Another Republican Debate

The Republicans debate yet again tonight in Tampa.

For those of you watching, here's a thread to discuss it.

In other Repbulican news, it looks like Newt's tax returns have "issues."

< Haditha Killings: Last Marine Pleads, Looking at 3 Month Sentence | First Look at Romney's Tax Returns >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 07:47:14 PM EST
    it looks like Newt might have cheated on his taxes. Okay. Newt cheats on wives and now we learn he cheats on his taxes. What's the next thing we are going to find out Newt cheats on?

    its interesting Romney (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:15:47 PM EST
    didnt release is taxes today so they could be a topic of debate.  he will probably release them at the very moment the president starts talking tomorrow

    I just read a headline stating he'll (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 10:21:46 PM EST
    release them when the Oscar nominees are announced tomorrow.  Tues. a.m. news dump.  

    From the text of the linked article (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 10:27:47 PM EST
    And so it starts. The Palining of Newt.

    After reviewing the 2010 federal tax return Gingrich released last week, the tax experts said he may have left himself open to an IRS challenge

    And I may have won the lottery.


    Tina Fey (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:28:28 PM EST
    is going to have to put on some weight.

    You "may have" been misleading (none / 0) (#18)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 07:32:11 AM EST
    In one case, you have an expert in tax law reviewing Gingrich's tax returns and questioning the validity of his deductions.  You're comparing that to the extremely improbable chance that you won the lottery, as if they're analogous.  Give it a little bit of thought, ...

    I bet you can spot the difference.


    Hey at least he's consistent :) (none / 0) (#36)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:32:42 AM EST
    Listened to it (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:12:15 PM EST
    Didn't watch, cleaned the kitchen.  So much war drum beating, I can't believe how important the Republican feels it is to be made paranoid.  Everyone but Ron Paul sounded like Bush, Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, and Bolton.  I remember very well where they took us and how doubled over in pain I was trying to survive their particular brand of paranoia and insanity.  I should have written more back then about the horror but I couldn't, I was just trying to survive it and that meant not dwelling on it or you would end up in a corner rocking yourself and sobbing.

    Sorry for the pain (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by womanwarrior on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:31:56 PM EST
    Hope we can stop it this time.  

    People need to speak more (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 11:41:24 PM EST
    Even though it is hard, and it is very hard.  It is perceived as being disloyal to your country saying that fighting "for them" in Iraq was all about denial and insanity.  People that serve are so loyal, that is a key component to even wanting to serve or agreeing to fully support those who do serve.

    With Vietnam, the country eventually came to a mutual acceptance that the damage done to their people who had to go made the whole notion of it pretty insane.  We learned a lot.  I hope to shorten this learning curve up though, and I hope that more individuals become confident enough to challenge their fear and speak.  Tell it, everyone needs to know how it was for us.  It is important. It is important to not BREAK your military too and lead it to the brink of implosion....that is when you are weak and vulnerable.

    A respected respectful and still strong State Department, like we have now.....that is how we live lives of mutual peace and sometimes even prosperity.


    Caught a little bit of an interview (none / 0) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 12:21:05 AM EST
    tonight on, I think, The News Hour. The guest was talking about the new, tougher sanctions the U.S. and Europe are enforcing against Iran.

    The guest, can't remember his name, pointed out that there is a fine line between sanctions and war these days, which makes it way too easy to slip into war.  And we are very close to that line.

    Iraq was and continues to be a disaster for the U.S. on so many levels. As destructive as the Iraq War has been, it almost pales in comparison to the damage a war with Iran will cause. I don't see how the country survives another war with even a shred of national sanity remaining.

    Is there no political leader in this nation who will stand up in forceful opposition to another war?


    Ron Paul did in tonight's debate. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 12:27:13 AM EST
    I don't think we are close to war with Iran (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 12:54:26 AM EST
    They are going through much of what Saddam was trying to survive being publicly threatened by us, doing the puffed horned toad thing.

    They have a few weapons that might hurt a little at the very beginning if there was some kind of war, but if war did break out and it was simply war and not trying to occupy them in order to steal their oil, they'd be knocked in the dirt so hard and almost not able to get up it wouldn't even be funny.  The "regime" may even lose control of their very pro-Western population.  And they know this, but they will rattle their saber and they have to because they do have a very large pro-Americana democracy demonstrating population they must suppress.


    which will (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 01:46:41 AM EST
    be true until they actually get a nuclear bomb

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 07:38:39 AM EST
    They have a hell of a time hanging onto scientists and centrifuges though and those are just the "happenings" the world knows about.  It was strange listening to all of them go on and on about it and how Obama does nothing.

    The Iranian nuclear program has suffered many setbacks, one being just the other day.  Nobody knows who did that one either, but a bomb was attached to a car....again.  Someone obviously has operatives inside the country, unnamed someones obviously have a finger on this pulse.

    About four years ago it was exposed that the United States had special forces operating inside Iran.


    I hope (none / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 07:32:32 AM EST
    you're right MT.

    Sometimes it appears to me as if we are preparing to use Israel as a surrogate for an attack.

    The sanctions might cause the Iranians to block the Strait of Hormuz. The US has already issued a threat if this were to occur.

    And - frankly - Obama and Sarkozi are up for reelection - and I am cynical enough to see a "wag the dog" strategy for both of them.

    And I don't see a war without a strategy of occupation - presumably to inspect their nuclear facilities. (Grabbing a little oil might be a pleasant extra.) Knocking out Saddam was pretty easy. Knocking off the Taliban was pretty easy. But it is now ten years later... and we're still at it.

    I don't think we learned anything from the Vietnam experience.
    We claimed we had been attacked when in fact there has been no attack. The Senate rushed through an authorization for Johnson to take action. The media uncritically fanned the patriotic fervor. Johnson took action. Dissenters were called commie sympathizers. To criticize the war or point out the obvious lies being promulgated to justify it was tantamount to treason.

    With Iraq - we claimed that we were in imminent danger of being attacked. A mushroom cloud was evoked when in fact there were no weapons and no delivery system. The Senate rushed through a bill authorizing Bush to take action. The media uncritically fanned the patriotic fervor. Bush took action. Dissenters were called terrorist sympathizers. To criticize the war or point out the obvious lies that were being promulgated to justify it was tantamount to treason.


    I'm certain we gave Israel what it needs to attack (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 07:43:11 AM EST
    We gave them bunker busters.  And I think giant bunker busters are sitting at Diego Garcia right now, not given to Israel at this time.  They have some already, but more and bigger are closer by that can be given to them on short notice.  And Saudi Arabia has already given Israel the air space to attack Iran if the time comes, because Saudi Arabia doesn't want them to have a nuclear weapon either.  They are pretty isolated right now.

    The Saudi government may be onboard (none / 0) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:09:28 AM EST
    with a US-Israel war with Iran, but I very much doubt the Saudi people will be onboard. Nor do I think the Iranian people will like it very much. They may be fans of American culture, but, as this whole nuclear thing has shown, they are in no mood to be bullied by us. People, not governments, in the Arab world will be furious if we invade yet another country.

    And, if we learned nothing else from Iraq, please let us have learned that when we invade another nation, that nation's citizen's get pissed off and fight back. Nobody likes an invader. I don't see any "rebel force" in Iran that we can claim to be supporting ala Libya. It would be raw, naked aggression, and we never pull that off successfully.

    I think you are entirely too sanguine about this, MT.


    Saudis are Sunni (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:22:10 AM EST
    Iran is Shiite and has threatened Saudi Arabia before as well.  The war between Sunni and Shia is what led to dead bodies all over Iraq streets at dawn.  It led to the horrible wars between Iraq and Iran and even the instability within Iraq that a horrible dictator tamped down.  It is an old old war.

    Also, because we already have operatives (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 07:52:52 AM EST
    inside Iran, I don't think a war would be anything like Iraq if it did happen.  It would be more like Libya and the Balkans.  Still ugly though.  Not something that anybody should want.  If push came to shove though, Obama is ready and he's ready in a way so much saner than anything that came out of the Bush administration.  And all the current Republicans other than Ron Paul sound just like the insane Bush hooligans.

    I wish (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:08:09 AM EST
    I could agree.

    I don't think there is a "sane" approach to a war with Iran.

    We'd be there forever.

    All the Republicans do sound like insane Bush hooligans (except Ron Paul as you noted). But, honestly, except in tone, I don't discern much of a difference between what they are saying and what the Obama administration is preparing to do. I hope there is, but I don't see it.

    And having Israel do it for us would be as transparent as Cuba attacking the US in 1960. Everyone would have known that it was the USSR. And everyone will know that it is the USA.


    I can't help but notice that (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:29:06 AM EST
    Republicans in general want to believe Obama has done nothing to generate "standoff" with Iran, that he is just allowing them to run wild all over the place.  You pay attention, you know very well nothing could be further from the truth.  How is it that the whole Republican base just can't seem to pay attention to the facts?  Obama has a foot on their neck, he hopes to avoid war but he has made up his mind as well that they will have no nuclear weapon on his watch.  He just doesn't say it out loud strutting on some stage with his plumage hanging out.

    "Plumage.". Mission (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:40:28 AM EST

    Where we (none / 0) (#49)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:18:18 AM EST
    disagree is that I am not at all sure that Obama wants to avoid war.
    I think he has a taste for it.
    And I do not at all discount a "wag the dog" war if it appears as if the election appears to be close. Sorry to be such a cynic. But so be it.

    Secondly - no one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
    They deny that they are trying to build one.

    But why do we get to choose who can and who cannot have a nuclear weapon?

    It seems to me that the only people we invade and whose governments we overthrow happen to be the ones who do not have nuclear weapons. We do not give much of an incentive to states who wish to remain non-nuclear.

    We are, imo, responsible for making Israel into a nuclear state.
    They have been pretty savage with their "conventional" weapons when dealing with the Palestinians. So, were I in the region, I would not be too thrilled with Israel having nukes either. But they do.

    I think that war with Iran has been on the back-burner for many years - through successive administrations. It does seem to happen by coincidence that these countries with which we have an interest in controlling their governments have an awful lot of oil.


    It isn't just us saying NO to Iran (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:11:53 AM EST
    It is literally the whole world.

    There is such a thing as deterrence, our military also creates it with entities that are considered dangerous to our security and the security of our allies.  We have standoff/deterrence with North Korea, we are generating larger deterrence with Iran, and we have functioning deterrence with basically everyone in a sense.  It is simply us demonstrating that we have the means to defend ourselves and hurting us comes with consequences, big consequences.  China does it.  Russia does it.  Tibet didn't do it.


    I think (none / 0) (#97)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 04:27:57 PM EST
    that Hiroshima and Nagasaki pretty well proved that we have the means to defend ourselves and that hurting us come with big consequences.

    The thing is, with things as they are now, someone with a suitcase from no State in particular can completely immobilize a country - and there is no one to nuke. No place to turn. No leader to depose. Deterrence becomes more difficult to define.

    With respect to Iran - they say that they are not developing nuclear weapons and have no interest in doing so. Before I will believe otherwise, I would like ironclad testimony and proof positive from disinterested parties. The experience with Vietnam taught me something about how our government operates when it has an agenda. They lie to us, and the media sounds the clarion call. In recent times, Bush and the media did the same thing to us. I have no reason to trust Obama's administration either. So many of his "'advisors" were formerly with the Bush administration.


    MT (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:15:36 AM EST
    them in order to steal their oil,

    Can you tell me where all the oil is that we have stolen from Iraq????


    Um (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:31:22 AM EST
    In our cars?

    Ha! Well instead of greating us with flowers (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:34:59 AM EST
    Iraqi insurgents blew the pipelines every other day Jim.  I know you have selective memory and all but the first two years in Iraq we tried like hell to get oil out of that place and the pipelines blew and blew and blew.  Too many damned miles of them getting to the gulf.  And I'm sure that Cheney was throwing things around his office, Oh Well.  Then we were almost overrun and losing even Baghdad, so talk of getting oil out "to pay us back for saving them" stopped happening.

    Oops...I mean Greeting us (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:37:08 AM EST
    We were already Greating ourselves.

    Quit dodging Tracy (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:47:25 AM EST
    The charge that we invaded Iraq to steal their oil is an old saw that everyone knows is pure BS. In fact, I think the Chinese will get it.


    Anyway, you now trot it out again, knowing it is not true.

    Never lost a war or won a peace applies, I think.


    Yeah, cuz Dick Cheney was going to put that in (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:58:32 AM EST
    writing :)  Remember his energy task force and the meetings and who participated? Oh yeah....almost forgot....the only thing any of us can remember about that was that for the first time in our nations history our "energy policy" and who was involved was top secret.  Please continue to amuse me Jim with your lack of memory or facts.

    Please also remember that when the Bush administration was asked who was going to pay for this war, George Bush and Dick Cheney said that we would be "paid back" in oil.


    MT (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    Show me where we stole oil from Iraq.

    Come on, quit dithering or admit you're wrong.


    I admit that you deserve all the thieving, (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 11:25:10 AM EST
    lying, murdering, immoral leadership that you vote for Jim.

    Is it moral to make a false claim (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 01:04:57 PM EST
    which you just did?

    He who is without sin cast the first stone, etc.


    You tell us, Jim (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 02:00:52 PM EST
    Is it moral to make a false claim which you just did?

    You do it daily.


    jbindc...... I wish...... (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:47:59 AM EST
    .............you were right. We should be paid for saving a country from a ruler that was gassing his own people, shredding a few just to keep their attention and planning on getting back in the WMD business.

    Wow... seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ks on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:17:40 AM EST
    Talk about old saws though you forgot "yellowcake".  I didn't think there was anybody left who still believed that nonsense about how went into Iraq to save the Iraquis from Sadamn though I remain amsued by the notion that a that they have to pay us back for us destroying their country.   Go figure...

    No, we went into Iraq (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 11:25:56 AM EST
    because we believed Saddam had WMD's and would use them.

    We stayed around to save them from Saddam.

    Coulda done that in '91 much cheaper.


    So sincere, .... so believing, ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 12:11:06 PM EST
    No, we went into Iraq because we believed Saddam had WMD's and would use them.

    We stayed around to save them from Saddam.

    ... so naive.


    I think thats unfair (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:14:08 PM EST
    to Crazy Earnie

    so far the debate has been pretty mild.  Romney is acting like my sisters nasty little Chihuahua and Newt has done a pretty good job of tossing him off his leg.

    no major points scored.  but I didnt expect fireworks like last time.  Newt is the front runner now and is doing a pretty good job of acting like it.

    if this (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:17:40 PM EST
    "That could be the type of return that would be flagged for an audit,"

    the worst they can say about Romneys will probably overshadow them tomorrow.

    Hey, no spoilers. Debate airs at 9 pm PST. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 10:36:35 PM EST

    Sounds like Newtie was neutered last night (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 07:39:01 AM EST
    No more Mr. Nice Guy.

    TAMPA -- Say goodbye to Mr. Nice Guy Mitt.

    Mitt Romney on Monday night came with verbal knives for newly minted frontrunner Newt Gingrich. Foreshadowing the tone of Republican races in Florida, Romney was negative all day.
    And he drew blood.

    More significantly, Romney drew silence at the Tampa debate.

    The voluble former House Speaker seemed able to speak about anything in the past 18 debates. But he was at a loss for words after Romney called him a lobbyist, an "influence peddler," and suggested that Gingrich was no "historian" when it came to his high-priced consulting contract with federally backed lender Freddie Mac.

    "They don't pay people $25,000 a month for six years as historians. That adds up to about $1.6 million," Romney said. "They weren't hiring you as an historian. And this contract proves that you were not an historian. You were a consultant."

    Gingrich had only four words of response: "I was a consultant."


    Not only did Gingrich have a rare, quiet moment. The crowd was pretty silent, too. In South Carolina, the roaring crowd was such a boon to Gingrich that he plans to run clips of the debate as ads in Florida. No extra music. Just the crowd cheering. After turning questions about his failed marriage or his comments about food stamps into criticisms of the news media, Gingrich had the South Carolina crowd in his hands in two debates.

    Gingrich didn't have those moments on Monday. He lost the expectations game, which Romney won just as he was losing in the Florida polls. The other candidates, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, trail badly in the polls and got less airtime in the debate.

    "It's different when there's not a game-show like environment," said Stuart Stevens, top strategist for Romney, noting that the audience wasn't "hooting and hollering" and "doing the wave" for Gingrich.

    Romney didn't just pummel Gingrich on stage. He'll be doing the same in your living room. On Monday, he announced he's spending about $2 million on 30-second spots telling Floridians that, while they lost their homes, Gingrich was enriched by Freddie Mac


    On three occasions in the first five minutes, Romney said Gingrich was "disgraced" by his fellow Republicans who ousted him from his speakership by 2008.

    Gingrich didn't have much of a response.


    George Will insinuates this morning that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:05:18 AM EST
    Newt Gingrich is not to be trusted with control of nuclear weapons :)

    I don't need George Will to tell me that :) (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:28:41 AM EST
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:54:00 AM EST
    that's the new line that Newt is "mentally unstable" and I have to say that one is kind of a gimme with all the reams of tape showing Newt making crazed statements.

    George Will is marginalized (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 11:27:10 AM EST
    and isn't liking it very much.

    Will is one of the higher functioning (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 04:35:35 PM EST
    psychotic conservatives..

    Most of the rest are now permanently at war against secret-socialist-muslims, and out for revenge for the 1860s and 1960s..

    these days the watchword is get really crazy, or get left behind..


    Why confine this mistrust to Gingrich? (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:15:05 AM EST
    Every candidate on stage last  night was dangerously
    warmongering except Ron Paul.  Does the Tea Party really support attack on Iran if  the latter blockades Hormuz?  Suddenly the fed, gov't, saving upside down on their mortgages  Floridians seems less likely.

    It's George Will (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:24:38 AM EST
    Romney must be "the one" so he will write in such a manner as to hopefully encourage that.  Not often you get to see Republicans attacking each other this way though.

    get to work George (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:58:09 AM EST
    new ppp poll

    Newt Gingrich 38%
    Mitt Romney 33%

    Already Voted
    Mitt Romney 43%
    Newt Gingrich 40%

    Did Not Vote Yet
    Newt Gingrich 38%
    Mitt Romney 31%


    Post last night's debate? (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:02:55 AM EST
    probably (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:04:22 AM EST
    it said the 22-23

    Doubt it (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:41:23 AM EST
    They would have been polling people too late in the evening.

    Those numbers are from before the debate.


    sorry (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:48:35 AM EST
    I misread your comment

    I actually agree that it was most likely taken before the debate.


    You're pushing (none / 0) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:53:51 AM EST
    your Romney love on the wrong audience.

    heh (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:08:05 AM EST
    not only that lets see what the same newspaper led off its coverage of the sc primary win by Gingrich:

    WASHINGTON -- Some notable moments from Saturday's South Carolina presidential primary:


    Fixing for a fight:

    Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney told supporters Saturday to get ready for a long battle ahead.

    Romney took sharp aim at President Barack Obama, as well as his GOP rivals' criticism of his time at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded.

    "If Republican leaders want to join this president in demonizing success and disparaging conservative values, then they're not going to be fit to be our nominee," he said.

    Romney finished No. 2 behind Gingrich, having placed first in the New Hampshire primary.

    it finally mentions Newt in the 9th paragraph in the context of the nasty abortion email and never once mentions the margin by which Newt hammered Mitt


    forgot (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:09:04 AM EST
    I think there is no doubt (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:20:27 AM EST
    that everyone including jbindc would agree the THE most notable moment of the SC primary was that Romney was fixing for a fight.

    but I am surprised they did not include this lyrical bit from Mitt:

    "'I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love.'

    wow.  I got a lump in my throat.


    btw (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:22:24 AM EST
    he actually said that.  not Stephen Colbert Mitt Romney

    national review

    Mitt paid some guy to write this insipid pap. And he paid others to approve it. Not only is it bland and generic, it's lethal to him in a way that it wouldn't be to Gingrich or Perry or Bachmann or Paul because it plays to his caricature -- as a synthetic, stage-managed hollow man of no fixed beliefs."

    you srouces are (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:13:45 AM EST
    as transparently biased as you.  Romney looked desperate and panicked.  Newt answered the charges he chose to but passed on several saying he did want to waste the time and the Mitts silliness would be addressed on his website.

    Oh, yes...the old "go to the website" (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    strategy; that always works so well.

    But speaking of transparent bias, I hate to break it to you, but your constant chattering about the power of Newt, the wonder of Newt, the momentum of Newt (I'm waiting for "the eye of Newt" at this point) just reeks of bias.  Reeks.  And it's not helped by your presenting your opinions as facts: heaven forfend someone would see either of these two candidates in any way other than how you see them.

    What's really sad is that you are the one who seems desperate  - for Newt to get the nomination, because, what, the only way Obama can win is if he has the Newtster to run against?  Doesn't say much for Obama and his term in office, does it?

    Try to remember that your word is not the only word, the final word, the arbiter of reality; others here - intelligent, informed, and just as invested in the political landscape - have valid opinions to express, and I don't think they're going to stop just because you trample all over them with hundreds of comments a week.


    I do actually try to base my opinions (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:11:01 AM EST
    of some actual referable fact or piece of information.  a practice I understand may seem alien to you.  but it is my way.

    as far as being biased for Newt.  that is hilarious even for you.  as a matter fact, Ann, I happen to think its possible Newt could be at least as strong a candidate as Romney who looks weaker by the day to me.

    Newt at least has the base.

    you know what I think.  I think you are really really upset that I was correct in predicting his win in SC.  and you are terrified that I may be again in suggesting he could win FL.

    well take heart there may be hope for you still to dance gleefully on the grave of that prediction. just try not to break a hip.


    Whether you are right or wrong doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:58:37 AM EST
    upset me in the least, much less terrify me; you must be confusing me with someone who places much importance on what you think or predict.

    The only thing I can predict is that there will be a GOP nominee for president; in any event, I won't be voting for whoever that person is.

    And, I don't know why anyone would associate "glee" with anything that is happening on the political front and is going to affect us all in some, probably negative, way.

    Finally, I truly have no idea why you bury yourself - and all of us - in the minutiae of your every thought as it flits across your brain, but with that kind of need for attention, perhaps you should get into politics...


    as far as burying all of us (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 11:10:05 AM EST
    I would have to do ten thousand tweets a day to keep up with the bandwidth of the essays you vomit forth.  and if you are so unconcerned with what I think why are you stalking me.

    I enjoy it and dont mind btw.


    Whatever (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:33:16 AM EST
    Many sources of all stripes are saying Romney wiped the floor with Gingrich.

    Not "Romney-love", but reality.  

    I know you reallly, really want Newt to be the nominee, but it just isn't going to happen.

    But you can live in delusion- land a bit longer. I live in reality.  Newt will never be the nominee.


    the fact is (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:38:42 AM EST
    I dont give a rats a$$ if he is the nominee or not.  but I really really do want this to continue.  I will confess to that.

    I am still doing the morning surf but I have not come across wiping the floor yet.  link?


    I did find a rather negative Atlantic (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:42:28 AM EST
    one that (surprise) seemed pleased Romney was swinging.  but it also offered this insight about why the crowd was so subdued last night.  

    The crowd in the hall in Tampa for Monday's debate, sponsored by NBC News, National Journal, and the Tampa Bay Times, was instructed to keep quiet,

    so I guess it wasnt for lack of enthusiasm after all.


    Your point? (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:47:29 AM EST
    I knew that - many of the articles mentioned that.  So what?

    It still doesn't change the fact that Newt was stuttering like an imbecile and couldn't answer questions. Add to that he got caught in a bold faced lie about not lobbying for Freddie Mac, and it adds up to Newt having a terrible night.


    your desperation is showing (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:54:45 AM EST
    occulus is right it was agreed he was a consultant.
    the outcome of that whole thing was a complete 0.

    people like you will jump up and down that Romney finally acted as much as he could like a candidate.

    and people who are inclined to favor Newt will find his responses entirely adequate I expect.


    My "desperation"? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    What on earth would I be "desperate" for?

    Oh that's right.  In your deep need to be right all the time, you must feel superior to those you think are wrong.

    Whatever.  You better hurry up - you have another 100 or so posts to make today.


    heh (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:34:25 AM EST
    they have mostly been in response and responded to by you.  

    and (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:57:42 AM EST
    if many of the articles mentioned it why didnt you?

    found this (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:44:17 AM EST
    at more common sense

    Mitt Romney's Tirade Against Newt Gingrich Smacks of Desperation
    This is not a good sign for the Mitt Romney campaign. When you go all out in a full verbal assault it looks desperate and is usually signifies you are losing control of the election:

    Romney's going after Gingrich (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:47:44 AM EST
    was effective but fizzled when they both agreed Gingrich was a consultant.

    A blog read by (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:48:33 AM EST
    like a couple hundred people?  THAT's your proof?

    Bwaaaa haaaa haaa haaa!


    Look, at least he is trying... (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:52:32 AM EST

    sorry (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:56:20 AM EST
    just looking for your wiping the floor thing.

    I did find a headline similar to your at the (heh) daily mail but I would watch using that if I was you there are some paragraphs in there you wont like.


    So he was a consultant (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:14:27 AM EST
    for Freddie.

    I thought Freddie and Fannie was a good thing to Democrats.

    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:24:01 AM EST
    You just don't get it. It's the complete and utter hypocrisy of what the GOP has spent the last ten years or more talking about. 1. You need business experience (Newt has none). 2 Family values (a guy who uses his children from his first marriage to accuse his second wife of lying about his third wife).

    Newt's win has exposed the GOP and it has been hysterically funny. I don't know when politics has had this much comedy.


    The debate.last night was infuriating til (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:05:58 AM EST
    til the warmongering re Iran.    

    why infuriating (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    I mean, any more that would be expected for a republican debate?

    First one I watched. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:29:30 AM EST
    ah (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:33:06 AM EST
    eventually you will become desensitized

    Of course Newt is wanting to (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:51:19 AM EST
    have it both ways. No one has said he isn't a politician.

    Reminds me of Obama claiming he wants more energy while blocking the pipeline.

    Looks to me like he screwed the unions.


    It's not just Newt's hypocrisy (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:09:43 AM EST
    It's the hypocrisy of all the bible-thumping conservatives who preach morality and "family values", while ignoring their own standard when it comes to one of their own ...

    ... or two, or three, .... or twenty ...


    No (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:57:43 AM EST
    Newt exposed the political-evangelical movement and the GOP for being a bunch of shysters. If Newt had not won a primary no one would care and he would be "just another politician" but the holier than thou contention has been exposed for being morally bankrupt while using bible verses to condemn others. It has been an absolute riot!

    What the votes for Newt (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 11:29:33 AM EST
    shows is that all the claims about the religious right are 20 years out of date.

    You guys have been fighting the last war.



    It shows they are hypocrites (none / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 12:15:54 PM EST
    It says nothing about your unspecified "claims".

    Um (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    no as of what 2004 weren't they screaming about the "sanctity of marriage". ROTFLMAO. I don't think that's quite 20 years ago.

    Uh, was it just (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 01:08:16 PM EST
    yesterday when we were talking about the women voting for Newt?

    Not religious leaders..... the women.... not political leaders.... the women.....

    You know, all the ones you call dumb.


