December 03, 2011
— Ace Damn I just realized this was on. It began a half hour ago. On Fox.
Streaming: Here.
Posted by: Ace at
04:28 PM
| Comments (583)
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Rick Santorum at December 03, 2011 04:29 PM (Hqkmi)
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 03, 2011 04:29 PM (dV45O)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 03, 2011 04:31 PM (zmMHo)
Posted by: Mike Huckabee's Bathroom Scales at December 03, 2011 04:33 PM (Hqkmi)
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 03, 2011 04:34 PM (dV45O)
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 04:35 PM (GZitp)
Ugh.... Get off of me you fatass
He's hiding a ham and a watermelon underneath that suit. Or he's just faaaaat.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 03, 2011 04:35 PM (dV45O)
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 04:36 PM (NTnm3)
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 03, 2011 04:36 PM (dV45O)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 04:36 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 04:37 PM (NTnm3)
Interesting format..I'm interested in the next segments.
Posted by: Willy at December 03, 2011 04:37 PM (PlLjX)
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 04:37 PM (srIqv)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at December 03, 2011 04:37 PM (2+nRx)
Posted by: I am the walrus, goo-goo-ga-joo at December 03, 2011 04:38 PM (ndp2I)
Posted by: Phoenixgirl (oZfic) is cat piss at December 03, 2011 04:39 PM (9h2fa)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 03, 2011 04:40 PM (zmMHo)
Posted by: Yossarian at December 03, 2011 04:42 PM (UqKQV)
Posted by: Attorney General Chick at December 03, 2011 04:43 PM (97AKa)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 04:43 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: KennyM at December 03, 2011 04:43 PM (Hqkmi)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 03, 2011 04:43 PM (zmMHo)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 04:44 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: KennyM at December 03, 2011 04:45 PM (Hqkmi)
Posted by: Phoenixgirl (oZfic) is cat piss at December 03, 2011 04:45 PM (9h2fa)
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 04:45 PM (97AKa)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at December 03, 2011 04:46 PM (2+nRx)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 04:46 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 04:47 PM (nj1bB)
When asked where he get's his authority to repeal Obamacare repeating the mantra of executive order.
Posted by: lowanslow at December 03, 2011 04:47 PM (GZitp)
Cuccinelli asked him a trick question about executive authority on repealing acts of Congress - Perry didn't give a clear answer
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 04:47 PM (s7mIC)
I really am looking forward to the Mittens grilling.
Lets see if he can rebound from the Baier interview.
(I'm Delta Smelt, it's Saturday night, and I have no life.)
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 03, 2011 04:47 PM (dV45O)
Posted by: Big T Party at December 03, 2011 04:47 PM (hC5jI)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 04:49 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 04:49 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 04:50 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 03, 2011 04:50 PM (dV45O)
Posted by: Herman Cain at December 03, 2011 04:50 PM (Hqkmi)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 04:51 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 04:52 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Willy at December 03, 2011 04:52 PM (PlLjX)
Posted by: Herman Cain at December 03, 2011 08:51 PM (hC5jI)
You have no chance Cain. She is neither poor, nor working for you!
Posted by: The Donald at December 03, 2011 04:53 PM (97AKa)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 04:53 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 04:53 PM (GZitp)
Yes he did much better when he was given a second chance.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 04:53 PM (s7mIC)
I'm polotiked out...I don't care for any of the candidates, except for Perry (at times) Cain proved himself to be a clown today. Romney is all cosmetics for you and me to "accept" while Newt, well is Newt. Maybe I expected too much once again from the Repubs; we get vanilla when we need jalapen'o.
And no...Palin is not the answer either.
Ron Paul?? surely you jest.
I heard Birkenstocks make good head stompers.
Or maybe I'll just have another beer??
Posted by: dananjcon at December 03, 2011 04:53 PM (ceK0m)
Compared to conventional debates, Perry was outstanding tonight.
He didn't fall asleep or insult the base. Well done.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 03, 2011 04:54 PM (dV45O)
Crap, I totally forgot about this and turned on the tv in time for it to go to commercial just now. Please tell me Perry didn't suck.
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, hoping for a Rick Perry miracle at December 03, 2011 04:54 PM (fYOZx)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 04:54 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 04:55 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Ron Paul at December 03, 2011 04:55 PM (Hqkmi)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 04:55 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 04:55 PM (NTnm3)
There is a God no Huntsman tonight
Dumb move by him.
Huntsman should take every opportunity to have the stage to himself.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 03, 2011 04:56 PM (dV45O)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 04:56 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Peaches at December 03, 2011 04:56 PM (ICv3z)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 08:49 PM (s7mIC)
It wasn't the smoothest definition ever, but it worked. "Here's the Constitution. Don't read anything into it. Don't read anything out of it. It means what it says. Look at what the founders (and, presumably, amenders) meant, in light of what they actually wrote down."Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 04:56 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 08:53 PM (NTnm3)
Nate Silver says that no matter what happens, Huntsman has the mostest bestest and only chance of beating Owebama. He wouldn't lie would he?
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, hoping for a Rick Perry miracle at December 03, 2011 04:56 PM (fYOZx)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 04:56 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 03, 2011 04:57 PM (dV45O)
Posted by: Attorney General Chick at December 03, 2011 04:57 PM (97AKa)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 08:55 PM (nj1bB)
No no, ace, I was referring to the question he got from Cuccinelli, when he asked Perry what strict constructionism meant to him, and if he would appoint judges who were strict constructionists, and Perry just repeated "Roberts and Alito, Roberts and Alito". When Huck asked the follow-up question he did much better.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 04:57 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: museisluse at December 03, 2011 04:58 PM (4Lj43)
Posted by: Chris at December 03, 2011 04:58 PM (FMjOm)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 08:56 PM (nj1bB)
Yes he did clarify that a bit better.
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 04:59 PM (NTnm3)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 04:59 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: museisluse at December 03, 2011 05:00 PM (4Lj43)
Posted by: Peaches at December 03, 2011 05:00 PM (ICv3z)
Posted by: 420 Characters epub at December 03, 2011 05:00 PM (mLb28)
No no, ace, I was referring to the
question he got from Cuccinelli, when he asked Perry what strict
constructionism meant to him, and if he would appoint judges who were
strict constructionists, and Perry just repeated "Roberts and Alito,
Roberts and Alito". When Huck asked the follow-up question he did much
better.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 08:57 PM (s7mIC)
Well he didn't just repeat Roberts and Alito. He talked about the kind of judges he's appointed in Texas.
Posted by: Tami at December 03, 2011 05:00 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 05:00 PM (97AKa)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 05:00 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 03, 2011 05:00 PM (dV45O)
For the love of God, someone get Michelle Bachmann a stylist. WTF is she wearing?
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, hoping for a Rick Perry miracle at December 03, 2011 05:00 PM (fYOZx)
Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2011 05:01 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, hoping for a Rick Perry miracle at December 03, 2011 05:02 PM (fYOZx)
Huck -- who is no Perry lover -- did him a favor. Give credit where it's due: Huck saw he had basically missed that. Classy follow-up by Huck,to give Perry another chance to outline his strict constructionalist answer.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:03 PM (YiE0S)
"Yes, Ota..?"
Posted by: Dr. Varno at December 03, 2011 08:41 PM (2+nRx)
I hope Chen Kenichi wins this debate.
Posted by: fiatboomer at December 03, 2011 05:03 PM (kkG60)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:03 PM (r2PLg)
Bachmann is an odd candidate. She give great thoughtful answers to well thought out positions.
Then blows it on off the cuff comments when she is asked a off the cuff question.
Perry is the exact opposite.
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 05:03 PM (NTnm3)
Posted by: jwb7605 at December 03, 2011 05:03 PM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 09:00 PM (nj1bB)
Ewok love!Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:04 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Delta Smelt at December 03, 2011 09:00 PM (dV45O)
Hey, she's not heavy she's my brother.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin at December 03, 2011 05:04 PM (ceK0m)
Posted by: sTevo at December 03, 2011 05:04 PM (VMcEw)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at December 03, 2011 05:04 PM (2+nRx)
Well he didn't just repeat Roberts and Alito. He talked about the kind of judges he's appointed in Texas.
Posted by: Tami at December 03, 2011 09:00 PM (X6akg)
Well yeah. Perhaps my answer was a bit flippant. But he didn't answer Cuccinelli's entire question, of "what does strict constructionism mean to you", he only talked about Roberts and Alito, and about the people he appointed. It is almost as if he didn't hear the first part of the question, I don't know. I think he did much better when Huck re-asked the question.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 05:05 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 09:00 PM (97AKa)
Basically, Paul gets zero scrutiny, so disaffected people tend to read into him what they want. Even when he says insane foreign policy stuff, people will often put it out of their mind, thinking instead it's either general pacifism or skepticism of intervention.
Or they'll ignore that completely and go to economics, ignoring the flirtations with anti-Semitism.
Note that the media has not given us a Paul boomlet. And they won't.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2011 05:05 PM (73tyQ)
I'm pretty sure I saw that she is Florida's Atty Gen'l. Guessing she didn't have moot court on her cv.
Posted by: Peaches at December 03, 2011 05:05 PM (ICv3z)
Posted by: museisluse at December 03, 2011 05:06 PM (4Lj43)
Bachmann is an odd candidate. She give great thoughtful answers to well thought out positions.
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 09:03 PM (NTnm3)
Dont forget that she was right there with Romney bashing Perry when he spoke honestly about the Social Security boondoggle. Tea Party champion, my stole. The woman is a fraud.
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 05:07 PM (97AKa)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 09:00 PM (nj1bB)
Good eye Ace!!
Posted by: Sammie Davis Jr. at December 03, 2011 05:07 PM (ceK0m)
Posted by: museisluse at December 03, 2011 05:08 PM (4Lj43)
I think he did fine both times. Remember, he's not mainly trying to answer all questions thoroughly for the sake of answering them thoroughly. He was throwing red meat out there, showing the types of judges he admires, so GOP voters have an example of who he'd appoint as President.
He triaged.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:09 PM (YiE0S)
Dont forget that she was right there with Romney bashing Perry when he spoke honestly about the Social Security boondoggle. Tea Party champion, my stole. The woman is a fraud.
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 09:07 PM (97AKa)
-----------------------------
I had the same debate with Ace on Twitter. I pointed out that Bachman's main opponent isnt Mitt who she hopes to be the conservative alternative to, But Perry and other conservative who are splitting the conservative vote.
She is too aggressive when attacking Republicans and that does hurt her.
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 05:10 PM (NTnm3)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:10 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: museisluse at December 03, 2011 09:06 PM (4Lj43)
Bachmann is the best one running. She always has been. People like to overreact to things she says.
BTW, this is a great interview/defense format. Kudos to the growing Huckster.
Posted by: really ... at December 03, 2011 05:11 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Tendstl at December 03, 2011 05:11 PM (u6Xkj)
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 05:11 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:11 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: Rightwingva at December 03, 2011 05:11 PM (OJ/tZ)
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 05:12 PM (srIqv)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 05:12 PM (nj1bB)
"Congressman Paul, when you say you want to abolish the Fed, will you replace it with a Department of Silver Dimes?"
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 05:12 PM (s7mIC)
He triaged.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 09:09 PM (YiE0S)
It's true. Those of us in the weeds care and lawyers really care but Perry's going for the average voter and it's much easier to just name-drop because the association is easier to make.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2011 05:12 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:13 PM (KVG2i)
What does this debate prove ?
State Attourney Generals > Reporters when it comes to questions and facts.
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 05:13 PM (NTnm3)
However.
