There will be 6 candidates participating. It's on ABC. I'll update with comments if they inspire me.
8:05 CT: Diane Sawyer talks to us as though we're children. It's ridiculous. I think she just saluted the candidates for their hard work. Then she asked them what their "distingwishwing" characteristic is. Yeesh! This will be a long night.
8:09: Romney announces he's about to go through a list of 7 things. I think he's trying to make Rick Perry — he who couldn't remember 3 things that time — feel bad.
8:26: Romney seems to have gotten under Newt's skin. Newt, defending himself, sounds cantankerous and keeps banging the table. Newt dings Mitt for bragging about not being a career politician, when the only reason he hasn't been is that Teddy Kennedy beat him in an election. Mitt quips: "If I'd have been able to get into the NFL, I'd have been a football star."
8:32: Bachmann makes a great little speech claiming to be the true conservative on the stage. She refers repeatedly to Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as a single entity named "Newt Romney." A great sound bite... if anyone wants to pick it up.
8:41: Mitt tries to make a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry about what's in Mitt's book about the individual mandate. Rick says he's "not in the betting business." Either that or he knows Mitt can correct him... and he does.
8:44: Do we honestly believe Romney and Gingrich — who have argued for the individual mandate in the past — are going to get rid of it in 2012? Michele Bachmann asks. And the entity she calls Newt Romney looks at itself and nods yes.
8:49: Is adultery relevant? That's the question. It puts only Newt on the hot seat.
১০ ডিসেম্বর, ২০১১
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
১৭৪টি মন্তব্য:
Despite debate fatigue, watching this one because it's in Iowa and by a legacy "broadcast" network and due to knowing some realities having to do with both.
So..professor, you can detect Diane Sawyers condescension. I guess that's a good first step.
I'd watch but the newsreaders pretending to be journalists make me gag.
At least Yahoo News didn't send anyone (did they?). I've long suspected their editors are still in high school. Picture Jan Brady behind the "news" they publish.
Send the brats to the moon and make them dig for cheese.
"Send the brats to the moon and make them dig for cheese."
We like our brats with sauerkraut here in Wisconsin.
And we already dig cheese.
Between 1974-78, Diane Sawyer helped Nixon write his memoirs. And from 1962-65 she was America's "Junior Miss" and toured the nation promoting Coca-Cola.
She has interviewed Winona Ryder and Bobby Brown
She earned $12 million in 2005.
Wiki.
What a gal. Coke. Nixon.
Doc Paul wowin 'em in Green Acres
Sorun's point is on target. Michael Barone calls them on-air activists.
Mitt Romney really loves his country, more than anyone else.
Then she asked them what their "distingwishwing" characteristic is
Does she think she's Baba Wawa--or Paula Jones?
I love this debate. I love it. Romney is great. But, he is invisible to the GOP. Yes, Romney is not there. Thus, he is not a candidate.
There are only TWO candidates: Newt and Perry.
GOP: Your mission to accept one of them. In fact, have a ticket (Newt/Perry or Perry/Newt).
Remember: Romney does not exist.
NB: I had a date with a hottie from the super K-street supporters of the POTUS. It was a blast. We later had drinks at the Oval Room with the "Committee to Re-elect the POTUS".
Obama wins everywhere with GOP (Newt/Perry or Perry/Newt).
11 percent of adults are currently divorced; 25 percent of adults have remarried. Barna Research Group.
Romney's going to lose the adulterer vote if he's not careful.
Diane Sawyer has no business in this activity, neither does George Stephanopolis. Painfully bad
TEXASS TIME
Sheriff Perry done laid a can of whupass on 'em
"That's too rich for my blood" would have been a better answer to the offer to bet. I'm sure Romney wasn't really serious about betting but I think he could afford it if he wanted to, much easier than most of us, anyway.
I'm not sure if this is off-topic or not, but here goes anyway: It's important to understand that while by statute some rules apply to caucuses of both parties in Iowa, much else is left up to the parties themselves. For this reason, the two major parties can and do run their caucuses differently. In this year, those differences won't be stark because on one side there's a sitting incumbent and no one is challenging that incumbent within that party. Those differences were stark in 2008, however.
In terms of 2012, the caucus stuff on one side is overwhelmingly about ginning up, stirring up and bringing out support for the incumbent as part of laying the groundwork for the almost-entire year left before next year's presidential election in November 2012. What's interesting about how those caucuses are run differently in both contested (didn't happen this time) and both-side, open-season years (2008 was one of those; 2012 isn't) is irrelevant in this one.
Only one side of the Iowa caucuses is truly of interest this year, at least immediately, and even that one's relevance long-term, realistically speaking, is an open question (I'm tempted to argue that it's of less importance than it has been for a very long time, but not being of the "major donors' class," I'm bereft of certain information).
And that one, the Republican one, due to its process, is of limited use in evaluating how "churn" and "temporary alliances" might play out in contests in other states later on, much less among the voting populace in the U.S. at large. That matters, this time.
hmm, last time "they" had a financial strain ~ eagerly awaiting mittens song and dance ...
How droll it will be for the multi-multi millionaire Diane Sawyer to be asking a question about the plight of the middle-class. Her draperies probably cost more than what most people make a year.
Newt defended himself very well on the Palestinian issue. Even though imprudent, his comments were true and Newt Romney probably would have been better off defending him.
Psychedelic George said...
Between 1974-78, Diane Sawyer helped Nixon write his memoirs. And from 1962-65 she was America's "Junior Miss" and toured the nation promoting Coca-Cola.
She has interviewed Winona Ryder and Bobby Brown
She earned $12 million in 2005.
Wiki.
What a gal. Coke. Nixon.
12/10/11 8:48 PM
Rumor has it that LBJ used to do her.
"Rumor has it that LBJ used to do her."
Indeed, this is the kind of intellectual gravitas "we" all come to Althouse to read :-P
Had Miss Bachmann carved a swastika..or a cross... in her forehead she'd be a bit more believable.
