Tag Archives: Republican debates

From my paper this morning

Republican candidates proclaim Obama’ an economic failure, mistaking  slow growth for no growth or contraction. Or they’re just lying. Here are seven headlines from the front page of the Business section of my paper this morning:

  • Spending more, laying off fewer
  • Hiring and investment show companies plan to grow (National story). [boxed quote accompanying that story: “With big ticket spending rising and the labor market firming,  the economy is a lot better than some central bankers think.”]
  • Delayed a year, recovery is inevitable says Florida economist (Local story)
  • Lakewood Ranch makes sales list: ranked number 9 on national list with 301 new home sales in 2011 (Local story)
  • Survey of architects shows growth likely (Local story)
  • Another call center is moving to Bay area (Local story)
  • Caterpillar profit climbs 60 percent (National story)

Aren’t the candidates here in Florida? Maybe they should read the papers.

A legend in his own mind

The Newtster is sure having him some fun and dreaming dreams of what I think is his real goal – “a series of three-hour Lincoln-Douglas style debates”. Without a moderator of course. It’s not a stretch to think he’s less interested in the Presidency than he is in 12 hours in front of the cameras with a real President.

But it’ll still be Romney. Here is why a Newt nomination is a mirage. From the last six months of national polls:

In August 2011, Gingrich had a favorability rating of 26% and an unfavorability rating of 57%.

By December 2011, he was up to 43% favorability. Big jump.

And yet? Last week, Gingrich has a favorability rating of 26% and an unfavorability rating of 60%.

Even more people don’t like him. That’s how it always goes with Gingrich.

Move over Glenn Beck – make room for the ABC team.

These aren't the clowns tonight

Is there no end to the stupidity of these debate questioners? Diane Sawyer? Really? George Stephanopoulos? Really?

Stephanopoulos just grilled Romney demanding that he issue an opinion –  a legal opinion I assume since he makes a point of the fact that Romney went to law school a gazillion years ago – on whether states can constitutionally ban contraception. Romney points out that no state wants to ban contraception and no state has ever wanted to ban contraception. But George will not be stayed. He seems to think it’s important and by elvis, he wants his answer.

He is a fool.

Ahhh – the audience comes to the rescue. They are booing Stephanopoulos. Smart audience.

You’ve no doubt heard by now, but . . .

. . . I’m not one to miss any opportunity to gloat when it involves Donald Trump. The uber vulgarian will not be ‘moderating’ the NewsMax debate.

“It is very important to me that the right Republican candidate be chosen to defeat the failed and very destructive Obama administration, but if that Republican, in my opinion, is not the right candidate, I am not willing to give up my right to run as an Independent candidate,” Trump said in a statement. “Therefore, so that there is no conflict of interest within the Republican Party, I have decided not to be the moderator of the Newsmax debate.”

That ‘conflict of interest’ thing didn’t occur to him until the RSVPs (the ones politely declining his invitation) started rolling in.

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.

Requiem for a Perry

WSJ Editorial Page officially delusional

From Dorothy Rabinowitz, old time Wall Street Journal editorial writer, today we hear that Gingrich can win. Her evidence is the thunderous applause he got last month at a Faith & Freedom Coalition forum.  She’s got to want it very much to say something like this:

Whoever his competitors are in Iowa and beyond, Mr. Gingrich faces a hard fight for the nomination. His greatest asset lies in his capacity to speak to  Americans as he has done, with such potency, during the Republican debates. No candidate in the field comes close to his talent for connection. [Gingrich? Really?] There’s no underestimating the importance of such a power in the presidential election ahead, or any other one.

Perhaps she’s on to something; his favorable number in a recent poll is all the way up to 12%!

Glad someone else noticed

I just heard eternal prom date Howard Fineman (doesn’t he always look so pleased and relieved just to be on camera?)  say that the debaters last night, specifically Romney and Perry, acted like they were in a boxing match.

That’s exactly the way CNN wanted it, so we can say they succeeded I guess.

Jared Bernstein in the Washington Post today had a harsh word for the hosts:

“. . . . the debate had a clear loser, and it was Anderson Cooper and CNN . . ”

I think he’s too kind to CNN; Cooper didn’t chose himself to moderate the debate.