    Your (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 01:24:15 PM EST
    memory is failing. I never said dumb I said the south teaches a culture of submission that creates a lot of passive aggressive women.

    And you have to remember that a lot of women in the south are taught that the moral failings of a man are the responsibility of his wife.


    A "social liberal" who makes common (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 04:21:17 PM EST
    cause with the religious right..

    Someone's expecting a person like that to be over-sensitive to the hypocrisy of a slimeball like Gingrich?

    Victory (no matter how accomplished) and cultural vindication are all that matters to these folks.


    screwed the unions (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:59:36 AM EST
    wouldnt that be a problem for your meme?

    Capt, Obama is a multi-tasking screwer (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 11:31:45 AM EST
    I have always said he is talented.

    slightly OT (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    but I missed the tax thread.  been listening to republican yahoos defend Romneys 13% this afternoon and I have to say.  
    this man is a gift to democrats.
    very possibly even more of a gift that Newt.  he is the living breathing embodiment of everything the 99% is angry about.  he is defending a tax code that benefits him.  he is the boss everyone hates.
    if he is the republican nominee it is going to be a very good year for democrats.  Obama hardly has to make the argument Mitt makes it for him.  
    and honestly I think this has something to do with Newts surge.  republicans are beginning to realize this.
    I doubt very much that many of them missed the fact the only demographic he won in SC was those making over 200,000 a year.
    I am not rooting for Newt.  I fear Newt but I still think he is coming on strong.  I am rooting for Mitt.  as I think we all should be.

    one other point about (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 05:11:16 PM EST
    the twaddle in the other thread about how the rate Mittens pays is "fair".

    please keep making that case.


    and one other presidential point (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 05:20:32 PM EST
    it occurred to me the fact that Newt is doing well and will continue to most likely IMO has to do with one of the reasons Dubya did well with republicans and none of us could ever understand it.

    they love him because we hate him.  

    just as it was with Dubya part of his appeal to the right was the fact that, however stupid and embarrassing he was, he had one overriding positive.  he drove all of us absolutely bat sh!t crazy.  
    a figure more loathed by the left would be hard to find in modern american politics.  Cheney?.  this, in a republican primary, may well be his biggest asset.


    Well (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    that's more proof of how bankrupt the conservative movement has become as if we even needed more proof...though I don't know. My unscientific study on facebook and with conservatives seems to show that the "unelectable" and "unstable" stuff about Newt might be taking hold.

    I mean if they were able to sell McCain as unstable back in 2000 to the flock then just think what they can do with Newt who has reams of film of him being and saying crazy things.

    Several of my conservative friends are kind of upset about the "family values" jokes go around about Newt because they know they are true.

    And Santorum is getting an absolute trashing.


    I honestly hope you are right (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 05:33:08 PM EST
    but I would point out that back then they had Dubya to turn to.  now they have billionaire Dudly Doo Right reciting america the beautiful

    Well (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 05:38:28 PM EST
    these are the same people that nominated Bob Dole. Right?

    I don't know what's going to happen but I certainly wouldn't want to chance it that Newt wins the nomination and gets into the White House. Of course, if he did, he would finish off what is left of the GOP whereas with Romney and Obama they might get a second wind.

    Going to be an interesting November. Nobody seems to excited about it except for the lunatics who think Newt is great.


    well (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 05:46:11 PM EST
    I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I just saw on teevee that Newt is now 4 points ahead of Mitt in the Gallup national and his favorable/unfavorable is starting to rival Newts

    49.7 unfavorable and 33.something favorable which is a massive change in just the last couple of weeks and IMO sort of stunning.

    so you might want to start stocking up on canned food and birth control pills (assuming you are female)


    Well (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 06:30:11 PM EST
    I guess I will be voting in the GOP primary though I'm sure here in GA Newt is a shoe in.

    new polling shows (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 09:40:54 AM EST
    him ahead with likely voters in FL.  and way ahead on the issue of who could be president between him and Romney which seems to me with hard core republicans - who most likely think anyone will beat Obama - to be a very bad sign for Mitt.