He didn't get a direct foreign policy question, but he did allude to all the money we spend overseas as a response to another question. I also thought his response to the Apple question was peculiar.
"FDA certainly needs to be reformed, but cutting it out altogether and depending only on free market is absolutely ludicrous and will kill people"
corrupted/captured FDA already kills and maims 100Ks (OBL would love to run the FDA), and BigPharma will not stop trying get a shield law.
So Gingrich came out on top?
Noot not "on top". He was in a open-marriage sandwich with his last two ladies.
I knew he would answer the question like that and flip it on the media because Newt does not take responsibility for his actions. However, I thought the question was fair. King's question was whether or not he wanted to comment on the interview. Its not like he asked some leading question full of implication.
I think that it was a good answer for the crowd and maybe a good answer for SC, but remember that Newt's support with white males is 2-1 over women in SC. He will not win points with women for his response. If he cannot win over women to come and vote for him, many of whom are independents, he stands no chance in Florida and beyound. He might win a few southern states, but nothing past that.
I think yes. I will not hide that I am a Romney supporter. I wanted to give Santorum a chance because I think that he is a stronger candidate than most of the liberal group here gives him credit for. But his answer on right to work and his failure to acknowledge his own hypocracy when he attacks Romney has made me tune him out.
I thoguht Romney had more substance but Newt had more crowd pleasing one-liners. I thought Romeny really nailed it when Newt tries to take credit for creating millions of jobs. I liked that he informed the audience that although his father was succesful, Romney independently made his wealth. I liked his pivot on taxes, turning the issue into an attack on success. That will be his only way to beat Obama is if he can get people to buy that argument.
I did not like his immediate answer to the tax return question. Despite Santorum and Paul not releasing their returns, it matters for Romney because he is very wealthy. Using the "maybe" line came off as a bad joke. He should have said: "yes I will release my taxes, it will be in April and we are going to release taxes for this year and the past 5." He then should have hammered away at why its a non-issue and why the democrates want to punish success and divide voters against those who work hard and have success.
I get why he doesn't release them. I have a semi-complex tax return and I have a small fraction of the wealth of Romney. Romney has to know and be prepared with a solid answer for anything that appears in his tax. Even if it is something that is legal, he does not want to get a question that he cannot answer. I think his team will prep him to death on his returns and be ready to release them in April.
"Romney independently made his wealth"
He was born rich, he grew up connected, got into Harvard, more connections. Hired a bunch of legal/financial aces, got some investors, and started lying his way into buyouts. The objective was to make money at any cost to anything else, not create jobs, which was NEVER Willard Gecko's objective.
So this bogus media event has convinced people which man would make the best Prez?
Romney might be scared of the Mormon hing thing. He is supposed to give at least 10% of his income to the Mormon Church to buy their way into the Kingdom of heaven.
I heard he gave 5+ million already to them in past 5 years. Will he give 10% of the presidential salary to the church? that would mean us taxpayers are giving money to the Mormon Church to reserve Mittens a seat next to the Almighty.
Biblethumpers might not like that
Last edited by cheguevara; 01-20-2012 at 10:23 AM.
Forget the Primary: All Republican Candidates Are Unpopular
This New York Times story on the latest New York Times/CBS poll suggests that Obama is faltering with independents, portending electoral vulnerability. But their own data show that all the remaining Republican candidates are unpopular with voters nationally. No wonder Republican primary voters continue to be dissatisfied with their choices.
Romney has been popular in the past, according to pollster.com's own tracking of all public polling. Up until a few weeks ago, Romney held steady at roughly even favorable/unfavorable. But now Romney's unfavorables are increasing, with his favorables struggling to keep pace.
Gingrich, as I wrote before, has never been popular. In the latest New York Times/CBS poll, half of voters nationally are unfavorable toward Gingrich. This recent CNN/ORC poll shows close to 60-percent unfavorable toward Gingrich. Familiarity has bred contempt.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie...=Daily%20Brief
That is actually a really good point. I think people will want to use his faith against him will see it as a negative. I think most independent minded voters will be impressed that he lives by the teachings of his faith.Romney might be scared of the Mormon hing thing. He is supposed to give at least 10% of his income to the Mormon Church to buy their way into the Kingdom of heaven.
I heard he gave 5+ million already to them in past 5 years. Will he give 10% of the presidential salary to the church? that would mean us taxpayers are giving money to the Mormon Church to reserve Mittens a seat next to the Almighty.
Biblethumpers might not like that
I would also make the argument, if I were Romney, that I give charitably to organizations that I trust to most effectively use my money. Certainly anyone with the ability to fact check can see the humanitarian services the Mormon Church carries out throughout the world.
There will certainly be many that use it against him. Especially because the Mormon church is a weathy ins ution. But I don't think it will hurt him anymore than the Kennedy's giving to the Catholic Church.
Noot's uncontrolled ing around got him, campaigning to be Prez, into a tawdry, humiliating "he said-she said".
His defense was as believable as her claim.
Knowing what a moral, ethical s bag Noot is, her "let me you both" claim is more believable.
Romney Underwhelms, Paul Surprises
"I think Ron Paul did better than I expected him to," Boccabello said. "He actually came across as being pretty cogent."
Debbie Jones of Isle of Palms, a former supporter of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's bid for president, also seemed swayed by Paul's debate performance.
"I'm surprised that I liked some of the things Dr. Ron Paul said," Jones said. "He seemed that he would take the country in the opposite direction."
She added that the other candidates seemed "middle of the road." She said she's currently undecided, but her vote will go to either Paul or Santorum.
http://standrews.patch.com/articles/...ises-at-debate
Ron Paul? , I almost forgot he was even at the debate last night.
Middle of the road voter for Paul or Santorum?
I thought it was his strongest debate. I don't think he would run third party because it would destroy Rand Paul. But he could completely destroy the republican party if he ran independent.
that's sort of why I think he won't do it
how would running as 3rd party vs as independent differ in splitting the right-wing vote?
why would a person vote for Paul as one candidate but not the other?
I remember more of Santorum's remarks than I do of Paul. But I was doing housework and cooking also so I may have missed some if not most of Paul's responses.
I thought Santorum was sharp and unrelenting in his attacks on Romney and especially Gingrich.
No doubt he was the winner.
Rand Paul has a pretty safe district. I doubt it will hurt him at all. I think he realizes that he will be more powerful and able to actually do more if he did it within the Republican party. However, he has to realize that this is going to be his last presidential election he can run, at his age. He needs to start thinking about the marketing aspect of his branch of the republicans. come up with a catchy name brand. Try and steal some of the tea party and maybe blue dogs and start bringing up others to keep his wing going after he is unable to be a national figure. However if he is just on a power trip then he will go in a third party and marginalize everything he has built (Perot, Buchannan)
I'm honestly not sure if Paul as a third-party candidate hurts one party more than another. He gets a large segment of youth and independent voters, which went to Obama in the last election.
The polls show if Paul ran as a 3rd party against Obama and Romney, then Obama would win easily.
But don't you think it would be worth it? I think that he could pull enough of the vote to get federal election funds in the next election. This could be the beginning of the end of the two party hegemony. This is important to me. I have voted third party in every presidential election since I turned 18 to try to make this happen. Paul has the ability to garner >5% of the vote. I think Nader was the closest in 2000 with like 3%.
Full Disclosure: I would probably be less likely to do this if I lived in a swing state.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote