The Republican presidential candidates gathered for a debate in Iowa where they all admitted that they have no idea what it like to be financially struggling. This and four other reasons to be glad you didn’t watch the ABC Iowa Republican debate.
1). The GOP Candidates Have No Idea How To Create Jobs – This debate got off to a blazing start by Diane Sawyer asking the candidates for a distinguishing idea for how to create jobs, a framework to create jobs and how many and how long it will take to create them. All of the Republican candidates suggested tax cuts and reducing the size of government. Romney claimed that he could create over 11 million jobs in his first term with tax cuts. You know the same way George W. Bush did. (The US lost 653,000 private sector jobs during Bush’s two terms).
2). Newt Gingrich Plays The Teddy Kennedy Card On Mitt Romney - Do you want to know why Newt Gingrich is the new GOP frontrunner? Mitt Romney started with his I’ve spent my life in private sector spiel, and Gingrich responded by saying, “Let’s be honest, the only reason you aren’t a career politician is that you lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994.” Romney tried to spin it by saying losing to Kennedy was a good thing because it sent him back to the private sector except when he was governor of Massachusetts, and running for president constantly since 2007.
3). Mitt Romney Claimed That He Is Against The Individual Mandate, But Back In 2008….- Mitt Romney swore up and down that RomneyCare is different from ObamaCare and he is not in favor of an individual mandate at the federal level, but back in 2008 during an ABC News GOP debate in New Hampshire this exchange took place:
CHARLIE GIBSON: But Gov. Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts—although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.
MITT ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work…Everybody in our state has to have health insurance and that’s a model which I think has some merit more generally.
4). Newt Gingrich Claims He Told The Historical Truth About The Palestinians Being An Invented People – Gingrich characterized himself as a Reaganite and truth teller when he claimed that the Palestinians were invented people. Romney tried to portray Gingrich as rash and speaking for Israel. Romney gave Gingrich a chance to back off his statement, but instead he doubled down on it. Gingrich tried to dodge criticism by claiming that he was speaking as historian when he claimed the Palestinians are an invented people, but he can’t have it both ways. Is Newt Gingrich a historian or a presidential candidate?
5). The GOP Candidates Couldn’t Spell Poor If You Gave Them The P-O-O-R – The Republican presidential candidates were asked the last time that they were forced to economically struggle and forego a necessity, and Rick Perry’s answer was 1978. Ron Paul answered that he grew up without much in the 1930s and 1940s, and Mitt Romney was forced to admit that he grew up rich, has been rich, but he has seen poor people before. Gingrich said that he has family members who are going through hard times, and he tried to pretend that his wife runs a small company, and Bachmann claimed that she still clips coupons.
Winners and Losers:
Winners:
1). Newt Gingrich – The new frontrunner has turned into the worst nightmare of Mitt Romney. Gingrich isn’t afraid to go toe to toe with Mitt. He talks the conservative talk, and unlike Romney he knows what it takes to get the nomination. Newt is running a primary campaign while Romney continues to position himself for a General Election that he may never get to. Gingrich kept his mouth under control and didn’t implode which means he walks away from this debate as the frontrunner.
2). Ron Paul – As usual, Ron Paul was Mr. Consistent. As usual, Paul’s positions on issues like the Patriot Act and foreign policy leave him with no shot at the nomination. This was Rep. Paul’s best debate appearance of the year. He was plain spoken and clear, but he will not sway Republicans to his side with many of his policy positions.
3). Rick Perry – Perry was in the mix all night. He is battling with Michele Bachmann to be far right conservative alternative to Gingrich and Romney. Perry dismissed the flap over Gingrich’s comments and turned them into an attack on Obama. The problem for Perry is that he can’t get out of his own way. Rick Perry’s presidential campaign died a death by a thousand gaffes long ago, but he got more airtime than Bachmann so into the winners he goes.
