Seven Dwarfs are falling down, falling down . . .

Hats off to Scott Pelley and Major Garret, moderaters of tonight’s Republican debate. It was structured and had rules and they made the candidates stick to them, even holding back Bachmann, who tried (“But, Scott!, but Scott!”) repeatedly to cut in – something she’d managed to do in previous debates. But not this time.

I was struck again by how genuinely clueless are Perry, Cain and Bachmann. They’ve repeatedly revealed that they lack all knowledge of this nation’s history, its laws, it relationships around the world or its responsibilities at home and abroad.  And yet there they are, still standing.

Ron Paul and Santorum are running in the roles of ‘true-beleivers’. Paul is principled and knowledgable and is out there to deliver his libertarian message as honestly as he can. Santorum too (strike me dead Elvis!) is principled, and he’s surprised and impressed me a few times.

I’m confused by Hunstman. He’s smart, capable, attractive in multiple ways, yet remains the invisible man. It’s not likely he hopes to be a second Mormon on the Romney ticket in 2012. So why is he there? Like I said, I’m confused by him.

And the Newtser? Ah, the lad is just giving his ego an outing, selling some books, and trying to get those speaking fees up – you know, trying to make a living.

And that leaves Romney. Who actually is running.

21 responses to “Seven Dwarfs are falling down, falling down . . .

  1. Pingback: South Carolina Debate. « Talk and Politics

  2. I thought Perry was really blatant in playing the answer the question you know the answer to, not what was asked. Poor Huntsman barely got to chime in.

    Paul on foreign policy is the only one really making any sense in my view. The rest mostly have learned nothing from the experience since 9/11 other than to appeal to the prejudices of GOP primary voters. I’m feeling more like voting for Obama.

    I know I sound too idealistic, but I don’t think we can make our policy one of going to war against Iran, and who knows who else to try to keep us much of a nuclear monopoly for ourselves as possible. Such a policy of endless war was basically what almost everyone on that stage except for Ron Paul was advocating.

    What the world needs is to limit these weapons globally. I have no idea how to make that happen practically, but I think endless war to keep the bomb only in hands we think of as friendly just can’t be viable forever, nor do I think we have right to do it even if we could.

    Like

  3. And the Newtser? Ah, the lad is just giving his ego an outing, selling some books, and trying to get those speaking fees up – you know, trying to make a living.

    It’ll come down to Newt and Romney.

    Like

    • pino, I still don’t think he’s viable. He may survive Iowa, but Ohio, NH? Even if he does, he loses in the end – I’m putting a whole US dollar on that You up for it?

      Like

      • Even if he does, he loses in the end – I’m putting a whole US dollar on that You up for it?

        Obama wouldn’t stand a chance against him in a debate. If Newt IS the guy, the only way Obama runs is to go negative; hard and fast.

        I got a dollar, but what was our candy bar bet on?

        Like

        • OMG I forgot what the candy bet was on. But I’m sure I won and I don’t recall seeing any Hershey bars in my mailbox.

          NewtObamaRomneyPerryonandonandon . . . when all is said and done, Mitt’s the one left standing. If the economy hasn’t improved, he wins it. If the economy has improved, Obama wins it. In a recession like this one, ideology gets trumped by the pocketbook.

          Like

  4. It seems to be Newt’s turn to pick up the can’t-commit-to-Mitt vote. Nonetheless, a sad lot.

    Like

  5. Any one of them would be 100% better than the freak of nature squatting in the White House right now. But for me … Perry, Huntsman, Santorum, Ron Paul and Herman Cain are all out. Bachmann simply can’t win. The media will have a field day smearing her on everything from the way she combs her hair to her shoe size. I’m sitll wondering why the liberals aren’t speaking out on the blatant racism directed toward Herman Cain. I mean white women accusing a black man of dastardly deeds. Why? Because he’s black. Right? If this were Barack Obama being accused that’s exactly what we’d be getting. Where’s the Revs. Sharpton, Jackson and Wright when you need them? sigh …
    Pino is right, even though the media is choosing the front runners for us. Heck, Ron Paul got 90 seconds of response time in the last debate.
    But it’s all meaningless anyway.
    http://www.rense.com/general95/amnew.htm

    Like

    • [white women accusing a black man of dastardly deeds]

      Steve, we have no idea if all the women are white. Plus, racism, schmachism. It’s more about him thinking we have to guard against China getting nuclear weapons. Anyone who reads a newspaper knows China has had nuclear weapons since the 60’s – that’s 90 frackin’ years!

      Bachmann? She’s a fool frankly. The ACLU has taken over the CIA? HPV vaccine makes kids turn retarded? She beleives in submission to her husband; that’s why she ran for office because he told her to? (well, to be fair, it was him and God).

      Cain and Gingrich are on book tours and messing up the primary debates just by taking up space. What the hell was Cain doing in Wisconsin for interviews yesterday? He should be in Iowa, NH and SC. He’s not serious – count on it.

      Like

      • Oh Moe, you know as well as I do that if that were Barack Hussein Obama it would not matter what color the women are … it would be racism pure and simple in the minds of every liberal in the nation. Heck, people can’t disagree with anything he does without it being racist to do so. I was being facetious with the Cain comment anyway, but it’s true.
        You proved my point with Bachmann. She happens to be a highly intelligent, educated woman. I still find it amazing that no one that leans left will ever point out the mindless statements made by Obama. I mean the guy can’t say good morning to his family without it being scripted and displayed on a teleprompter.
        But like I said, all this election stuff is b.s. anyway. That’s why I provided the link. If the Republicans win all that means is we’re replacing a corrupt Democrat with a corrupt Republican. They are ALL corrupt.

        Like

        • Let’s remember who structured Greece’s debt for them . . . the very same company that nearly took down our economy and is now bigger than ever – Goldman Sachs. The home of Paulson, Corzine, and dozens of less famous others.

          Our pols are increasingly unable to affect anything – the world’s financial institutions are pretty much running the show now.

          That said, if the GOP runs someone from the clown college, Obama wins big. If it’s Romney (or even Huntsman, as unlikely as that seems), there’s a real race. If the economy hasn’t imporoved, Romney wins. If hte economy is measurably improving, it’s Obama.

          Like

      • Ummm, that’s ’50 frackin’ years’. Were it 90 years, they would have earned the irght to run the world!

        Like

  6. The 60’s were 90 years ago? My God, no wonder I feel so tired!

    Like

  7. While I’m far less enthusiastic about it than say Alan or Steve, if Europe drags an already weak economy into the toiler maybe even more than back in 2008, I wouldn’t assume Obama would win even against say Cain, or Perry.
    If the economy imroves or at least goes sideways mostly, I think Obama is about a 60% chance of winning.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s