Saturday, December 10, 2011

RUNNING COMMENTARY ON THE DEBATE TONIGHT [12/10/11]

Newt has had the sound bite of the debate  right at the starting line. After listening to Romney talk about being in the private sector and listening to Romney call him a career politician over and over and over, Newt told Romney - YOU'D BE A CAREER POLITICIAN TODAY IF YOU HADN'T LOST TO TED KENNEDY IN 1994! ROFLMAO!

The first question to start the second round (after the commercials) had to do with marriage and fidelity - ABC is out to get Newt - making no bones about it.  Bachmann gave a great answer, referring to the founders' vision of who would be a good leader.  Newt gave an honest and direct answer.  Hopefully this has been put to bed.

I think Diane Sawyer's drunk...... or on something.  Her questions are totally inane and the way she's presenting them is dopey as hell.  Her opening question had to do with a NUMBER of how many jobs each candidate would create - and she kept pressing for numbers - I mean - WHO KNOWS what will work and how many jobs would be created.  Now she's asking how many illegal immigrants each would let stay............. she must be into numerology!

George Stephy is asking about Newt's comment about Palestinians being a made up people.... Paul says Newt is technically correct - then he went off on his foreign policy tangent.  NEWT SHOT STEPHY DOWN BAD!  WHAT AN ANSWER!  Game - set - match - and APPLAUSE!  Mitt is rambling... and Diane Sawyer is drunk!

The next few questions were pretty lame..... have you (each candidate) every had to pinch pennies, cut back on expenses.... I assume they wanted to know if the candidates could relate to the middle class....  next they were asked to expand on their government healthcare positions.... answers were reruns of prior debates........ basically a waste of that segment.  I'm more fascinated watching Diane Sawyer and waiting for her to fall out of her chair or flop across the desk - does she have some medical problems I'm not aware of?

My complete feeling on this debate is that it was ABC’s attempt to take out Gingrich.  I think Santorum was strong with all of his answers.  Perry was just sorta ‘there’ but didn’t do his candidacy any good.  Paul had a great showing tonight – his only weakness is his total lack of foreign policy awareness – what he advocates is impossible to achieve.  Bachmann was strong, kept repeating her key notes.  I thought Romney was petulant and off-message, but he got in all his vanilla points.  Newt started out on the defensive , because he was under attack from the first question, but he didn't stay there long.  He kept smiling and poking fun but got in his shots.  He showed grace and humor.  Closing comments were excellent!

The candidates all won – ABC was the loser.  Blatantly partisan.  Anyone who’s surprised by that please raise your hand.

One nice thing was they showed the spouses....... that was a first.

Romney may have made a mistake tonight..... Perry hammered him on healthcare and a comment that was in his first book and was removed for the second edition. Mitt bet him $10K he was wrong..... Joe 6-pack ain't gonna make a bet like that.

In closing - I absolutely agree with the ABC talking heads - Romney needed to give Newt a knock-out punch and he didn't even come close.  While Newt started out on defense, he quickly turned the debate into one where his strengths showed.  He stood firm on his beliefs, his record and his recent comments.  

One of the ABC guys went to far as to say Newt would get the party nod after tonight's performance.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My other blogs:

5 comments:

  1. I searched for Diane Sawyer + drunk at debate. This is the only hit. She was clearly on pills or booze or both. That was a disgrace. Slurring words, silly questions, overly emotional tone in her voice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't ever watch ABC News (or much else on ABC) and I was afraid perhaps she has some neurological problem - something was definitely wrong with her during this debate - I knew it during the first question when she kept pressing everyone for the NUMBER of jobs each would create - how stupid was THAT? And she was weaving in her chair... totally unprofessional

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that Diane Sawyer was loopy and why the heck would she turn around and tell the audience she went to the pharmacy because she has a cough? Who cares. Sounds to me like she drank a little too much cough syrup.

    I also believe Ron Paul's foreign policy is right-on and we absolutely shouldn't be policing the world. Google "BLOWBACK." I also no longer buy into mainstream news which is constantly keeping people in fear of terrorism. Mainstream news is owned by the banks and corporations who get free bailout money and profit from the war. For example MSNBC and CNN are owned by GE and Westinghouse, two of the largest manufacturers of nuclear weapons. So of course they would never endorse a candidate who threatens to end the war.

    Also, don't forget Newt was accused of 84 ethics violations and forced to pay a $300K fine. He also said he would enforce over 200 executive orders if he became President. This is scary stuff, considering he would be able to do whatever he wants and overrule the Constitution. This man is dangerous and ethically lacking and I hope to God he does not receive the nomination.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perry's idea of zeroing out foreign aid is the best idea on the table... Paul's ideas would have been fine 75 years ago - we can no longer be isolationist... and you're wrong about the corporations that manufacture war materials - they supported Obama - then moved their jobs to China. (Hilarious this happened after Obama made Jeff Emelt his Jobs Czar)

    Bottom line - OBAMA MUST GO - PERIOD (and Obamacare with him)... I really don't care who runs against him, as long as they win.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm curiuos about what lovecookie just mentioned about newt. First off, why would he be able to violate the constitution at will? The legislative proposals that he has on his website arent set in stone anyway. They're just proven methods of governing that has worked in the past. As as a posed to the ways that are failing now. All of the proposals would still have to pass the house and the senate In case you were unaware, thats how we split up the powers of govenment just to prevent that very thing. I think it's great that someone is telling us before hand the things they plan to do when they get the office. As for the accusations you mentioned, out of 84. 84 mind you, only 1 was found to have any substance albeit extremely minute. The rest were found to be absolutely baseless.

    ReplyDelete