The point of my post was not to generically smack the process of Republican caucuses, generically, or even to smack the Iowa Republican caucuses in particular. I want to make that clear. It's just that the very process might mean that the results of the Iowa Republican Caucus, in this particular instance which is 2012's, is as likely as not to be of diminished importance in certain key ways. Sad, but true.
Sometimes a process works for you, and sometimes it works against you. That's the way it goes.
"Newt Romney" is a great sound bite only if you know nothing of either man. They are quite dissimilar in both style and substance.
Althouse, your devoted conservative bloggers seem to be sufferin' from debate fatigue ~ go figure!
Or maybe they're watching Family Feud reruns on GSN. :D
Are these Republican debates becoming a bit like the NHL playoffs or is it just me. I mean every night ther is another one, and they are all the same. I think we are looking at BHO for 4 more years.
Newt quotes the Tenth Amendment as to why he's now against Obamacare.
"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."
Ron Paul goes further and says Medicare already violates the tenth amendment, and that government is incredibly violent.
Perry says to gut the Congress and make them work only half the time, and spend every other year working at a real job.
I love how they get a winning track and then try to outbid one another.
Think of a President offering his antagonist a bet for any amount of money concerning a dispute.
You'd think you'd put a child in office.
Leftists on this thread:
Hey! There's a Republican debate on a Saturday night -- when people who have lives and no small children are out in the world. I think I'll go to Althouse and say how much I don't care about the debate. Because that will certainly demonstrate my lack of caring.
I always envied the rather strange looking Mike Nichols that he got to shtup Diane Sawyer when she was a truly first class piece of tail. What I didn't envy and in fact can't envision to this day are the ruling class conversations they have had with each other lo these many decades. Does the pose ever come off? Do they actually believe the cant they spout in front of the peasantry, i.e. us? It must be torture to be such constructs. Or maybe not. Maybe what they finally do is undo any self that may have been there before they became official masks. Maybe it's not all that difficult to go from pose to pose to pose when there's no there there...other than what plays well with the people who count.
Yahoo News.
Is that not the worst possible name for a news provider?
What is the purpose of these breaks? They're not selling commercial time. It's why going to pro and college sports events is a drag...the game stops to sell crap.
Romney: “The last thing Bibi Netanyahu needs to have is, not just a person who is a historian, but somebody who also is running for President of the United States, stand up and say things that create extraordinary tumult in his neighborhood…I’m not a bomb thrower, rhetorically or literally.”
Defining moment of the debate, IMO.
shiloh said...
"Rumor has it that LBJ used to do her."
Indeed, this is the kind of intellectual gravitas "we" all come to Althouse to read :-P
12/10/11 9:27 PM
She is eye candy (albeit aging and expensive) and nothing more so what is your point again other than demonstrating that you are a schmuck?
That's a great quote by Romney about not using inflammable rhetoric.
He should also be thinking about showing concern for Arab moderates as well.
No One likes Mitt.
Mitt and Rick............................Santorum.
Is that Mary Tyler Moore on stage?
Shiloh said...
hmm, last time "they" had a financial strain ~ eagerly awaiting mittens song and dance
Public school?
Almost time to vote..........................Obama out.
Romney wins the debate hands down. POTUS Obama cannot win against him.
Luckily, GOP will not select him. So, it will be Perry or Newt as the nominee.
Thus, POTUS Obama is the real winner.
This weekend and the next one are jammed with Christmas parties, Christmas concerts and Christmas shopping.
How do the Debate knitters do it. Everybody go and enjoy some seasonal fun.
"Seven Machos said...
Leftists on this thread:"
This is why fixednoise er foxnews ratings are higher than MSNBC and CNN etc. ie liberals prefer to be entertained rather than watch political drivel er standard, keen grasp of the obvious, talking pts. on cable news.
>
Cubanbob, Althouse must surely be impressed by your witty relies.
I am taking it seriously because what I am undertaking to do is a serious thing. Sometimes that requires sucking up--not to people, by God! but whatever barriers are involved on the way to doing what I think is required, by honor, that I do.
witty replies ...
I want to do that David Muir from ABC.
He used to work in Boston.
He is hot.
phx said...
That's a great quote by Romney about not using inflammable rhetoric.
He should also be thinking about showing concern for Arab moderates as well.
12/10/11 9:46 PM
The Arab extremist wants to kill the Jews tomorrow, the moderate Arab wants to kill them next month but wants them to give them a job with benefits first.
On that point by openly stating the indelicate truth he actually clarifies the issue.
Meade needs to get a job...fast.
The ticket that is not going to happen (Romney/Jindal)
Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal. Both excellent governors, both from two different part of the country.
Luckily, it will not happen.
Thus, Obama/Biden is spared from defeat. They will defeat the GOP ticket (Perry/Newt or Newt/Perry).
Long live POTUS Obama. Here we come, Mt. Rushmore.
More brilliant, insightful commentary, Shiloh. Really cutting and interesting. You must be a hit on the dinner party circuit.
Say, why aren't you at a dinner party? It's certainly not because you have children.
Gingrich wins the debate. Like it or not.
All the pundits can talk about is the $10,000 bet. Give me strength.
Newt is doing fine. I liked the way he jumped on Diane Sawyer over her tortured question on immigration. He scores a lot of points for chewing up the media. Nobody likes them, and he puts it right in their grille.
All the pundits can talk about is the $10,000 bet. Give me strength.
SM, as long as you're hangin' on my every word er paying attention, as per usual lol.
'nuf said!
shiloh said...
"Seven Machos said...
Leftists on this thread:"
This is why fixednoise er foxnews ratings are higher than MSNBC and CNN etc. ie liberals prefer to be entertained rather than watch political drivel er standard, keen grasp of the obvious, talking pts. on cable news.
>
Cubanbob, Althouse must surely be impressed by your witty relies.
12/10/11 9:50 PM
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it is a verity that she is not impressed by yours.
Here come the conservatives who would rather battle "the media" rather than win the presidency. You want a battle not a victory. Why is that?
So, did the debaters avoid being too mean to Romney?
This goal has been important to Althouse.
Obviously the point of these debates is to not derail Romney.
Duh.
Tell us another witty one, Shiloh. Show us how all that intellectual gravitas you have.
I watch the news and I see Sawyer and all say bad things about Romney.
They really want Obama to win re-election.
I am so, so happy. Yes, the Media: Please make Romney bad.
Romney was the real winner. But, we will lie and make Gingrich the winner. Yes, that is right. We want GOP to be crushed by Obama. Let us pick the weakest of the GOP candidates: Newt or Perry.
Yes, I get it. Thanks to Media. I love the GOP.
Is it legal to have these sorts of bets?
Does the winner need to pay taxes on the dough?
Or, is it considered some sorta sub $12M gift?
Kabuki and really lame Kabuki at that. Does anyone really care at this point?
I'm begging Hillary to run before the media forces another another Obama shit sandwich down our throats.
In the least Hillary has a set of balls and an adult posse.
More wit! Such cool and subtle repartee. That is such amazing, intellectual gravitas, Shiloh. Truly, you must drink deeply from the great books and have a broad education to go with that fertile mind.
How else to explain your awesomely substantive commentary on politics?
Media is burying Romney.
I am so so happy. But, as an aside: What a lie. Romney cleaned everyone's clock. But, we lie all the time. Let us make Newt the winner and Romney the loser.
Obama wins hands-down. GOP Newt/Perry will lose everywhere.
The media makes the ticket. The media determines the winner. You see it right now, on ABC news....
“All the pundits can talk about is the $10,000 bet. Give me strength.”
Romney wins hands down, IMO, and the hipster, demo surrogates on ABC are all in a lather about his “insensitive” $10K bet offer to Perry.
Lord, help us!
Romney has kept himself fit and healthy and he never cheated on his wives twice.
hmm, Meade has deleted one of my posts, just like old times, eh.
ciao
Romney is nothing if not calculating. The $10,000 bet did not come out of nowhere. He would not have said it if he and his staff didn't think it was going to work.
And it has. Because you are talking about Romney and, soon, you will be talking about the substance of that bet.
I'm following the debate exactly here, at Althouse. Nowhere else.
That really jumped out at me, the $10,000 bet.
It sounds stupid, stupid, stupid.
Not because it shows he's insensitive, but it shows he's a jackass. IMO.
And I don't care how right or how wrong anyone really is about what's written in some (equally stupid) book.
Seven Nachos: You work for ABC news. You are the Media. THANK YOU.
Yes, let us make Romney a bad guy. Man, he is the badest guy in the planet, the glaxacy, the universe, etc.
Yes, let us make Newt the winner. Good for press. Good for the POTUS re-election. Yes!
What liars. Mitt Romey was the # 1 tonight. Rep. Paul was # 2. Gingrich came in after them.
But, we lie. Let us make Newt the winner.
Um, the debates aren't relevant.
Up ahead we're gonna see someone emerging as an Independent. Not tied to either party. And, with enough money that the CLAIM of not being bought by others will be a selling point.
Sure. You're thinking Trump. But I'm not. I'd like to see Morry Taylor (from the 1996 contest where the GOP picked Dole). Coming out. If he doesn't? The GOP will still lose.
It's just a question if they can break McCain's 47%. Or not.
Of course, if an Independent runs, there will be vote stealing galore.
But can the GOP learning anything IF Obama wins, again? I think not.
I think the social conservatives will always wave their litmus paper.
And, a blow out election for the GOP won't be one.
It's like seeing ALL the creeps who caused the financial meltdown, still holding top jobs! Nobdy got fired.
They're banking on a circus. But no great shifts in power.
Shiloh, I'm cutting clutter. Try again.
"And the entity she calls Newt Romney looks at itself and nods yes."
ROFL!!!!eleventy1!
Newt won the Palestinian comment moment hands down. He spoke the historically accurate truth.
Obama has weaseled around for three years trying to improve American standing in the world. The Pakistanis hate us, Putin has used the reset button to go all gansta in Russia, and Iran is laughing at us.
Newt's frankness is a breath of fresh air.
Cause that made Romney sound like a punk high school kid.
PHX -- You were never going to vote for Romney. Ads you don't like aren't bad ads. They're not targeted at you.
Come on, dude. Think. Have gravitas. Like Shiloh.
Newt's frankness is a breath of fresh air.
Another conservative who wants battle not victory. How will Gingrich get the electoral votes, dude? Explain that.
If the Romney people just wrote off my vote and said I was never going to vote for him anyway, plus I can't think seriously, I think they made a big mistake.
"And it has. Because you are talking about Romney and, soon, you will be talking about the substance of that bet."
Is this more cleverness like lying about a BHO quote in that recent Romney ad? They lie on purpose to get the media to pay attention to them. LOOK AT ME, I"M A LIAR, MITT!!!!
And, it's not like the guy has a problem w/ folks trusting him. I see no downside to his strategically admitting that he's a manipulative liar.
Smart move.
Hey, I just thought of something. No Huntsman.
PHX -- Do you really think Romney was thinking about you? Like you particularly? Perhaps you should get that narcissism checked out before it spreads to your other breast.
However, as I say, you weren't going to vote for Romney, anyway. So stop preening. It's unbecoming.
I had a professor who made a bet with me in a classroom once in front of everybody.
It wasn't the classiest thing to see.
Newt needs some key states, like Ohio and Virginia, etc. Why are his chances less than Mitt's? I am not going to vote for or support a candidate because I fear a media onslaught.
The media will bury whomever the Republicans nominate and they will shill and cover for Obama. That is a fact. Newt's ability to cope with this fact is better than anyone's.
PBJ -- Do you think he was lying? Do you think he would make such a bold statement about his Achilles Heel and lie about it?
