October 19, 2011

I feel like I'm supposed to talk about this.



Eh. What's the big deal? Some overtalking. Men get slightly irritated at each other. So what? The CNN commentators prompted us to think about whether this means one or both of these guys is "unlikable." It's meaningless.

70 comments:

Issob Morocco said...

Because we don't get this from our current Democratic President and our Democratic Senat?

lyssalovelyredhead said...

I agree, it's definitely not a big deal. People that want to tear their hair out over candidates being less than perfectly polite to each other are silly and live in a fantasy world.

If you're consistently nice in a debate, you'll get trampled. Not what I want from a president.

- Lyssa

phx said...

How about Cooper: "I thought Republicans were supposed to follow the rules."
And then the vicious look Perry gives him.

t-man said...

When did Althouse start doing what others supposed she should do?

Chris said...

Perry is a moron. His spot at the top of the nominees list was short-lived.

Romney is clearly the frontrunner at this point. I would be surprised if he doesn't get the nomination--I thought he handled the stupidity of Perry's comments fairly well.

EDH said...

Perry's glare at Cooper @1:41 is quite ornery.

Toshtu said...

Dear Rick,

Come back home, stop embarrassing us.

Signed,

Texas

Scott M said...

"I thought Republicans were supposed to follow the rules."

Giggles wraps a double-standard in passive-aggressive superfluous nonsense.

machine said...

What did I find interesting? Mitt actually answered quite honestly:

"I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals!”

He doesn’t care about breaking the law or paying undocumented workers; he cares about his political ambitions.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
prairie wind said...

...the heighth of hypocrisy...

Picayune, I know, but it is height, not heighth.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dustin said...

“We went to the company, and we said, ‘Look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property,’” Romney said. “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.”

That comment of Romney's reveals so much about him.

He knows his friend from church is a government contractor. At this point, he knows this guy is flagrantly employing illegals and dismissing the issue when proven by the Globe, with contempt for the laws.

And Romney's response isn't 'stop employing illegals'. It's 'stop using them on MY property, buddy'. And it's not 'stop using them on my property because it's wrong or illegal'. It's 'stop using them on my property because it creates a political problem for me.'

It's one of the most unintentionally ugly things I've seen a GOP candidate say in the last 40 years.

That's why Romney's face turned red and he started trembling. He has the instincts, and he knows Perry pushed him to screw up royally.

The idea Perry was stupid to bring this up is insane. Perry has shown Romney a powerful reason to stop raising the attacks Romney was raising to great effect. Was his point stupid? In a way, I guess, but tactically no.

And as for outrage, this is not outrageous at all. Saying one or the other guy is more centrist on immigration than the party is hardly going to harm them in the general, and Romney started this with that BS about being scared of the GOP abolishing social security. That WILL come back in the general. That is the kind of crap that costs the party elections.

Perry was so tame in the first two debates, and only slightly better in the third. I think he had to be pushed into fighting like this in the forth.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Oh for Christ sake, Mitt used a landscaping crew that had illegals? I'm shocked, shocked! I bet the restaurant he ate at had illegals in the kitchen and busing tables too.

Let's just have open borders and this won't be a problem. Citizenship for everyone.

Lucien said...

When we step back from this, & gain perspective, will it turn out that the Tea Party has been good for the Republican Party in a creative destruction kind of way, or will it pull the GOP in an extreme direction, or will the two groups divide into two different parties?

I would say ditto for the Democrats and the OWS crowd, but I think it's too early to see if OWS will have any legs.

For both sides, can there be a consensus that a vigorous two-party system is good for the country, so that each side hopes that the other is periodically reinvigorated by new blood & new ideas . . . or are things so partisan these days that folks on both sides view their adversaries as irredeemably wrong & hope the opposing party goes out of existence?

Dustin said...

BTW, I'm very reassured about Perry.

I've been talking up supporting Cain for the past few weeks, though I want to support Perry as the not-Romney who can win a general. The past few days have shown me Perry is the right choice for me.

Dustin said...

"Oh for Christ sake, Mitt used a landscaping crew that had illegals? I'm shocked, shocked! I bet the restaurant he ate at had illegals in the kitchen and busing tables too. "

Very different situation.

Mitt had these folks working 11 hour shifts maintaining his compound and mansion, saying 'buenos dias' to them (according to them). They didn't speak English, and they weren't paid very well. His wife and son were interacting all the time with these folks (who I am sure are good, if not great people, and I mean that sincerely).

Romney knew damn well what was going on before it was shown. Then he knew double damn well and failed to live up to his word to deal with it.

Which is cool. Romney doesn't take immigration as seriously as the law does. But then he reboots his persona as someone who takes immigration super seriously, to bash Giuliani mainly, but also Perry, two leaders who have to deal with a tough issue.

So his BS today is BS. That's the only real import of this.

BTW, if we legalized them, Romney couldn't employ them for 11 hour shifts at crap wages, so there is no point!

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... And it's not 'stop using them on my property because it's wrong or illegal'..."

Is it? Cause I'm really not sure to be honest. I mean its supposedly illegal but then we allow illegals to pay in state tuition at some schools and we let illegals go to school. POP out a kid on US soil and the kid is auto citizen and well we can't break up families so...

Quayle said...

Hoosier is spot on. A company that Mitt hired actually had an illegal alien pushing a lawn mower.

So that is supposed to make Mitt a hypocrite for noting that Perry's entire state "miracle" economy runs on the backs of illegals?

gcotharn said...

I agree with Machine and Dustin. This Romney comment was unintentionally revealing, and not in a good way:

"I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals!"

That is the sum of Romney: a man who falls short on principled values; a man who is all about slickness and appearance. The portrait of a weak man who plays a strong man on TV.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Which is cool. Romney doesn't take immigration as seriously as the law does..."

Seems to me Mitt is pretty consistent with how the law is being enforced.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Mitt had these folks working 11 hour shifts maintaining his compound and mansion.."

Yep, I worked landscaping one summer and those were the typical work hours.

machine said...

Smart move by Perry...instead of answering the questions posed (re: outrageous number of uninsured Texans), everyone is talking about Romney's hypocrisy (again!).

gcotharn said...

The revealing aspect of Romney quote ... is not about immigration policy ... but, rather, is about a man's principles and values. Romney was not standing up for a principle re immigrants, either legal otherwise. Romney was standing up for slickness and appearance. A revealing moment. A moment which crystallizes the reason Romney has not been embraced by Repub Primary voters who are desperate to embrace somebody, anybody, who might embody our principles. We do not see Romney as that guy.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Principles have no place in politics.

Dustin said...

"So that is supposed to make Mitt a hypocrite for noting that Perry's entire state "miracle" economy runs on the backs of illegals?"


Of course it does! Texas has illegals for two reasons. The first is that folks employ illegals, knowingly, often having stupid excuses. The second is that feds fail to secure the border anywhere near the way Perry wants to (and I note he's got a great record on actually beefing the border up).

Romney rebooted himself in 2007 on so many issues, and one was immigration, which he used to bash Giuliani over. He was utterly insincere. He didn't even react to knowing illegals were working on his own property. Illegals who didn't speak English and were working 11 hour shifts, and worked for a guy (Romney's church pal) Romney and all of Mass knew didn't give a crap about their status, given his answers on those questions.

Not only that, they had government contracts.

Yes, Romney is a hypocrite to pretend to take illegal immigration seriously.

More to your point, of course illegals come to Texas. Texas is where the economy is. It's where the jobs are. There's a reason they call MA Taxachusetts. Its government is 50% larger, per capita, than Texas's (who said everything was bigger in Texas?)

That said, Romney's statistic that 40% of Texas's jobs were going to illegals doesn't make much sense to me, given that stat's source also admits illegal immigration in total was 60k, and Texas's new jobs in that period was 384k.

It's so easy to claim 923 million illegals don't have health insurance, or there are 323 billion illegals working off record.

The real fact is that Texas is a success right now, and we look at why. I think illegals probably know. It's because there's economic activity and a government that isn't in the way all the damn time. Looking more closely, we can see that when the going gets tough, the government can't go into debt. A big long term help.

Quayle said...

"Mitt had these folks working 11 hour shifts maintaining his compound and mansion, saying 'buenos dias' to them ...."

"Which is cool. Romney doesn't take immigration as seriously as the law does. But then he reboots his persona as someone who takes immigration super seriously, to bash Giuliani mainly, but also Perry, two leaders who have to deal with a tough issue."


Wrong and stupid. This is giving in to and repeating one of the left's favorite and most illogical criticism forms.

Espousing a broad social policy doesn't require that you must also or do personally shun or mistreat those that would be impacted by that policy.

It is possible to be against a social policy and still honestly personally care for and be kind to people impacted by that social policy, and not be a hypocrite.

But the left doesn't think so.

Remember it was Sam Donaldson who criticized Reagan for giving a poor man the shirt off his back, then sitting down in his undershirt and signing legislation that took away the poor man's benefits.

So is this what we want to say about Romney?

He was personally kind to the illegals that were mowing his lawn, so he can't now oppose unrestricted entry of illegals by the millions?

Stupid.

Quayle said...

Romney was not standing up for a principle re immigrants, either legal otherwise. Romney was standing up for slickness and appearance.

Also wrong. It says more about the idiotic state of political dialogue and stupid political got-cha games than it does Romney.

It shouldn't be anyone's duty to drill down with their suppliers to make sure that, for example, a supplier 3 levels down did or did not hire an illegal.

It should be the person directly hiring the illegal and no one else's.

But dumb thinking like we're seeing here means that Mitt is supposed to drill down on every supplier or he won't look principled if one turned out to be illegal?

He can't just hire someone to do something because the person fixing that guys trucks is illegal?

Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.

The fact is that Perry has done nothing to stem the flood of illegals into Texas.

So is the important issue here a small point of supposed Romney hypocrisy, or a blatantly bad broad Perry social policy that he refuses to repudiate?

The best you could say is that Perry is a principled dunce.

TCB-n-a-Flash said...

Perry is done. Too bad the politics of America don't allow us to nominate the most intelligent; Ron Paul and Gingrich.

But...anything but Obama. Romney will get the nomination.

We can call it the Mormon vs. the Muslim.

Pogo said...

I don't really care anymore.

The Democrats have put a thousand monkey wrenches into the economy -on purpose- and it'll take two generations to get us out.

Dunno if we have the fortitutde to repair it, neither.

Goddamned depressing, that's what it is.

Psychedelic George said...

This was major.

Romney asserted dominance over Perry--in a most physical and ancient way.

Perry was glaring and baring his teeth--strong overtly hostile acts. Romney chilled his jets, stayed cool, laid his hand on his shoulder--the way you would a little boy.

Perry clearly does not have the cool for the job. The man is not getting his finger on the Button.

Note also how the camera catches Cain looking on just behind Romney. Cain literally has Romney's back.

Dustin said...

"The fact is that Perry has done nothing to stem the flood of illegals into Texas.
"

That is actually not true. He's sent tremendous resources and personnel to further secure the border, he's billed DC for illegals, trying in many ways like this to keep attention on the issue. He's tried (and yet to succeed) to ban sanctuary cities, including introducing a ban bill with emergency session powers.

I don't think there is a candidate who has done more than Perry on border security itself.

The problem Perry has is that he defends a policy that is very popular in texas (the tuition deal), but unpopular in the North east and probably many other places at this point. The fact is, that Perry couldn't have stopped this bill had he wanted to. That's how popular it was in Texas, because we have illegals here and we can't get rid of them, and if they follow the rules and try to become productive citizens, that's better than a life of crime or being exploited with 11 hour work days and hellish conditions.

Of course, the best outcome is to thwart illegal immigration, and educating the kids brought here is a minor incentive. But Texas has all the jobs, and that's the real reason we have so many illegals coming here until the border is truly secured. We have to do something with the mess, and a bad ass 'screw them!!!!!' attitude doesn't make Texas a more livable and safe place.

Dustin said...

"Perry clearly does not have the cool for the job. The man is not getting his finger on the Button."

Last week he was just too cool and needed to wake up.

Now he's crazy.

The fact is, Perry is playing a stupid game, but he didn't make up the stupid rules. It's plain, from his first two debates where he issued defenses and was mild, that Perry is very reserved. Perhaps too reserved to take on Obama. That's the real worry.

The idea he's too excitable is simply not my impression.

Cedarford said...

machine said...
What did I find interesting? Mitt actually answered quite honestly:

"I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals!”

He doesn’t care about breaking the law or paying undocumented workers; he cares about his political ambitions.
=========================
Disagree. The contractor argued that Romney should just let it slide, as Massachusetts cops and authorities could care less. Romney said he couldn't.
Like it or not, we have had a higher standard for people running for office with respect to any purchase of something from anyone that hires illegals or directly from an illegal. While before being a SCOTUS nominee or seeking elective office - we hold people to a different standard.

I oppose illegal immigration, but I do not insist that the grocery store document each cantaloupe as illegal free, nor do I insist on going to the kitchen in a restaurant and demand proof of citizenship from each worker. There is something anal and stupid about that, and also ridiculous to impose a different "Hypocrisy!!" standard on people running for office (by a progressive Jewish media outlet like the Boston Globe, which supports illegals and sanctuary citiies playing a Gotcha! game).

Scott M said...

There is something anal and stupid about that

It's not anal or stupid. It's just way more time-consuming than anyone is willing to put up with.

Dustin said...

"It shouldn't be anyone's duty to drill down with their suppliers to make sure that, for example, a supplier 3 levels down did or did not hire an illegal."

Not If. Romney knew for sure theses guys, not three levels down, but in his yard and home, were illegal workers. And he knew they were working on government contracts. And he knew their employer was his buddy from his church, so all he cared about was that he be insulated from political problems.

My W.V. is gophype. GOP Hype.

Awesome.

Dustin said...

"The contractor argued that Romney should just let it slide, as Massachusetts cops and authorities could care less. Romney said he couldn't."

He said something he didn't mean, because he very much did let it slide.

Only a moron wouldn't realize that when he still had these Guatamalans who couldn't speak English working on his mansion for 11 hours a day on crap wages that they were still not legal.

And read the attitude of the contractor himself. On record with complete contempt for the law, despite working government contracts.

Romney should have fired them. Dumb, dumb, dumb, if he really took immigration so seriously as he did in reboot-Romney form.

Cedarford said...

Psychedelic George - "Note also how the camera catches Cain looking on just behind Romney. Cain literally has Romney's back."
====================
Herman looking on approvingly as an adult watching another adult settle the hothead down.

JohnJ said...

The commentary on CNN afterwards was laughable. David Gergen solemnly announced twice, just in case we missed it the first time, that the "real winner" was President Obama because of the uncivil tone.

“'I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.'”

"That comment of Romney's reveals so much about him."

No it doesn't. It sounds exactly like the kind of explanation one might use with a friend in place of a hopelessly staid lecture about employment law. I actually admire Romney for not repackaging that incident to give it a more principled, but less believable tone.

edutcher said...

Sounds like a lot of Lefties and RINOs are worried Perry could make a comeback the way Herman did.

Matt said...

I was reading Red States and Hot Air last night while the debate was going on and - go look - a good many comments say they found either or both of these guys unlikable because of this. So it's not just a news item made up by the MSM. [But it doesn't mean they won't vote for them]

Jeff in Oklahoma said...

Much ado about nothing of importance.

Lots of ado about the public's (broad generalization) limited attention span.

Sad, actually. Seems to me that the nominating process (and politics in general) have slipped into the instant gratification abyss. Instead of focusing on developing ideas to deal with issues, the lemmings are being led into things that don't much matter, or things focused solely on right now. We are the worse off for it.

Matt said...

edutcher
Sounds like a lot of Lefties and RINOs are worried Perry could make a comeback the way Herman did.

Are you kidding? I want Perry to come back because it would be a lot easier for Obama to win re-election against Perry than against Romney. But it won't happen. Romney has the nomination sewn up.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... I want Perry to come back because it would be a lot easier for Obama to win re-election against Perry than against Romney..."

You mean because Romney is economically literate and that's what the country needs rather than 4 more years of hope and change?

Yeah I can see how that could spell trouble for Obama.

J said...

At least Caint's out of the picture. Of the two WASP-zionist devils, Perry's slightly less objectionable (tho' MR probably just got the vote of a few hundred freepers).

Scott M said...

Of the two WASP-zionist devils, Perry's slightly less objectionable (tho' MR probably just got the vote of a few hundred freepers).

You just couldn't help yourself could you? Please explain to us again how much Jew a banker has to have to be considered among the majority in this statement that you made on this blog.

the majority of bankers/financiers are jews--say 75%--in urban areas the # may be higher

Is it one drop of Jew blood, J? More?

edutcher said...

Matt said...

edutcher
Sounds like a lot of Lefties and RINOs are worried Perry could make a comeback the way Herman did.

Are you kidding? I want Perry to come back because it would be a lot easier for Obama to win re-election against Perry than against Romney.But it won't happen. Romney has the nomination sewn up.


Wrong on both counts.

Which leads me to another point.

Why put up this video when the more interesting one is Barry trying to string together a coherent sentence off the cuff yesterday after some raaacissst stole TOTUS?

Anybody who thinks Zero is a great debater should see him trying to tell people why the Republicans want dirty air and he wants more teachers.

Scott M said...

Anybody who thinks Zero is a great debater should see him trying to tell people why the Republicans want dirty air and he wants more teachers.

After the first Obama/Clinton meeting, I stopped thinking he was a good debater. I was even rooting for him at the time. Outside his paper-thin veneer of comfort, he doesn't do well off the cuff.

J said...

Squat tard--the First Amendment bothers you, huh, yokel.

You're not in charge are you perp. You have nothinng to say , dreck. Stick to like memorizing your favorite Sarah Palin quotes

Scott M said...

Confronted with his own bigotry, J takes the coward's way out. Never challenge someone's statements when you can't back up your own.

J said...

No bigotry, you little frat-boy byatch. First Amendment.
Zionist--a word. No one's waving a swastika or heil Hitlering (except you, most likely). Deal with it. IN fact the word was used by jews themselves--not that you know fuck about history. Ie the russian j*ws who wanted a return to palestine, and orthodoxy, and those who didn't (including Trotsky).

Scott M said...

I'm not asking you about zionists. I'm asking you to defend this statement:

the majority of bankers/financiers are jews--say 75%--in urban areas the # may be higher

and asking how much Jew one has to have in order to be included in that 75%. Please answer clearly.

J said...

Fuck you. Do the fact checking yrself, little man. This isn't yr biz admin course at Peoria State.

Scott M said...

the majority of bankers/financiers are jews--say 75%--in urban areas the # may be higher

There's my facts, J. Your statement. I've got the time and date stamps on it if you would like. I'm asking you what it takes for someone to be considered a Jew in that statement. Please answer clearly.

Kirby Olson said...

CNN wasn't enforcing the rules so Romney had to do it. That's all. they wanted to force them to do their own enforcing. CNN had this planned. CNN is to blame for not enforcing the rules themselves. Anderson Cooper was a real devil in this debate.

Joe said...

Rick Perry is a complete asshole.

When Mitt challenges him, Perry looks like someone shoved a stick up his butt. Perry is a bully used to getting whatever he wants and can't tolerate it when someone challenges him.

machine said...

The best part of the debate was when Admiral Bachmann complained about the President putting troops in Libya and also in Africa...

Weakest field eva!

Scott M said...

Weakest field eva!

If that's true, it's really going to smart next year when your guy starts lining up his paid speaking engagements.

deborah said...

Meh. The exchange was fine. The point of these debates is for the candidates to display their personalities and to see if they can stand the heat. I think they both did okay from what I saw in this exchange.

machine said...

Scott, what's so funny to me is that all of you "conservatives" are going to nominate a Democrat for the GOP Presidential Candidate!!

Go Mitt Romney Go!!!!!


This way we win even if we lose....

Scott M said...

At this point in '91, machine, Bill Clinton was an also-ran. His polling was in the single digits. I'm pretty sure he went on to get elected to the White House prior to being impeached and disbarred. Hey, I could be wrong though :)

machine said...

Scott, who are you talking about? Michelle Bachmann? Gingrich? Perry?

According to repubs, Obama is the worst President ever..he is muslim, hates America and white people, can't speak without a teleprompter, is not an American citizen and caused the recession while still a Senator...

and this field can't out poll him!

Go Michelle Go!

victoria said...

Dude, they both are.

Vicki from Pasadena

Scott M said...

and this field can't out poll him!

Care to qualify that statement a bit? Or are you dead set on misinformation?

machine said...

RCP Average has the muslim ahead of bachmann by 14 points...ahead of Romny by a 1/2...ahead of Perry by 7...ahead of Cain by 6...ahead of Gingrich by 13...

what are you looking at...Faux news polling?!?!?!

machine said...

no wait...maybe the quitta from Wasilla will come out of retirement and save the world from the wretched muslim/racist/illiterate/non-citizen/terrorist/etc/etc/etc...


Go Palin Go!!!!!!

sorepaw said...

Please answer clearly.

A request that J is incapable of honoring.

Scott M said...

A request that J is incapable of honoring.

It did seem to work, however. If the rest of the commeratti hereabouts will keep using it, maybe we can use it like a well-needed disinfectant.

MadisonMan said...

When Mitt challenges him, Perry looks like someone shoved a stick up his butt.

I agree with this statement. Perry needs to work on his poker face.

Maybe this night wasn't typical. I don't know.

el polacko said...

perry was yapping like a deranged chihuhua and his 'an illegal cut your grass' attack was weak and petty. romney's condescending laugh and his 'it's my turn to speak' shtick quickly wore thin.
once again, the only adult on the stage was gingrich. he was level-headed, displayed a sense of humor, and had facts and figures at his fingertips. remind me why he's 'unelectable'..?..he would destroy obama in debate..."seven of them, three hours long, and no moderator"...go newt !