"Righty blogs on twitter are killing me. Democrats have to be laughing there ass off reading our blogs. We are doing all the oppo research for them, and they don't have to spend a nickel. All I see is "Gingrich in 1995" "Gingrich in 1998" etc etc etc."
Don't sweat it.
Remember, their oppo research is plenty good and trust me, they'd have figured it out on their own.
Next, if it damages Gingrich so much he's not viable, let's find out now.
Finally, if it's going to come out, let it come out now and immunize the public on hearing about this, rather than dropping it all in the one-to-one Gingrich/Obama contest.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:13 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 09:10 PM (NTnm3)
Nope, I actually dont mind the attacks, its what primaries are there for. But for somebody who brags all the time about her role in the TP, her core principles and her titanium spine, she was pretty eager to defend a federal entitlement. I dont mind if she is attacking Perry, but she should do so without sounding like a Democrat or stop bragging about being a trucon.
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 05:14 PM (97AKa)
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 05:14 PM (srIqv)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:14 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: twoslaps at December 03, 2011 05:14 PM (S51NE)
Posted by: The Angel Makers ePub at December 03, 2011 05:14 PM (XPnwQ)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 05:14 PM (nj1bB)
Perry did very good for him. I'm waiting for Mitt & Ron Paul. Rick is not good a debates. He did great on Leno amd Megan Kelly this week, etc. He must get nervous at the mike when he knows it's his turn. I don't understand why he almost freezes. He gave a good answer on how proud he was of the judges he appointed. He haa other good answers.
Paul is on now! This should be fun.
Posted by: CarolT at December 03, 2011 05:15 PM (z4WKX)
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 05:15 PM (97AKa)
Bachmann is the best one running. She always has been. People like to overreact to things she says.
BTW, this is a great interview/defense format. Kudos to the growing Huckster.
Posted by: really ... at December 03, 2011 09:11 PM (X3lox)
Yes we've clearly over reacted to her implication that Guardasil is liquid whore that will turn every 12 year old that takes it into a retarded slut. And that we've clearly gotten our money's worth out of intelligence that the Pakistani's gave us.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 05:15 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Rick Santorum at December 03, 2011 05:16 PM (e6MoS)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:16 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: twoslaps at December 03, 2011 05:17 PM (S51NE)
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 05:17 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at December 03, 2011 05:18 PM (2+nRx)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:18 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at December 03, 2011 09:17 PM (qjUnn)
I'm sorry....can you speak up. There's this horrible whining coming from somewhere.
Posted by: Tami at December 03, 2011 05:18 PM (X6akg)
He answered "Roberts and Alito" and then went on to brag about appointing six strict constructionists to the Texas bench -- which, assuming he's right about that (and we'll see if they are or not), is really more important to voters.
"Hey, I appointed six of them to the bench. Every time I had the chance, I appointed a strict constructionist."
You may see that as not exactly responsive to the question. It's not, really. But that's the message he wants to deliver, and I think people want to know that.
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 09:14 PM (nj1bB)
And really isn't that what "strict constructionism" means to all of us? When you hear that its always "judges." You want a judge that interprets the constitution as written. So why not when asked what it means to you talk about judges in the mold of strict constructionists?
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 05:18 PM (GULKT)
Like his style. Like to see him grill obama and holder
Posted by: Willy at December 03, 2011 05:19 PM (PlLjX)
Yeah I know it isnÂ’t possible since they live in the same state.
Fun thought though
Posted by: Mike in CFL at December 03, 2011 05:19 PM (motsG)
Posted by: Willy at December 03, 2011 09:16 PM (PlLjX)
That's a swastika.
Posted by: SethPower at December 03, 2011 05:19 PM (e6MoS)
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 05:19 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 05:20 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 09:14 PM (nj1bB)
Actually, it's good (political) debate. You never answer the question, you use it as a springboard to make your statements.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2011 05:20 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:20 PM (KVG2i)
Perry also went on to say they had to be elected to office, so I'm curious what that means. Did he appoint them or didn't he? I don't understand how Texas selects and confirms its Supreme Justices. Do any Texas lawyers here understand the process? Was Perry talking out of his ass when he said he appointed them, or did he do just that?
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:20 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Peaches at December 03, 2011 05:21 PM (ICv3z)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 09:20 PM (s7mIC)
--------------------------------------------------
Well its not like Ron Paul has much time left on the clock.
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 05:21 PM (NTnm3)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 09:20 PM (KVG2i)
**sniff**sniff**
Posted by: dananjcon at December 03, 2011 05:21 PM (ceK0m)
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 09:20 PM (YiE0S)
I think he said he appoints for a vacancy and they have to run at the appropriate time.
Posted by: Tami at December 03, 2011 05:21 PM (X6akg)
I understand yet I wouldn't go that far. You don't want to be a jackass about it. Besides, the base loves this panel, so it's not like you'd gain points by being seen as habitually evasive.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:22 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:22 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:22 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 05:22 PM (nj1bB)
That's my understanding, in which case, great political answer, Perry. I wouldn't mind confirmation that that's how it works, however.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:23 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 05:23 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 05:23 PM (srIqv)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:23 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 05:24 PM (srIqv)
Perry also went on to say they had to be elected to office, so I'm curious what that means. Did he appoint them or didn't he? I don't understand how Texas selects and confirms its Supreme Justices. Do any Texas lawyers here understand the process? Was Perry talking out of his ass when he said he appointed them, or did he do just that?
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 09:20 PM (YiE0S)
He appointed them. Looking at wikipedia, the governor appoints judges when a vacancy comes up and they are approved by the judge and they likely finish out that term where they are then subject to being re-elected
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 05:24 PM (GULKT)
Well its not like Ron Paul has much time left on the clock.
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 09:21 PM (NTnm3)
Look to the light Ron!!
Posted by: Zelda Rubinstein at December 03, 2011 05:24 PM (ceK0m)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 09:23 PM (nj1bB)
They resign before the end of their term and he appoints a replacement who can then run as an incumbent.
Posted by: Robert at December 03, 2011 05:25 PM (F79HU)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:25 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: The Q at December 03, 2011 05:25 PM (LnQhT)
Yeah I know it isnÂ’t possible since they live in the same state.
Fun thought though
Posted by: Mike in CFL at December 03, 2011 09:19 PM (motsG)
Actually, that's a misconception. It only means that the VA electors cannot vote for both.
The workaround is easy. The electors in that state vote for some third placeholder candidate for one of the offices. If the margin doesn't matter, then both the P and VP are elected. If it does, then there is no majority and the election is thrown to the House (in the case of P) or the Senate (in the case of VP).
Unless you don't hold a house of Congress, it's a moot point.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2011 05:25 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 09:14 PM (nj1bB)
Yeah I understand that there is also a PR strategy to answering questions, this isn't a purely academic debate. But I do think there is something to actually answering the question that is asked instead of answering the question that you want to answer (which is what Romney does all the time), or in the case of what Perry did which IMO is to only answer part of the question.
And yes full disclosure, right now I'm leaning about 70-30 between Romney and Perry.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 05:26 PM (s7mIC)
Yes we've clearly over reacted to her implication
that Guardasil is liquid whore that will turn every 12 year old that
takes it into a retarded slut.
Whatever you think, her thoughts on the effects of Guardisil were of no consequence and had nothing to do with her totally legitimate point that Perry did something that made many recoil at the odd governmental intrusion, and in a pretty sneaky and passively coercive way. Perhaps she should have hit him on what the Texas State Troopers did to that polygamist commune - making a mockery of the law over a phony phone call! That whole situation (Texas' handling of it) was beyond absurd. Of course, we had a "polygamist" on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted for years (WTF?!) ...
And that we've clearly gotten our money's worth out of intelligence that the Pakistani's gave us.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 09:15 PM (GULKT)
Eh. Not much of what anyone is saying about Pakistan seems to matter - or even make one whit of sense - right now. I don't even think anyone has said much of anything about Pakistan, probably because they don't want to step on the land mine of Pakistan's nukes and what we absolutely need to do to get them netralized (the whole real war over there). And somwhow, people seem to have become convinced that India is our natural ally ally, or something. The whole non-aligned nations thing is gone down the memory hole ...
Posted by: really ... at December 03, 2011 05:26 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 05:26 PM (s7mIC)
Another is, he doesn't seem to have solutions to the problems he identifies.
Posted by: Willy at December 03, 2011 05:27 PM (PlLjX)
"Sometimes you feel like a Paulnut;
sometimes you don't!
At times 'Ol Ron sounds nuts
and Rand don't."
Posted by: derit at December 03, 2011 05:27 PM (FQlFL)
Me too.
But.
The mass of the voters in the GOP are, by definition, of average intelligence. That's just how the Bell curve works. Any answer has to be relatable to them, and Perry's answer was. Two, yeah, I think that was Perry answering at his near maximum.
I think he's got good judgment, but isn't hugely bright. Above average, but more in the somewhat above Palin range; not in the W. Bush or Reagan or Gingrich ranges.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:27 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 05:28 PM (97AKa)
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 09:23 PM (srIqv)
MMMM..mmmmMMmmmm..mmmmMmm..slurp...slurp...mmmm...
Posted by: J Rubin at December 03, 2011 05:28 PM (ceK0m)
I think maybe that is what Perry really should do.
But his answers are of themselves fine.
Sure I'd like some brilliant answers.
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 09:22 PM (nj1bB)
But he more or less does this in interviews. This is the problem of being at single-digits, you have to do everything -- appeal to the base and appeal to the opinion-makers who the base listens to.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2011 05:28 PM (73tyQ)
I'm into the 25th hour of a Jericho marathon on Netflix. Who would have thought Jennings & Rall would seem ironically like the Obama administration.
Mittens up next. Then a one minute summary by each of them.
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:29 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 03, 2011 05:29 PM (nKF0m)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 03, 2011 05:29 PM (zmMHo)
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 05:29 PM (NTnm3)
Sorry there, I was busy "preparing" Mittens
Posted by: Jenny Rubin at December 03, 2011 05:29 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Peregrine Took, Hobbits not 4 Ron Paul at December 03, 2011 05:29 PM (gTPzS)
Here's something to soothe your worried mind.
Until a few weeks ago, how many people here thought Newt had a serious chance at the nomination?
Now, how many of the same people who had written him off for the nomination now believe he has no chance against Obama?
Don't allow temperamental pessimism to destroy your serenity.
Obama will not be reelected.
Posted by: JB at December 03, 2011 05:29 PM (7T+Mz)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 05:29 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:30 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: no good deed at December 03, 2011 05:30 PM (mjR67)
Posted by: The Leadership Test Audiobook at December 03, 2011 05:30 PM (Lo+rW)
Posted by: Rightwingva at December 03, 2011 05:30 PM (OJ/tZ)
Posted by: SethPower at December 03, 2011 05:31 PM (e6MoS)
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 05:31 PM (GULKT)
JB, I hope you are correct, but every once in awhile I wander to the left side of the media and am truly frightened that they have it sewn up one way or another and know it and are laughing at us right now.
Mit looks really orange.
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:31 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 05:31 PM (NTnm3)
I wouldn't put Reagan or Dubya in the same plane as Gingrich on an intellectual level.
And wow, a frosty opening between Romney and Huck
Posted by: The Q at December 03, 2011 05:31 PM (LnQhT)
Well, yeah. At this point he has to fight the narrative that he's another Texas dummie a la GW Bush (as imagined by the left).
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 05:31 PM (s7mIC)
Thanks for the explanation.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:31 PM (YiE0S)
Ron Paul has no clue what he just said.
No sweat. I'm sure Andrew and MlR will be along shortly to explain it to us rubes.
Posted by: Count de Monet at December 03, 2011 05:32 PM (4q5tP)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 03, 2011 05:32 PM (zmMHo)
Posted by: really ... at December 03, 2011 05:32 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: no good deed at December 03, 2011 05:32 PM (mjR67)
Such a phony personality.... just icky...
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 05:32 PM (97AKa)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 03, 2011 05:33 PM (jYKvF)
It isn't just intellect but information. People often confuse intelligence with expertise or even the possession of general knowledge in a number of different areas.
Even very smart people aren't really flipping through Wikipedia for the definition of strict constructionist.
I think one of the problems we have is that somehow we've internalized the progressive idea that the president should be some all-knowing ubermensch who bestrides the earth like a colossus. I really like the idea that average shmoes can be president. Because you can't be an expert on everything and those who sound like they are are either like Obama (bullshitters) or Newt (arrogant enough to think they have the answers to everything).
Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2011 05:33 PM (73tyQ)
Agree with @217, he should have jumped all over the 16th on the amendment question.
Posted by: Willy at December 03, 2011 05:33 PM (PlLjX)
Gun sales up 32% over last years black Friday, and requests to the FBI check breaking a record set in 2008.
Stats from USA today.
Posted by: MarkC at December 03, 2011 05:33 PM (D9INj)
Neither would I. I used the word "ranges" plural on purpose. ;-]
I would say IQ of:
W. Bush < Reagan < Gingrich
However:
any above > Perry
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:33 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 05:34 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 05:34 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:34 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: no good deed at December 03, 2011 09:32 PM (mjR67)
Pffft...Piker.
Posted by: Matt Laurer at December 03, 2011 05:34 PM (ceK0m)
Could not agree more, AmishDude! IMHO, it's our major stumbling block on the right.
Posted by: Peaches at December 03, 2011 05:34 PM (ICv3z)
Rand is too sane for this bunch, and seems to lack his dad's Asperger's traits.
Posted by: JB at December 03, 2011 05:34 PM (7T+Mz)
Dammit, I am not letting Mitt sleep over anymore! I was wondering where my makeup kit went
Posted by: Charlie Crist at December 03, 2011 05:35 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: derit at December 03, 2011 05:35 PM (FQlFL)
Posted by: Tami at December 03, 2011 05:35 PM (X6akg)
Give it up, Mittens. RomneyCare is total shit. Eat it, finally.
Posted by: really ... at December 03, 2011 05:35 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:35 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 05:36 PM (97AKa)
Posted by: Peaches at December 03, 2011 05:36 PM (ICv3z)
Ron Paul isn't as smart as he thinks he is.
Posted by: SethPower at December 03, 2011 05:36 PM (e6MoS)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:36 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:36 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: Tami at December 03, 2011 05:37 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Deety at December 03, 2011 05:38 PM (Pm8ax)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:38 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:38 PM (r2PLg)
>> I may be wrong but I think he appoints them initially and then they run for re-election.
Texas judges are elected.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 03, 2011 05:38 PM (PjVdx)
I favor intelligence in Presidents.
I actually think there's potential that Newt could be a great President.
Reagan strode the Earth like a colossus. In my opinion.
† See 242
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:38 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:39 PM (KVG2i)
What programs would you support Mitt ?
I would support some and not support others.
That is Mitt in a nutshell.
Posted by: William Amos at December 03, 2011 05:39 PM (NTnm3)
Posted by: Herman Cain for America at December 03, 2011 05:39 PM (fVaSb)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 03, 2011 09:39 PM (PjVdx)
And Perry has appointed 6 as he said.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 05:40 PM (GULKT)
Mitt has to learn new answers about being the author of Obamacare! I'm sick of his saying Mr. President you should have called me. I've heard that 20 times! Mitt bores me.
Posted by: CarolT at December 03, 2011 05:40 PM (z4WKX)
Posted by: Herman Cain for America at December 03, 2011 05:40 PM (fVaSb)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 05:40 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 05:40 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 05:41 PM (srIqv)
only receive two fraudulent disability checks while working under the table.
Posted by: derit at December 03, 2011 05:41 PM (FQlFL)
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 05:41 PM (97AKa)
Understand, though, that some that I would not support as strongly as I might not support some of those I don't support.
That's what leadership is. From a strictly constructionist view.
Posted by: Mitt Romney at December 03, 2011 05:41 PM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: Rightwingva at December 03, 2011 05:41 PM (OJ/tZ)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 03, 2011 05:41 PM (pRexR)
Rick Perry - 118 (seems below W.)
GWB - 123 (based on SAT conversion)
Saint Ron - 126 (just a guess)
Newt - 140 (for a guy his age, his working memory is damn impressive; he makes impressive conceptual distinctions; it's obvious his verbal abstract reasoning and vocabulary is very high.)
Posted by: JB at December 03, 2011 05:41 PM (7T+Mz)
Texas judges are elected.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 03, 2011 09:38 PM (PjVdx)
We need more discussion on this, Dave in Texas. If Perry misspoke (or mislead), it's important to know that. There's a big difference between appointing 6 constructionists and not.Perry may have realized he badly misspoke, and then added the face they're elected later. On the other hand, what process is it that chooses a judicial nominee for the Texas Supreme Court?
Etc.
Was Perry bullshitting, or did he get it basically right?
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:41 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: ErikW at December 03, 2011 05:41 PM (llTnU)
In fact, a limited fderal government demands someone who is specifically NOT an all-knowing ubermensch to operate correctly, since the point of the limitations of the government, itself, must be made in the character of those inhabiting it. Limited governments aren't supposed to be producing political stars of any sort, since they are limited in what they should be doing.
Posted by: really ... at December 03, 2011 05:42 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: CarolT at December 03, 2011 05:42 PM (z4WKX)
Christina Romer is currently inhabiting some bullshit chair at my university. It's a privately-funded thing for only a semester so, thank God, she'll be gone soon. However, the point is that in discussing her, they talked endlessly about her credentials and the grants and awards she won in academia.
You know who she is? She's the one who made the unemployment chart. You know the one, the one that said we'd be at 5% unemployment by now.
So she was sent to the best schools, took all of the courses, wrote a dissertation, wrote papers, developed theories, was given grants and prizes and when it came time to produce one piece of actual work, the one thing she was actually being educated to do, she produced that chart.
That chart. Now I could have predicted the Obama administration's unemployment rates better by pulling them out of my ass. If I had time, I'd invent outofmyass.com in which I challenge economists and others in academia to make predictions and compare them to the predictions I make by pulling it out of my ass. I think my ass is far more impressive than all of Christina Romer's degrees, awards, grants and accolades.
I don't have the biggest ass in the world, but what comes out of it is better than what one could expect from what is produced from our educational establishment.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2011 05:42 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Rightwingva at December 03, 2011 09:41 PM (OJ/tZ)
He mutates into Charlie Crist as we speak...
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 05:42 PM (97AKa)
GWB - 123 (based on SAT conversion)
Saint Ron - 126 (just a guess)
Newt - 140 (for a guy his age, his working memory is damn impressive; he makes impressive conceptual distinctions; it's obvious his verbal abstract reasoning and vocabulary is very high.)
I think that's very close, but I'd give Newt another 5. I'd be curious though. You could be bang on.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:43 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 05:43 PM (srIqv)
It's like I'm listening and understand the individual words, but he's so full of banality that I can't force myself to comprehend any given sentence.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 03, 2011 09:41 PM (pRexR)
F'n right, man, same with me. Bachman and Perry at least had me paying attention.Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:44 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: I am the walrus, goo-goo-ga-joo at December 03, 2011 05:44 PM (ndp2I)
We need more discussion on this, Dave in Texas. If Perry misspoke (or mislead), it's important to know that. There's a big difference between appointing 6 constructionists and not.
Perry may have realized he badly misspoke, and then added the face they're elected later. On the other hand, what process is it that chooses a judicial nominee for the Texas Supreme Court?
Etc.
Was Perry bullshitting, or did he get it basically right?
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 09:41 PM (YiE0S)
The Chief Justice and the associate justices are elected to staggered six-year terms in state-wide partisan elections. When a vacancy arises the Governor of Texas may appoint Justices, subject to Senate confirmation, to serve out the remainder of an unexpired term until the next general election. As of 2010, six of the current Justices, a majority, were originally appointed by Governor Rick Perry.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 05:44 PM (GULKT)
Romney speaks a bit too quickly, and his orchestrated answers are never excecuted all that well.
I just don't see the polish in Romney. He looks the part, he is intelligent, and he speaks well, but his total is so much less than the sum of the parts.
Posted by: Paper at December 03, 2011 05:44 PM (IvlIt)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 03, 2011 05:45 PM (zmMHo)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 05:45 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 05:45 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:45 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: really ... at December 03, 2011 09:35 PM (X3lox)
He would have had a clear shot to the nomination if he had. Many of us were begging him to do it and he just refuses.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2011 05:45 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: CarolT at December 03, 2011 09:42 PM (z4WKX)
It seems like there are quite a few things he did "On his way out" when he decided he was going to run for president and not run for reelection in Mass.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 05:46 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 05:46 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: SethPower at December 03, 2011 09:44 PM (e6MoS)
He's a Commie. No.
Posted by: ErikW at December 03, 2011 05:47 PM (llTnU)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:47 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:47 PM (YiE0S)
Gun sales up 32% over last years black Friday, and requests to the FBI check breaking a record set in 2008.
Stats from USA today.
Posted by: MarkC at December 03, 2011 09:33 PM (D9INj)
You know its funny, I just has a similar conversation with my neighbor. We live in a blue collar, rural section of north Jersey, we've have no problems with crime in our area. We suspect the higher end neighborhoods may have a problem sooner. Regardless, we're armed; can't speak for the swells in Sparta, Franklin Lakes, Upper Saddle River etc. Most high end towns have private security but there is no protection against muggings and smash and grabs. Brace yourself morons, when they are done eating the rich we are next.
Posted by: dananjcon at December 03, 2011 05:47 PM (ceK0m)
Posted by: Winning at December 03, 2011 05:48 PM (ozpOn)
In Texas, judges are elected. However, particularly with the Supreme Court, it is common for judges to step down before the end of their term, which allows their successor to run as an incumbent.
Posted by: Boone at December 03, 2011 05:48 PM (fVaSb)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 03, 2011 05:48 PM (zmMHo)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 09:46 PM (nj1bB)
You realize that NOW? Didnt you get the memo? Some endorsements are just beneath me.
Posted by: Willard Mittens Romney at December 03, 2011 05:48 PM (97AKa)
"give me a second look" - sounds desperate
"part-time Congress, send them back...to... their districts"
"It was never my purpose to be President" - WTF?????
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 05:48 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Boone at December 03, 2011 05:48 PM (fVaSb)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:49 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:49 PM (YiE0S)
He would have had a clear shot to the nomination if he had. Many of us were begging him to do it and he just refuses.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2011 09:45 PM (73tyQ)
I'm beginning to think that Mitt has something like a RomneyCare teddy bear that he sleeps with at night.
Posted by: really ... at December 03, 2011 05:49 PM (X3lox)
I actually think there's potential that Newt could be a great President.
Reagan strode the Earth like a colossus. In my opinion.
Reagan was unintelligent by all of the measures of the media and the Left. He went to Eureka college and didn't do well.
The thing about Reagan was that he DID. Yes, he made thoughtful speeches and was knowledgeable in that debate with Robert Kennedy, but he honed and thought about political philosophy and in politics and he learned. He was a doer, an accomplisher -- and a man without credentials.
What he had was wisdom.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2011 05:49 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:49 PM (YiE0S)
It's like he's specifically telling me I CAN'T endorse him.
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 09:46 PM (nj1bB)
Oh yes you will.
Posted by: Barry Goldwater at December 03, 2011 05:49 PM (ceK0m)
Posted by: TV's New Gingrich at December 03, 2011 05:49 PM (LnQhT)
Posted by: Faux News at December 03, 2011 05:50 PM (mz0Z6)
Good God, chemjeff, that is exactly what he needs. People to give him a second look. I don't see how acknowledging that does anything but makes him aware. If he just said "Vote for me," you would be screaming, "People already gave up on you, Rick!"
Posted by: Boone at December 03, 2011 05:50 PM (fVaSb)
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 05:50 PM (97AKa)
Way to go, Newt. He's tickling the cockles of my history-loving heart.
And he's nailing Obama as a socialist, plus being gracious.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:50 PM (YiE0S)
I think Paul's IQ is likely north of 130 on account that he got through med school and also ran a specialist practice with no complaints. He also gives off that Asperger's vibe; which pushes his real IQ over the IQ which you see when he talks.
I think that Santorum is also in the 120s, on account of his book It Takes A Family (his creationism is partly a cover, partly Austerian anti-"Darwinism"). I think that Bachmann is about 118 like you say of Perry.
But I'd rate Perry a flat 100. I lived in his Texas over the 2000s; I've had to pay attention to this guy. He's a white Texan prole. He's Euro-average. He's prevented from doing much damage by Texas's weak-governor system and by Texans' penchant for getting shit done anyway whatever the government does.
Posted by: Zimriel at December 03, 2011 05:50 PM (6GvAC)
Posted by: Faux News at December 03, 2011 09:50 PM (mz0Z6)
Yep, like supporting Obama for president.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 05:50 PM (GULKT)
It's less a fundamental prerequisite than a political reality.
Truth is, the leftist meme that Bush was dumb had quite a bit of success. Of course he wasn't, but "perception is reality."
So now they will get Newt, who will rub it in their faces every chance he gets.
It's nice to have someone with an IQ higher than the WH press room - someone who can run rings around them, someone who can challenge the narrative. For better or worse that requires high knowledge and reasoning.
Posted by: JB at December 03, 2011 05:51 PM (7T+Mz)
Now she's talking about jobs, growing the economy, and producing American energy. Good.
She should have lead with those.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:51 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:51 PM (r2PLg)
This is the myth of Mitt Romney. He won a single election with less than 50% of the vote, was not popular during his term, and is not well-liked by his own party.
He does appeal, however, to "David Brooks" type independents who might read National Review along with the NYT editorial page. Good luck riding that wave to the White House.
Posted by: Paper at December 03, 2011 05:52 PM (IvlIt)
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 05:52 PM (srIqv)
He says we need to focus on the economy, but sounds like he's minimilizing it. Talking about healing everyone and people.
More info leads to greater freedoms leads to less social control over people's behaviors.
I agree with him about abortion for moral reasons, but it sounds like he's chastizing everybody's lifestyle, which won't do more than appeal to the base.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:53 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 05:53 PM (97AKa)
Posted by: eman at December 03, 2011 05:53 PM (tOywJ)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 03, 2011 05:53 PM (DECzO)
Posted by: The Q at December 03, 2011 05:54 PM (LnQhT)
Romney waffles, quotes David F'in Brooks approvingly, and even LOOKS like that RINO Charlie Crist
Perry just looked awful
I cannot, will not, vote for the gas bag academic Newt who thinks he is so smart he thinks his stupid ideas aren't in fact stupid
The others - no way
this calls for another beer
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 05:54 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: jwb7605 at December 03, 2011 05:54 PM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: Boone at December 03, 2011 05:55 PM (fVaSb)
Posted by: Rightwingva at December 03, 2011 05:55 PM (OJ/tZ)
"give me a second look" - sounds desperate
"part-time Congress, send them back...to... their districts"
"It was never my purpose to be President" - WTF?????
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 09:48 PM (s7mIC)
I was focused more on Perry's godawful delivery, as contrasted with Mitt (of all people!), but yeah, content wasn't great. Mitt's content was, as was Newt's, and half only of each of Bachman's and Santorum's.Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 05:55 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:55 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 03, 2011 05:56 PM (niZvt)
Santorum never seems to realize that a socially conservative person can't win a broad election talking too specifically about being a social conservative.
You can be (and vote) very conservative on social issues and win, but you can't start talking about issues very specifically (e.g. homosexuality being the moral equivalent of bestiality) and expect to win anything. You will get 'soundbited' to death. You come off as unusual and even prurient.
Posted by: Paper at December 03, 2011 05:57 PM (IvlIt)
Posted by: Zimriel at December 03, 2011 05:57 PM (6GvAC)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 03, 2011 05:57 PM (zmMHo)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 05:58 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Rightwingva at December 03, 2011 05:58 PM (OJ/tZ)
Posted by: JB at December 03, 2011 09:51 PM (7T+Mz)
Bush was dumb, but he performed extraordinarily well under pressure, which more than made up for his lack of intelligence. Kerry was just plain dumb - much dumber than Bush, in fact. Obama is a serious retard. Our federal government was designed to be fool-proof, not nasty-retard-proof. No government can withstand the sort of abuse that putting a blithering idiot like Obama in will do to the system. Those sorts of problems are supposed to be cut off before they get into office - by not letting them run or educating people enough to see that there is only so much that our national institutions can take.
Posted by: really ... at December 03, 2011 05:59 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: AmishDude at December 03, 2011 05:59 PM (73tyQ)
Perry -- I will put Congress down for nap times more often; please give me another look
Bachmann -- I will beat those dumb ass liberals into uniting with us somehow
Newt -- This sure was a great format for a debate. No really.
Ron Paul -- I've got a great big nullification in my pants
Santorum -- All families will gallop off into the sunset with Old Yeller by our sides
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 03, 2011 05:59 PM (ENKCw)
Posted by: Faux News at December 03, 2011 09:50 PM (mz0Z6)
Yep, like supporting Obama for president."
Yup like supporting w twice.
Posted by: Faux News at December 03, 2011 06:00 PM (mz0Z6)
Posted by: The Tiny Book of Tiny Stories ePub at December 03, 2011 06:00 PM (cnCFK)
Posted by: Rightwingva at December 03, 2011 09:55 PM (OJ/tZ)
Earl Scheib has expanded their operations into new and exciting markets.
Posted by: Count de Monet at December 03, 2011 06:00 PM (4q5tP)
Santorum never seems to realize that a socially conservative person can't win a broad election talking too specifically about being a social conservative.
You can be (and vote) very conservative on social issues and winYou should to be a modest social conservative, and proud of your ability to tackle the problems of the nation or community. One thing to remember, is not all voters have great families!
It's OK to note you have a great loving family, and believe in traditional values.
Then shut the fuck up about that, and talk about how you're going to fix the things the country cares about at the moment, within the Overton window.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:00 PM (YiE0S)
I've gotta go with Newt in the primary. I really really wanted Perry, but OMG, it's just not going to happen.
Today I was talking with two liberal friends when one of them got tweeted the Cain announcement. They were like ragging on him saying that he was unqualified to be President and that he cheated on his wife, and I had to do everything I could to not through out that they voted for Bill Clinton twice and they knew he was cheating on his wife the whole time and that Obama brings "unqualified" to a whole 'nother level.
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 06:00 PM (KVG2i)
Posted by: Boone at December 03, 2011 06:00 PM (fVaSb)
Posted by: Faux News at December 03, 2011 06:02 PM (mz0Z6)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:02 PM (s7mIC)
Sitting in a study hall with SAT practice tests - that would get you acclimated to how the SAT works, and that might have helped you in the 1960s-80s when this generation of candidates were taking that test. But hiring some goateed douchebag who can't get an honest job tutoring, say, AP level maths . . .not much value add there.
Posted by: Zimriel at December 03, 2011 06:02 PM (6GvAC)
Santorum never seems to realize that a socially conservative person can't win a broad election talking too specifically about being a social conservative.
You can be (and vote) very conservative on social issues and win, but you can't start talking about issues very specifically (e.g. homosexuality being the moral equivalent of bestiality) and expect to win anything. You will get 'soundbited' to death. You come off as unusual and even prurient.
Posted by: Paper at December 03, 2011 09:57 PM (IvlIt)
I think even Rick knows he won't be the nominee but if he wants to stick around and be the social conservative conscience, good for him.
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 06:02 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: jaimo at December 03, 2011 06:02 PM (KVG2i)
If your state has a Senate race next year please contribute and work for a conservative candidate.
‘Cause we’re going to need them. No mater who is US Pres.
Go Connie Mack! R-FL
Mike
Posted by: Mike in CFL at December 03, 2011 06:03 PM (motsG)
Posted by: eman at December 03, 2011 06:03 PM (tOywJ)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:04 PM (nj1bB)
Has he apologized for being a Speaker of the House that only Boehner could love?
Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at December 03, 2011 06:04 PM (dBvlk)
Hey! who didn't cry when old Yeller died?
Posted by: dananjcon at December 03, 2011 06:04 PM (ceK0m)
Yes yes yes.
Let's make sure that whomever is in the WH (ABO God willing) will face a conservative Congress.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:04 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Zimriel at December 03, 2011 06:05 PM (6GvAC)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:06 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: dananjcon at December 03, 2011 10:04 PM (ceK0m)
I hated that movie and didn't give two craps when the damn dog died.
Posted by: Robert at December 03, 2011 06:06 PM (F79HU)
Posted by: Zimriel at December 03, 2011 10:05 PM
But Michele Bachmann is more smarter
Posted by: kbdabear at December 03, 2011 06:06 PM (Y+DPZ)
We gotta get Dr. Kratos in the lab to create the perfect hybrid clone:
Romney's hair
Bachmann's determination (and boobehs)
Perry's record
Newt's intelligence
Santorum's socon cred
Paul's... umm... nothing from him
Huntsman's leather jacket
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:07 PM (s7mIC)
I think you may be right; I would be very curious to see his SAT scores (especially Math - I'm sure he aced Verbal.)
I think Paul's IQ is likely north of 130 on account that he got through med school and also ran a specialist practice with no complaints. He also gives off that Asperger's vibe; which pushes his real IQ over the IQ which you see when he talks.
One of the salient features of Asperger's is obsession with some particular area of knowledge (like say, fractional reserve banking) in tandem with severe social naivete. In fact, in the psych literature Aspies are described as "sitting ducks" due to this deficiency. Ron "we should offer Iran friendship" displays that with respect to his foreign policy stances.
But I'd rate Perry a flat 100. I lived in his Texas over the 2000s; I've had to pay attention to this guy. He's a white Texan prole. He's Euro-average. He's prevented from doing much damage by Texas's weak-governor system and by Texans' penchant for getting shit done anyway whatever the government does.
I'm really not sure. If pressed I would guess that 111 would be the lowest one could go and achieve any sort of major political office, but he certainly seems the lowest of all the candidates.
Posted by: JB at December 03, 2011 06:07 PM (7T+Mz)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 10:06 PM (nj1bB)
Fortunately, we don't have to vote tomorrow. Let it play out.
Posted by: Tami at December 03, 2011 06:07 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Zimriel at December 03, 2011 10:05 PM
But Michele Bachmann is more smarter
Posted by: kbdabear at December 03, 2011 10:06 PM
Yeh, like he said like what I said again
Posted by: Meghan McCain, English is my 2nd language at December 03, 2011 06:08 PM (Y+DPZ)
Me either, he endorsed hard-core Marxist Tintin-lookalike Kevin fucking Rudd in Australia.
Wait, what just happened to your 2001 talking point?
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 03, 2011 06:08 PM (3OY9N)
I didn't catch that he was quoting Brooks specifically.
However smart the Brooks quote may have been, you've got to find another source for it, in your pre-prepared one-minute closing statement, in the God-damned 2012 GOP primary, for Jesus' sakes!
That's just basic. Numnut.
Posted by: R. Lee Ermey at December 03, 2011 06:08 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Rightwingva at December 03, 2011 06:09 PM (OJ/tZ)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:09 PM (nj1bB)
You don't have to announce anything, be like me. Go in the voting booth pick your poison then go get drunk. At the end of the day they're all politicians that really don't deserve any loyalty.
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 06:10 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 06:10 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: eman at December 03, 2011 06:10 PM (tOywJ)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 03, 2011 06:10 PM (AM0vo)
Been hoping Ace or one of the cob loggers would do a thread on some Senate Republican primaries, hint hint. I say some but maybe Texas is the only one that has a primary of any consequence.
Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at December 03, 2011 06:10 PM (dBvlk)
I'm really not sure. If pressed I would guess that 111 would be the lowest one could go and achieve any sort of major political office, but he certainly seems the lowest of all the candidates.
That's feasible.
Posted by: R. Lee Ermey at December 03, 2011 06:11 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 06:11 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: I am the walrus, goo-goo-ga-joo at December 03, 2011 06:11 PM (ndp2I)
Posted by: Boone at December 03, 2011 06:13 PM (fVaSb)
[snip]
But gingrich suddenly gets filled with Kramer-like enthusiasm for hot new (stupid, liberal) ideas. As I think George Will wrote today, his betrayals would be unexpected, out of the blue, and entirely idiosyncratic. It would just be that the got hot for this faddish liberal idea.
I don't know. I don't know.
This is true about Gingrich. But I think you have to bring in the context that we're currently living. We're about to head over a financial cliff. The Democrat party's strategy is to pretend that's not happening and keep the game going as long as possible. Obama's strategy is to make it worse, I don't know why, my theory is he's basically a Marxist who likes chaos and hates America. Mitt -- what's the risk that he'd cooperate and compromise with the Democratic strategy because he's basically unanchored? Medium-high, I think. Newt -- what's the risk? I think the risk that he'd ignore the fiscal crisis and not try to solve it is actually quite low. He sees the problem, and will want to solve it. Might we get some strange things along the way with Newt? Sure. But I'm a one-issue voter at this point, and that issue is: fix the damn spending crisis. Newt looks pretty good to me.
Posted by: Splunge at December 03, 2011 06:13 PM (2IW5Q)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:14 PM (nj1bB)
Let me see if I can explain this:
The point of the 2010 primary season was to purge the Congress of leftist Republicans, and to push the GOP Right-ward. That's been done: for better (Lee, Paul, the House and the state races) and for worse (Delaware). But mostly better.
Now it's time to support a President who can at least be pushed by the [Rand] Paul / Lee caucus.
Posted by: Zimriel at December 03, 2011 06:14 PM (6GvAC)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 06:14 PM (r2PLg)
CAC does the weekly state-by-state polls, which also includes Senate races too
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:14 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:14 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 03, 2011 10:10 PM (AM0vo)
His entire campaign is focused like a laser beam in challenging Obama, Lincoln-lover, with Lincoln's own political tactic.Everything -- including his closing statement tonight, likening this election to the most important since 1860, and his doing one-to-one debates with whomever, normalizing this format -- is done with this in mind.
Obama may know he can't do these Lincoln-Douglas style debates with Gingrich. So Gingrich follows him around the company, skillfully rebutting everything the President says, just like Lincoln did to Douglas. He'll garner publicity this way, as (barely qualified) candidate Douglas did. Even the media will eventually be forced to notice Lincoln-like President Obama is backing down from the challenge. Normal people noticing in pubs and dinner parties will be less circumspect.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:15 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: eman at December 03, 2011 06:15 PM (tOywJ)
Posted by: Rightwingva at December 03, 2011 06:15 PM (OJ/tZ)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 10:06 PM (nj1bB)
Ace, I know that Newt isnt a truecon, but come on. He has some really conservative achievements from his time as Speaker, beside his transgressions. Willard went straight for the transgressions. He couldnt even bring himself to support the old neoconservative Contract with America. I can understand that people have doubts about Newt and that electability must be considered, but in comparison to Romney on purely ideological grounds?
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 06:15 PM (97AKa)
Ace, you're right, but here's the basic temperamental difference between Romney and Gingrich: Romney's an introvert (at least that's my guess), Gingrich is definitely an extravert.
Which means Romney likely won't give a crap what the base thinks. Introverts think they are closer to eternal truths and are less likely to be influenced. Gingrich, if hit with a rolled-up newspaper like a misbehaving puppy, will.
Posted by: JB at December 03, 2011 06:15 PM (7T+Mz)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 06:16 PM (r2PLg)
Newt wants these Lincoln-Douglas style debates
Newt thinks it's the most important election since 1860
Newt is of course a professor of history...
Newt thinks he is the next Lincoln!
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:17 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 06:17 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:17 PM (nj1bB)
*as (barely qualified) candidate Douglas Lincoln did
What I meant to write is:
Someone convince me that Newt can win in the general. Between the skeletons that fill his closet and his questionable likeability, I'm having serious doubts.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 03, 2011 10:10 PM (AM0vo)
His entire campaign is focused like a laser beam in challenging Obama, Lincoln-lover, with Lincoln's own political tactic.Everything -- including his closing statement tonight, likening this election to the most important since 1860, and his doing one-to-one debates with whomever, normalizing this format -- is done with this in mind.
Obama may know he can't do these Lincoln-Douglas style debates with Gingrich. So Gingrich follows him around the country, skillfully rebutting everything the President says, just like Lincoln did to Douglas. He'll garner publicity this way, as (barely qualified) candidate Lincoln did. Even the media will eventually be forced to notice Lincoln-like President Obama is backing down from the challenge. Normal people noticing in pubs and dinner parties will be less circumspect.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:17 PM (YiE0S)
In the next sentence, he will advocate more open analysis of data, and leave the question open to science after re-study.
I know enough global warming fixated, yet otherwise conservative yuppies that it might actually work.
The truth is that we've only been able to collect worldwide statistical (live) data for about 15 years. Another 200 will actually show a trend. Measuring tree rings on what surviving peasants said 500 years ago about the weather is not what I call "hard data".
Posted by: jwb7605 at December 03, 2011 06:17 PM (Qxe/p)
Because I have him sized up as a trimmer, a man who will take the path of least resistance and cooperate with those who dominate his environment. He did in Massachusetts. In Washington, that means going along with those who want to pretend it's not happening, which is everyone except what is still a small number of recently-elected Republicans, and a few others, not a single one of them Democrats. I do not see him as a man to stand up for what must be done, based on the facts, opposition be damned.
Posted by: Splunge at December 03, 2011 06:18 PM (2IW5Q)
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 06:18 PM (GZitp)
I think with Hannity he said, the jury was out or something like that. I think it's dead. Yeah, I would love 'AGW is a dumbass elitist money grab on a global scale'. At this point, I cant see him waking up one day and pushing it. But it's just a gut feeling. I have no special insight into what he thinks.
RightwingVA, there are plenty of people whose stance is - "I don't know if AGW is real or not, but we have to act like it is just in case."
I don't dislike Newt, he's currently my number 2... distant number 2. But with Newt and Romney, it would be silly not to expect betrayals of conservatives. Newt, more than anything else, wants to be liked. In the Republican primary, that means courting conservatives. As soon as the primary is over, get ready for Monty Python Newt. "She turned me into a conservative... but I got better."
Posted by: Boone at December 03, 2011 06:18 PM (fVaSb)
Substantively, Ace ... two of three of chemjeff's specific criticisms of Perry's final statement were on target:
"give me a second look" - sounds desperate
"part-time Congress, send them back...to... their districts"
"It was never my purpose to be President" - WTF?????
Further, Dave in Texas says Texas judges are elected, full stop. Perry claimed to have appointed 6. Maybe he did.
But before we give Perry a pass for no significant gaffes, can we fact check this?
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:20 PM (YiE0S)
Ace, I know that Newt isnt a truecon, but come on. He has some really conservative achievements from his time as Speaker, beside his transgressions. Willard went straight for the transgressions. He couldnt even bring himself to support the old neoconservative Contract with America. I can understand that people have doubts about Newt and that electability must be considered, but in comparison to Romney on purely ideological grounds?
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 10:15 PM (97AKa)
Bingo, with welfare reform and balanced budgets, Newt has had more conservative achievements at the national level than anyone not named Reagan.
Newt has an uncanny ability to key in on how national policy affects people locally, this will play very well in states like Ohio and PA and VA. Obama is completely inept at this, except to claim some bridge is about to collapse.
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 06:21 PM (srIqv)
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 10:20 PM (YiE0S)
It's been asked and answered several times on this thread. What more do you want?
You think he just made it up that he's appointed some judges? He clearly said after he appoints them for a vacancy, they then have to run for election.
Posted by: Tami at December 03, 2011 06:22 PM (X6akg)
Of course, the trains actually all arrived in the station without incident.
It is odd. It's more of a thing that would be considered confirmatory, if you already thought Perry was lacking in brainpower.
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 10:17 PM (nj1bB)
And that's how it is. Notice that some commenters were going critical on Perry for stuttering. Yet nothing about Romney's stuttering during his answers from these same commenters? They are essentially looking for things to declare Perry done and ignoring the same behaviors from other candidates.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 06:23 PM (GULKT)
Sent him a link to the most recent poll I'm aware of, but it was not very recent.
Knew a guy who washed out of Air Force OCS. He said only the best of the best got to fly any kind of jet, nevermind fighters. The overwhelming majority of pilots who did graduate got assigned to props.
Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at December 03, 2011 06:23 PM (dBvlk)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 03, 2011 06:23 PM (pXUMW)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 06:24 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 10:17 PM (s7mIC)
Nah. Newt just wants to kick Obama's political ass Lincoln's time-tested strategy, and the fact Obama has identified so strongly with admiring Lincoln, in public, is a huge plus.Newt is like Lincoln in one key area: they both debate up a storm!
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:24 PM (YiE0S)
Probably right on Mitt. Newt's problem is, if he thinks some Republican bill goes to far on limiting him as President or restricting what the fed can or can't do he'll probably go straight off the reservation and oppose the GOP led congress. Just like he did with Paul Ryan.
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 06:24 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:24 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: no good deed at December 03, 2011 06:25 PM (mjR67)
LOVED HIM.
Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at December 03, 2011 10:03 PM (qjUnn) "
Fat shrimp, you loved w, you love the new crop of crazies, because you want the apocalypse. You are praying for the apocalypse.
Clinton gave w a surplus and w turned it into economic collapse.
Posted by: Faux News at December 03, 2011 06:26 PM (mz0Z6)
Further, Dave in Texas says Texas judges are elected, full stop. Perry claimed to have appointed 6. Maybe he did.
But before we give Perry a pass for no significant gaffes, can we fact check this?
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 10:20 PM (YiE0S)
Dude look it up. Hell check my comment at 297 its right there. Its the second time I gave you the answer. Perry said nothing wrong and didn't lie. I've fact checked it twice among others telling you it as well. Its been fact checked to death.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 06:26 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: eman at December 03, 2011 06:29 PM (tOywJ)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:29 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 03, 2011 10:23 PM
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:29 PM (YiE0S)
429 - Ace, the funny thing is, I think in most people it is seen as a sign of intelligence. It's usually the intelligent people who interrupt their own train of thought with some other thought.
My thought on it is that he is as smart as the others, but a little more earnest. I have been participating in public speaking classes recently, and the thing that has always struck me as odd is that when the people aren't told what they are going to speak about, there are two types of people:
one type of person is the person concerned with giving the best presentation: they come across as very polished and will give a confident answer... that almost never has anything to do with the topic, or at best only tangentially so.
The other type of person is the one concerned with giving the best answer. They will usually appear less confident because they are still working the idea out in their head as they give their answer. In fact, one of the key pieces of advice I get is to decide what your answer is and don't worry in the end if you are right or not.
Romney and Newt are the first type: They have a polished answer that will deal with a general topic, so when they get that question, they will go into the answer they already knew they were going to give.
I think Perry is the second type... indeed, I can pretty darn well prove it. When he couldn't remember what the third agency was and Mitt threw out EPA, there wasn't a darn person in the audience who knew what the third agency was. If Perry was going for presentation, the best answer is "EPA, that's it!" and it would have been seen as a hiccup, but not a campaign killer. But instead, he answered, No, it wasn't the EPA. I don't remember which it was.
Posted by: Boone at December 03, 2011 06:29 PM (fVaSb)
in fairness there's really no question but that Mitt Romney is a very bright guy.
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 10:29 PM (nj1bB)
Well yeah, but if you're going to complain about one guy stuttering in his answers and not another also stuttering...
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 06:30 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 10:29 PM (nj1bB)
Stupid is as stupid does.David Brooks quote? During the Republican 2012 primary? In a pre-prepared, rehearsed, one-minute speech?
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:31 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 06:31 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at December 03, 2011 06:31 PM (V6fqC)
Oh, buzzion, guilty as charged. But I think I was sufficiently critical of Romney here, don't you think?
349 gawd now I'm even more depressed
Romney waffles, quotes David F'in Brooks approvingly, and even LOOKS like that RINO Charlie Crist
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:33 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:34 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Burke at December 03, 2011 06:34 PM (wmdMN)
Setting aside Gingrich's bombastic unpredictability and un-conservative mentality, he potentially smooth-talking enough to sell really bad ideas. Additionally, one of the ironic pluses to Romney is that less people on the right are under any illusions about his trust-worthiness, meaning he'll have a spotlight on him from the beginning.
That said, I'm not a fan of either of them.
Posted by: MlR at December 03, 2011 06:34 PM (/v94V)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:34 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: eman at December 03, 2011 06:35 PM (tOywJ)
Dude look it up. Hell check my comment at 297 its right there. Its the second time I gave you the answer. Perry said nothing wrong and didn't lie. I've fact checked it twice among others telling you it as well. Its been fact checked to death.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 10:26 PM
Thanks, Buzzion, I missed it:The Chief Justice and the associate justices are elected to staggered six-year terms in state-wide partisan elections. When a vacancy arises the Governor of Texas may appoint Justices, subject to Senate confirmation, to serve out the remainder of an unexpired term until the next general election.
As I said above, if that checked out, it was a good political answer by Perry. I was defending Perry's answer as being a good one, with the caveat that he confused the issue by mentioning electing judges after appointing them, without clarifying. I'm still curious which are the 6 justices he appointed, although I'm no longer doubting that he appointed them.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:35 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 06:36 PM (r2PLg)
No question about it, Newt cannot be relied on to stay on the reservation. In normal times, no Newt for me. But not now.
For me, this existential spending/debt crisis is on a par with WW II, in terms of needing to be won in order to ensure the continued survival of our nation in appropriate form. I think Newt would try to fix it. (I think Perry would too)
Remember Churchill's history. At the time he became Prime Minister, he was regarded as a failed politician from a previous era, a man with serious failures behind him, a man who could not be relied upon because he had 50 ideas a week, 40 of them bad, 9 of them OK, one of them brilliant (e.g. chaff, the tank). Sound familiar? But Churchill was the right man for the job, as I think Newt is a right man for this one. After the war, the voters turfed Churchill out. If Newt solves this crisis, I'll be right there with the people who say it's time for him to go, afterwards.
Posted by: Splunge at December 03, 2011 06:36 PM (2IW5Q)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 06:37 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Winning at December 03, 2011 06:37 PM (ozpOn)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 06:38 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 10:34 PM
It's a good copywriting tactic. Probably doesn't translate well into live, high-stress debates for most people!
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:38 PM (YiE0S)
Heh - that's a new one.
Well I'm not going to quibble over a statement like that, that can be interpreted in different ways. I just thought it was very very strange he would say something like that, especially coming after his (IMO desperate-sounding) plea to give him a second look.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:39 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:39 PM (nj1bB)
I guess if you don't like him, you won't think he did well if you don't want to. I think they all did well except Ron Paul, but that's because I think he is batshit crazy. I was glad he was finally, FINALLY asked how he planned to dismantle Leviathan and actually admitted it couldn't be done overnight - but I still can't stand the dude or especially his insane cult. It wouldn't matter if I radically changed overnight and suddenly agreed with him on everything, I couldn't vote for him if for no other reason than I hate his deranged supporters.
Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2011 06:40 PM (kBxk7)
Posted by: Winning at December 03, 2011 06:40 PM (ozpOn)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 03, 2011 10:10 PM (AM0vo)
His entire campaign is focused like a laser beam in challenging Obama, Lincoln-lover, with Lincoln's own political tactic.Everything -- including his closing statement tonight, likening this election to the most important since 1860, and his doing one-to-one debates with whomever, normalizing this format -- is done with this in mind.
Obama may know he can't do these Lincoln-Douglas style debates with Gingrich. So Gingrich follows him around the country, skillfully rebutting everything the President says, just like Lincoln did to Douglas. He'll garner publicity this way, as (barely qualified) candidate Lincoln did. Even the media will eventually be forced to notice Lincoln-like President Obama is backing down from the challenge. Normal people noticing in pubs and dinner parties will be less circumspect.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 10:17 PM (YiE0S)
--------------------------------
I think you're dead on. The irony is that Gingrich, who was once second in line to the presidency as Speaker of the House, will be running against a second-rate president in Obama, who is the least qualified person to ever hold the office.
Great post, by the way.
Posted by: SethPower at December 03, 2011 06:40 PM (e6MoS)
I'm still curious which are the 6 justices he appointed, although I'm no longer doubting that he appointed them.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 10:35 PM (YiE0S)
Well click the link I gave you. Look at the list of judges on the court, and look at the date their service began. I think you can assume that the ones that did not have their start date being January 1 of a year were appointed by Perry. Especially since all 6 of them were appointed after Bush became president and the other 3 all have a start date as January 1.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 06:40 PM (GULKT)
Yes, I can easily see a President Gingrich using his substantial bully pulpit to browbeat people into supporting a stupid idea just because Gingrich thinks it is smart in his own mind.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:41 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:41 PM (nj1bB)
Remember Churchill's history. At the time he became Prime Minister, he was regarded as a failed politician from a previous era, a man with serious failures behind him, a man who could not be relied upon because he had 50 ideas a week, 40 of them bad, 9 of them OK, one of them brilliant (e.g. chaff, the tank). Sound familiar? But Churchill was the right man for the job, as I think Newt is a right man for this one. After the war, the voters turfed Churchill out. If Newt solves this crisis, I'll be right there with the people who say it's time for him to go, afterwards.
Posted by: Splunge at December 03, 2011 10:36 PM
Fair point. But then, Newt's had some major legislative achievements.Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:42 PM (YiE0S)
As for your statement -- can you cite that? I've never heard that, and that's terribly strange. Wouldn't everyone be talking about this if it were true?
+1. Please.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:42 PM (YiE0S)
Okay, serious question. What did you think of Perry's answer to Cuccinelli's question about repealing ObamaCare via executive order? You realize Cuccinelli was asking him a trick question, right?
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:43 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Winning at December 03, 2011 10:40 PM (ozpOn)
Yeah, that's the way to get people to support your candidate.
Posted by: Tami at December 03, 2011 06:43 PM (X6akg)
I always thought his fidelity to the tenth goes to far sometimes, like when asked about gay marriage after he first announced. Sometimes he uses it as a cop out.
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 06:43 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2011 06:44 PM (kBxk7)
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:44 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:44 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 10:40 PM (GULKT)
Thanks again.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:45 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Winning at December 03, 2011 06:45 PM (ozpOn)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:46 PM (nj1bB)
But, Beth, that wasn't the real heart of the question. The real heart of Cuccinelli's question, as I understood it, was how Perry viewed executive authority vis a vis Congress' power to legislate. Perry fumbled the question.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:46 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: toby928© at December 03, 2011 06:46 PM (GTbGH)
Perry has good facts. I can see a lot of questions that can and should be answered by, "My state created 1 million jobs in the past two years while the nation lost 2 and half million."
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 10:39 PM (nj1bB)
Facts speak more to an AoS moron type audience, but maybe not to the electorate at large.
We did elect Hope and Change after all.
I fear the media caricature of Perry as a redneck idiot GWBx10. I know they caricature all of our candidates, but we need someone who can fight back. Perry has shown flickers of promise in sit down interviews, but not enough. Newt would certainly fight back.
Also, I'm told women think he's devastatingly handsome, and that could appeal to the View/Oprah types.
Bobby Jindal needs to get his ass to Iowa and talk up Perry. He needs all the help he can get.
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 06:47 PM (srIqv)
I interpreted it as a question more generally about executive authority.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:47 PM (s7mIC)
I smell fat...
Posted by: Faux News at December 03, 2011 10:31 PM (mz0Z6)
It's probably leaking from your brainpan into your sinus cavity. Better put some ice on it.
Posted by: Count de Monet at December 03, 2011 06:47 PM (4q5tP)
The police are out in force, supporting legalizing marijuana.
Ladies, we can no longer afford our war on drugs, we can no longer afford our other wars on others soil.
Ladies, time to leave people the fuck alone.
Posted by: Faux News at December 03, 2011 06:48 PM (mz0Z6)
It is probably true that a Republican President could write EOs to make it harder for various provisions of the law to work. However, just throwing a wrench into the works of the plan does not sound like a winning political strategy to me. Too easy for the Democrats to say (perhaps rightly), "Look -- the Republican President is preventing it from working as it should, but we're still paying for it.")
Maybe some EOs would make sense, but the Republican President would have to be careful.
Repeal by the Congress is another matter: It's still popular, and it's the right thing to do.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:48 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Winning at December 03, 2011 10:45 PM (ozpOn)
We went after Romney's family? I'm afraid you're going to have to show that.
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 06:48 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:49 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Winning at December 03, 2011 10:45 PM (ozpOn)
You mad bro?
Posted by: Tami at December 03, 2011 06:50 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Winning at December 03, 2011 06:50 PM (ozpOn)
Posted by: Girl Hunter ePub at December 03, 2011 06:50 PM (mHe1D)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:50 PM (s7mIC)
That's what Cuccinelli was getting at. None of the three AG's were impressed with his answer in the debate followup.
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 06:51 PM (GZitp)
From the NYT piece:
To date, only one of Mr. PerryÂ’s 10 Supreme Court appointees has lost a subsequent election to the court.
So Perry has appointed 9, not 6, judges who served on the TX Supreme Court?
Cool, I guess. 6-9. So easy to get those numbers mixed up. I always visualize them upside down, even sideways. I'll give Perry a pass on that one.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:51 PM (YiE0S)
Certainly. Different yardsticks -- in a Parliamentary system, you don't measure MPs by "legislative achievements," and certainly Churchill had significant accomplishments of his own, his writing not least.
The interesting part of the story, to me, is that Newt's achievements were, like his failures, precisely the result of his cleverness. I still consider the "Contract With America" to be his greatest achievement. Yes, it has been run down here, I'm not sure why, possibly because the Left ("Contract On America") succeeded in denigrating it in the public mind. But what it really was, was taking 10 things that Americans favored, as evidenced by polls, that the Democrats wouldn't give them, and saying "we promise that there will be a vote on all of these." (and there was) What that did was transform voting for Congress, especially in the South, where voting for Democrats had become more tribal and local than philosophical, into something done for countrywide reasons, and it brought in the Republican congress. It was brilliant.
For the present emergency, the primary point is that Newt doesn't just apply his cleverness to coming up with schemes for governance. He can also apply it to winning the day.
Posted by: Splunge at December 03, 2011 06:51 PM (2IW5Q)
Forgive Winning, he can't see anything past Romney's thighs and navel.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 06:52 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:52 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 06:53 PM (r2PLg)
True, but neither did Lincoln. And with Welfare Reform, Gingrich's had a lot of legislative experience. Plus, like Lincoln, he's a good debater. I'm not saying he's as good as Lincoln was as a debater, but he should wipe the floor with Obama more often than not.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:55 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2011 06:55 PM (kBxk7)
Does the number really matter or the point he was trying to make?
Posted by: lowandslow at December 03, 2011 06:56 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 06:56 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 06:57 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 10:52 PM (s7mIC)
There are currently 6 on the court that were appointed by Perry and still serve. That is what he said.
Its entirely possible he's also appointed 4 more in his time as governor and one lost re-election and the other 3 did not seek it for whatever reason.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 06:57 PM (GULKT)
That's my understanding from the article Beth linked to. Now if one understates an accomplishment, it's hardly a serious gaffe. Or maybe he meant 6 were strict constructionists?
Either way, I find Perry's statement to be truthful and his answer to be politically sound.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:57 PM (YiE0S)
Ah. Anyway, good political answer by Perry.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 06:58 PM (YiE0S)
it appears that Perry appointed 6 of the current justices
that is consistent with buzzion's link
perhaps Perry appointed 10 in total, but only 6 of them are currently serving?
or perhaps the NYT is lying
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 06:59 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 06:59 PM (srIqv)
Honestly I've never even looked up the Texas Supreme Court until tonight. So really how can chemjeff and Random get so confused by it when I'm just glancing at the wiki page and getting everything straight.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 07:00 PM (GULKT)
My candidate didn't make any gaffes. Because of nuance.
Posted by: jwb7605 at December 03, 2011 07:01 PM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: Count de Monet at December 03, 2011 07:01 PM (4q5tP)
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 10:59 PM (srIqv)
Cuccinelli: Mr. Cain, can you tell me which amendment to the Constitution you believe to be a mistake?
Cain: Amendment 999!
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 07:02 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 10:56 PM (nj1bB)
No, he wasn't. Not then.I didn't remember that Perry had said the 6 were still serving, and thought he meant over his career as governor. So after reading the NYT piece, I asked a question about 6 vs. 9 in these threads, and chemjeff was trying to clarify that.
chemjeff -- delivery aside -- did raise some good points about weaknesses in Perry's closing speech.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 07:03 PM (YiE0S)
Do not taunt strict contructionist view.
Posted by: toby928© at December 03, 2011 07:03 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 07:04 PM (s7mIC)
I never claimed Perry was lying. I thought it was probably a good answer. I just didn't know and so asked if anyone here knew. You answered. Thanks.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 07:05 PM (YiE0S)
Even still, you were asking about it as a question, not restating something factually untrue.
Posted by: Random at December 03, 2011 07:06 PM (YiE0S)
That's what I'm saying - they're ALL saying they'll do this or that to kill Obamacare (and other things!) but only Perry was asked about it - because, as was mentioned above, he is a strong advocate for the 10th Amendment and it could be seen as inconsistent with his philosophy (I think it doesn't matter, we need to get rid of Obamacare, tenth amendment ideological purity be damned) if one wanted to make the argument. I understand why he was asked the question, and I actually expected it from them. I don't think he flubbed the answer, because being a good President does not require absolute fidelity to ideology when the republic is in peril, as with the monstrosity that is Obamacare. Do what it takes. Perry will do what it takes that he has the power to do. I don't feel as certain that ALL the other candidates will. I certainly don't think all the others would articulate how they'd do it any more eloquently than Perry did.
I cannot believe people are complaining about Perry wanting to crush Obamacare. LOL! As if he's the only one who goes out on a limb on the issue, ffs!
Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2011 07:06 PM (kBxk7)
There's a very easy response to this: When you were governor, your state ranked 47th in job creation.
Answers aren't everything.
As for Gingrich, he will claim co-authorship of the Clinton economy, and I suppose there's a good case to be made there, but... still. No actual experience as the top dog.
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 10:49 PM (nj1bB)
--
WTF? Are you saying he couldn't do any better than Barky as CIC? I think Newt would at least attempt to lead.
Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for short at December 03, 2011 07:07 PM (1h05U)
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 07:08 PM (nj1bB)
But that was the heart of the question. Actually it was not so much about the 10th Amendment, but about executive power. IMO the correct "academic" answer would have been something like: "Of course the President should not usurp Congress' authority to legislate, but I will do everything that is Constitutionally permissible to thwart ObamaCare from being implemented, and in January 2013 I will push Congress relentlessly to fully repeal ObamaCare in its entirety".
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 07:10 PM (s7mIC)
THAT'S IT! Cain quit today despite his insistence that the allegations are false, because he was dodging Ken Cuccinelli! LOOOOOOOL (Wise move on his part, Cuccinelli would have destroyed him without even trying!)
Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2011 07:10 PM (kBxk7)
no of course he could. I'm talking about Perry's relative advantage in getting elected.
Posted by: ace at December 03, 2011 11:08 PM (nj1bB)
--
OK, my apologies. I haven't read the entire thread. I'll go back to watching the ass-thumping OSU is putting on OU at the moment.
Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for short at December 03, 2011 07:10 PM (1h05U)
Posted by: Faux News at December 03, 2011 07:12 PM (mz0Z6)
WTF? Are you saying he couldn't do any better than Barky as CIC? I think Newt would at least attempt to lead.
Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for short at December 03, 2011 11:07 PM (1h05U)
You know what, I can think up a way that Newt will be more like Obama and Mitt will be less like Obama. I think Newt would be very happy with a partisan piece of legislation where the democrats were all but shut out of the drafting of it. Mitt will be very happy with a piece of bipartisan legislation that the squishy senate rinos and democrats worked very hard to get through with strong opposition from the conservative wing.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 07:12 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 03, 2011 11:04 PM (s7mIC)
It's okay, every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
Don't worry about it.
Posted by: SethPower at December 03, 2011 07:13 PM (e6MoS)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 07:13 PM (r2PLg)
That's the hope with Gingrich, and hopefully the lesson Gingrich takes from his Churchill history study.
Posted by: The Q at December 03, 2011 07:15 PM (LnQhT)
WTF? Are you saying he couldn't do any better than Barky as CIC? I think Newt would at least attempt to lead.
Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for short at December 03, 2011 11:07 PM (1h05U)
You know what, I can think up a way that Newt will be more like Obama and Mitt will be less like Obama. I think Newt would be very happy with a partisan piece of legislation where the democrats were all but shut out of the drafting of it. Mitt will be very happy with a piece of bipartisan legislation that the squishy senate rinos and democrats worked very hard to get through with strong opposition from the conservative wing.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 11:12 PM (GULKT)
----
I would have to agree........as much as I hate the thought - it is likely.
Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for short at December 03, 2011 07:15 PM (1h05U)
I guess I'm not really sure what the problem is. Are you just not satisfied with the way he answered it, or do you think he'll go for a massive power grab to try to govern by executive order like Obozo? If you're thinking the latter, PLEASE read his book.
Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2011 07:17 PM (kBxk7)
Ace, I agree on Newt and probably Romney, my point was that he isn't an idiot compared to the field at large. Reagan's point is a good one, and Perry would have benefited from it. (I also think it was a bit unfortunate that Perry was next to Ron Paul, which seemed to be the impetus of his cutting discussion. Perry needs to learn to answer the question and then stop answering it.)
Yes, he tried to play it off with the EPA. But when needled on it, he could easily have said, "It's the EPA, I knew it was the EPA, I just wanted to play with y'all." Some people wouldn't have believed that (and as it turns out, they would have been right), nevertheless, the crowd's initial reaction was clearly taking it as a joke, and he could have played it as a joke that he took too far.
Posted by: Boone at December 03, 2011 07:18 PM (fVaSb)
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 11:12 PM (GULKT)
That's the only way sensible legislation can get through Congress. If any dems support something, you know there's something wromg with it.
But that is very different from the way Obama has acted during the near-criminal legislation of his dstroy-America agenda. Obama didn't even speak to any Republicans. He just wouldn't meet with them. Any of them. Newt would nver back away from trying to debate/convince dems and others and anyone he can find that he is right.
Dem partisan legislation and GOP partisan legislation are two very different animals. There is nothing but a very superficial parity there. Pushing old ladies into traffic and pushing old ladies out of traffic are both pushing old ladies around ...
Posted by: really ... at December 03, 2011 07:18 PM (X3lox)
I'd also be wary of Texas governors based on Bush's tenure in the 90s. Bush created a genuine bipartisan climate in Texas and was helped by the fact that A) the governor had limited power and B) the state was pretty Republican.
When Bush went to DC, he expected the same type of genuine bipartisanship, and he got whacked in the face by the snake Dems.
Perry is tougher, and has taken steps to increase the executive power of the Texas governor, but DC is a whole different animal than Texas.
Posted by: The Q at December 03, 2011 07:18 PM (LnQhT)
I would have to agree........as much as I hate the thought - it is likely.
Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for short at December 03, 2011 11:15 PM (1h05U)
That's what I see Mitt doing with Obamacare. Making a speech that how with his leadership and the efforts of McCain and Graham and their Democrat colleagues from across the aisle they have arrived at a bill to modify Obamacare so that it "works" which will save the time and process of repealing the old bill and replacing it with a brand new bill.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 07:19 PM (GULKT)
The Churchill parallel has been brought up already - this isn't a typical election.
This isn't a conventional wisdom election - this is why the yapping dogs of the mainstream media don't bother me all that much. All they have to offer is their CW conception of how the public will react to candidates.
But the independents aren't fooled. They know we're in deep doo-doo - hence SCoaMF's poll numbers with them.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
Posted by: JB at December 03, 2011 07:19 PM (7T+Mz)
Posted by: Jose at December 03, 2011 10:59 PM (srIqv)
Yup - he would suck hind tit there as it was what he often talked about prior to throwing his hat in the ring, didn't talk much about Public Law, US Code, or the CFR much.
Posted by: Rmoney at December 03, 2011 07:21 PM (7MFxV)
You cannot possibly believe Rick Perry expects bipartisanship or "compassionate conservatism." Seriously? This is the guy who says we need to stop sucking up to liberals because no matter what we say they won't like us or vote with us anyway. He's no Bush, that's for damn sure. (NTTAWWT)
Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2011 07:23 PM (kBxk7)
Posted by: Faux News at December 03, 2011 11:12 PM (mz0Z6)
Yeah, but - like your parents - we dont want you.
Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at December 03, 2011 07:25 PM (97AKa)
We don't have to go too far to understand Mitt.
His book title, No Apologies - typical literary double-entendre.
One meaning - no apology for American greatness, unlike the apologist-in-chief BHO.
Second meaning - no apology for his personal awesomeness - and yes, I read as an FU to the base. No apology for Romneycare.
Posted by: JB at December 03, 2011 07:26 PM (7T+Mz)
Posted by: Fox2! at December 03, 2011 07:29 PM (RJOgX)
No, but I can see Perry thinking he can get things done in DC far easier than things would actually get done.
Unless the GOP wins a filibuster-proof majority in both houses, there are going to be major problems in getting done what we need to get done.
Posted by: The Q at December 03, 2011 07:29 PM (LnQhT)
There are a lot of really stupid libs walking around who graduated summa cum laude who are fucking up this country in a big way. Go vote for them if that shit matters to you.
Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2011 07:34 PM (kBxk7)
No, but I can see Perry thinking he can get things done in DC far easier than things would actually get done.
Unless the GOP wins a filibuster-proof majority in both houses, there are going to be major problems in getting done what we need to get done.
Posted by: The Q at December 03, 2011 11:29 PM (LnQhT)
Well I think all of them know it won't be that easy to get through what they actually want. That said, I'd rather the negotiations start at Perry's position than at Romney's.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 07:34 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 07:35 PM (r2PLg)
I'd rather start with a loaded gun to my head than with Romney's.
Posted by: The Q at December 03, 2011 07:36 PM (LnQhT)
Posted by: Fox2! at December 03, 2011 11:29 PM (RJOgX)
Still do.. ironically, the transport/cargo plane was the lowest rung in the AF eyes of flying fast pointy things, but made easy transition to flying transport in the private sector for big $$$ after a tour.
Posted by: Rmoney at December 03, 2011 07:36 PM (7MFxV)
Academic elitism is repulsive and ignorant, especially when it comes from the ass end of our side.
Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2011 07:40 PM (kBxk7)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 07:41 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 07:43 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Fox2! at December 03, 2011 07:51 PM (RJOgX)
Wow that interviewer just fucked up. "First innaugural Big 12 Championship" He fixed himself on his next saying.
Posted by: buzzion at December 03, 2011 07:56 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Fox2! at December 03, 2011 07:56 PM (RJOgX)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 07:58 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 08:00 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Fox2! at December 03, 2011 08:20 PM (RJOgX)
Think back, remember Obama's first meeting with the republicans, he said "I won." Obama's huge ego has led to gridlock in DC. If and when (I pray) we get rid of him, I am sure with a reasonable republican president, gridlock would be over.
I was sick when he won, I did not need him reminding us that he did win, he won because McCaim was asleep as the nominee, lest he be called racist. He should have brough up Rezko, Rev Wright, Ayers & wife Dorn (1960's domestic terrorists that did not do enough, published in NYT on 9/11/2001? could be day before) etc. Obama's Aunt Zetunie living here in Boston illegally and now has asylum, and MA is paying for her housing, etc. There is a news clip of her saying she's entitled to it, but she's illegal. Obama's illegal uncle Omar, arrested for drunk driving in August 2011, let go, he's been on list to be deported for almost 20 years but they kept him out of sight for awhile and now he's working at the liquor store he has been for years. I cannot remember the city in MA. Framingham rings a bell for it, search Framingham arrests in August/September 2011. Uncle Omar's employer is not following the I9 verification laws. They should be fined out of business!
Posted by: CarolT at December 03, 2011 08:40 PM (z4WKX)
ACE
pls read
http://bit.ly/nr0zcF
Info on Perry, Air Force, jets, and assignments
Answers questions very definitively.
I read the above article some time ago, but IIRC, there was a glut of pilots during that period. Perry made Captain And had the option of remaining in service to be a jet pilot instructor. I've read elsewhere that one of his performance raters said he was an outstanding young officer.
Posted by: redneck hippie at December 03, 2011 08:45 PM (56zLh)
Posted by: tasker at December 03, 2011 08:59 PM (r2PLg)
So in other words he just flew back and forth, and we all know that takes no brains.
So Perry is as dumb as a space shuttle pilot.
(3) Dafydd the Purveyor of Irrelevant and Trivial Facts made the following comment | Aug 31, 2011 2:11:16 AM | Permalink
Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2011 09:17 PM (kBxk7)
Typical. LOL
Posted by: Beth at December 03, 2011 09:19 PM (kBxk7)
Beth at December 04, 2011 01:19 AM
Also:
http://bit.ly/rWcAE8
C-130 pilots are sexier than newts or mitts
Posted by: redneck hippie at December 03, 2011 09:31 PM (56zLh)
The most highly ranked students frequently chose fighters. The lowest ranked student typically found a tanker/transport/bomber assignment waiting for him.
Posted by: Fox2! at December 03, 2011 11:29 PM (RJOgX)"
What kind of military service did Romney find waiting for him in France during the Vietnam war?
Perry is, by far, the best on the measure you're disrespecting him for. You make assumptions as though you're an expert, but Perry's military service is by all accounts excellent.
This is yet another edition of the crap the hit Bush with. You should be some kind of proof Perry was an inferior serviceman if you want to trash his honorable service. Perry did his duty, as far as I'm concerned, until someone shows otherwise.
He's also run Texas with more wisdom than Romney had when he failed MA with gun grabbing and Romneycare socialism.
Posted by: Dustin at December 03, 2011 10:14 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: BK at December 03, 2011 10:46 PM (R2Yh0)
to tasker@458 (and to everyone else who keeps getting this wrong):
CLINTON WAS NOT IMPEACHED FOR HAVING AN AFFAIR;
HE WAS IMPEACHED FOR COMMITTING FEDERAL CRIMES, INCLUDING PERJURY, I.E., LYING IN A COURT OF LAW; SUBORNING OF PERJURY, I.E., COERCING OTHERS TO LIE IN A COURT OF LAW; AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED FOR BREAKING THE FRICKING LAW.
NEWT GINGRICH NEVER COMMITTED PERJURY, AND DID NOT BREAK THE LAW.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at December 03, 2011 11:02 PM (F0o5k)
Posted by: The Committee to Elect Jeb Bush in 2016, K. Rove, Chairman at December 04, 2011 03:48 AM (KbGY6)
NEWT GINGRICH NEVER COMMITTED PERJURY, AND DID NOT BREAK THE LAW.
Don't you dare wag that finger at me and lie to me you bitch. I don't care if THAT is legal, I'm gonna get you any way I can. THAT is why Clinton was impeached - bunch of prudes did not like his cigar cutter.
Not entirely unlike the active and successful campaign to take out Cain which certain nameless faceless, yet somehow influential bloggers, stated bluntly that they took part in.
P.S. Sweetpea - Impeach means to accuse of a crime or remove from office - your going to blow a blood vessel in the brain bucket if you keep flipping out over that word that way.
Posted by: Rmoney at December 04, 2011 05:46 AM (7MFxV)
Because most of you missed the fiist part last night (which included Newt):
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli On Huckabee Forum. HeÂ’s not happy with Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. (Smart man)
Newt Gingrich may be the latest hot ticket in the anybody-but-Romney wing of the Republican Party.
But he hasnÂ’t yet convinced Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli heÂ’d be a conservative president.
Cuccinelli, who announced his plans to run for governor in 2013, said Saturday that GingrichÂ’s answers during a forum on Fox News didnÂ’t pass muster with him.
“My benchmark was I want to leave with comfort that each of these six candidates is going to be a limited government conservative president. And despite pressing Newt Gingrich several times, I didn’t get that. I did not get that. We could have another compassionate conservative on our hands. I did not get that commitment,” Cuccinelli said on Fox in a post-forum interview.
He also was unconvinced by Mitt RomneyÂ’s explanation for how heÂ’d be able to draw a contrast with President Obama on health care after implementing an insurance program with a mandate in Massachusetts.
“I don’t see a lot of distance there between him and the president,” Cuccinelli said.
Cuccinelli was one of three Republican attorneys general who peppered the six leading GOP hopefuls with questions during a forum moderated by Mike Huckabee.
He also earned considerable praise in the Twitterverse for asking some of the best questions.
Jeff Greenfield said he offered up some of the “sharpest” queries. “Really pushing his fellow conservatives,” he tweeted.
Slate’s Dave Weigel pondered, “Too late to draft Cuccinelli for 2012?”
“I like Cuccinelli a lot in this role,” tweeted Liz Mair, a GOP strategist advising Rick Perry.
Posted by: Tricia at December 04, 2011 05:47 AM (gqG91)
You do realize the former is Romney's position, right?
And Perry wants to amend the constitution. That's how he got Tort reform in Texas. He knows how to win a long term slog for this kind of major reform. Romney doesn't.
The Perry love is certainly not due to the debates, though. You know that. It's because Perry is the best leader with the best record as a real conservative, even when he isn't planning to run for President.
You know a tree by its fruit. I can stand Newt, but Perry deserves support from conservatives who place too much emphasis on pizzazz.
Posted by: Dustin at December 04, 2011 06:17 AM (rQ/Ue)
Perry did well last night, better than most, and is improving daily. Perry will get a second look. As has been stated in another conservative blog -- I hope he is revved up and ready to go, like, really, really hungry. I hope he fleshes out each of his positions, e.g., Madison was a brilliant choice, but why did Perry choose him? He must hold an idea (a representation) in his mind of the "Other", who does not know his mind, beliefs, or positions, and explain clearly and passionately what he means. I think his long history of striving and governing in Texas has led him to think everyone knows about him and Texas.
Regarding the statements about Perry not being prepared for the vicious battles he will face with the legislature (and lobbyists and financiers and global corporate-types) to get even part of his government-cutting plans into effect, Perry needs Gingrich (The earlier dogged conservative Newt) as his VP to help with the battle and the slog. Newt must remain more than the flavor of the month, and his unpredictable nature can be managed if he is VP. I think he is dangerous as President. Could Gingrich pull a Churchill? We are at the end of all the effort and savings of the Post WWII era and in boodles of debt -- needing productivity of the future just to pull even. Could a Newt have the staying power of, say, a Reagan? I am not sure. I firmly believe a Perry has that power and determination, but could get blind-sided. That is why he needs Gingrich at his side.
Posted by: pyromancer76 at December 04, 2011 07:26 AM (i0aYq)
No offense, but such pronouncements carry just a touch of self-aggrandizement.
Who the hell is Ken Cuccinelli? Get in the race and take the heat or STFU, upstart.
Posted by: JB at December 04, 2011 08:16 AM (7T+Mz)
Perry's performance was ok - great for Perry - but he still looked like he wanted a pat on the head for remembering his lines.
Posted by: Evan at December 04, 2011 11:14 AM (O3OlP)
Based on what? Newt's record? Have you studied Newt's record. The man jumps all over the place. I like Mark Steins statement that Newt is like a frog in the pond jumping from one lily pad to the next (it doesn't matter which side of the pond they are on).
Romney moved a lot of things to the right in MA, with huge democratic majorities. Newt took the contract with america (beautiful idea) and burned it once the Repulicans were in power.
I do not want another professor in the white house no matter how pretty he talks - right now - .
Posted by: Evan at December 04, 2011 11:21 AM (O3OlP)
Posted by: BK at December 04, 2011 02:10 PM (R2Yh0)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.254 seconds, 711 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: jjshaka at December 03, 2011 04:28 PM (zmMHo)