Are you watching the GOP presidential debate tonight? If so, consider joining us live here at NB as we watch the event. It airs at 9pm tonight on FNC as well as on the Fox News website. We'll be posting videos and fact-checks throughout the night but if you want to add your own analysis or snark, this is the place to do it.
Update: The event is over. Please use this post as an open thread on the debate.
Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield
Editor at Large
Brent Baker
Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes
Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd
Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard
Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock
Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth
Publisher
Brent Bozell
Site Design
Dialog New Media
Comments
(***yawn***)
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 9:33pm.
What does anyone expect to hear that hasn't been said already? Some clever attacks on Gingrich, the Flavor of the Month?
Enough already.
The Next Flavor of the Month:
Submitted by Gat New York on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:38pm.
The Next Flavor of the Month: Harold Stassen (or is that Ron Paul?)
And just think how many more months of this...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:27am.
we have to look forward to. Truth be told, I'm not particularly thrilled with any of the Repub candidates, and I'm afraid that we're going to end up, like we did in '08, with a nominee that most of us will vote for but won't be especially happy or enthusiastic about. If that does happen, I just hope the outcome will be better.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Bachmann FTW!! She has had my
Submitted by tcm14 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 9:35pm.
Bachmann FTW!!
She has had my vote all along and still does.
I have this chatzy room
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:01pm.
I have this chatzy room available for the debate
http://us2.chatzy.com/289283718863
Ron Paul : "I'm going to
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:11pm.
Ron Paul : "I'm going to bring the country together and cut 1 gazillion dollars."
May Ron Paull look like the
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:16pm.
May Ron Paull look like the crazy nut he is.
For the rest of the candidates. May the best men or woman win!
Once the primary is over, Republicans and Conservatives must unite and defeat Barack Hussein Obama. This is THE most important goal, defeat a radical Left wing wacko who does not have the United States of America's best interest at heart.
Let's go Ron Paul!
Submitted by VBaxter on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:19pm.
Let's go Ron Paul!
Ron Paul 2012
Yay, Ron Paul, King of the Earmarks!!@!@!
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:45am.
Paul made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks. Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members.
You go Paultard. Kiss that Paul ass.
Paul typically will make the earmark request, but then votes against or abstains from voting on final passage, so he can maintain his claim to have "never voted for an earmark", even the earmark requests he himself made.
Yay, Ron Paul is as greasy and dishonest as his many k00k followers!@!@!!!!~!
No.. Ron Paul is a member of
Submitted by han_solo on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:01am.
No.. Ron Paul is a member of the House Of Representatives, and that is their most important job, to do the appropriations, no other part of the government does that.
Paul may not like how its done, but he does his duty in the House.
If that is the worst you can complain about Ron Paul thats laughable.
Ron Paul and hypocrisy
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:35pm.
And there you have why I haven't voted for a Democrat or a Repulbican since 1972. They tell you one thing, but they're doing something else.
If what was described of Paul's earmark game is accurate, I rate it right up there with "It all depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
We need politicians with integrity, and that includes brutally honest straight talk.
Whatever Paultard.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:39pm.
That was just the last 24 hours. Wow. Paultards are stupid.
Like I am gonna sit here and repeat all the crank doings of King Crank Ron Paul the racist idiot and his merry band crank squared followers. There is not enough time in the day to do that for every single King Crank Ron Paul follower that shows up here.
Find your entertainment elsewhere Paultard.
Ron Paul
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:45pm.
What a bunch of word twisting on ear marks. He talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.
Is that the only thing they
Submitted by han_solo on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:59am.
Is that the only thing they can get Ron Paul on...the fact that even though he does not like it, he still does his duty as a member of Congress and participates in the appropriations process (which is the House of Representatives main duty)?!?!
Really? puuuuuleeeeze.
It's enough for me.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:43pm.
Either you have principles and you live by them, or you don't. Paul doesn't.
What's he thinking?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:48pm.
If Ron Paul were to win the Republican nomination are we to believe he will ignore his Libertarian political beliefs and run as a mainstream Republican or does he have the fantasy that his winning would cause the whole Republican Party to become Libertarians?
It's a joke that Paul runs as a Repub at all...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:31am.
He's not a Republican, he's a Libertarian down to his socks, but he would never get elected with an "L" after his name, so he calls himself a Repub.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Ron Paul is not a
Submitted by han_solo on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:58am.
Ron Paul is not a Libertarian(party), he is a libertarian(philosophy).
That's as stupid as saying you cant be a Republican if your a conservative, you have to be in the "Conservative Party".
My point was, since you obviously missed it...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:28am.
is that Ron Paul, if he were honest, would run as a Libertarian, because he IS a Libertarian in politcal philosophy, even if he won't label himself as such. He runs as a Republican because he knows he wouldn't have a snowball's hope in July of winning if he declared himself a Libertarian-Whether you use a big "L" or a littel "l", it matter not...Ron Paul is a Libertarian-
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Don't worry. King Ron Paul the Crank will quit again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:51am.
He already quit the Republican party at least once. Because of that horrible horrible Reagan. The horror! He will do it again.
Blast from the past: Ron Paul quits the Republican party
With that in mind, it may be of interest to look through the slightly longer lens of history and see what Ron Paul had to say about Reagan (and the GOP in general) back in 1987 when he quit the party and lambasted the sitting president.
And as usual, every 4 years, Ron Paul's racist past rises up to put the nail in the coffin of his failed campaigns.
News Bulletin: Ron Paul Is a Huge Racist
The gist is that Paul is tied in deep and extensive ways to neo-Confederates, and somewhat less tightly to the right-wing militia movement. His newsletter, which he wrote and edited for years, was a constant organ of vile racism and homophobia. This is not just picking out a phrase here and there. Fear and hatred of blacks and gays, along with a somewhat less pronounced paranoia about Jewish dual loyalty, are fundamental elements of his thinking.
Don't worry. Ron Paul will be dropping out soon after the primaries start just like he always does and the Paultards will soon take all their lies and crawl back into their holes just like they always do.
I hope so...I've had more than enough...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 3:19am.
of him and his embarrassing and ridiculously irresponsible rants about Iran and national security.Paul is a loon, in more ways than one, and I for one will be very happy to see him, finally, gone. He's 76 years old, and after having run for president twice now and not being nominated, I really hope that he will finally have gotten the message...If he's still around, he'll be 81 years old by then, and hopefully will be a distant memory in presidential politics.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
[Sigh] Another election where
Submitted by PeskyDane on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:08pm.
[Sigh] Another election where the a choice is going to be between two big-government statists.
Exactly. Unless we nominate
Submitted by VBaxter on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:41pm.
Exactly. Unless we nominate you-know-who. The only Constitutional, small government candidate.
Ron Paul 2012
VBaxter, love your tagline.
Submitted by PeskyDane on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:53pm.
VBaxter, love your tagline. MGMF. Ron Paul is the only candidate that would even make me consisder coming back to the Republican party.
Sad that we don't have the political will as a nation, to put the brakes on before the system collapses of its own weight. In a sane world, the solution to $15,000,000,000,000 in debt would be something other than to borrow more money. Guess we're the crazy ones.
Bax
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:37am.
More like "Minimum military, maximum isolation, worldwide target. Ron Paul 2012".
There, that's more like it.
You got it!
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:40am.
Perfect!
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Thx Prairie
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:06am.
Perhaps I could make a mint by turning it into a bumper sticker?
Not a bad idea...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:51pm.
I'd buy one! :-)
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
How about "Minimum
Submitted by VBaxter on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:52am.
How about "Minimum Isolationist, Maximum National Defense".
Remember that Ron Paul gets more military donations than every other candidate combined. If you support our troops, then you support Ron Paul.
He isn't against war, he's just for declaring war before you engage our troops and risk their lives.
Ron Paul 2012
Damn straight.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:54am.
Ron Paul receives the most money from people that lie and say they are affiliated with the military than any other liar group for any other candidate combined.
You go Ron Paul cranks. Keep thinking you can game the system and lie your man into office.
This is one of the Paulbots' favorite claims...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:56pm.
I hear this all the time..."The military just loves Ron Paul...Ron Paul receives the most military donations..." blah, blah, blah. It's pure and total bs...My entire family and many of our friends and aquaintances are either active or retired military, and the concensus is that Ron Paul is a card carrying nutcase. So, all you Paulbots out there, go ahead and continue to delude yourselves with this fantasy...Do you all believe in unicorns, too?
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
if foreign policy didn't exist......
Submitted by GregE on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:47am.
.......Ron Paul gets my vote.
Well, foreign policy does exist, and...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:19am.
Ron Paul is scary crazy.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
If you like Ron Paul except
Submitted by han_solo on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:56am.
If you like Ron Paul except for foreign policy...... WATCH THIS....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
Apparently ....
Submitted by Fredy on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:05am.
Ron Paul thinks that Iran will simply just 'be happy' if all US presence is removed from every part of the world.
Does anyone know what a President Ron Paul would do about the pirates in Samalia or anywhere else in the world?
Would a President Ron Paul allow pirates all around the world take over the seas?
Would a President Ron Paul defend US shipping or would he simply allow it to come to an end?
Ron Paul is not an
Submitted by han_solo on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:52am.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist pussy. If we are attacked he is not afraid of kicking some ass, or hunting down those that did it.
What he won't do is poke and prod and bully other countries into attacking us, or be so quick to think we have the right to do things to them that we would consider an act of war but we somehow think we have the right to do to others anytime we want like 'no fly zones' and other such BS.
He also won't be stupid enough to get involved in nation building and other such stuff which are just excuses for growing an empire.
Look at a MAP, IRAN is totally surrounded, the US has military in all the entire rest of the middle east except for IRAN. We are just bullying them to trick them into wanting fight us.
All I hear is blood lust and WAR WAR WAR.... we don't even have the money for all this war crap, and none of those warmongering neocons will even discuss the fact we are broke.
Who is missing?
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:32am.
The more I listen to and see these candidates, the more I wish someone else was running, like, I don't know, maybe Paul Ryan? Why are so many conservatives rallying around Newt Gingrich, a man that so many vilified just a short time ago?
Chris---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:59am.
cuz politics makes strange bedfellows. :o)
I have no idea who gets the h/t on that one.
MD
md,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:44am.
Or in Newt's case - "couchfellows"?
Because...
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:24am.
....the so many that vilified him were the members of the biased media not conservatives.
Newt is NO CONSERVATIVE
Submitted by cbeyer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 9:52am.
He made a full on statement supporting cap and trade policies. His amnesty for illegal aliens certainly is not conservative. Not to mention he often makes bobastic statements as in recently when he took credit for ending the cold war. He is an ego maniac
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:39pm.
Whatever. Whatever. Whatever.
One of the reforms that Gingrich proposes — and which I support — would be to give illegal immigrants who have lived here for many years the chance to work legally. This would help keep families together, which would be a big improvement over the last three years when President Obama's aggressive immigration enforcement policies tore many families apart.
However, there's a catch. Illegal immigrants would get a “red card” and the chance to stay in the United States. But they wouldn't get U.S. citizenship as part of the deal.
Sounds like fredastic to me. Bobastic would be giving them citizenship.
Yeah, that's what he
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:12pm.
Yeah, that's what he said.....Newt supports amnesty.
Whatever
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:47pm.
Did you miss my four whatevers above?
While I am not exactly happy with it, I understand the man is trying to get elected.
As I have said here on this page I believe, I am not gonna diss on candidates here. I reserve that for trolls and Democrats.
So I am not really sure what you are going for here. I can only say whatever so many times. I don't understand repeating the same statement made by the guy I was responding to. For the purpose of....????? What, to pick a fight with me? I already said whatever. Maybe you are confused about what that means. What, I have to keep repeating it. You gonna repeat yourself after this post?
Whatever. Whatever. Whatever. Whatever.
Newt is NO CONSERVATIVE
Submitted by cbeyer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 9:53am.
He made a full on statement supporting cap and trade policies. His amnesty for illegal aliens certainly is not conservative. Not to mention he often makes bobastic statements as in recently when he took credit for ending the cold war. He is an ego maniac
No, Vet. Right here. On the
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:46am.
No, Vet. Right here. On the threads of NB. By many posters who are definitely not liberals. In fact, at one point, I actually defended Gingrich, because I felt that many were forgetting his work that got the Republican majorities in '94, despite his later straying and drifting - ending up on a couch with Pelosi. It's like all of this criticism by conservatives is being airbrushed away and, now it's like "Newt was always our guy - Go Newt!".
Alright Mr. Norman.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:45pm.
I ain't joining the crowd here dissing him. That is for sure. I won't diss on any candidate but Ron Paul. Nor am I jumping up and down cheering for Mr. Gingrich either. If he ends up being the candidate, I will vote for him.
I feel pretty much the same way, Vet
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:38pm.
If I voted for McCain, I could certainly vote for Newt. I've prolly fallen into the trap of wanting the perfect candidate, but he/she ain't runnin'.
Last night's debate made me feel better about things, as I think the candidates did well, including Newt and even Romney. Between the two, I prolly trust Newt a bit more than Mitt, but whoever comes out of the primaries, I will feel better about the general than in 2008.
Hear Hear.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:55am.
.
Agreed...It's not a particularly strong or inspiring field...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:08pm.
I too have been wishing that someone else would come along that I can be excited and passionate about, but it just ain't gonna happen...again. This feels a lot like '08 with McCain. I voted for him, but I wasn't excited or passionate about him either.There is almost an air of desperation in the Repub electorate concerning these candidates, like the thinking is "Is this the one? Is this the one? Is this the one?" They keep switching their support from one, to the other, to the other, as one by one many of them have flamed out, for one reason or another. Now, it realistically looks like we're down to two...Romney or Gingrich, neither of which I'm thrilled with, although either of them would be an improvement over Obama. It would be nice however to have better, stronger, and more inspirational choices on the Repub side, but in my humble opinion, we just don't.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
PrarieSky, I would have
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:56pm.
PrarieSky,
I would have loved to have seen Pence, Ryan, West or Palin in the race. Pace decided to run for Governor, I think Ryan wants a little more seasoning, West knows he is to new and we all know that the BS LSM has been trashing Palin every chance they get, thereby poisoning the well there.
I myself think the top two of the current GOP crop running are Perry and Gingrich. I like Perry's stand on States Rights and the 10 years of executive experience is a plus. I do not think that he is strong in debates and do wonder how he would fare against the teleprompter in chief. Newt on the other hand is a strong debater and would absolutely wipe the floor with President Downgrade. I am not enamored on all his positions but would pick him over Romney any day of the week.
Me too, Scube...Me too...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:59am.
I agree with your appraisal of Pence, Ryan, West and Palin. Palin is who I really would have loved to see run, and I would have supported her 100%, but as you said, the unhinged left and the MSM have done such a thorough hatchet job on her, I'm not sure she will ever be able to overcome that in the public's mind.
When this election season started, and it was obvious that Palin was not likely going to run, Perry is who I was the most interested in, until the debates began. He was a mess from the get go, and his position on allowing illegals to pay instate tuition rates and his comment that those of us who don't agree with him on this means that we "don't have a heart" as he put it, combined with his general debate performances, pretty much put an end to that. I think he's been a good governor, overall, though he has done some things that I do not agree with, like mandating that girls get the HPV vaccine (even though the legislature put an end to that), and his rather liberal attitude toward some aspects of the illegal alien issue. His debate performances and his gaffes along the way have made me seriously question if he's up for the job of POTUS, and I'm not sure he is... I'm afraid President Teleprompter would eat him up in their debates. Obama knows how to be cool in those type of situations, like a fish knows how to be wet. So now at this point, I think the two we're left with are Romney and Gingrich, neither of whom thrill me, and both of whom I have some serious issues with. As I said before, it feels a lot like '08...I'll obviously vote for the Repub nominee because voting for Obama is unthinkable, and either Romney or Gingrich would be an improvement over Obama. But, I think I'll more likely wind up voting against 4 more years of Obama rather than for 4 years of a candidate that I'm just not inspired and passionate about.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
PrairieSky, I hear what you
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:05am.
PrairieSky,
I hear what you are saying about Perry. I too do not think he has the chops to take on Obama in a debate. Unless of course he is fooling us all into a false sense of security then WHAM-O!!! :-)
I do urge you to take a look at his performance in the Huckabee Forum a couple of weeks ago. That segment is what has made me rethink what I felt about him.
None of us will ever have the perfect candidate and in the end I too will be pulling the lever to end Obama's reign of errors at 4 years. I would hope the GOP candidate that does run against him hears our voices and does not turn their backs on We The People, otherwise I will vote them out in 4 years and hope either Ryan, Pence, West, Rubio or Palin have decided to make a run at the Presidency.
Scube...I saw the Huckabee forum, and though I do think...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:27am.
Perry did well, it just wasn't enough to change my mind about him or his chances in this election...For me, that ship has sailed.
As I said, I'm less than thrilled with Romney and Gingrich, but would be willing to have either of them as president in place of Obama. As you said, if Romney or Gingrich were to win, and if they didn't heed our voices and honor the principles that they ran on, in another 4 years, like you, I'll be hoping that any or all of the four that you mentioned would run. Right now, I'm primarily focused on getting Obama the he!! out of the White House, and in '12...not in '16. The thought of another 4 interminable years of Captain Disaster is just too awful to contemplate.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Speaking of Perry.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:19am.
Ace of Spades brought this. Watch the video.
Thanks for posting that link
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:29am.
Thanks for posting that link Vet. Shows how much respect Perry has for our men and women in uniform and what it takes to perform that duty.
It's a real interesting video, and I wish we saw more of this...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:45am.
Rick Perry. But, unfortunately, and it's sad that it's come to this, but I still think that Obama would likely clobber Perry in a debate, and the awful truth is that too often, politics is perception, and the perception would be that Perry's just not up to the job, although neither is Obama. I'm afraid in a situation like that it may well come down with the voters to a decision about the "devil they know" versus the "devil they don't", and unless the Repub candidate can handle himself well and really let Obama have it in the debates, I worry that unless given a good enough alternative, Obama may well get re-elected. It sadly may not come down to who might be the better candidate, but who has the best chance to beat Obama.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Awaiting the posting of the
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:29am.
Awaiting the posting of the "Grumpy Analysis".
One thing that I have said before and will say again and again is that the GOP should get rid of the debate format and replace it with the forum style that Huckabee had a couple of weeks ago until they have picked their candidate. After the candidate is picked then go to the debate format to smack the libturd candidate around.
To me the debate has been corrupted by the moderators who look for nothing but gotcha moments and fomenting hostility between the candidates. The short response time does not let a candidate articulate a position. It only provides enough time for sound bites.
I felt Huckabee's forum gave us the best format to see what the candidates stand for and the time to present it.
Maybe when I have the time I will post further on this.
Great point, Scoob
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:47am.
I hate the one minute sound bites, w/ a 30 second response. The results are merely short-hand talking points, and foster no deeper understanding of the candidates' stances on anything.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Most telling thing of the ENTIRE evening.
Submitted by han_solo on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:02am.
1) Not a *******SINGLE******* discussion about the NDAA and the destruction of the 4th amendment....nothing.
2) No matter how much the warmongers want to ignore it.... THE FACTS ARE: Ron Paul was right about IAEA report and Bachman was way wrong. http://factcheck.org/2011/12/the-final-iowa-debate/
Here we go with the influx of PaulBots
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:59am.
I have a question for you guys.....how many men in white coats were waiting for him last night? Because he seemed " " that far away from a total meltdown as he discussed Iran.
Bachmann pegged it. That guy would be totally dangerous with the keys to the nukes.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
No...he was frustrated
Submitted by han_solo on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:03am.
No...he was frustrated because Bachmann was totally 100% WRONG about the IAEA report and would not admit it. Paul was correct, Bachmann was full of it.
http://factcheck.org/2011/12/the-final-iowa-debate/
Oh really?
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:09am.
From YOUR link:
In a way, both candidates are right, and both go a bit too far with their statements.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Mornin' J
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:22am.
Clearly a kook. Starting with that nervous little half-laugh he employs when the heat is on to the use of the widely discredited Lancet Report on Iraqi deaths and his naive belief that people left alone will act humanely toward one another, this guy just continues to display his vision of unicorns dancing through DC. He showed himself on sanity's edge last night.
Agreed, BK
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:24am.
Methinks there's a 'shop in there somewhere, too.
(have laptop back, yes!)
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
They were being generous,
Submitted by han_solo on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:46am.
They were being generous, read the whole thing:
> Bachmann said that the International Atomic Energy Agency said that “Iran is
> within just months” of being able to have a nuclear weapon. Paul said
>that wasn’t true.
>The report didn’t say that Iran was definitely building a nuclear weapon now.
>The report itself also didn’t say that Iran was “within just months” of getting a
>nuclear weapon, as Bachmann said
>But Bachmann gives the impression that Iran is actively working toward
>having that weapon within months, and the IAEA said it could not say
>for certain whether all of Iran’s nuclear activities were peaceful.
>“[T]he Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence
>of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to
>conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in
>peaceful activities,” the report said.
>Director of National Intelligence Clapper, Senate testimony, March 10, 2011:
>We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear
>weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better
>position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We
>do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.
Bachmann like all Republicans are DRUNK on war.
You PaulBots are insane
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:54am.
You cling to something Obama's DNI said, in open (unclassified) testimony as your proof? My God you PaulBots are naifs.
One of the biggest centrifuge facilities in Northern Iran just went "poof" a few weeks ago, buildings that had been there fifteen years....and the Iranis apparently hacked our stealth drone and punked it into landing in Iran....and you actually BELIEVE THIS NONSENSE?
What will constitute proof for you fools.....a smoking hole and a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv?
Now just go away. You're not convincing anyone here, and you are annoying everyone else.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Couple more months Blonde.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:18pm.
Hopefully the King Crank Ron Paul will close up his campaign by Super Tuesday, the crank Paultards will go back to their internet hidey-holes, and we will get a little peace here at NewsBusters.
han_solo
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:10pm.
Bachmann like all Republicans are DRUNK on war.
Curious comment on your part. Isn't Ron Paul a Republican?
Well, Mid
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:42pm.
He plays one on TV.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
The official Ron Paul campaign......
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:18pm.
Theme song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
"Bachmann like all
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:19pm.
"Bachmann like all Republicans are DRUNK on war."
And Paulbots like you are drunk on stupid, lol. I really liked it when Paul said the UN never said any such thing, and then in the next breath says they weren’t telling the truth when they did say what he just finished saying they didn't say, lol..
Paul also said
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:57pm.
We killed a million Iraqi's, the guy is a nut case.
It seems that after every debate, the Paulbots are everywhere-
Submitted by PrairieSky on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 1:49am.
It is almost impossible to go to any news or political site after a debate, and not find that they are overrun by the Paulbots...I love the way they refer to him too as, Dr. Paul...It's not Congressman Paul, it's Dr. Paul..It's almost cult like.
After listening to this loon for the last 2 elections, imho, he's nuts, and it would be a cold day in he!! before I would ever even remotely consider voting for Ron Paul...As I posted here earlier, he's scary crazy.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
R- Debate (12/15/11) “The
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:53am.
R- Debate (12/15/11) “The Official Grump-Analysis”
Source: “The Grumpy Center for Advanced Studies (GCAS)”
Motto of the GCAS: “READ THIS FIRST – and thank you for reading the motto.”
OVERVIEW: The Thursday evening debate was sponsored by Fox News and the Republican Party of Iowa. It was held at the Sioux City Convention Center in Sioux City, Iowa. (Who even knew there was a Convention Center in Iowa???)
.
Six candidates and one old lunatic participated in the debate.
THE SETTING: Fox News used the standard format of having the candidates stand behind lecterns and arranging the candidates in order of their polling importance – Newt was center, and reading from left to right, the candidates were: Santorum, Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Bachman, & Huntsman.
THE MODERATORS/QUESTIONERS: Brett Baer moderated and did a good job IMO – He did get a bit “power mad” with the “dingy-sound thing,” but nothing too egregious.
The other questioners were Neil Cavuto, Meghan Kelly, and Chris Wallace ...thankfully, Wallace was kept to a minimum. Kelly did a pretty good job, but also asked a pretty stupid question about “Who’s your favorite Supreme Court Justice?” It was great to see Neil Cavuto participate – and it was good to have him ask questions.
IMO, it was very good of Fox and the questioners to introduce a new topic “The Courts” and it was most illuminating to hear the responses of the candidates to those court questions.
PARTICIPANT ANALYSIS: This debate did not have a singe theme as some of the other debate/forums had it was all over the place.
Note: In fairness, I should note that I did not get to see the whole debate (watched a replay early this A.M.) and I missed the last few minutes when “the feed” from Fox broke.
This time I’ll list the candidates in order of who I thought “won” the overall debate:
1. Newt Gingrich – Of course. He was the major target of the evening and weathered the minor storms sent by the other candidates in his usual unflappable way.
(Both Perry & Santorum tied for second place – so they both get the #2)
2-3. Rick Perry – He uses what little time he gets in these debates effectively and manages to even introduce some new ideas (IMO his idea about a “part-time legislature” is intriguing). He’s getting better in these debates and he comes across as a “straight-shooter” – I like that!
2-3. Rick Santorum – Finally (for the most part) he dropped the complaining about how little time he gets in the debates – And dropped most of his sales pitch about how he was the central figure of the Senate. If he had employed this tactic months ago and stuck to real issues and solutions, he would have been in much better shape.
4. Michele Bachmann – She moves up to 3rd place because she really took-it to the lunatic Paul and succeeded – But she drops to 5th because she also tried to take-it to Newt over the Fanny/Freddy consults and failed… so she averages out to 4th place.
5. Willard “Mitt” Romney – Spent the entire debate trying to avoid saying anything… and succeeded. He is placed in 5th place here because he accomplished his goal of making an appearance, without causing himself any damage. This guy is really nothing more than a well-tailored, yet empty suit… What an “Appeaser.”
6. Jon Huntsman – He proved there is a reason for his appeal to a huge one percent of the voting public (actually it’s about 8% - but “one-percent” sounds better). His performance was OK… but who really cares? I will say that IMO he would make a better President than…
7. Ron Paul – I’m actually tired of joking about this crazy person. If you watched the debate, you would have heard the most insane ideas on foreign relations ever uttered by a (so-called) “conservative,” and some of the most unrealistic ideas about changing the way government operates.
Did anyone notice the change in his demeanor when he was lecturing us about his own perceived truths – to the angry, out-of-control, and vicious demeanor that emerged when he was challenged by Michele Bachmann on his foreign policy ideas???
This silly old fool is simply running for the purposes of self-aggrandizement… and the "Paul-bots" simply cannot handle the truth about their little tin god.
- Grump :o)
Grump, Spot on as usual.