I have seen you be smart. I hope you will revert to that soon.
I always figured the pols were smart enough to figure I stood for a certain number of people who thought as I did but instead kept their opinions to themselves. I actually heard some marketing people throwing out some numbers about that.
Newt was crabby, ugly, bitter, potty-mouth, and really bitter. But, thank god for the Media: They say that he was not what I saw. Instead, they say that Newt:
- looked confident.
- was charming.
- was confident.
- was wonky's wonk!
- Etc.
Media is telling me to live in virtual reality. I like it.
I like doing what Media tells me....as I am an educated moron.
PHX -- Get over yourself.
With that professor none of the other students knew who was right, me or the professor. They just heard him bet me money he was right.
JohnJ said...
Romney: “The last thing Bibi Netanyahu needs to have is, not just a person who is a historian, but somebody who also is running for President of the United States, stand up and say things that create extraordinary tumult in his neighborhood…I’m not a bomb thrower, rhetorically or literally.”
Defining moment of the debate, IMO.
12/10/11 9:42 PM
I thought the same - a real contrast drawing moment.
Looks like the MSM, at least the ferrets at ABC, plan to play up "the bet".
This thread kinda started out interesting but went quickly downhill when the blue head arrived.
With that professor none of the other students knew who was right, me or the professor. They just heard him bet me money he was right.
And none of your lazy asses bothered to check. Do you think everyone is as lazy as you and your fellow undergraduates?
Moreover, politicians aren't professors and voters aren't students. And the whole world isn't an analogy for your obviously narrow experience.
Well I'm gonna give the Romney people the benefit of the doubt in that Seven Machos doesn't represent their thinking about this matter in all its particulars.
ignatzk: Ditto. Romney's answer really scared me colleagues in the Committee to Re-elect. They were scared. But, as soon as the ABC news (and the Center for American Progress - an Obama think-tank - N. Tanden went for Romney as the baddest guy in our solar system), everyone cheered.
Yes, Romney is going to be buried tomorrow.
He is finished. The Media wants Newt. It is over...
Oh, I knew who was right. That was never an issue.
I was.
I'm following the debate exactly here, at Althouse. Nowhere else.
Does that mean you didn't watch or listen to tonight's GOP candidates for the U.S. presidency for yourself, on your own? Or that you did, and that this is the only blog post/thread on the debate that you're following? Or, maybe, that you're simply following the debates amongst partisans at only and exactly at althouse.blogspot.com?
It wouldn't be, couldn't be, right to respond to your comment without knowing which.
Seven,
Maybe you haven't seen the ad I was referring to.
They pull a clip of BHO, but BHO is actually quoting someone from the McCain campaign.
The Romney campaign said that they used this deceit because they were hoping the media would call them out as liars.
This is the style of leadership Romney is proudly offering--dishonest, manipulative, and contrived.
Are you really surprised? Is anyone surprised?
And that was punk-ass move of Romney.
I've seen the ad. You are drawing an analogy between what you are saying is a lie and something that must be the truth.
That's comically poor.
Does that mean you didn't watch or listen to tonight's GOP candidates for the U.S. presidency for yourself, on your own?
rcomal: I'm not sure about he insinuating "on your own" but no, I didn't watch or listen to tonight's GOP candidates for the blah blah blah.
PHX -- So you are insulted by an event you never saw and have no idea about its context because of some goofy thing that happened one time in an undergraduate class. Really?
That's so very sad. And hilarious.
SEVEN who said I was insulted?
You haven't been right yet.
How would you define your intense disliked for this thing you did not experience?
JohnJ said...
"Romney: “The last thing Bibi Netanyahu needs to have is, not just a person who is a historian, but somebody who also is running for President of the United States, stand up and say things that create extraordinary tumult in his neighborhood…I’m not a bomb thrower, rhetorically or literally.”
Defining moment of the debate, IMO."
Yes it was. Gingrich tried to claim that he was being Reaganesque by throwing the rhetorical bomb. Romney called him on it and Newton Leroy failed.
Seven,
Tom Rath of the Romney campaign said they knew it was a false attribution. They called it a purposeful lie, not me.
Don't shoot the messenger.
"Gingrich tried to claim that he was being Reaganesque by throwing the rhetorical bomb. Romney called him on it and Newton Leroy failed."
Lame.
Newt's got nuttin' on Mrs. Obliterate em'.
Oh Meade, I hate to argue with you, but you are wrong about Newt and the Palestinian remarks. He spoke as an historian who knows what he is talking about, and every syllable was true.
Pretending that every one of Israels neighbors wouldn't destroy Israel and kill the Jews if they could get away with it is silly. It is said and written openly. The time for pretending is over. The time for straight talk is now.
Dubious Claims in Obama’s Ads Against McCain, Despite Vow of Truth
Published: September 25, 2008
New York Times
But you just keep on with your allegations, PBJ, if it makes you feel better. Whatever allows you to feel morally superior.
The time for straight talk is now.
Why? When has straight talk ever, ever accomplished anything except war in terms of diplomacy?
As a former diplomat, I'll wait. Meanwhile, your mentality that seeks a battle instead of a victory is silly.
"Tear down this wall" and "Evil Empire" were given as examples of effective straight talk. I remember them well and was thrilled at the time that Reagan had the courage to say what everyone knew.
"He spoke as an historian who knows what he is talking about, and every syllable was true."
Then he should be running for Historian. And if he is such an astute hisorian, why does he seem to not understand the basics of war and diplomacy?
We're trying to find a better replacement for Obama.
If you guys made Romney the candidate, and if he did beat Obama, I would become interested only because then I get to watch the rest of his hair finally turn gray. I mean, come'on. How does a guy have those two little annoying patches that do not change at all for what seems a decade?
Romney was so well prepared, or so he thought.
He had even unloaded at least one casa.
He was ready to identify how many houses he owns. He probably even had a witty line ready to launch.
But, oh no! Who could have guessed that he'd need to pretend that $10M is dough that many folks would miss. It's too much to be a friendly joke wager. But, it's not enough to be an obviously hyperbolic wager. Doh!
Reload. Reboot.
Romneybot.
Seven,
So what will victory achieve?
Serious question.
Reagan was president when he said those things. And Reagan never would have said what Newt said. Even just to win a nomination.
Beta -- Do you mean during the same time when Reagan was cutting deals about missiles?
What deals is Candidate Gingrich cutting in the Middle East?
International politics is complicated, dude.
"And Reagan never would have said what Newt said. "
Has a twelve year old poached Meade's password?
P.S.
Meade (or person playing Meade), What would Lincoln have said about Newt?
And, where does God come down?
BTW, where are the examples of mushy talk and lack of resolve working their magic in the Arab world?
They hate Americans and they hate the Jews more and they have no qualms about saying so.
Kuwaitis hate us even though we saved them from Sadaam. These are folks who are brainwashed to hate from an early age, and we gain nothing from pretending otherwise.
You think if Mitt is elected 15 year old kids won't walk into Pizza parlors with bombs strapped to them? Are you kidding?
The bomb Newt threw about the Palestinians being a phony, invented people follows his move to declare the US alone will diplomatically recognize a far right Israeli Likud move to site their capital in a common religious city (Jerusalem) and say it is the city of the Jewish state. Ignoring that the next move would be 140 nations backing the Palestinian retaliatory move to declare Jerusalem their true capital.
The science of Y-haploid DNA study is showing that "Arabs" are not one amorphous mass but of people of differing common origin genetic stock - by region. The "so-called Palestinians" happen to be people of the Levant with far more gentically in common with Lebanese, Sephardic Jews, and Syrians than with Egyptians, Moroccans, Ashkenazi Jews, and Saudis.
Much of the Palestinian stock appears to be from people that were Canaanites and Jews that converted to Christianity, then Islam.
It is reckless for Newt to deny the science to join with far right Zionist politics..that are based on disproven Zionist claims that the land of the Levant was empty when Jews began landing their in force after the Balfour Declaration.
Romney has more moderate "pandering" problems. To gain access to ample Jewish money coffers and media favor from Jewish bosses and simultaneously pander to the dumb Christian Zionist rubes - Romney is declaring that the most important nation on Earth that he should make his 1st Presidential visit to - would be "Our Special Friend", Israel.
"Tear down this wall" and "Evil Empire" were not just examples of effective straight talk. Reagan had the power to use those words as propaganda as part of a diplomatic strategy. Newt is running for office.
GMay -- I'm glad you asked. The country is a fiscal mess and that is the issue in this election. Nothing else matters. Gingrich can't win. Neither Obama nor Gingrich have the executive ability to solve the grave problems that must be solved.
Obama because he is a hack.
Gingrich because he is divisive and will not be able to create any serious coalition of actually elected officials.
Moreover, Gingrich can't win a national election. It won't happen. So, an answer that is just as good is that Romney is the only candidate currently running who can beat Obama. Victory is Obama losing. Gingrich cannot do that.
Ok Seven, thanks for the response. I'd like to ask a follow up - what do you think Romney is actually going to do differently than Obama?
I have no problem voting for a candidate who is not squeamish about telling the truth.
I have no idea if Reagan would have said those words or not and neither do you. I also wonder if Romney should run for Businessman in Chief, since many of his answers come from that perspective. Newt was speaking as an historian because he is one.
You think if Mitt is elected 15 year old kids won't walk into Pizza parlors with bombs strapped to them?
I personally don't give a shit. It's terrible. It must be prevented. But it's not my problem and it's not my country's job to prevent it. It's something that happens occasionally far away (and that, incidentally, hasn't happened in quite awhile to my knowledge).
The crater that is our economy and the massive, crushing pension system and welfare state -- those are my problems. Those problems must be solved. Obama has shown that he is in over his head. Gingrich will never win but even if by some chance he could win, he is divisive and petulant and he will not be able to develop the coalition necessary to create effective, lasting, serious solutions.
Mitt bet me 10k I couldn't stay awake until 11:30 and he won.
Goodnight all.
what do you think Romney is actually going to do differently than Obama?
That's not answerable in a comment thread. So please forgive me for speaking in platitudes. Romney will get the country moving again by creating an atmosphere that is much better for business. He will also se the country on a strong course financially because he understands economics and because, unlike Obama, he will be able to work with other politicians to craft bipartisan legislation. He has been a governor. He knows that art form.
Speaking of Reagan, Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill and a massively Democratic House to pass sweeping legislation where both sides compromised. Romney did this in Massachusetts and will do the same thing in Washington.
If the House and Senate are Republican, that just means the legislation can be more business-friendly.
"Gingrich because he is divisive and will not be able to create any serious coalition of actually elected officials."
It's obvious that Mitt is the man w/ the pol plan. Look at the governing record.
Newt: Contract w/ Am, well fare reform, budget surpluses, booming economy. "Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny "
Mitt: Romneycare. "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."
Beta Rube said...
Oh Meade, I hate to argue with you, but you are wrong about Newt and the Palestinian remarks. He spoke as an historian who knows what he is talking about, and every syllable was true.
==================
No, as a historian, Newt is likely fully aware that the 50s Zionist claims of an "empty land, for a new people" were wholly discredited by British and Turkish historians and that a popular Zionist book "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters was discredited as an academic fraud. With Peters, a self confessed "journalist, not any historian or real scholar" enabled and assisted by the Israeli government handlers assigned to squire her around, keep her islated from the real scholars in the field of study of ME demographics - and feed her the concocted info she needed to "prove" the real homeland of the Palestinians was in bedouin Jordan.
For Newt to regurgitate bad propaganda he likely knows is fraudulent - just shows how reckless he is. Maybe he is hoping the Fundie rubes will love him for standing up to the furriners and ivory tower academics and dirty Brits and Muslims saying it isn't true.
PBJ -- You will never, ever vote for Gingrich. It is disingenuous in the extreme for you to argue on his behalf. Further, I will bet you $10,000 that you support government-run health care.
I win.
You are embarrassing yourself. It's sad.
By the way, all the "accomplishments" you mention happen to form the core of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. Why do you think all those things passed but all the other Contract with America initiatives failed?
Goodnight.
Maybe he is hoping the Fundie rubes will love him for standing up to the furriners and ivory tower academics and dirty Brits and Muslims saying it isn't true.
Oh, and I forgot the real center of criticism of the myth of "A land without any people, for a people with no land" and the crock of shit book Peters wrote that ignorant Christian fundies here gobbled up - the non-Likudnik other half of the people in Israel. The people that believe deceitful Zionist mythmaking is counterproductive to Israel's best interests, and gaining the long term support of other nations that do not like Zionist deceit anymore than they like Saudi or Iranian deceit.
The moderates of Israel, who have been great contributors to ME DNA studies to get the origins of various peoples better understood.
Cedarford -- We are all of us kooky. I will go to my grave believing that New Coke was a brilliant ploy to introduce corn syrup instead of sugar into Coke without people noticing.
But I don't spend my days spouting about it. You say some truly insightful things when you aren't raving about Jewish people and Israel. But your over-focus on those things colors everything you say in a terrible way. I wish you'd can it.
Ha ha.
Seven can't credit a particular Speaker for the products of his Speakership--all good things were solely the result of WJC from 1992.
But, reading between his ever-present (and ever-trite) self-congratulation, Seven didn't bother denying that the legacy of Mitt's supposed brilliance as a pol is Romneycare.
"That's not answerable in a comment thread. So please forgive me for speaking in platitudes."
Fair enough.
I'm not convinced he either can or will be able to make any changes that can fix the course we're on.
Understanding your limitation to platitudes, we're reaching a point where a favorable climate for business is going to be irrelevant due to the massive entitlement/benefit programs on the city, state, and federal level. Hell, just SS and the Medi's alone are boned beyond almost all hope. Is Mitt really going to be able to get compromise from the other side of the aisle on that?
Shoot, granting a waiver to all states on Obamacare still doesn't remove its revenue generating elements, so I doubt he'll kill it with a full repeal. I'm ready to vote the ABO way myself, but really, what difference is it truly going to make when we've run out of deck chairs on the Titanic and no politician from either party is or has been willing to do what's necessary to fix it?
Let me fix my analogy - we've run out of deck chairs to rearrange and the argument between the parties is how many deck chairs we want to replace.
7M: I agree with you up to the point at which you wrote this:
I wish you'd can it.
Witty, that was, in terms of language play. But if you think about it, it ends up meaning the opposite of what you were trying to say. After all, corn syrup ended up in the can--as you, yourself, just noted, mere minutes ago.
As dangerous to say the following as it might be these days at Althouse and elsewhere: I am more a fan of yours than not, especially in terms of content (despite many disagreements), but there is also a style thing to take into account, as in now: Watch out for the too-clever-by-half thing. Therein you will trip yourself up, and Lord knows you don't need to do unto yourself what others are eagerly wishing to happen to you.
PBJ -- I credit Gingrich for passing all those things with Clinton. Certainly, Clinton couldn't have done what he pledged to do with the 1992 Congress.
As for government healthcare, which you support, I have stated my position before. I'll state it again. The Obamacare mandate is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause because federal power is limited (hard for you to understand, I know, but all over the Constitution of 1789). State and local power is plenary. I wholly support people in states and localities governing themselves, If Massachusetts wants Romneycare, if Berkeley wants 90 percent taxes, if New Harmony wants communism, I heartily approve.
I had high hopes for you once. But you are obviously not stupid and not self-aware. And you are trying to trap me logically in an argument for Gingrich you don't even believe. This is impossible for a callow person of your meager intellect.
You are dismissed.
(Comment drawn from experience.)
Wow. Awesome new quality commentariat cultivated by Professor Althouse.
Ski-Mask guy hogs up 24 of 132 comments so that he can berate every liberal (and most conservatives) as being too stupid and bereft of insight to comment on the Republican primary, while offering soothing tones of support to a virulent anti-semite, whose wit and wisdom, he believes, will surely shine through once he promises to keep his obsessive ranting about things like "Zionist" DNA on the down-low (Something that he will never do).
It's nice to see who's fighting the good fight and who gets sympathy at The House of Narcissistic Anti-Semitism.
"As dangerous to say the following as it might be these days at Althouse and elsewhere..."
I don't get around here much anymore. What's changed recently?
GMay -- I don't think the problems are insurmountable. At worst, when we run out of money, they are going to solve themselves, as you seem to suggest. That's what always happens in economics.
But I am an optimist. I think some basic changes will create a vastly different business landscape. There are trillions of dollars just sitting around right now, and a lot of very talented people with no work to do. It's a potent combination to be unleashed.
As for the long-term problems with pensions and welfare, whatever answers any of us have won't be the final law. It's going to be a sausage. In making that sausage, it's pick your poison. Do you want Gingrich, who can't win so we'll have Obama who is doing nothing or if he does win will be too polarizing to do anything? Or do you want Romney who is the candidate of attempting to achieve prosperity and who is able to work with other politicians?
Scroll up, GMay, just a tick.
--
Ritmo, I'm not your enemy. But I disagree with you on substance w/r/t to 7M, because I *don't* disagree with him with regard to a significant enough amount of the substance of what he writes. Right now, in this election season, at this particular point in time, in this specific election season, this is what counts most to me.
Honestly? I'm almost to the point of saying let Obama win so this whole sorry edifice can go ahead and come crashing down. Why fight over whether we're going to coast over the cliff or floor it.
Then again, my inner cynic is raging right now (I'm a small business owner). I just don't see Rombley (Thanks Dianne Sawyer) doing what you think he's going to do.
Seven,
You just admitted that Newt has a better record re effectively accomplishing conservative political goals. Which was my point.
And, then you declared some sort of victory.
P.S.
I would vote for Newt before I'd support Mitt.
Mitt seems like a phony, overly self-reverential egomaniac who can manage people. Newt seems like an overly self-reverential egomaniac, who can't manage people.
It's a tough call. But, I'd take poor management over plastic.
Meadowlark -- Thank you for counting my comments. I was touched by the praise you offered for me in a comment thread on another site.
You said, concerning me...
I'm actually starting to respect the guy. I mean, I know Thomas has been through a lot - which I respect him for, and we've made up and made nice. But Machos is pretty heterodox and damn good at tactical plays in how he argues. Not that I'd ever give him credit for that before; I always made a point of seeing at as "cute".
If he ever heard me paying that compliment though I'm sure he'd kick my ass all up and down the blogosphere.
http://dichotomies1.blogspot.com/2011/11/snowball-just-rolled-into-hell.html
Truly it means the world to me.
Romney seems like some sort of Kerry-Gore combo.
I didn't vote for those varieties as individuals, I have no interest in the combo version.
Newt seems more like WJC, so Seven should like him.
I will say that the "You are dismissed" bit is a bull-shit thing to do. It doesn't accomplish anything and merely adds fuel to a fire that's hungry to consume your substance, 7M. Do you think you could give up that sort of self-indulgence for the greater good of the substance you're trying to advocate?
GMay -- If the world goes to hell like that, it will mean certain depression and war. That's the way of the world. I have children and a meaningful life. I want things to improve. You do, too. I'm also sorry to address you in the same post as...
PBJ -- You are a poor reader and stupid. I said that Gingrich was able to pass the parts of Clinton's platform that Clinton wanted passed. and nothing more. Your disingenuous comments are just sad. You will obviously vote for Obama. What's the use in saying anything more.
Anyway, goodnight.
Well, I guess it depends on what you'd call "a significant amount", rcommal. 'Cause from where I sit, I don't see Mitt's lack of personal conviction going over any better than Newt's (and why must they all have 4-letter names?) asshat belief that he can solve every problem in life with an argument - as long as it's nasty enough.
I'm not your enemy either - let's leave the fighting for those who can't help themselves. But it's hard to see how either of those problem personalities are going to overcome the not-very popular uprising that will somehow be waged once everyone agrees that Obama's violation of the healthcare standards of 1789 is somehow worse.
Your preferred gladiator sees Gingrich's flaws because he sees himself in the guy. But that doesn't mean Romney's better.
At the end of the day, GMay is probably right. I'd say don't feel too bad about it, the Republic won't go to hell, or whatever. But if you're still not prepared to accept the likelier inevitable, then it's fine to at least watch what a more rabid dog can accomplish.
I think it's just extending the spectacle, but then, I'm biased too. But do as you wish, at least you're more sensible than a guy who says the Zionist-DNA theories aren't too bad once you listen to the other insightful commentary just waiting to burst from The Fantastic Mr Cedarford.
One more thing, I think Cedarford can vouch for all the dressings-down he has received from me. Why else would he erroneously think I am gay and Jewish?
Truly it means the world to me.
As it would to anyone as incapable of changing his mind as you are.
Sure, that opinion mattered back when this place was going to hell in a handbasket. But now that it has actually become hell, I don't see how your heterodox warnings to the disturbed anti-Semites and other extremists in the GOP reflect a better situation.
This place is now as barren as your own blog's post feed, so somehow the rabidness of your fights, no matter how particular, considered (or maybe just narrow?) your position, doesn't seem as redeeming as it once might have seemed.
Knock yourself out, dude. You're probably 30 for 150. Yeah, we know how that score is played. I'm sure what you've argued here tonight will make a world of difference. Somehow. Somewhere. With someone.
In a completely abstract way. Which is how you like it.
But there's a real world out there that awaits convincing without browbeating. I'm glad I found it. I think you wouldn't mind it, too, on a good day.
It's funny to think that Machos would actually check out the blog he cited.
My guess is it's been monitored by someone else, and the quote saved for a day when the barking ski mask wouldn't have anyone left to stand up to him.
But we know how certain people around here have changed their minds on what they thought of commenters from one year to the next. Difference is, I'm just responding to the context and not a need to cast out anyone who doesn't kiss my ass.
I never thought 7-Machos was gay or Jewish as he claims - but he was a grovelling ball-licking supplicant for Israel in his temporary time at State.
That said, 7-M is a bright guy and I read what he says until he tries playing his Racist! Bigot! cards when he is challenged on what he says.
His analysis of "deathwish!" Republican rightwingers is spot on, IMO.
"You say some truly insightful things when you aren't raving about Jewish people and Israel."
NO HE DOESN'T, SEVEN!!!!!!! Fudd is a serial liar and fraud. Every time someone calls him on his "facts" he is proven wrong, whether it is about da Joooos or not. He *never* ever provides references for the bullshit he spouts. He is a fucking moron and compulsive liar.
And his biggest lies are about himself. He has been claiming for years that he is a "Gen-Xer" but the fact is he is a boomer:
Here's
the proof
Every time Ann has some boomer nostalgia post Fudd rushes in to say how he *doesn't* remember it to "prove" he's not a boomer. But why would a non-boomer even give a shit about Laugh-In or Soupy Sales?
Disclaimer: I'm also a boomer. But I don't lie about my age like a cheap used-up hooker desperately trolling the alleys for one more trick.
"That said, 7-M is a bright guy and I read what he says"
Bwahaha. Fudd mixes in a little fellatio with the Jew-baiting. All it takes is for someone to fall for his bullshit. He's even easier than I thought.
The most morally superior one is probably Gingrich, not that it's a high standard.
What happened to this post? That was a very complex and revealing debate and yet Althouse said very little about it.
My guess:
Althouse likes Romney, really likes Romney. And he didn't do well. Newt, on the other hand, faced a series of questions meant to destroy his candidacy and survived.
It's kind of funny Althouse couldn't finish her debate commentary. Romney was THAT bad!
"What happened to this post? That was a very complex and revealing debate and yet Althouse said very little about it."
That thing went on for 2 hours. At night. Bleh.
Maybe I'll blog the transcript of the second half.
I did watch it, however, and I think it was a lively debate, despite the soporific moderators.
Althouse: Maybe I'll blog the transcript of the second half.
I wonder if the transcript will capture the fidgeting of Romney when he tried dealing with Newt.
I did watch it, however, and I think it was a lively debate, despite the soporific moderators.
Yes, exactly what drugs was Diane Sawyer on? If I was her employer I'd ask for a piss test.
Beta Rube,
You hit the nail on the head. Although I am not fond of Gingrich, he is the candidate best able to run against the Media (aka the propaganda arm of the DNC).
Without the Media, Obama would never have won the Illinois senate seat from Jack Ryan.
Jason (the commenter) said...
What happened to this post? That was a very complex and revealing debate and yet Althouse said very little about it.
My guess:
Althouse likes Romney, really likes Romney. And he didn't do well. Newt, on the other hand, faced a series of questions meant to destroy his candidacy and survived.
12/11/11 5:41 AM
An astute observation. Newt's comment on the Palestinians is probably predicated on peeling dome Jewish support away from democrats and to enhance his standing with the Christian Evangelical base.
7M
I would vote for Newt before Romney.
I would vote for Romney before Perry.
I would vote for Perry before Santorum.
I would vote for Bachman before Paul.
I would vote for Paul before Daffy Duck.
I would vote for Daffy Duck before Donald Duck.
I would vote for Donald Duck before Wylie E. Coyote.
I would vote for Wylie E. Coyote before Obama.
Ann Says:
I did watch it, however, and I think it was a lively debate, despite the soporific moderators.
I thought it was an interesting play in the beginning of the debate by Stephanopoulos to try to make it into a brawl. He lost, and Newt kept his cool.
I'm with Cubanbob all the way down the line!
The House of Narcissistic Anti-Semitism.
Well, if the guy who thinks we can't afford to conduct research on climate because the need for suppressive environmental measures is so pressing gets his wish and seizes control, it will be the House of Narcissistic Ritmoism.
7M is going overboard in his advocacy for Mitt Romney, who couldn't have gotten reelected in Massachusetts and never envisioned the political liabilities his pet program would bring, but thinks he will be inevitably become President of the United States because everyone's been constantly told for the last 4 years that he's inevitable.
But we've seen other commenters go overboard trying to make the case for Gingrich, Cain, whoever their fave is or was.
By contrast, Cedarford is still the Gruppenführer. Talking about the purported moderation of various Presidential candidates must gall him, when he can't realistically expect any of them to ban all imported goods, or herd Jews and Chinese-Americans into concentration camps, or forge a Great Satan-Islamic Imperialist alliance.
While the Republican nominating process drags out, maybe all the way to the convention, Ritmo and Cedarford can entertain themselves by starting their own blog where they are the sole commenters, trading insults all day that no one else will ever read.
The rest of us may then be able to carry on some semblance of a conversation.
"I would vote for Donald Duck before Wylie E. Coyote.
I would vote for Wylie E. Coyote before Obama."
You left out Porky Pig, Pepe LePew, Little Lulu, Casper the Ghost, Yosemite Sam, Crusader Rabbit, Rocky, Bullwinkle ...
I notice that Sloppy Seconds Sorepaws still can't help himself:
we can't afford to conduct research on climate
Says who? Which models were forbidden? And how do you conduct research on an entire planet's atmosphere?
Research is what happens when you remove the extraneous variables in a controlled setting, Dummy - not when you observe a series of uncontrolled-for events and make post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious conclusions.
The rest of us may then be able to...
Ah yes. It's others who are preventing you from coming up with something worth saying.
...trading insults all day that no one else will ever read.
Thank you for admitting that you didn't read what you nevertheless felt compelled to critique.
Says who?
Said you, Ritmo.
You know, when you made your little oration on the Precautionary Principle.
And batted down the CAGW skeptics by declaring that any further research on climate is a luxury we can't afford.
You know, because suppressive measures against CO2 production have been imperative ever since Arrhenius's book came out in 1906.
Which models were forbidden?
I would assume that tests of any model of climate, or of climate change, would have to be forbidden. See also below.
But you're the one who went all-in with the Precautionary Principle, so maybe you can explain.
And how do you conduct research on an entire planet's atmosphere?
Research is what happens when you remove the extraneous variables in a controlled setting, Dummy - not when you observe a series of uncontrolled-for events and make post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious conclusions.
Well, now we know with certainty that Ritmo has never learned a lick about science.
Not all empirical research takes the form of true experiments.
Yet Ritmo is demanding that any purported research on climate or climate change employ controlled experiments, or get a Ritmocentric write-off.
Well, you can't conduct controlled experiments on our entire planet's climate. Not even Svante Arrhenius could do that.
The advocates of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change aren't conducting any true experiments on planetary climate—so, by the Ritmorific criteria, they aren't doing any research.
So Keith Briffa, Kevin Trenberth, Jim Hansen, Phil Jones, Rajendra Pachauri, Michael Mann, and the rest of the CACCistocracy, have merely observed a series of uncontrolled events and engaged in a lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Uh oh.
Give it up, Ritmo.
Boundless malice won't make you successful at argument.
Especially when it is accompanied by such boundless stupidity.
I enjoy a lot by read your post.This is one of the cheerful post.Thanks for your collection
Android app developers
I should examine with you here, which isn’t something I normally do! I get pleasure from studying a post that can make people think. Additionally, thanks for allowing me to comment!
*if you buy something, example; coffee or keurig b60, you can read this for your information, because they have a good content for custumer guide..
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন