, to my mind, it speaks more to the sagacity of certain members of the audience than to the positions of the politician.

Midwest Rhino (not RINO) | December 10, 2011 at 11:06 pm

Newt / Santorum .. to sew up the evangelical vote?

Then who will the Repub’ establishment push for? Do they prefer Obama to Newt?

Romney seems finished … except for all the money, it seems his surrogates have “shot their wad” … though I guess they’ll keep shooting

[quote]Perry, Santorum and Bachmann all are seeking the same voters.[/quote]

They may seek, but they shall not find. Perry is not a conservative, Santorum and Bachmann are. Newt? Gahhh, too hard to tell, really, and that’s the problem for me at this juncture.

Dude, if only Sarah had run. Clear as day who is what: Sarah = American patriot, supporter of the Constitution vs. BO = Commie fascist, hater of America and all her allies.

Instead, we get to pick between a couple of unprepared, floundering wannabes and a bunch of commies who have varying degrees of dislike for and shame from (what, who knows?) America. Oh, and Rand Paul, whatever the hell he is. Ugh. Good grief. It’s a sad, sad day.

Romney has the same problem most politicians and elites do. When you put the slightest pressure on them regardless of their assumed ‘inevitability,’ the cracks start to show. They’ve never been challenged or had to seriously defend their record. You saw it in the reactions to some of the intense questioning during the 2010 elections/town halls, and you’re seeing it with Romney. Couple lack of core convictions and never having to previously prove anything with having to defend records that are hard to defend, and the house of cards begins to crumble. Those types almost never have to deal in facts or proof, and when they are confronted with something, they do not react well. That said, I’m still waiting for a candidate to bring up the facts that Romney’s healthcare plan failed, not just the merits or lack thereof of an individual mandate.

Overall, Perry came out on top. Newt was not far behind, and Santorum had his best night yet. Bachmann and Paul likewise had very good nights. For the first time, Romney was at the bottom of the pack. Granted I do not like Romney much, but had thought he had done fine for himself in the debates thus far.

Midwest Rhino (not RINO) | December 10, 2011 at 11:21 pm

it is fuzzy … Newt seems to be capable of standing against Sununu/Bush on raising taxes, and against establishment media. Voters desperately want to think outside the box … Newt at least talks that way.

… fighting establishment is a plus … for whatever reason, Newt keeps grabbing the gold ring of the aggravated voter … Mitt seems to have both hands on the establishment $10,000 saddle.

Palin needs Newt like experience … this is not going to be a fair fight.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | December 10, 2011 at 11:25 pm

If you define the winner as the one who improves the most in the polls — then I think the winner is either Ron Paul or Perry. I bet they’ll be the ones to get modest poll bumps.

I don’t think either Newt or Romney hurt themselves, but as the frontrunners it’s hard for either of them to pull further out front unless one of them really knocks it out of the park. And neither did.

huskers-for-palin | December 10, 2011 at 11:33 pm

Dude, if only Sarah had run.
—————————————-

Yeah, drinking my rum-n-coke thinking “what if”

MITT HAD A STYLE GAFFE WITH THE 10K BUT WAS RIGHT ON THE FACTS.

DOES TRUTH MATTER TO YOU ANYMORE BILLY J?

OR IS STYLE EVERYTHING TO YOU NOW?

    William A. Jacobson in reply to reliapundit. | December 10, 2011 at 11:46 pm

    Wow, getting quite personal. The issue wasn’t whether he was right on the merits, but the propriety of offering a $10,000 bet during a presidential primary debate. Deal with reality, don’t yell at the messenger.

    LukeHandCool in reply to reliapundit. | December 10, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    @reliapundit

    Are you this obnoxious in person or does the anonymity of the internet filter most of it out?

Ive watched every debate this cycle and I would say this was easily Romneys worst performance by far. The part where he was asked about differences between him and Newt and after stuttering around for a bit the first thing that came to his mind was Newts preference for wanting to mine the moon. I mean, I cant even wrap my brain around that one. And then the bet? $10,000 is a significant chunk of change to a large number of people and he just threw it out there like it was the normal amount he keeps in his wallet. Team Obama is salivating over that one.

The wheels are falling off the Romney campaign. This guy is seriously challenged for the first time and he looks toothless. I cant even begin to imagine what two months of negative Obama attacks would do to him.

I don’t care what any Democrat say – they want to face Romney and are terrified of Gingrich.

Gingrich defended well, held the status quo, at the least. Strong words on the Palestinians and Israel. A-/B+

Romney, not so much. Attacking Gingrich on lunar mining? Huh? Debating on national TV in Iowa where 2/3s of the caucus folks are born agains and you offer to engage an opponent in a $10,000 bet? Brilliant! Newt keeps getting these early Christmas gifts. C-/D+

Paul… is Paul. C

Bachmann did OK, too little, too late. The ‘Newt Romney’ thing clanked off the rim, though. There’s a growing stridency in her voice that is beginning to annoy. C+

Perry did well, no harm, hit singles, no homers. B

Rick Santorum did himself a lot of good tonight. No homers for him either, but he seemed calmer, more statesman-like, more collected. B+

With six candidates it still isn’t really a debate, but in terms of who furthered themselves, I’d call it Newt by a nose over Santorum, with a nod to Perry’s improvement. Loser was Romney, who did himself no good, hurt himself a bit, and provided the opposition some wonderful video of a devout Mormon slagging some Vegas style big roller action in front of an Iowan audience of several thousand born again Christians. Great job, Mittsy.

[…] Drake Debate Post-Op & Tweets of Night (legalinsurrection.com) […]

1). “But by attacking them both, she weakened her case against either.”

Yeah, but she really had no good choice. Beating one of them does nothing for her. She was right about it being Hail Mary time, but, for the same reasons they call them Hail Mary passes, it went nowhere.

2). We’re coming up on another one of those periods in Newt’s public career when Newt gives me a stress stomachache every few days for a week and then does something that either justifies my apprehension, or (less commonly) decides not to do that thing, whatever it was.

The public is talking about him in a positive way and he’s appeared smart and wise and just sort of all-knowing and good in the debates and he’s been looking more relaxed and happier and his opponents who were dismissing him as meaningless just a few weeks ago now all have the same sort of vague, stunned look while he’s wowing another debate audience, and . . .

So now’s the time in his show when he forgets all of those pesky rules the consultants gave him about not having temper tantrums in public not insisting that he be treated at least as importantly as the most important person present, or not always insisting that you should just stop talking and simply defer to him because he was there back in 1749 or whenever when the issue you’re discussing was first raised and he wrote the actual rule, or something . . .

Exaggerating, sort of, but he usually encounters Suboptimal National Exposure, in some form, right about at this point in the election cycle when voters and the media have been reinforcing his already-robust feelings of superiority and superlativeness and he forgets that he shouldn’t say certain things even though he’d like to. Say them, I mean.

Just remember the incident on Air Force One. That’s the kind of thing that’s making my stomach sore.

    Darkstar58 in reply to bobby b. | December 11, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    Yeah, but she really had no good choice. Beating one of them does nothing for her. She was right about it being Hail Mary time, but, for the same reasons they call them Hail Mary passes, it went nowhere.

    But you’re missing the point – it speaks to character.

    Newt had no good choice a few months ago either. In fact, he was in a worse position – he had lost support he had previously had solely because of slander. Newt’s chances to be president looked to be between slim-to-none.

    What he could have done is let the Hail Mary fly, and go on the warpath against the other candidates. Except, he didn’t…

    Newt is still the only one holding to the Reagan 11th Amendment. Why? Because its important, damn it! Meanwhile Michele has been pissing all over it for months, becoming an embarrassing, candidate-chasing attack-dog.

    Bachmann has become a Me Party mouthpiece screaming from the top of her lungs she is a Tea Party Patriot. She is on the news-stations constantly ripping into her competitors, often only moments after they say something. She is happily doing Obama’s job for him; showing she see’s herself as the only one who really truly matters so, so what, right?

    I semi-supported Bachmann before. I never though she could honestly win the primaries, (let alone the election) but I would have helped her do so in a heartbeat if it seemed she might be able to pull it off.

    Now, I’m not even sure I could honestly support her for Congress anymore. Her actions have just been that disgusting to me…

scottinwisconsin | December 11, 2011 at 1:22 pm

It’s a shame Ron Paul isn’t willing to murder millions of foreigners, and rule a big empire. If he were, all you “good conservatives” would be madly in love with him. Think about it. YOU LOVE all his other positions, which he has held consistently for 40 years. When will you realize that a government that pushes around and murders foreigners, will naturally tend to push around and murder IT’S OWN people. Wise up. Give up the dreams of empire, and embrace the truths that founded this nation.

    It’s a shame Ron Paul isn’t willing to murder millions of foreigners, and rule a big empire. If he were, all you “good conservatives” would be madly in love with him.

    See, this is why we cant stand Paul and his supporters.

    Think about it. YOU LOVE all his other positions, which he has held consistently for 40 years.

    Actually, no; no we don’t…

    He has a ACU score lower then anyone else in the race. He hits some fantastic points, but is just as wrong on so many other issues. He has his place, but that place is no where near the White House.

      bobby b in reply to Darkstar58. | December 12, 2011 at 4:34 pm

      “See, this is why we cant stand Paul and his supporters.”

      So, the 11th Commandment actually reads “”Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican whom thou likes”?

      😉

        Darkstar58 in reply to bobby b. | December 12, 2011 at 7:55 pm

        And I’m hardly running for President

        :p

        Anyway, responding to hyperbole dismissively is hardly the same as manufacturing hyperbole to try and defame another conservative – that’s half the issue I have with Bachmann.

        The other comes in conjunction with stuff like, well you know, things like – “turn 999 upside down/The Devils in the Details”… Now, of course, she is repeating “Nine, Nine, Nine” multiple times (even going as far as spinning it to her own “Win, Win, Win”) in debates hoping she can capitalize off those voters. Or how about all the “Newt Romney” stuff when buzz everywhere has her angling to be Mitts VP choice?

        All these hyperbole attacks were bad enough. To instantly flip-flopping in an effort to power grab is hardly any more becoming of her…

          bobby b in reply to Darkstar58. | December 12, 2011 at 8:53 pm

          I can’t disagree, really. It’s sort of sad – she’s from my own state, and she’s never been known for trashing others in previous campaigns, but in this campaign, she got it into her head (I think) at some point when her surprisingly good numbers started to fade that that’s what many Tea Party supporters wanted – someone who would “call a spade a spade”, who would not let politeness stop her from attacking the career politicians, the money-grubbers, etc.

          And she was right – the hard core of support that she has retained has consisted of those people amongst the Tea Party groups who WANT her to call out whenever she sees . . . whatever it is that they don’t like.

          Besides, I doubt that most of her supporters would really consider themselves real Republicans – these are people who condemn both major parties for getting us where we are today. For her, fealty to Reagan’s commandment would entail not criticizing other TP types, not R’s.

          The morality of her approach notwithstanding, I still think she or her crew realized that it was Hail Mary or Go Home time. By definition, a “Hail Mary” attempt is a last-ditch effort to avoid an impending loss. Most of Fran Tarkenton’s Hail Mary passes got dropped, too.

          (And one more day passes without Newt blowing something up. My stomach can’t take this.)

          Darkstar58 in reply to Darkstar58. | December 13, 2011 at 4:00 am

          Yeah, I understand that and don’t dispute her likely freaking out in the strategy department at the position she is now in. But that shouldn’t lead her to abandon her principles either. And here’s how I ultimately see it, summed up first in a quote:

          “Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.”

          I see that as a perfect example of where we are.

          If she were the leader she says we so desperately need right now, she shouldn’t need to resort to such tactics. But since she feels she must go there, it shows she is not the very leader she claims we need.

          We are left to question which is ultimately more important to her – what she knows we need, or what she really wants? Her actions, as I mentioned above, scream Me Party; not Tea Party. And when the attacks are followed up with the Pandering…

          It also leads me to one other quote from the same author

          “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.”

          This isn’t helping her one bit, nor has it helped anyone else, so I am not sure what she thinks she is accomplishing anyway – the only real results are her making everyone look bad to the benefit of Obama.

          (PS, I don’t think Newt will blow up – I think he has matured now; much like the great Conservative thinkers before him such as Reagan, Nixon and the man I quoted above…)

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend