GOP Agonistes - Last Night's Debate

As always, I watch these things so you don't have to. But truthfully, there's more meat in what didn't happen and what shouldn't have happened than what actually did.

What shouldn't have happened is 20 odd GOP debates, especially with people like John King and George Stephanopoulos as 'moderators'. Half as many would have served equally well, and with a far different group of people running them.

The only people who benefited from this nonsense were the Obama campaign and its assorted media lackeys with a vested interest in seeing our Dear Leader re-elected. And the overkill has arguably turned a GOP base that was engaged and ready to get behind a standard bearer to take on probably the most dismally failed presidency in U.S. history into a jaded group that will now have to be re-energized by whomever is the nominee.

I still remain amazed that the Republican candidates agreed to perform in this circus. You would think they'd know better. The doubling down by the candidates last night on the Obama campaign's birth control setup when they should have been talking about taxes, jobs and gas prices was beyond embarrassing, and there were oly two bright spots. First, Mitt Romney's slapdown of John King's attempt to interrupt him in mid answer and drive the agenda.

Second Newt Gingrich's reminding the world that President Obama is a rabid fan of infanticide with a position more extreme than NARAL's, and that the media never questioned it and did their best to cover it up during the 2008 campaign. Unfortunately, he didn't go into more detail on what a hideous revelation this actually is and what is says about the current occupant of the White House. In more enlightened times, Barack Obama would have been driven out of decent society by that alone.

Last night's debate was Rick Santorum's chance to prove that he was ready for prime time, could trade punches with the big boys and is capable of taking President Obama on. He isn't, he can't and he's not.

It doesn't matter that some of the attack lines were unfair or unreasonable. It was Senator Santorum's task to hit them back over the net at his opponents, and he didn't, not in any convincing way. This leads me to believe that as likeable as he is, he has problems performing under pressure, something I've noticed more than once. And petulantly claiming after the fact that the fix was in and people are ganging up on him is not something that inspires confidence.

Another point worth mentioning was Senator Santorum's demeanor. Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich appeared relaxed and confident. Santorum appeared anxious and ill at ease, like a man with a jock strap one size too small.

If he's behaving like this now, one can only imagine what he'll be like he's debating President Obama i a debate 'moderated' by PBS when the fix will really be in and anything he's said in the past that's remotely questionable will be warped, taken out of context and looped endlessly by Soros' media galley slaves.

Republicans as well as the American people seem to be taking a more critical look at Rick Santorum as well. From having a solid lead in Michigan, he's now pretty much dead even with Romney, who is also up in favorability ratings against Obama according to Gallup.

Mitt Romney actually had a fairly decent night of it, and his tying of Santorum's endorsement of RINO Arlen Spector to the passing of ObamaCare ( Spector was one of the deciding votes) was a blow that caught Santorum flat footed and really hurt him.

The voting in Arizona and Michigan cometh, and it remains to be seen whether Rick Santorum's performance last night hurt him. I think it did, and badly.

Michael Savage Rips Ron Paul To Shreds

Not one of my favorites, but when Dr. Savage is on target, he's really on target...

Tonight's Debate: The Palmetto Ping Pong Match

Four of the five GOP candidates obviously had a mission tonight, and it wasn't to tell Republicans how they were going to defeat Obama - it was to try and derail Mitt Romney,the front runner.

I doubt they gained much ground.

One positive thing is that this particular debate was moderated by FOX, so partisan antics by the likes of people like George Stephanopoulos were mercifully absent and a much more professional atmosphere ensued.

Newt Gingrich quite correctly caught some heat from Bret Baier about the anti-capitalist attacks on Romney, but also managed to get off a number of good lines, especially when Juan Williams tried to play the race card and accused Gingrich of belittling minorities for suggesting that poor, young kids be paid for "light janitorial work" at school.

Gingrich replied, "No, I don't see that."

"They'd be getting money, which is a good thing if you're poor. Only the elites despise earning money," he said to tremendous applause.

Romney continued to be basically untouched, and continued to concentrate on taking on President Obama.

"I know the Democrats are going to be showing videos of, you know, old people being thrown off cliffs and so forth. But don't forget who it was that cut Medicare by $500 billion, and that was President Obama to pay for Obamacare."

He also did a decent job of defending himself from the expected Bain Capital attacks.

Rick Perry accused Bain of coming into Georgetown, S.C., closing a steel mill and said Bain had "..picked that company over, and a lot of people lost jobs there", Romney replied that Bain had actually invested in two steel mills and invested for seven or eight years, but that the mills closed because of foreign competition which killed their business.

"Ultimately, what happened from abroad, dumping steel into this country, led to some 40 different steel mills being closed," Romney said. "I understand what happens when China cheats, or when others cheat and dump products into this country. That's one of the reasons I'm running, is to make sure we crack down on cheaters."

It's not so much cheating as the problem of unionized American steelworkers competing with Chinese labor, but he's essentially correct and Bain's steel mills weren't the only ones affected.

Romney defended his record at Bain, saying he invested in more than 100 businesses and had an overall successful record of job creation, which is normally what happens when businesses thrive.

"If people want to have someone who understands how the economy works, having worked in the real economy, then I'm the guy who can best post up against Barack Obama," he said.

The only two points were Romney was rocked back for a second concerned calls from Rick Perry and Rick Santorum for him to release his tax records,and accusations that he had failed to challenge a Massachusetts law that that allowed convicted felons to vote while still on parole.

Romeny's answer to the first was that he'd likely get around to doing it eventually, and to the second that he was faced with a state legislature that was 85% Democrat and realized it was a no win situation.

An interesting head to head occurred between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, of all people when Paul cited Santorum's record of voting for raising the national deficit, supporting Sarbanes-Oxley banking laws and voting against right-to-work labor laws, a particular sore point in South Carolina after the dust up over Boeing wanting to relocate jobs here. Santorum accused Paul of quoting left wing Soros backed sources for his information, but didn't really effectively dent them as untrue.

Overall, I don't think anyone particularly did any damage to Romney,although Newt Gingrich may have done himself some good in putting himslef back to the front - by a nose- of the anti-Romney forces.

Rick Santorum looked just uneven enough to give Gingrich the edge, and a lot of what came out tonight about Ron Paul's stance on the military will not play well in South Carolina, although his claim that taxes should be lowered to zero certainly raised a cheer.

Last Night's Debate - 'Moderator' Stephanopoulos Does His Bit For Obama

Last night's debate in New Hampshire was most notable for proving once again that Republicans and especially conservative Republicans should avoid the dinosaur media like the plague.

Last night's debate was hosted by ABC, and moderated by George Stephanopoulos - ex-campaign operative, Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy and press spin jockey for President Bill Clinton, who walked into his job with ABC as soon as he resigned from the White House.

Stephanopoulos' 'moderating' lacked even a semblance of objectivity or journalistic ethics as he fired over the top broadsides , often hypothetical ones at the GOP candidates to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if he got an early morning call from the White House beforehand. Here's a sample:

“Now, there have been questions about that calculation of 100,000 jobs. So if you could explain it a little more,” Stephanopoulos asked Romney of the former governor’s claims about jobs created by companies he has helmed. “I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. Is that accurate?”

“No, it’s not accurate,” Romney bluntly responded. “It includes the net of both. I’m a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.”

Stephanopoulos did not cite any analysts by name.

In another line of questioning, Stephanopoulos asked Romney if he believes “that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

Romney responded by questioning Stephanopoulos’ logic and his choice to raise a hypothetical situation that would never happen.

“You’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so — you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?” Romney asked, with a hint of incredulity.

Stephanopoulos, undeterred, pressed Romney again: “I’m asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?”

Amid a chorus of “boos” from the audience, Romney again parried the impossible hypothetical.

“George, I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception,” Romney responded. “No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do, and asking me whether they could do it or not, is kind of a silly thing, I think.”

Stephanopoulos also took shots at the other candidates, notably Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. And he deliberately encouraged the candidates to squabble among themselves rather than actually doing what a moderator is supposed to do, keep things on track and on topic. I'm sure that pleased the Obama campaign no end.

Oh, I hear what you're thinking...'hey,George Stephanopoulos is a human being,he has his views, you can't expect him to shut them off.'

Actually, that's exactly what I expect, from him and anyone else in the media who bills themselves as journalists and news professionals rather than commentators or opinion writers.

Tell me, when you go to work in an office, in a factory, or a business environment do you make a point of trumpeting your politics? Do you let them affect your job performance? Let's say you're Democrat plumber whose boss sends you on a job, you make a point of talking politics with the customer and modify your charges and your performance based on their ideology. How long do you think you'd stay employed?

The same thing is true in most work environments...with the exception of academia,Hollywood and the dinosaur media, where voicing conservative views can impact your employment prospects unless you're too well established and entrenched to touch.

A detached, balanced and non-biased attitude ought to be the standard in broadcast news and journalism, and it used to be, at least on the surface. Not any more. If George Stephanopoulos received any negative feedback from his employers at ABC for his performance, it was for not being more subtle about it.

That's exactly why the stocks, the readers and the audience are plummeting at the dinosaur media papers and the alphabet networks, and why the internet, talk radio and FOX, whose motto 'Fair and Balanced' is exemplified by their having Democrat Chris Wallace as their main anchor are seeing their readership and audiences surge. Since the dinosaur media's whitewash of President Obama, more and more people simply aren't drinking the Kool-ade anymore.

If I were running, I wouldn't even go near a debate like this. I think NewtGingrich had a decent idea of making these things Lincoln -Douglas style, with no moderator but a timekeeper and the candidates forced to think on their feet to counter each other's arguments. At the very least, I wouldn't go near one sponsored by the alphabet networks unless I badly needed exposure.

As for the rest of the debate, it was notable that once again, no one has really been able to lay a glove on Mitt Romney. There were a few attempts, mainly by Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, mainly focusing on Romney's changes in his positions and his time at Bain Capital, but they didn't really seem to do much damage and seemed fairly ineffectual.

The primary is Tuesday, and Romney is expected to win. It will be interesting to see how Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum end up finishing as we proceed on to South Carolina.

ADDENDUM: Hugh Hewitt notes that the execrable David Gregory did exactly the same thing that Stephanopoulos did last night in the NBC debate Gregory 'moderated' this Sunday morning.

No question in my mind now that this was coordinated from the White House. Disgraceful.

ECI Ad On Ron Paul

Now airing in New Hampshire...and featuring my old friend Gary Bauer, my choice for president in 2000. If only..

Summing Up Iowa

The Iowa Caucus has come and gone.

The results were a virtual photo finish between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, but the real winner of course was Rick Santorum.

I say that because Santorum managed to come up on top with a shoestring campaign that spent a fraction of what his opponents did in Iowa, and he did it in spite of being largely marginalized in the debates. He did it in a way that you can really only do in a small state like Iowa - using shoe leather and rental car miles. Like Mike Huckabee before him, Rick Santorum triumphed in Iowa because a lot of people had a chance to meet him and liked what they saw.

Also working in his favor was the high percentage of social conservatives in Iowa and the fact that his rivals imploded. In the end, it came down to a choice between Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

Despite various naysayers, the fact that Mitt Romney did as well as he did in a Midwestern state loaded with evangelicals and social conservatives says something about his relatively broad appeal to various factions. He wasn't supposed to win here, and he actually devoted very little time in Iowa until the last weeks, when polls showed him near the top of the field.

As I wrote on these pages long ago, a significant part of this election after three plus years of Barack Obama is going to be about competency, and Mitt Romney definitely comes across as a competent candidate whom could actually perform well in the Oval Office.

Both Romney and Santorum now proceed to New Hampshire with very different challenges.

Rick Santorum has to raise enough money based on his Iowa finish to put together a campaign organization capable of taking him to the next level. If he doesn't, he simply won't go much further. He also needs to be able to adjust his message sufficiently to appeal to voters more concerned with the economy than social conservative issues.

And finally, Santorum is no longer going to be marginalized as a candidate, with all that implies. He's going to be getting greater scrutiny, and he's going to be a target. How he deals with that will make or break his candidacy. The atacks have already started with the meme in a number of quarters that he's a 'big government conservative.' He is in the sense that like almost everyone else in the GOP fold he believes in a strong national defense,border security, and a sound fiscal and trade policy. He doesn't if you translate it as 'welfare state', which is what it really means today.

Mitt Romney's challenge will be to build on his success. This is going to be a little trickier than it sounds. While Mitt Romney will undoubtedly do well in new Hampshire, he will face increased media scrutiny and is likely to face visceral attacks by Newt Gingrich,who is embittered over his showing in Iowa after leading in the pols there at one point, and blames a series of negative ads run bu a pro-Romney super-PAC.

Anyone whom saw Gingrich's speech last night knows there's blood in the water. I would even say it's to the point where Gingrich, historically a bomb thrower, cares less about winning the White House at this point than he does about doing his best to destroy Mitt Romney. That and trying to hold on until South Carolina and attempt to eke out a win there is pretty much what remains of Newt Gingrich's strategy,and we'll see it unveiled in New Hampshire in the debates and in Newt Gingrich's ads.

Gingrich will also try to contrast himself as the 'Reagan conservative' he isn't as opposed to 'liberal' Romney.

Mitt Romney's challenge will be to defend himself forcefully while not going over the line into anger and tit for tat infighting.

Rick Perry, after a disappointing fourth place finish will probably be looking at South Carolina as his firewall. If he's unable to make a decent showing there, he will likely drop out.

The biggest loser of course was Ron Paul. Due to Iowa's caucus rules, this was probably his best chance to make a decent showing. He bet all his chips on it, and lost.

Iowa's third place finish, well behind Romney and Santorum is probably the best he's going to do in the primaries, although he will continue to be a force in the campaign. His real goal is to be a spoiler and set up things for a third party run.

Ron Paul:U.S. should not support Israel, Defends Hamas, Homicide bombing,Calls Gaza 'Concentration Camp'

This interview was done January 5th, 2009. On Iran's Press TV, no less. Tell me again he doesn't hate Jews.

Iowa Comes Down ToThe Wire

The latest polls show Mitt Romney in a statistical dead heat with Ron Paul, followed by Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. Michele Bachmann is bringing up the rear, having fallen to single digits.

Romney campaigned in Des Moines today, stumping with New Jersey governor Chris Christie on a cold wet day with temperatures in the twenties. Considering the weather, Romeny drew a decent crowd as he mocked President Obama and his $4 million Hawaiian vacation.

"We’re out in the cold and the rain and the wind because we care about America. He just finished his 90th round of golf.”

Governor Christie: “You people disappoint me on Tuesday, you don’t do what you’re supposed to do on Tuesday for Mitt Romney I will be back, Jersey-style, people. I will be back,” he joked.

Rick Santorum is moving up in the polls as Newt Gingrich has been falling. A lot of evangelicals are reportedly giving him a second look. He's invested a great deal of time here in Iowa and he needs a strong finish here to keep his campaign viable.

Michele Bachmann has perhaps the saddest story of all. After winning the Ames straw poll, she suffered perhaps a terminal blow when her Iowa campaign chair defected to Ron Paul without giving her any warning whatsoever.

As much as I like Michele Bachmann, I think what we're seeing here is an indication that her campaign was hurried and perhaps premature. She's only been in Congress four years,and hopefully she can make another try for top job when she's had a little more seasoning and time to process what went wrong this time.

Ron Paul: 'Hey He's Not Racist, Just Batsh*t Crazy'

So says his former aide and campaign coordinator Eric Dondero:

It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.

And oh yes,according to Dondero, Ron Paul has some interesting views on Israel. He isn't just anti-Israel, he's against it's very existence and thinks it all ought to be given back to the Arabs.

That of course fits in with the amendment he offered lst February to cut off all aid and military sales to Israel and only Israel.And his endorsement in 2008 of avowed anti-semite and 9/11 truther Cynthis McKinney,who ran as the Green Party candidate.

Anti-semite? Naw. not Ron Paul! Just ask the neo-Nazis over at Stormfront who are raising money for him and have his logo on their site.



Ron Paul hanging out with Stormfront founder Don Black...birds of a feather indeed.

Obama's Secret Ally - Ron Paul?

There has been a great deal of noise lately over Congressman Ron Paul's candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. According to most recent polls, he's in third place, but well behind front runners Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Part of this is the nature of Paul's support, which is an interesting mix of younger voters who like Paul's stance on legalizing drugs, hardcore libertarians, paleo-conservatives and isolationists along the lines of Pat Buchanan, and conspiracy theorists and hard core anti-Semites. Many of them are fanatic about Paul to the point of almost religious obsession.

That works well in Iowa, where you're dealing with caucuses rather than an actual vote and the name of the game is to get your footsoldiers out in the January weather to swamp and dominate them.

Paul has run before, but there's something different about this year's campaign. It seems a lot more organized and well funded, Paul is being featured in most of the media sponsored debates and is getting a lot more deference not only from the talking heads but from his fellow candidates.

I'd noticed it, but wasn't quite sure why until I received an e-mail from a long standing source of mine who has been extremely reliable in the past and knows both politics and DC fairly well. Along with some other items, , as an aside there was a little something about Dr. Paul and his campaign that connected a few dots for me.

According to this person, he has heard from someone whom should definitely know that Ron Paul is receiving considerable financial and logistical support from people connected at fairly high level with President Obama's re-election campaign.

From a political and strategic view, a tactic this makes a great deal of sense if re-electing President Obama is the goal. Since it does makes sense on so many levels, even though this is totally based on an anonymous source, I'm sharing it with you.

Ron Paul's chances of actually getting the GOP nomination are very slim, but he could definitely act as a spoiler. As I pointed out, because of the nature of Iowa,he has a shot at doing fairly well there, even a very outside chance at winning, since it's not an actual primary. If, say, he were to come second in Iowa, it gives him a fair amount of momentum. It also probably means that candidates who are down in the polls like Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and John Huntsman might be forced to call it a day...even Rick Perry might be on that list. Ron Paul might pick up some of that support, and while it probably wouldn't get him the nomination, it gives him a much higher profile and increases the divisiveness within the GOP, especially given the fanatic nature of many of Ron Paul's followers.

Of course, if by chance Ron Paul were to end up as the Republican nominee, so much the better for President Obama, who would slaughter him in the general election in November. There are plenty of Republicans who would sit on their hands rather than vote to make Ron Paul president.

A third scenario that would also work well for President Obama would involve Paul running as a third party candidate. Ron Paul would have no chance of winning, but he might just get enough votes to make sure President Obama does. Dr.Paul, by the way, has repeatedly said he wouldn't rule out a third party run if he doesn't get the nomination.

All three of these scenarios play into President Obama's hands in helping his re-election.

When I asked my source if Ron Paul knew he was getting support from the Obama campaign or whether he was unaware, my source had no answer, and in the last analysis it doesn't matter.
Paul has already announced he won't seek re-election for his congressional seat,so this is pretty much his last hurrah in politics. I doubt he'd turn down an offer of financing or other help even if he knew where it was coming from.

Full disclosure here...I am not a Ron Paul fan in any sense of the word. I might agree with some of his stance on entitlements and fiscal responsibility, but I also see him as hypocritical since he's one of the chief practitioners of earmarks and pork in Congress.

I think his isolationist stance is dangerous in a world where we are no longer protected by two oceans and would lead to a lot of dead Americans if he were in the Oval Office.

And he's never come up with satisfactory answers as far as I'm concerned about a long history of racist and anti-Semitic remarks in person and in print.

Anyone who's ever criticized Ron Paul in print, including yours truly, can testify to the fact that among his most rabid supporters are a large number of vicious Jew haters who leave comments online and voice sentiments that wouldn't have been out of place in Der Stürmer. Neo-Nazi sites like Stormfront are packed with Paulistas. The only difference between now and the are the references to Israel.

For that matter, it was Ron Paul who introduced an amendment in Congress just this year, on February 17th to cut off all aid to Israel and only to Israel. Since most analysts estimate that doing so would actually cost the US between $10 and $15 billion per year conservatively, that's a definite mark against his fiscal conservative warrior stance as well as his foreign policy smarts.

As another interesting sidelight, no one in the pro Obama media is asking Ron Paul questions about any of this. You have to wonder why.

However I might feel about him, I wouldn't be printing this if I didn't think that there was a damned good chance that Ron Paul was being used as a pawn knowingly or unknowingly to help get Barack Obama his second term.

It fits in too many ways, and along with his other liabilities ought to make anyone considering supporting him think twice about the matter.

Selah.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!