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:50pm.
Grump,
Spot on as usual. :-)
Now tell me if I am wrong on this, Newt gets more time in these debates because everyone else is attacking him. Because of this he is provided rebuttal time which increases exposure to who he is and what he wants to do.
GOP bell curve...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:35pm.
...the vrwc predicts:
so...
so who is it? Pundits today at RealClearPolitics say Perry and Bachmann won last night, and Santorum picked up...but right now it looks like 'tbd' is anyones game right now, except MittNewtPaul, some one in the middle...
GOP bell curve, left to right is, well left to right:
tbd tbd
tbd tbd
tbd tbd
Romney tbd tbd tbd
Romney tbd tbd tbd
Huntsman Romney tbd tbd tbd Paul
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Grump~(Scubie too)
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:14pm.
I always love your analysis. It's always so perceptive. Many may disagree with us, but I thought Newt won that one as well.
I don't know why, but I continue to be surprised that Bachmann always has at least one person she goes on the attack (BIGTIME) with in these debates -- just because I did not think that would be her mode. It's like she spends a great deal of prep time to destroy one of them. Clearly, it is always someone she hones in on for a strategic reason, but in the case of Paul, that was just sheer conviction on her part because I don't think she sees him as a threat to her -- and that genuine aspect (taking it to Paul) is what I love to see in her because that is what I expected of her before these debates started -- that she would go more with conviction, not strategy to nuke others for the sake of nuking for her advantage.
Oh, and Perry. Holy Texas cattle! Where the heck has he been? He did great. I was so surprised. That is the Perry I expected to begin with...and he finally showed up!
Scuba, for what it's worth, I generally agree with you on Newt's extra time. And this part could totally be my imagination, but there seemed to be a few moderators who personally seemed to want to allow Newt to defend himself. I'm not necessarily saying they favored him...maybe more like they gave him a little extra allowance out of respect for him. Okay, I guess that is about the same as favoritism. LOL. Or maybe extra time because they know the audience usually finds his answers really interesting. ????
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
GG, another thing I
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:31pm.
GG, another thing I noticed in last nights debates were that the questions Wallace asked were worded so that it would pit one candidate against another. That is why I beginning to hate the debate format for primary candidates, WE DO NOT LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT THE CANDIDATE!!!
GG*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:40pm.
So happy to see you back on the boards. Totally agree with your analysis. Perry was much better last night and Bachmann is starting to look like a vindictive kind of person.
And I agree with scooby. The questions asked by Wallace were intended to incite a brawl between the candidates, much like the previous debates sponsored by the lib media.
The Huckabee Format has been the only debate so far that has allowed the candidates to have the time to explain their views and do so with substance, not one liners. We need to see that kind of format again with just 3 or 4 candidates at a time on focus on particular issues.
Oh, and Ron Paul is nuts.
Hey, Caj~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:36pm.
Yeah, that is the kind of format we all want and need. It is getting beyond ridiculous that the moderators just want to see them fight with each other. Newt seems to fall for that the least, although Romney has really pretty much stopped going after anyone as well. I think Grump is right -- Romney figures he now has his best chance just flying under the radar.
The biggest, most stupid waste of time was all those Romney/Perry arguments. So immature and nothing gained. And I do think Bachmann made a big mistake trying to demolish others in all these debates instead of standing tall and true to her own ideas. She made me cringe on more than one occasion..."bully" comes to mind.
As for Paul, oh...my...gosh.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Scubie~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:15pm.
Totally agree with you. I am so sick of that!
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Really stupid question~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:49pm.
Was it just me, or did Bachmann's eyebrows disappear? Maybe it was the lighting.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Good catch GG*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:59pm.
Thought it was just my bi focals. After the halftime break, it looked like her right eyelash was much thinner than the left one. Maybe I should go back and look at the tape...LOL
Caj~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 6:10pm.
Okay, I thought the same thing -- that the eyelashes were off as well. LOL. It just sort of distracted me.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan