Printable View
I missed the GOP debate last night. I had a few beers and a nice dinner and crashed out. But I'm up this morning and ready to watch them on Meet the Press. I did see the response from Ron Paul last night about how the drug war and how blacks are prosecuted at a much higher rate than whites.
Bold and honest statement to make. :tu
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...washingtonpost
The transcript is here though.
Huntsman had a nice comeback against Romney about putting Country first.
Perry pleased with himself that he remembered the 3 federal depts he wanted to eliminate.
Newt: "primary pain should be on changing the bureaucracy," not creating pain by spending cuts."
Huntsman - (Romney) was out raising money while he criticized me for serving my country...my sons don't ask who the president is.
Perry getting tough. Stated it was the big spending GOP congress under GWB that got us into this mess and that Obama has continued the spending.
Romney saying we don't need to solve problems of poverty. Easy coming from him.
Romney: "This ain't the beanbag." Gingrich: "This ain't no party, this ain't no disco
Romney says has never seen the antiNewt Super Pac ads, but he can tell us what they say...point by point.
http://thehayride.com/2012/01/suffol...tracking-poll/Quote:
For the fourth day in a row, Mitt Romney has fallen in overnight tracking, and Rick Santorum has dropped into fifth place among likely voters in the Jan. 10 New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, according to the latest Suffolk University/7News two-day tracking poll.
Ron Paul is gaining on Romney, while Jon Huntsman has rallied into third place.
Romney dropped 4 percentage points overnight to 35 percent. The former Massachusetts governor still holds a 15 point lead, but his margin has declined by 8 percentage points since last Tuesday, when 43 percent of likely Republican voters backed Romney.
Romney is followed by Paul (20 percent), Huntsman (11 percent), Newt Gingrich (9 percent) and Santorum, who dropped another point to 8 percent overnight. Rick Perry and Buddy Roemer each had 1 percent with 15 percent undecided.
I thought Huntsman did well today. Ron Paul is gonna have to fight him off. Paul could go after him in foreign policy since Huntsman also believes in going after the Iranian boogeyman.
He's saying it's not the responsibility of the federal government, not that we don't need to solve it. He's callin it a state issue because the level of poverty varies from state to state.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
Nice mischaracterization though.
So Romney is still in first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I thought Newt cam across as petty early on when he told Romney to drop the pius act.
trends matter, 15% undecidedQuote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Willard Gecko has no serious challenger, and is/will be the beneficiary of the richest, nastiest, most slanderous SuperPACs, as we saw in Iowa where Willard's SuperPACs destroyed Noot.
RP has the war chest to hang in there awhile:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57353011-503544/ron-paul-raises-$13-million-in-fourth-quarter/?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Ron Pauls radical isolationism is hardly a strength to be exploited in the campaign. it's definitely not a poll driven position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornets78
I thought Huntsman did well today, also. But let's face it...he has no chance whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornets78
I liked his comeback to Romney about why he was ambassador to China, but the problem was that he should have said it last night instead of this morning.
Romney is slick as grease up there.
Ron Paul, god love him, is just as sincere as he can be but he gets so far ahead of himself when he gets going that he can become incoherent pretty quickly.
Santorum appeared poised. I don't think that he is electable in the general election, but he may take the nomination.
Gingrich is manifestly intelligent...but one has to worry that he might 'go off' on the wrong guy as president and end us all up in a big hurt.
Perry said he would send U.S. troops right back into Iraq right now.
What is it with Texas governors wanting to fight in Iraq?
Agree with the bolded statements of this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Good insights. I concur. :tu
hate-filled "Catholic" InSanetorum WILL never get the nomination, nor will Gingrich.
Noot is professor in love with his own mouth, but if Noot were intelligent, he wouldn't say the shit that gets him in such trouble with so many people.
That either of these stinkin assholes are even considered is inarguable proof of how shitty the Repugs and right-wing are.
Disagree that Santorum isn't a player for the nomination. He's the only believable social conservative left in the game and there's a large segment of the base that votes on the social platform. He's also an intelligent and informed person with some speaking/debating ability.
Having said all that, I think this is Mitt's race to lose.
I thought that the post debate coverage was worthless. Why would you have the democrat chairwoman and writers from the Huffington Post as your "political analysts" for a republican debate? One would think they would bring party affiliates in for commentary.
Santorum's problem is that his base cares less about gay people, abortion and other conservative social issues when they do not have a job.
If InSaneTorum and Noot don't have the support of the financial sector (and Noot's 2nd attempt at an election organization is known to suck, does the other hater even have an organization?), then they have no chance.
Wall St $100Ms are going both to Willard Gecko and Barry.
It's NBC.Quote:
Originally Posted by elbamba
They care less, but they still care. If Santorum gets a platform (i.e. coverage) to talk about his economic plan and it's well thought out, he could sway base votes his way.Quote:
Originally Posted by elbamba
Romney has withstood the ABR candidates to this point, and I think he'll outlast Santorum too...but Santorum is peaking at the right time and he's probably the most formidable. I think this is especially true if Newt stays in the race and continues pounding away at Romney.
InSaneTorum doesn't have an economic vision already? It's probably as sociopathic as the rest of his ideas.
Too busy, just like his Catholic Christ would do, hatin on gays, lesbians, abortion, contraception?
I wouldn't know (not voting for him), but I would assume his policies aren't extremely outside the mainstream of fiscal conservative thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
You can be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative. There are a lot more of us than is generally recognized.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
One of the things that sort of freaked me out in the debates was when Romney was going on about how he would tackle China on trade parity issues, arguing that we (the U.S.) should get really 'tough' with them because 'they need us more than we need them' in trading. It was in his argument with Huntsman over China.
Huntsman didn't pick up on it, but I kept thinking, "Gee, Mitt, what about when China says to you - 'you don't want our trade policies - then we don't want your debt'?" I mean, our relative timidity with China is for the same reason as our relative timidity with Saudi Arabia.
In fact, the U.S. DOES need what those countries need more than they need us.
Obama talks nicely to China for the same reason that Bush 43 said about Saudi Arabia: "I will ask the king very nicely, Please will you sell us some more oil?"
Speaking as one of them, I agree. :toastQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
People care more about their personal greed and envy than they do about two gay guys having gay sex and killing unborn babies. I know that Rick Santorum and other conservative koolaid drinkers want you to think that gay sex is a very important issue but most people could care less. They want a better economy first. The economy is always first.
I know several people that hold the "sanctity of marriage" as a central issue for them as voters. If Santorum can prove he cares about protecting greed and preventing the other two, he'll get votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983
People that vote for candidates because they say they're gonna ban abortion or gay people are sadly misguided. Democrats and liberal voters are also sad if they buy into threats made by candidates that say they will ban gay people and abortion.
Nominating a supreme court judge that could result in overturning Roe v. Wade, or putting presidential backing behind a constitutional amendment to establish marriage as a union between a a man and a woman...these aren't delusions of grandure, they're legitimate goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983
Thats all smoke and posturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Roe V Wade will never be overturned and same sex marriage is not a biggie as a constitutional issue. At that level it really comes down to interpretation of the constitution and conservative justices aren't trying to write new law.
Exactly.
People don't give a fuck about abortion and gay people wanting to get married. If they did, abortion would be illegal and gay people could get married in every state.
Even the great Obama knows that. He only repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell so he could use that as leverage with gay voters. Since that happened, he can say "look what I did for you" to them.
^ Last two posts spot on...
Fringe subjects are great to polarize and divide... but at the end of the day, money in the pocket sway votes...
happens all the time, actually. the classic flip flop is Scalia in Raich.Quote:
conservative justices aren't trying to write new law.
the majority posing and answering questions and delivering remedies not sought by the party, in Citizens United, is another example
there are probably hundreds of others
Bush v Gore, even though it was a one off.
I disagree that no one cares about gay rights and abortion. DADT needed to be repealed and inevitably would have been, whether it was Obama or a subsequent President. Gay marriage will eventually be legal everywhere as well. The legalization of gays in the military and gay marriage are not wedge issues, they are inevitabilities in an evolving society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983
Once gay marriage is legal everywhere, it will then become a wedge issue for some time (like abortion) to rile up social conservatives. But while those decisions would not likely be reversed I think it's completely wrong to say no one gives a fuck about them.
Jacob 1983 cares. He cares a lot.