NB Chat/Open Thread: Final Florida GOP Debate

Tie a yellow ribbon 'round the old oak tree take 2.

Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 7:31pm.

Six Americans working for publicly funded U.S. organizations promoting democracy in Egypt have been barred from leaving the country, provoking angry demands in Washington that Cairo's new military rulers stop "endangering American lives".

And in other news... Romney failed to disclose Swiss bank account on financial forms.

He is soo screwed, missed the second deadline ... funny thing I was looking for his FBAR  forms and I didn't see them.

• Login to post comments

looks like Pelosi backed down from Newt's challenge

Submitted by merly1 on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 7:32pm.

per NBC news tonite. As usual, she epitomizes the idea of "brain-dead."

• Login to post comments

Barney Frank

Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 7:52pm.

wants to invite you to the upcoming nuptials.

• Login to post comments

If you ask me, 19 GOP debates is about 16 too many

Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 9:48pm.

Enough was enough a long time ago.

-Dave

• Login to post comments

R- Debate (01/26/12) “The Official Grump-Analysis”

Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 10:34am.

Source: “The Grumpy Center for Advanced Studies (GCAS)”

Official Motto of the GCAS:
“A motto a day, keeps the libs away… (hopefully).”

OVERVIEW: This time the debate was held in Jacksonville, Florida in the ‘children’s sandbox’ at the University of North Florida and was sponsored by CNN, the Republican Party of Florida and the Hispanic Leadership Network. Overall the debate was less an exchange of ideas than it was a ‘pissing contest’ between the front runners.

THE MODERATORS/QUESTIONERS: This time, CNN chose Wolfe Blitzer to be the game show quiz master. Blitzer started off well, but the temptation to revert to the typical left-leaning reporter became too much and he quickly devolved into the Obama supporting robot we have come to expect.

A few times, Blitzer was aided in his Obama promotions by Juan Carlos Lopez who moderated questions from the participants at the annual convention of the Hispanic Leadership Network. Of note, Mr. Lopez did not ask any of his own questions, but simply turned the microphone over to the participants at that conference.

Apparently, CNN learned a lesson from the negative reaction to NBC’s policy of not allowing any audience participation/reaction and gave those attending every opportunity to express their pleasure or displeasure as the guests saw fit.

It was pointed out to me (after the last Grump-Analysis) that the MSM has a new tactic during these (R) debates: “Do not ask questions that might come back to haunt Obama or the administration - and keep the focus on the failings and the perceived ‘sketchy history’ of the Republican candidates.” In this regard and per the strategy, CNN’s “Little Wolfe that cried Obama” did a fine job. The questions from the audience were mostly on target, the questions from Blitzer were not.

PARTICIPANT ANALYSIS: This time around, we’ll make it simple… the candidates are listed in order of their performance:

1. Rick Santorum – Rick Santorum ‘owned’ the night by far. His performance was outstanding. He made effective contrasts between himself and the other candidates on policy issues… He was the first to call for a stop to the ‘petty personal attacks’ against each other (and [Mitt & Newt] tried to jump on that bandwagon – but with almost light-speed rapidity immediately continued with their private feud)… He nailed Mitt (and to a lesser degree Newt) on the Health Care/Romney-care issue and the ‘Wall Street Bailout’ issue… He presented a sane and strong policy towards the foreign relations issues… He stayed on message regarding his pro-manufacturing stance… He dismissed those questions that were irrelevant and attempted to make the entire evening relevant to the issues. Santorum actually sounded more ‘Presidential’ than the others. I truly hope he does well in the Florida primary.
RATING: A

2. Ron Paul – Yes! You heard that right… IMO, Ron Paul actually came in second place in this debate. He accomplished this feat by simply refusing to participate in some of the nonsense questions and displaying something akin to a sense of humor in his answers to those inane questions.
Note: This debate rating does not equate to an endorsement for Ron Paul… Essentially, he played all his cards in his opening statement (No realistic foreign policy, and a return to the ‘Gold Standard’). One of the problem with Paul is that while some of ideas on returning ‘the power to the States and local communities have merit, he offers no plan to properly transition that shift from the feds to the localities… IOW – His plan is to just eliminate certain federal programs and let the States and communities scramble to establish their own policies.
RATING: B-

Side note: It was terribly difficult to determine which of the remaining candidates came in 3rd and 4th place. If we were to judge this debate as we would a talent-show, then Mitt Romney would have been decisively in 3rd place. But, since the judging is based both on the overall presentation AND the actual responses and explanations of the candidates various plans… Newt had a [slightly] better presentation.

3. Newt Gingrich – A bad performance by Newt is still a pretty good one, but this was Newt’s worst performance so far. He indulged himself in attacks against Romney far too many times and got embroiled in petty arguments that seemed more distracting than relevant. When explaining his positions, one had to listen very closely to understand the point he was trying to make. His normal calm presentation of the natural intellectual flow of grand-ideas seemed chaotic - as if in rapids rather than a calm, steady stream. What saved this debate for Newt, was the fact that while the audience was not always receptive to his answers, he does have an impressive command of the facts and articulates his positions well. I must admit to being disappointed with his performance in this the last debate before the primary.
RATING: C

4. Willard “Mitt” Romney – Mitt was well prepared for this debate… but that didn’t quite save him. His answers (and responses to attacks) were presented professionally… not passionately, mind you, but (as per usual) in the manner of a slick salesman trying to ‘seal the deal.’ The two answers that dropped him into 4th place in this particular rating (answers that I somehow can’t get out of my mind or ignore) was when he didn’t even know what was in his own attack ads assaulting Newt over a false “Spanish is the language of the Ghetto” statement – And the answer(s) surrounding his “Trust fund” investments.
Regarding those trust fund answers, like the ‘negative ads,’ once again Mitt displayed a trait remarkably similar to Obama – a trait that manifests itself as an attempt to distance himself from his own involvements… In this case it’s that his trust fund is ‘managed’ by somebody else, so he has no input in its operation. Supposedly, under the Romney presentation, his ‘manager’ could take all the money to Vegas and put it all on one spin of roulette – and Mitt would have no say in the matter – A cosmically unbelievable idea that just does not meet the smell test.
RATING: C-

- Grump :o)

• Login to post comments