Losers:
1). Mitt Romney – From frontrunner to denial. The GOP candidates finally took off the gloves against Romney, and it got ugly fast. Gingrich’s destruction of Romney’s lifetime in private sector by bringing up the Kennedy race demonstrated just how far the former frontrunner has fallen. Romney got hit on individual mandates, and his inconsistent positions. Romney was under attack from Gingrich, Perry, and Bachmann. Romney’s state of denial is so deep that he claimed Obama was the reason he started running ads in Iowa, not the fact that Gingrich’s surge is forcing him to compete there. The night got even worse for Mittens when had to admit that has never been poor, or struggled, or had to sacrifice for anything. Mitt Romney is in big trouble, and admitting that he can’t relate to what most of America is going through right now was a disaster.
2). Rick Santorum – There were only six candidates on the stage, and Rick Santorum was still invisible. At least, it will all be over for Santorum in less than a month.
3). Michele Bachmann – All you need to know about Bachmann’s night is that the main question she was given in the second hour of the debate centered on whether she agreed with Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich about the Palestinians being an invented people. Bachmann was reduced to playing the role of on stage audience member. It’s all over for her.
Final Verdict: This debate was not as horrid as the previous five, but it was a tedious event. If you can’t laugh at this, you have to cry because this is the saddest collection of candidates to ever challenge for a major party nomination. Barack Obama will sleep well again tonight because these sad sacks are his competition.
PoliticusUSA
G+
Facebook
DontHatetheGame
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Since $10 is the highest level of my betting ability, the $10,000 wager that Romney made tonight certainly caught my attention. I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks he’s stepped in it big.
loading...
Sarah Jones
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
He doesn’t even REALIZE why. He doesn’t KNOW what the average family makes or how much their bills are without buying anything frivolous like healthcare…He grew up so privileged he has never wanted for anything.
loading...
crystalwolfakacaligrl
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Thank you guys b/c too me it was GOP BS pure & simple. I don’t know whether I can watch another but the live blogging was fun (hiccup) :)
loading...
DontHatetheGame
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
So true Sarah. This idiot makes a $10,000 bet because that’s peanuts to him while many, many people are worried about where their next meal will come from and where they will sleep tonight. Newt thinks it’s ok for poor (mainly black) children to clean toilets in front of their peers. Paul’s ok with poor people dying if they can’t afford health care and Perry doesn’t know what the hell he thinks. Bachman is already on that planet Newt was talking about and Santorium needs to go home. This Republican field is totally revolting.
loading...
Chris
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
As an ob/gyn Ron Paul gave free aid to anyone who couldn’t afford it. Look into it.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Link to it
loading...
Jeremy
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
There is an excerpt from Ron Paul’s book, “The Revolution: A Manifesto” on this site: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/
“In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.”
Its an excellent read. I’d recommend to nayone who wants real insight on Dr. Paul’s thinking.
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323652158&sr=1-1
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Medicare and medicaid were created to solve a problem. That of seniors not getting healthcare. Mr Paul also misses out on a little thing called a profit model that has come along in in recent times. Fixing people for naught is naught profitable.
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
I don’t think Newt did so hot with that invented people bit. Though I was watching “La Piovra” rather than wasting my time with Republicans, every foreign newscast I’ve seen since Newt said it the first time has treated him like a laughingstock. I think how hard those of us of the Camelot generation worked to rebut the image of clod Americans, and then I think how many times over everything we gained was flushed. Gaaaah!
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Ron Paul says the same things over and over. He has no plan, other than to simply say its the governments fault. He is an empty shell in my book. After 1 year of watching new coal smoke and polluted rivers under Paul and the people that are left with brains would throw him out
Gingrich lied several times tonight as did Perry. Obama is doing with Israel practically the same as Bush. We give them money, they do what they want. Obama told them to make peace = bad. Bush told them to make peace = good. This Israel issue is a non starter with humanity. How quickly would one of these idiots follow Israel into war of Israels making? Instantly. And surprise surprise, we would no longer be broke
None of these people qualify to sell egg infested Hershey bars.
loading...
john
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 6:59 am
the real scarey thing with Isreal is not only the Isreali’s recalitrant attitudes, but the fact that it’s a dog wistle to the christian dominionists., we gotta have armegedon before jesus shows up.. Guys like John Hagee, and others of that stripe are big in their base.. i’m sure any number of these folks wouldent hesitiate to take on Iran, first by proxy with Isreal, then directly.. based on some “biblical truth”
loading...
Leigh
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Shiva you are so right! GOD BLESS AMERICA and the liberal elite which robs you!
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 11:53 am
The liberal elite are no different than the conservative elite
loading...
Leigh
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 11:59 am
I just wish my 8 paragraph response to you was not blocked by moderators.
I love debate and it cannot happen if I am censored.
loading...
Sarah Jones
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
I guess you don’t see the humor in what you just wrote, but you might want to try not writing 8 paragraph replies right out of the gate. And you can’t be censored on a site that someone else owns as you are not entitled to free speech in private enterprise.
loading...
Leigh
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Third try… Mod let it go. Encourage debate please!
Okay Shiva, let’s go.
Here’s Ron Paul’s plan for someone who spends their time reading this clearly liberal biased blog.
The government is at fault. Can we not blame the group of people that wrote regulations that allowed financial institutions and government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell mortgage back derivatives? These were not controlled by the government…
The government has become an increasingly special interests focused place. Corporations spent more lobbying them in the past year than they did in taxes! Strange how they allow these companies to buy their influence directly instead of indirectly through taxes.
If you knew anything about Ron Paul you would realize how ridiculous your second statement about the environment is. “New coal smoke and polluted rivers under Paul.” Absolutely false. He favors a strong judicial branch of government which has been eroded over the decades by the federal government. A strong judicial branch of government enforces property rights, both individual and collective. Now if X city decided that Y company was polluting the rivers they could go to a Judge under the Paul administration and properly prove their case.
You can’t group Romney, Gingrich and Paul together. In fact it would be more appropriate to group Obama, Romney and Gingrich together. They are both false candidates. Romney and Gingrich = false conservatives. Obama = false liberal. You can look to many of the instances of the past 3 years where Obama has had the power of the federal government to institute the issues he campaigned on but he chose not to act. These are issues you cannot blame on the broken Congress.
Why are you happy that Obama is dealing with Israel the same way as Bush? Was Bush not a failure both internationally and domestically?
Your final statement shows your most delusional perspective. ” How quickly would one of these idiots follow Israel into war of Israels making? Instantly.”
I am pretty sure Ron Paul was excluded from the Jewish coalition debate because he supports leaving Israel to their own devices, meaning no support. In fact that is what Israel’s President asked of Congress a few short months ago!
Finally – know your facts. Diversify the ways you gather information If you really did that you would know that your positions are false.
I implore you to learn the truth.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Right./ Lets not assign any fault to the banks. The very banks who created the mortgage back derivatives. Mortgage companys like freddie and fannie do not sell derivatives. Jesus. BANKS package the mortgages
Always the government. Bah. Sorry, but you are a long ways from the truth.
“If you knew anything about Ron Paul” you would understand how wrong Paul is. Paul wants no regulation. If one city takes another to court the only result under Paul can be fines. And still you have the smoke and pollution. You know nothing about pollution at all. Canada’s and upper US’s pollution is destroying the Smoky Mountains. Who do you sue? Citys do not pullute citys, that’s is childish. they pollute entire states
The point of Obama vs Bush is, they both wanted peace in the middle east. The Israelis have never asked for no support. good grief.
Take your bigot and move on. Not interested in an empty suit who always blames the government just to be popular. Enjoy your life being owned by Pauls corporations that are never at fault
Lastly look above. It says Real Liberal Politics.
loading...
Jon
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
You say he “says the same things over and over again”, youd prefer if he switched his stances every month? Not much of a president, but hey at least hell be ‘fresh’ in your eyes.
Ron paul has plans, lots of plans. Hes already balanced the budget and has plans to cut 1 trillion in spending, on paper. Just name a few of his big ones. hes successfully called the recession and housing market collapse years before it happened because he knows why, and if someone know why a problem is occurring they can fix it.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Nice try., but no banana. He does say the same thing over and over and he has about as much chance of balancing the budget as I do.(sadly enough). Paul Ryan has solved the crisis too but no one wants his plan
Cutting spending is not the issue. Paul wants to cut spending because he doesn’t think government spending is constitutional. Please ask him to jump back into the 2011′s. The only thing that is needed is 100% of America working and not at Hamburger stands. Ron Paul is no answer to America in this era.
loading...
Charlie R
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
RE to “Paul wants no regulation.”
Ron Paul believes in the most strict regulations of all. He believes in the Free Market. This is a force more powerful than the Government. The government tries to control the economy, but do not grasp the fundamentals, so the free market lashes back at their failed policies.
Look at the housing crisis. For decades presidents pushed for lower income families to own their own houses. They did this by “encouraging” banks to make bad loans at the threat of being fined. Then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (pseudo private corporations) stepped in to buy the bad loans from the bank, allowing the banks to profit from a bad practice. HAD THE GOVERNMENT NOT STEPPED IN THE BANKS COULD NOT PROFIT AT THIS POINT.This point is especially dangerous with the Federal Reserve (another pseudo private corporation) manipulating interest rates, making it easier to lend money, with the banks knowing the track record of companies like themselves getting bailed out since the Feds inception in 1913.
Now the Presidents from Carter, Bush, Clinton had the best of intentions, trying to improve poor peoples lives by getting them a home. Unfortunately, when you saturate the market with demand home prices go up. This would naturally (ie in a free market) cause the price of loans to go and people would stop buying houses. However, with government intervention the banks were able to keep pushing loans with low rates, allowing the housing market to go into a frenzy. Now those presidents good intentions have put many people back on the streets worse off than they were before, and the big banks have gotten paid off. Don’t blame the banks. Blame the Fed and the government to bailed them out.
This was a government created bubble and blaming only the people who profited from it is naive. The free market will take advantage of loop holes in the system. The only way to stop them is to get rid of the government control of such matters. You cannot stop capitalism.
Ron Paul understands this, and he is much more concerned for the middle and lower classes than any candidate before him. He sees that the government’s monetary policy favors the rich and would see this reversed. He sees the governments foreign policy favors the rich and would see this reversed. He knows when the government gets involved, it drives prices up, and this is bad for the lower class.
Also. Yes the Republican candidates are rich and have not gone through the trials some of American’s citizens have. But lets not kid ourselves, neither did most of the democrats in congress.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Show me a fre market in the US that doesn’t need regulating and I will buy iot for you. Dont start off saying the free market is full of purity. Your free market would pollute you out of your land, crush you with credit cards, banks and Wall street. And what would Ron Paul do? SLap them,? Fine them? Dance with them?
Once again someone absolves the banks of any responsibility. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
Of course there are perfectly honest smaller business’s, but if you look overseas we have American corporations destroying other country’s. Not going to happen here. If they played fair they wouldn’t need regulating. YThere is a huge difference between regulation and the free market
loading...
Charlie R
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Your right I want to “absolve” the banks, but not of responsibly. They should have been allowed to go bankrupt. They were corrupt and they should have been gutted. Let free markets work and have someone else come in and buy them at a low price and set policies that will be profitable. Don’t make tax payers bail them out and have the same corrupt system.
As for a free market. One of the most free market is computer technology. The quality of computers and cell phones goes up every year, and the price drops every year. Wouldn’t it be great if health care used this model. This is beneficial to everyone, it give people jobs and it supplies products people want.
I agree that government regulation and free market are incompatible. Government regulation has not worked out very well for us in the past, yet people still cling to it to save our problems. I’m confused how you can jump from people who run corporations and want money are evil people and must be regulated, but people who desire political power are angels that are perfect people to regulate, so we should give them more power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our founding fathers understood this. Let us go back to the Constitution and limit the power the government has, and limit the corruption the is possible.
loading...
Sarah Jones
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Healthcare should not be a for-profit system for obvious reasons, so comparing it to the tech world (many of whose products are not made here) is not an apt comparison.
When is the last time a government regulation on corporations created too big to fail and a falsely propped up market (with lowered interest rates and no agency regulating the accuracy of reporting financials) that then collapsed? If only we had some regulations, they never would have been allowed to be too big to fail. If Glass-Steagall hadn’t been repealed, the insurance and other financial institutions wouldn’t have been merged in with the banking money creating too big to fail.
Someone has to keep an eye on corporations and free market was never intended to be unfettered with any kind of oversight or regulation. It’s a balancing act.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Regulation exists for one reason. Because the free market has proven it is unreliable and untrustworthy and given the opportunity, completely corrupt.
The constitution was not written to limit powers. It was written to balance powers among three groups and to provide for completely equal representation between the states. It was also written because there was no vehicle for taxation in the articles of confederation. Ther3e is nothing to go back to. The government has every right to regulate
loading...
Charlie R
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
First, I object to you saying that medical care should not be for profit for “obvious” reasons. When entering a debate one usually tries to inform the other side of why the opposition is wrong. If it was obvious and self evident there would be nothing to debate. Therefore, I would like for you to explain why it is obvious. I believe that the more government gets involved with private institutions the more expensive it becomes. Look at our colleges. Look at the housing bubble. These interventions have come at great expense to the lower classes. Should we hand over our medical system as we have handed over the education of the children of the United States. We have dropped from first to 47th in the world with our education. Yet spend almost 3 times as much per student as Japan. This is not what I want with my medical system.
Secondly you must be joking. “Too big to fail” is the biggest government creation of all. That is not free market. Free market would have let those businesses go bankrupt. “Too big to fail” is crony capitalism. It is government intervention. I assume you refer to the Federal Reserves manipulation of interest rates. The Federal Reserve is hardly a mechanism of the free market. It was conjured up by some of the most wealthy men in the world in 1910, and passed IN CONGRESS in 1913 and Wilson signed it to law. It has an unconstitutional monopoly on printing fiat money that wrecks havoc on our economy.
Thirdly, it is too bad that most of the technology is not manufactured in America. It is too bad that we can’t get rid of regulations and bring businesses back to America when millions of people cannot find work at home, we ship jobs off to China. It would be a boom to our economy, it would raise the standard of living of millions of people, yet it is opposed by nearly everyone in the main stream. Instead they focus on programs that have proven time and time to fail. FDR’s new deal comes to mind when you hear about politicians talking about job growth and stimulating the economy.
loading...
Charlie R
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
The articles of confederation was a failed experiment for many reasons, but from it the founders learned many lessons. You must remember when the constitution was written the war was still on the mind of every person in the New World. The people were not going to allow for another ruler to come to power with the power of a King. You are right that the constitution divides the powers of government into three branches, but you miss the reason why it does this. It is to limit one branch from becoming too powerful. To limit its power. Specifically in the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That sounds like a limit of power. No one in government seems to care about this anymore, but it is there, and it is there for exactly the reason it is ignored. The government does’t want to admit it has any limits of power.
Now then, the Constitution does allow for the government to regulate interstate commerce in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, but you will have to be more specific where it allows for other regulations.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
In the articles of confederation there was a unicameral legislature. And no president. The constitution added the president and a bicameral legislature. There was no pandering on in the constitutional convention about states rights, it was about states representation small states vs big states. Do you know the men that signed the constitution wanted only men with wealth over 100,000 at that time to be senators? Do you know that most of the men at the convention wanted a strong central government? Including George Washington?
The writing of the constitution is not what the tea party generals tell you it is.
This “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” was thrown in not to solve anything, but to get 2 people to sign the constitution. The governments power to create a new department or whatever is not limited.
loading...
Charlie R
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
I found that fact on what senators interesting. I am looking it up. Thanks for that.
You are also correct that there was an issue between the small and big states and the construction of a house and of congress fixed it nicely.
But, I think you are wrong when you say there was a debate between states rights and the rights of the national government. It was treason what these men were doing. They saw that the federal government was too weak with the Articles of Confederation, and that the united states needed a stronger central government. I do not believe this means they wanted an all powerful central government. This was highly controversial. States did not want to give up their sovereignty. And that is why they forced the Bill of Rights to be added before they ratified the constitution.
Does that make it any less relevant? It is on the paper our government is based on, shouldn’t our politicians abide by it? If they ignore what the people want in limiting the governments power, then why is their a constitution at all.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
I can suggest a nicve book. Its small and quickly read.
Signing their lives away by Denise keirnan & Joseph D’Agnese
It details each man at the convention and their contribution. There is lots to know. There were only 39 men that signed, 1 state held out and Patrick Henry thought the 39 were traitors.
No one wanted an overly powerful fed. But lets remember, at this time each state had a representative in Europe. (Britian, Germany and France). They wanted out of that. There were men that wanted a president to be in office for life.
You really need to meet these guys. They drank heavily, hated Methodists and Catholics. After signing a few went to debters prison and most went broke with land speculation. Some like the one in my area of Tennessee was a crook in the first degree. Most served in the war and made themselves reputations. And all but 2 were VERY wealthy
loading...
Charlie R
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Thanks for the book. I’ll check it out.
I think you are right that many of the people wanted things that would be bad for the government. Hamilton was the first to push for a central bank, and wanted a president’s term to be for life. But, that is what so special about the document, somehow these people put aside their differences and created one of the most pure and powerful documents in history. I just think it is tragic that it is not followed anymore.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 12th, 2011 at 12:06 am
if you read the book, if it were not for Benjamin Franklin who was so old he could not stand and talk, if it was not for a speech he wrote and gave to the man beside him to read we would not have a constitution. None of them were happy with it, but once signed all went back to their states to sell it
I think it is followed. I think it is abused, and used. This getting back to the constitution is little more than a sideline given out by the conservatives that created the tea party.
loading...
Zookeeper
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
The GOP line-up are all despicable, absolutely disgusting people, but Newt came out of this “debate” pretty much unscathed.
Romney stepped in it BIG TIME with his $10K bet. He must be black and blue from kicking his own butt.
loading...
Elizabeth
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Only 5??? Next time, I’ll have to watch and count for myself.
loading...
EnoughIsEnough
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Newt is a liar. He’s a unethical (proven) liar and a hustler. I hope he wins the nomination, because in my heart I KNOW the vast majority of Americans are NOT stupid enough to put this con-man with no moral compass in the White House.
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 12:18 am
Indeed, he appears so hyperinflated, he’t sure to spontaneously explode.
loading...
maliceb4thought
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 10:00 am
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
loading...
Deb Vermaas
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 3:51 am
The GOP debate audience once again proved themselves to be a bunch of heartless tin foil hat-heads. Their cheers for deregulating child labor laws, and deep hatred for Medicaare said it all. Where do they find these idiots???
loading...
Anne
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 5:08 am
I’m also glad I missed this latest “debate,” because what I’m reading here only solidifies the contempt I feel for most of them, including Newt and Willard. I’m quite sure Willard saw himself as the inevitable choice since the GOP establishment has favored him at least up to now. Gingrich is a blowhard and a flame-thrower who I suspect is holding his fire for President Obama. I’ve been reading accounts noting that these folks are a laughingstock abroad, and I also hope that Americans are not dumb enough to send either Willard or Newt to the White House. Either one would be an unmitigated disaster.
loading...
Tina
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 6:53 am
So far,I have not been able to lower my standards enough to watch any of the debates.Thank you PoliticusUSA for doing it for me.
loading...
john
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 7:02 am
im with you tina..although looking at the weblog that went on here it looks like some folks had some fun.. maybe i’ll hang out here for Trump..
loading...
Ned Champlain
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 7:45 am
Willard wanted a 10K wager and all balk at a 1.5k tax break for working people. What a sad group of candidates
loading...
Rixar13
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 8:26 am
Losers: Entire Republican field
loading...
Deborah Montesano
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
I didn’t watch–and now I can’t help congratulating myself for how smart I am!
loading...
Nick
Dec. 11th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Rule #1 when mentioning Ron Paul – you must say that he could never be elected.
loading...
FauxPalin
Dec. 12th, 2011 at 1:17 am
This debate absolutely drove me crazy.
I said to spouse, “I won’t watch anymore GOP debates!”
Anyone else?
What fools. These people want to run our country! Oh, please say it isn’t so.
loading...