Pigs Fly New Hampshire Debate Tweets of the Night
Saturday, January 7, 2012 at 11:09pm 29 Comments
One of the biggest applause lines of the night was when Newt Gingrich, responding to a long (and embarrassing for the moderators) line of questions trying to pin candidates down on gay marriage, contraception and gay adoption, responded as follows:
Newt’s response engendered praise even from two of the people who have been uniformly vicious and insulting towards Newt, in what surely were temporary lapses:
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
One of the best lines of the night over one of the most stupid discussions
[…] See video: https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/pigs-fly-new-hampshire-debate-tweets-of-the-night/ […]
I’m on it: ‘Candidates Reject Gay Marriage at GOP Debate in New Hampshire’. Thanks William!
For the life of me I cannot understand why our candidates don’t simply say that their position mirrors that of President Obama and leave it at that.
That was over the fence!
I am sick to death of the phrase “gay marriage.” Utterly sick of it.
Why weren’t these questions asked during the Nixon/Kennedy debates? Oh! Because the homosexual activists hadn’t yet softened up the morals of the nation through the entertainment media and the bullying of the psychology profession? In other words: they WERE working an agenda that whole time.
with something like 90 percent of americans self-identifying as christian, with a church on nearly every corner, an abundance of christian broadcasting on the airwaves, and no candidate ever having been elected president without proclaiming his christianity, how exactly are christians being discriminated against? are christians not allowed to marry one another? are christians legally denied employment or housing in a majority of states? this reverse-discrimination claim of poor, put-upon christians would be laughable if it were not so pathetically transparent. the christianity i practice does not demand that i actively seek to deny gay citizens, nor members of any other segment of society, their legal rights.
Why do I suspect you are a concern troll posing as a Christian?
The fallacy of the ‘gay marriage’ argument is that heterosexuals are not allowed to marry members of the same-sex; there is no discrimination against the homosexual since the homosexual-like the heterosexual- is allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex.
Here’s the irony of prog activism, with each passing of a ‘gay marriage’ law discrimination now exists against the heteroseuxal who wishes to marry member of the same-sex.
To receive a ‘gay marriage’ license is it now required proof of gay? Is this not ‘violation of the right to privacy’?
Care to explain to me how this “right” was just recently discovered? Or can you dig up an article demanding gay marriage that was written in the ’70s or ’80s?
It’s nothing more than a political ploy.
The Achilles heel of the Mitt Romney candidacy is his vulture capitalism background. Mitt Romney didn’t make his money running companies. He made most of his money by draining companies of capital and assets to the financial benefit of his private equity firm, Bain Capital.
The dark side of Mitt Romney’s business experience involves medicare fraud, corporate welfare (government subsidies), bankrupting companies through excessive debt loads to the benefit of Romney and Bain at the expense of shareholders, workers, debtholders and taxpayers; leaving the government on the hook for the pensions of workers at companies he bankrupted, and benefiting from a deceptive analyst report which gave a higher rating to his company than it deserved based on its financials thereby misleading investors and artificially inflating the value of the company.
Mitt Romney should be required to answer for his past business dealings. For him to say, “I didn’t know what my guys were doing” should not be acceptable. He should also be asked to disclose how much he personally benefited from each of the questionable deals.
The vetting of Mitt Romney’s controversial vulture capitalist background should occur before he is the Republican nominee. Otherwise, Obama and the liberal media will do it. It will be too late then.
Capitalism is capitalism. It is consensual activity between legal adults. That you attempt to apply a pejorative to the particulars proclaims your bias.
More broadly real vultures perform a necessary function in nature, so do certain businesses – cleaning up what needs to be cleaned up.
Your criticism of Romney only works to the extent that Romney actually thinks the way you think and is therefore unable to adequately defend himself with the truth that there is nothing wrong with what he has done in private business.
You fail to understand the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism and finance and financial socialism. Mitt Romney is part of the crowd who liked to socialize his losses and privatize his profits.
Mitt Romney made money because he left everyone else (workers, stockholders, debt-holder, taxpayers) holding the bag while he “strip-mined” the assets of companies. You may not care, but millions of voters will care, especially working class voters.
And that’s not to mention his public amorality – say anything to get elected.
Thank you, JonB. I didn’t know these things.
I am beyond astonished at the reactions of the Establishment Republicans. Look at this kind of information. It hasn’t even begun to do more than trickle out. It’s devastating. Do the Establishment have the smallest tiny clue how vulnerable and unelectable Romney is?
Now John Podhoretz has announced that unless something terrible comes out, Romney is the nominee. Oh hahahahahaha.
We’ve JUST STARTED this process. How stupid are they? How stupid do they think we are?
This is like the first steps in a race and John Podhoretz has jumped onto the track with the rest of them and declared that Seabiscuit is not the winner.
This is the BEGINNING of a process, John, and all the other Establishment types trying to short circuit Newt’s candidacy.
I say Newt’s candidacy because I don’t think they’re afraid of anyone else.
Newt will unleash the American people on Washington through communication loops, and Newt is willing to enforce the 10th Amendment, and Newt thinks that the federal government is too big, and that judges are too ignorant about American history and too arrogant in their overreaching, and Newt is willing to ask the bureaucracy to learn continuous improvement methods through Lean Six Sigma, and Newt is going to potentially change the way the game is played and reduce the number of players who get rich off “managing” the American people — and the Establishment Republicans don’t like it.
And the Establishment Republicans are perfectly right not to want Newt. It turns out they’re more comfortable with LOSING, and with the Democrat Establishment, than they are with the grassroots American people.
Newt is a genuine threat to the Establishment business as usual spending spree, borrowing spree, unaccountability, ignoring the American people, jamming through legislation, and saying “la la la la we can’t hear you” to the American people. OMG I am so fed up with feeling like I can’t get through to them, R or D!!
So yeah, I’m not surprised that the Establishment’s fears Newt. I’m just surprised to see who’s with the Establishment … talking to you, NRO, Ann Coulter (!), Charles Krauthammer …
Newt is a great thinker and debater. I am certain if he were to debate Obama or Ahmedinajad [SP], Newt would win. But, there is no point in debating these people because they can’t be turned.
Besides, these aren’t “debates” in the traditional sense. They are “press conferences”.
What we need is a leader who can create jobs. Newt hasn’t done that. Romney has.
Romney’s created jobs? His state was 47th in the nation at job creation while he was “president” of Taxachusetts. The candidate that has helped create an environment conducive to job creation would be Rick Perry – to the tune of Texas creating 1 million jobs while America has dropped 2 million jobs.
To Clarify: Right. Not.
With all due respect, are you not reading the other comments? It’s coming out that Romney’s specialty was destroying jobs and breaking up companies. I’m just finding out about this for the first time, here in the comments. Oh, that media, doing its job! Not.
Again to clarify — responding to Towson, not Astroman,
I think it’s true that Rick Perry’s Texas has had a great record of creating jobs.
But the Reagan recovery, upon which Newt bases his proposals, was even more successful in creating conditions in which THE AMERICAN PEOPLE created millions of jobs, e.g., more than a million in one month in the early 1980’s, iirc.
Peace to all. I know we talk about this because we care. It’s fabulous to be able to talk like this in the new media. I hope that better days are coming.
el polacko – clearly you were not paying attention, nor have you been.
From your statements it is evident that you see bias as being solely rooted in numbers… i.e. there are more Christians than Buddhists in the U.S., ergo – Buddhists suffer discrimination/bias.
When nurses are forced to choose between keeping their job or staying true to their religious conviction due to mandates from the government… that is discrimination against Christians.
When Christian institutions have to cease their charitable work because the government tries to force them into practices and policies that are clearly against their core beliefs… that is discrimination against Christians.
When radical atheists sue small towns (that they aren’t even citizens of) in an attempt to bully them into not putting up Christmas displays… that is discrimination against Christians.
If you can’t see that, than I can only conclude that you willfully don’t wish to see it.
And as for your trite little ‘straw man’ statement wherein you imply that there are Christians who actively seek to deny gay or other members of society their legal rights… well, please do enlighten us. What legal rights would those be? Free speech? Assembly? Voting? Please enlighten us. You state that other segments of society are also being denied their legal rights by these ‘other’ Christians. Which other specific segments of society do you see being deprived of legal rights by these ‘other’ Christians who apparently don’t believe specifically as you do?
“What we need is a leader who can create jobs. Newt hasn’t done that. Romney has.”
Well… there are some questions about how effective Romney was at job creation during his tenure as the Governor of Massachusetts. He ran as a ‘Jobs’ guy for the governorship, but the reality once he got into office was a bit different. While he was governor, his state ranked 47th in job creation. One the reasons job creation was poor during his tenure was his use of the state tax code to extract more tax dollars out of businesses in an attempt to close the budget gap (which they didn’t quite do, btw). Oh, they’ll say that all they did was close ‘tax loopholes’… but all a tax loophole real is, is a statue in the tax law that allows for legal deductions or reduction of tax burden. In fact, his actions resulted in an increased tax burden on businesses both through changes to the tax law and by increasing ‘fees’… at times doubling them.
It was laudable that he wanted to close the budget gap, but the methods he chose to use to do so were not by growing jobs and businesses… it was done on the backs of businesses at the expense of jobs and business growth.
The slam-dunk argument against state-legalized same-sex marriage is the same argument that is taboo: the straight-line, as night-follows-day, slippery-slope to polygamy. As far as the left is concerned, even to raise this argument is to label oneself the most loathsome of bigots and villains, obviating the need for counter-argument (“because” ‘one has nothing to do with the other,’ or something). Naturally, this argument involves no animus toward gays whatsoever – on the countrary, it is driven out of concern for equal rights for women. This is a secular, logical argument and therefore would be the one with force in the public sphere. But same-sex opponents have permitted it to bullied away, and have retreated to demanding their right to religious preference. This strategy won’t win the long day.
Newt had a really good night except for the one (funny) flub at the end about watching the national championship of college basketball.
I still can’t believe Santorum is currently in the top tier. Seriously? This guy? He seems too much of a fringe candidate to me.
I was most disappointed in how they treated Perry – he was pretty good, that is, when they bothered to ask him a question.
Oh well, NH doesn’t really matter much, as Romney has it in the bag. I guess it will be interesting to see how Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul do as far as future positioning. SC is going to be far more important this year.
Agreed, though I thought Santorum did a decent job last night. They all did; though I thought that Romney’s tap dance during the ‘do states have the right to prohibit contraception’ question was by far his worst moment. Using ‘contrived ignorance’ as a defense does not play well. He must of been caught completely flatfooted by the question… I was expecting to use his normal dodge of wrapping himself in the 10th amendment. I guess he wasn’t prepped for that particular line of questioning.
Personally, I’d love for this to be a Newt/Perry/Santorum race. And yes, the southern primaries will be particularly important this time around (said the North Carolina voter!)
Just so, says this fellow NC voter. In 2008 Romney won absolutely nothing south of the Mason Dixon line. Also, Newt Gingrich just received a donation to his PAC from a Vegas billionaire of $5 million to help in SC.
Snorkdoodle Whizbang, I agree about the importance of the southern states.
And I would like to say that I enjoy the thoughtfulness of your comments. I often also learn something new.
Also, I agree, would love to see a Perry, Santorum, Newt race, because I think the ethos of all three is closer to the hearts of voters. — Although I know I would support Newt. But yes, those three would be a more interesting race.
I feel that the Establishment are so busy trying to get their thumb on the scale that they are distorting the unfolding of the process. They’re creating all kinds of noise.
I mean, calling Romney’s results in Iowa a “win.” Not so much.
Romney — all due respect — spent 6 years and millions of dollars and has a big, costly professional political organization, with lots of consultants, and all that memorization, and MAYBE he got EIGHT more votes, if there was no 20-vote mistake, the way that one caucus participant says there was.
snorkdoodle whizbang 1
concern troll 0
November 2010 was a repudiation of the economic policies and anti-constitutional power grab of Obama and his Democrats.
It was NOT an endorsement of Big Church Republicans, their Evangelical special interests. Nor was it in reaction to the anti-Christian agenda of certain special interests on the left. (That’s a fair shot, Newt)
The more the candidates are lured by the media into wasting time talking about ecclesiastical ‘issues’, the less swing+indie voters will be convinced about the clarity of the GOP’s message and vision for restoring individual liberty and prosperity …for all (Christians and gays alike).
I see this from a different angle, I suppose. Newt came out of New Hampshire behind Santorum. He came across, to me, as poised to image he was defending the “little guy”, the “junior” of the bunch; making his the wise mentor of Santorum. How many examples were “Catholic”? How did he say “Catholic” Where did he look when he said “Catholic”. Why no mentions of the Bible studies not allowed in peoples’ own home? Why not expose a diverse group of Christians? In my perception Newt’s response was a game plan to take charge of Santorum. What is Newt’s action history on fighting this discrimination? Did he actually champion this aggressively in the past, outside of verbiage?
[…] as perverse as they are. May God have mercy on the Progressives, and introduce them to wisdom.via Legal InsurrectionCategory: CultureComments /*MR. G.: Newt Gingrich and the drum solo from 'Wipeout'JEFF GOLDSTEIN: […]