A relaxed and self-assured Mitt Romney sailed above the fray at a crucial debate on Saturday night as his Republican rivals engaged in a spirited fight to determine which of them would emerge as his most formidable opponent when the party’s nominating contest moves past New Hampshire.
January 7, 2012
I mostly missed tonight's debate, but who didn't?
It's Saturday night, and there was that football game. But supposedly...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
You need at least two candidates that aren't a joke to have a meaningful debate (or primary).
I thought the Detroit Lions did a good job but Mitt Romney was just too strong for them.
Did Mitt Romney really say that he thought Griswold was wrongly decided?
Andy Borowitz tweets: When Gingrich talks about "moving to a 21st century model," Callista better watch her back.
The question on contraception was really muddled by the moderator/questioner, but I thought Romney's response was equally bad - it's as if a Harvard Law grad (and IIRC, a Harvard Law Review Editor) was barely aware of Griswold. Not very impressive. I was watching the Saints take care of business, but the Missus watched the entire debate and said Newt was getting all the applause moments.
Marriage is for procreation.
So when is Meadhouse going to give birth?
If you are going to post about Santorum's gay stance, or non gay stance, then better to also post about his hetero marriage stance.
And throw in some contraception in there while you are it darling.
And you wonder why the fags are basically nonexistent here now. Except, of course, republican fags.
Andy R.,
You need at least two candidates that aren't a joke to have a meaningful debate (or primary).
Well they had six - but not one sporting a ball cap to one side.
That is what makes someone a joke, ain't it?
"Well they had six - but not one sporting a ball cap to one side.
That is what makes someone a joke, ain't it?"
I must apologize Crack but I feel the need to correct you.
Wearing a baseball hat to the side does not make one a joke, it makes one a douche bag.
Please use the proper terms.
One of the things that atheists like to tell religious people is that although there are a ton of gods created by humans, atheists don't believe in any of them, and religious people don't believe in any of them except for one. For an atheist, it's easy to look at Zeus and Ganesh and Yahweh and Muhammad etc. and say they don't believe in any of them, and most religious people can look at the dozens of other gods out there and realize they were all created by man, but they cling to the one god of the religion that they believe in.
Something similar is happening in the Republican primary among the Republicans who are trying to pretend that a primary is still happening. I understand it's really problematic, for a number of reasons, to admit that Romney has wrapped this up, so they are trying to pretend that someone is still challenging him. But the really funny thing is that the rubes here cannot agree on who the challenger actually is.
Some people are rooting for Perry, so they admit that Paul and Gingrich and Huntsman and Santorum are all a joke (as were Cain and Bachmann as well), but Perry is the one and somehow he is going to shake that image of being a mildly-mentally-retarded version of Bush and get a second surge in the polls and blah blah blah but it's hard to take it seriously it's such a joke.
Other people think Gingrich is the one remaining non-joke candidate, and even though he gave a speech that all but announced that he knows he's out of it and he's just going to stick around to attack Romney, somehow he is going to be the nominee.
Watching these discussion threads where people admit all the non-Romneys are a joke except the one person they are rooting for are so funny and sad at the same time because you people can't decide who the non-joke candidate is and you don't realize that you all admit some of the candidates are jokes, but I'm the crazy one because I see they are all jokes.
And I think with her treatment of tonight's debate, our host has indicated she is done pretending to take any of these joke candidates seriously as well.
Perhaps in a later thread we can attempt to diagnose why people thought any of the other candidates stood a chance against Romney, and what it says about the Republican party that they were only able to field a single credible candidate in the primary (at a time when Obama was allegedly so unpopular) .
Christopher,
I must apologize Crack but I feel the need to correct you.
Wearing a baseball hat to the side does not make one a joke, it makes one a douche bag.
Please use the proper terms.
Dear Christopher,
Why yes,...yes, I see it now - he IS a douche! Glory be, I don't know how I missed that!
Well, I kinda do. I mean, for two centuries the Democrats are slave holders and rooting for the KKK, and then, as the next century unfolds, they're white guys sporting their hats sideways and trying to convince me to side with them like it's "all good." What a douchey thing to do, huh?
Listen, Chris, man - may I call you Chris? No need to apologize. If anything, I should thank you because you've taught me a valuable lesson today:
Democrats BEFORE they start wearing their hats sideways - a "joke."
Democrats AFTER they start wearing their hats sideways - a "douche."
Joke/douche/joke/douche - whew!
Jumpin' Jehosephat, wait until my friends hear THIS,...
Me: There are no serious challengers to Mittens because all the other candidates are jokes.
"There is real concern that [Mitt] Romney will win without having to face one concentrated effort of a conservative challenger,"
-Richard Land, one of the most well-known Southern Baptist leaders in the nation, told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell.
Fascinating!
Don't know about the Republican candidates, but Crack seems to have won the Althouse debate tonight with a strong second to Christopher.
Shit! Can't help it ! Crack Rocks!!
The "great debate" amounted to watching a team of dedicated Obama promoters working for ABC News pose and show off for their skills to their friends.
They sicced Ron Paul as their rabid attack dog to ridicule the GOP candidates.
Paul was continually thrown openings to use up the airtime repeating his paranoid, drooling world view that says the other GOP candidates are fools.
And their responding to Paul as a respected man made them look like fools for being used that way.
Drudge's headline: "STEPHANOPO-MESS" The audience actually booed him at one point. The moderator getting booed, that's got to be a first. The ABC News team was unbearable bias. Bad "debate".
Andy - your god / athiesm analogy is pretty interesting, but here's the thing.
If we accept your premise that all but Romney are "jokes," then there is one inescapable conslusion you may not want to face. As much of a "joke" as Perry or Gingrich or Santorum or Huntsman or even "crazy eye" Michelle may be, based on resume and views, each one of them is less of a joke candidate than Obama was. Republicans take experience, accomplishment and leadership seriously when nominating a man or woman for president, which gives you ample opportunity to observe our sharp criticism of our choices. If only the Democrats had similar standards, the country would perhaps not be in its weakest state in decades.
It's much simpler for the Democrats - they just have to choose between the African-American and the Woman.
I only caught the tail end of the debate. The moderators asked one of those stupid fluff questions: "What would you be doing tonight if you weren't here in this debate?" Most of the group answered well, but not Newt. He said "I'd be watching the college championship basketball game." Romney corrected him.
The question on contraception was really muddled by the moderator/questioner, but I thought Romney's response was equally bad - it's as if a Harvard Law grad (and IIRC, a Harvard Law Review Editor) was barely aware of Griswold.
Why should anybody answer a ridiculous hypothetical?
Why not ask them how will we adjust the tax rate when the flat rate becomes law...in a week?
I have never heard ABC asking Obama what happens when people don't believe the US is a worthwhile credit risk...which is a markedly more plausible scenario then a state just deciding to ban contraception.
And why would it matter what a President thought about that in the first place? They would have zero involvement.
The lons id a good job but the only thing refs did not do was score by themselves. Onceand again they called wrong way against Detroit.Yes, the inthe stanford running they were right but a couple of right calls dont erase the awfull game calling
An ex-dem operative moderating a repub debate and coming off boorishly? Unheard of!!! Steffi is no Tim Russert, that's for sure.
Hatboy template employed on most of his posts:
Republican candidate X is a joke. Doesn't that make me smart?
wv - bilec
Hatboy said
"...but I'm the crazy one because I see they are all jokes."
It takes one to know one.
Can I let you in on a little secret?
You would be one of the last people any independent-thinking citizen would listen to for insight into what the repubs should or should not do.
I hope that saves you from wasting your time in the future.
Going through life crooked-hatted and dumb is no way to live.
After every debate, I puzzle to myself, "what is it about Huntsman I find so off putting?" He seems to have common sense, he's pro business and has walked the walk in the policies he put in place while governor of Utah.
But....there's just an Eddie Haskell vibe to him. Smugly spouting off something in Mandarin just doesn't cut it.
Griswald (not even Clark) was not mentioned in the debate. It was an irrelevant question poised for the purpose of showing Romney was against women's rights. Done by a Clinton flack who poses as a jounalist.
The Griz spin came later from the genius Debbie W-S.
The question about contraception was George Clinton's attempt to construct a Strawman. "The Republicans want to take away your contraception!"
I agree with Michaele on Huntsman, The Eddie Haskell comparison is perfect. He looks good on paper and I have tried to like him, but every time I start to warm up to him he makes a Nirvana reference or starts speaking Chinese and ruins the mood.
"...The Eddie Haskell comparison is perfect"
Hat tip to Meade for using the perfect term to describe Huntsman in a past thread.
'Smarmy'.
Andy, it seems as though within seconds of Althouse's posting anything about the Republican primaries, you show up to tell us how stuuuuupid! stuuupid!! hahahahaha!!! the republicans are. Two questions:
1) do you have it scripted, or do you sit there feverishly hitting 'refresh' every few seconds all day long; and
2) don't you think it's about time to think of something (anything!) new to say?
We know what we will get if any one of the candidates beat Obama. Nothing. More of the same. Hot Air and bullshit.
We did not know how the playoff game would pan out though. Which would most rather watch? Good ole American football or just more crap from our politicians.
"And you wonder why the fags are basically nonexistent here now. Except, of course, republican fags."
No, actually we don't.
My 18 year old football player son watched a great deal of it while I watched football. My son liked Newt most and then Mitt. After those two, the life factor seemed to drop sharply. He based his opinions primarily on foreign policy responses, which I found interesting.
Hmm... Andy R. is a non-Republican fag and he comments here a lot. I'm a non-Republican fag, and I've been hanging around here for 6 years or so... Chuck B. is a fag and not a Republican as far as I know. Likewise sonicfrog & coketown. Hell, even Zachary Paul Sire can't seem to stay away, and he's certainly not a Republican.
And of course Beth, the non-Republican lesbian, has commented here for a long time.
In fact there's only one supposed fag who comments here regularly who claims to be a Republican, though that claim, like almost everything that commenter writes, is dubious.
Post a Comment