The Republicans had another debate last night. It was on Bloomberg TV. Who even knew that existed?
Would someone please explain why the GOP thinks it is such a great idea to have a liberal network and liberal hosts, handle their debates?
Charlie Rose kept pushing the Republican candidates on “compromise” and tried to take a Reagan quote to get the candidates to bite on tax increases. Karen Tumulty looked like a slightly younger version of Helen Thomas, with a personality to match.
There were winners, losers and non-factors.
The biggest loser was Rick Perry. The only good news for Perry is that he did not have another rambling, incoherent answer like he did at the last debate. Another one of those could have sunk his campaign. The bad news is he was treated like a second tier candidate. Well, now he is a second tier candidate. Despite his massive fundraising, he is falling in the polls faster than an out of control NASA satellite.
The non-factors were Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Huntsman remains creepy, though he seemed better prepared. The only question is which cabinet position he is running for. Santorum pops up with a good comment every now and then but mostly complains about being ignored. Perhaps there is a reason why you are being ignored Rick. If you really want to get your voice heard, perhaps you should study Newt Gingrich. He jumped in, often without being asked and delivered devastating points.
Mentioning the Federal Reserve is like catnip to Ron Paul and he went off with the predictable reaction. He remains a non-factor. He has his supporters and will always have them. But he is not making any progress with the rest of the electorate.
Michele Bachmann turned in one of her best debate performances in a long time. Romney’s softball question was a bit puzzling unless Romney thinks by keeping Bachmann afloat he can drain support from Cain. With her campaign on life support, this may have been too little too late or it may have been an audition for the VP spot.
Mitt Romney did not lose, but that does not mean he won. He has plateaued at about 25%. Most of the Republicans do not want him. Despite the best efforts of the GOP to say there is none, there very much is a Republican establishment. It is real and he has their support after their hopes that a less flawed RINO might jump in and steal Romney’s thunder. Romney repeats his talking points and tries to avoid tough questions. The question about Bain Capital is a preview of what we will see if the GOP truly screws up and makes him the nominee. One thing that is very obvious from the debates is Romney believes in being the manager of big government. He does not see big government as a problem, only as something to be well managed.
Herman Cain was everyone’s target last night. He is rising in the polls and he acquitted himself well last night. His 9-9-9 plan remains seriously flawed and some of the other Republicans danced around the flaw with the exception of Michele Bachmann. She alone pointed out that Cain’s plan opens the door for another tax while allowing the government to maintain it’s current tax system.
Cain is a great orator, though not such a great debater. The one thing that was never fully explored was the idea that Cain can get his plan through Congress unchanged. He believes he can have Congress enact a provision that will require a 2/3 vote to raise taxes. That is a great idea, but as we have learned too many times in the past, Congress will take the popular parts of a plan, enact it and forget some of the important things. Handcuffing Congress on taxes and spending is something that will not happen. They love their power too much.
Then there is Newt Gingrich. Newt remains the smartest guy on the stage and probably the most tactically shrewd. Charlie Rose tried to pin him down and that just was not happening. Periodically, Newt would pop up with, “let me say something here.” Then he would launch into a really great point that would leave the other candidates simply nodding in agreement. Gingrich’s strategy may be keep-doing showing well in the debates and then as the field starts to get whittled, his stock will rise. Since the early Republican primaries are not going to be winner take all primaries but proportional primaries, he does not have to win the early states to remain viable. All he has to do is come in with respectable showings.
Who won?
There really was no clear winner. Cain did well. Newt did well. Bachmann did better than she has been doing and Romney did not screw up. It is pretty obvious they will be the final four. The real question is going to be which of those three conservatives will be the last one standing to take on Romney.
The real answer is we need a real conservative to take on Obama and that is definitely not Romney.
Tags: 2012, bachmann, cain, debate, gingrich, gop, paul, romney, santorum
Permalink Reply by slotwing1@msn.com on Cain is the best candidate, for sure. He is not an established pol. Those who like Newt are missing the big issue. He is an establishment pol who is likely a player for the one world order folks....Cain is the last thing the establishment Republicans want to see, he would expose their plan or worse yet, work to stop it....
This is a dog and pony show, plane and simply, we the people will not get the best man in office, it's rigged folks...use your time wisely, a revolution is brewing.
Permalink Reply by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on 
Permalink Reply by wayne thomas inman on It is easy to see what is wrong with this country. It seems that most of its people have a big case of stupid. Michelle Bachmann is the only canidate who is 100% Tea Party and stands for every thing conservative that the TP stands for. The only one dedicated to repealing obama care and cutting spending and the size of the federal government while keeping a strong military. If we go ahead and take control of the senate and keep the control of congress and then put Michelle Bachmann in the White House to keep beating the drumb we can get a constitutional government back up and running in one term. Who knows we may even be able to start clearing out all of the judges who has forgotten that there are laws in this country and are handing down their rulings based on what they think the liberals want to hear. Look at all these criminals that are assisting obama in commiting his crimes which means they are commiting crimes as well as the ones that are helping obama cover up his crimes such as election fraud and social security fraud they cannot be allowed to get away with this because if they do then we will not ever be able to stop it from happening again. These people must be found and arrested and put on trial! That means eventually arresting every serving congressman and senator and yes eventually Michelle Bachmann her self.
Permalink Reply by CoChair on Permalink Reply by slotwing1@msn.com on 
Permalink Reply by Agi Yaeger on Permalink Reply by Suzy Ballesteros on 
Permalink Reply by Dale Beers on I tend to lean towards Herman Cain. He seems intelligent and a feasible candidate to beat Obama. The one thing I like most about him is he is not a career politician. This would be refreshing in a sea of career politicians/liars.
I would prefer Newt Gingrich, but that is a long shot.
It scares me to think that Ron Paul could possibly get the nomination even though unlikely. If he would get the nomination, in my opinion, Obama would crush him in the election. As we all know, if Obama is re-elected, we are done as the USA.
At that point, you can tuck you head between your legs and start puckering.
Just my 2 cents.
Permalink Reply by George Hansson on I hear talk of candidates losing the election because they can’t raise enough money to win a national election. This comes from GOP pundits. I guess only swaying people with big pocketbooks count, not solutions to the country’s problems.
Then on the Liberal side O’Donnell holds up John Kerry as an example of great Viet Nam era military service. Kerry’s name in connection with Viet Nam brings to mind a person who might have volunteered but, wrote his own recommendations for medals (one by shrapnel from his own grenade), used his influence to gain early release, made an unauthorized trip to N. Viet Nam while a Lieutenant in the Reserves and lied to Congress about crimes committed by our military!
Approximately 200,000 citizens signed a petition to have Mr. Kerry tried for treason and giving aid and comfort to the enemy! Congress sent it to the DOJ and it was lost!
Perhaps O’Donnell might have chosen a better example.
Lawrence O'Donnell's Offensive Interview with Herman Cain
O'Donnell: Just thought of that one now when I heard you didn't serve in the Navy or the military during Vietnam. How did you do that?
Cain: You say, "How did I avoid the Vietnam War?" I wasn't trying to avoid the Vietnam War! Here's what happened, Lawrence. I was working in a critical area called exterior ballistics. I worked on something called rocket assisted projectiles for the Department of the Navy. It was my local board in Atlanta, Georgia, that told me, "We would rather have you continue to do that analytical work, to help the Navy, rather than us draft you." Secondly, when they had the lottery, I made myself available. The year that they had the lottery for the draft, they did not draft me because they didn't get to my number. So I think that's a poor choice of words on your part to say that I "avoided" the Vietnam War. I made myself available to my country, and they did not draft me. The rest of the time I was serving my country in a critical role called exterior ballistic analysis. So I am offended with your choice of words in terms of what I was doing during the Vietnam War.
You'd think that would conclude the subject.
Incredibly, O'Donnell followed up by saying, "I am offended on behalf of all the veterans of the Vietnam War who joined, Mr. Cain. The veterans who did not wait to be drafted, like John Kerry, who joined. They didn't sit there and wait to find out what their draft board was going to do. They had the courage to join, and to go, and to fight that war. What prevented you from joining? And what gives you the feeling, after having made that choice, you should be the commander in chief?"
(Read the entire piece to get the context also listen to the clip)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/lawrence-odonne...
Mr. Cain appeared to do well enough debating Mr. O'Donnell and also Bill Clinton on Hilliarycare in an earlier YouTube.
Mr. Cain does have a plan. Is it flawed? He did have it scored. I see it as his job to have a plan and propose it and sell it. It is the voters job to redo Congress to get the congressional support to pass legislation that we the voters favor.
Won't any plan proposed by other candidates face the problem of passage?
Permalink Reply by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on Permalink Reply by CoChair on Permalink Reply by slotwing1@msn.com on If we are not on fire? A very critical point.
As to Kerry, I ran a radio ad a few years ago, during the election cycle...The total pain and suffering John Kerry sustained for his purple hearts was the equivalent of what a child sustains learning to ride a bicycle....pos...my uncle Louis Schlote, took an RPG in the chest serving as a rear gunner on the back of a river boat in Nam, it did not explode. He died of blunt force trauma a week later, he recieved his purple heart on his death bed. I have zero respect for Kerry or the late Murtha, they are enemy's of our Republic.
Justice will prevail, it may come face to face with God himself, but it will come.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
