Normally I'm not a big Rick Santorum fan. But his warning to Trump is spot on. Glad to see a party mainstay show some backbone. As White House lawyers begin researching impeachment procedures, former senator and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Friday night the GOP is nowhere near supporting such a move, but warned President Donald Trump that "this can't continue for a whole lot longer." Santorum voted to convict former President Bill Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice during his impeachment trial in 1999. (Reminder- he was acquitted in the end.) Santorum believes that as of May 19, Republicans would currently oppose impeachment. But then he showed some surprising independence and backbone and cautioned that things could change dramatically if damaging revelations continue to plague the Trump administration. "Unlike Democrats, who will never break with a president, no matter what they do -- I mean I don't care, they can find him with a smoking gun and a picture, they wouldn't break with him -- Republicans will," he warned. "So I would say this to President Trump: This can't continue for a whole lot longer."
Have the Republican leadership completely forgotten how to be Republicans? This is an absolutely terrible bill. Instead of coming up with a bill that helps provide access to healthcare, and makes insurance and/or insurance more affordable, it raises the cost of coverage for those who let coverage lapse (which is more often than not the individuals who couldn't afford it so they had to stop paying), and puts in more government involvement. Pres. Trump never made any promises about his future plan except "it would be the best plan ever." This is what happens when you vote for a man who never laid out any actual plans, just empty promises. And a man who values his own ego and checkbook more than party values or the citizens of his country. http://cnnmon.ie/2lybWgc
First, I think President Obama decided to listen during his debate prep sessions finally. He must have figured out that "hope" isn't an actual debate strategy.
That's not to see Governor Romney didn't bring is A game. I believe he did. But the match was more evenly balanced this time.
The big hot topics that emerged from the debate-
1. "Binders full of women."
I admit I did not hear this line the first time around. I was listening as I drove in the car, and missed this entire segment. I was surprised when I got online later that this statement, "binders full of women," was such a big deal. I was very curious what it could be about, because all I could find were people mocking the phrase, but no one saying what it meant, or what was wrong with it. I imagined it to be some horrible thing. I was actually incredibly disappointed to find what a benign statement it really was.
To be honest, it was awkward phrasing, but really, what was so wrong with it?? I don't get it.
2. Libya
Oy vey.
I never have liked Candy Crowley, in spite of my love for CNN. She just really likes to tell people they are wrong and to be critical. I honestly don't think she is more Obama than Romney. She just really likes to correct people, and in this case, she picked poorly. But I actually put the blame for this little moment of confusion on Romney for not fully explaining things. "Act of terror." He should have better explained that calling it an "act of terror," and yet, not terrorism, were not the same thing. But shame on Candy Crowley for not being a better moderator and asking him to explain himself, rather than cutting things off. Even Obama looks a little confused as to what went down.
And the correction admission
3. President Obama's speaking style.
IT HURTS MY EARS.
I bet everyone else with ADD like me is incapable of listening to him for more than a minute. There's so much dead air I lose focus and move on to shiny objects reflecting off the stage lights or counting freckles on the back of my hand. For the love, Mr. President, SPIT IT OUT!
You may want to complain that Obama got 3 more minutes of time than Romney did. But really, he just took up time. It wasn't speaking time. He likes to (pause) speak in (pause) short (pause) staccato (pause) phrases followed by a quick jumbled line altogether when he (pause) doesn't (pause) have a teleprompter to keep him together. (Pause..........................)
I haven't live blogged an event in a while! This will be fun!
11:15- I'd have to say Mitt Romney nailed it tonight. Powerful, strong, emotional, and very passionate. No more robot Mitt. Pretty dang amazing. Very very good. Loved it!!
Ok, except he kind of looks odd standing on the stage all by himself right now. Where are the balloons, Ryan, and his family?
Phew, there's Ryan. That was awkward for 5 seconds there.
Ok, NOW BRING ON THE BALLOONS.
Yeah, there they are! Finally. Now, where are the families? Strange backstage screwup going on!
11:07- Ha! What did I say? NOW he says protect religion, life, and marriage. All those same virtues he showcased with the previous speakers and videos!
LOVE IT-- "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and
heal the planet. MY promise...is to help you and your family."
"America, he said, had dictated to other nations. No Mr. President, America has freed other nations from dictators."
And now they are 10 minutes overtime. WOW.
11:05- Mitt is still talking. But I got distracted by shiny things right about the same point he got on to the policy stuff. Oops. Time to listen again.
11:04- and the RNC has officially gone over time! (Can someone text me the BYU score please?)
And look, I found the Clint Eastwood bit-
10:55- Mitt is really channeling his inner-Reagan tonight. Being fatherly, kind, trusting.
OMG he made a Mormon joke!! I never thought I'd see that!
Staples has got to be loving all the free press these days!
It was gutsy, but I like how Mitt just compared Bain to Apple and Steve Jobs. VERY gutsy. I expect that will get cut and edited into a negative commercial soon enough. But in context, it was good.
Every time I hear someone make the "better off than you were 4 years ago" bit, I really want to stand up and tell my story. Few people can compare with how much more worse off I am today than I was four years ago. Hey, Romney Camp, you should put me in a commercial! I'm your poster girl, right here!
10:50- "That morning there was no rose." I guarantee you that story goes down in history. Sounds like a classic, timeless romance for the ages!
I've noticed that the Romney camp isn't saying the words, "family values." Instead, they just keep talking about being a family. And they have really talked about love and marriage, rather than talk negative about other marriage issues (gay marriage, anyone?). Makes me curious if we'll see something about divorce and helping families make money so moms can stay home in a Romney presidency??
10:47- MITT FINALLY SAID MORMON!!!
10:43- Someone has already created an "InvisibleObama" twitter account. And it is pretty funny stuff. And it has 17,000 followers in less than half an hour. (Anderson Cooper will be so jealous.)
"When the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American." and "God Bless Neil Armstrong." - Awesome quotes!
10:38- Mitt's making jokes and talking about Paul Ryan. Interesting choice. Also, I like his suit.
So how long till someone starts talking about the price of Ann Romney's dress?
Hmm... multiple Cuba comments tonight. Foreshadowing perhaps?
Romney is not pulling his punches tonight. LOVE IT.
"It is what Americans deserve!" And then he has to pause for a long standing chanting ovation!
10:30- One of the best Rubio lines of the night, "Dad stood behind a bar in the back of the room all those years, so one
day I could stand behind a podium in the front of a room."
10:26- Food for thought- but how the heck did the tightly run ship that is the Romney campaign just let Eastwood get away with that? Was he really allowed to go completely rogue like that? Strange. Especially right after all the touchy feely stories and videos. (But I still liked it.)
10:20- this is the first time I've actually ever listened to Rubio speak. He's much better than I expected. Now I get the hype.
"He's not a bad person. The problem is he's a bad president." Well said, Senator.
10:17- Marco Rubio, "I think I just drank Clint Eastwood's water. Thank YOU!" Awesome!
10:15- Who knew the RNC could turn into a standup routine?
10:05- Clint Eastwood is obviously not using a teleprompter. Either that, or he forgot his glasses. LOVING this ad-libbed empty chair bit. "No, I can't tell him to go do that to himself!" You know that didn't get run past the RNC!
I kinda love Eastwood right now.
I can't wait to watch this all over again in a few minutes on YouTube.
"I'm sorry, I can't do that to myself either."
Yes, that line is trending on Twitter too. AS IT SHOULD.
10:02- YES! Eastwood's entrance does NOT disappoint!
10:00- where have all these awesome videos of Mitt been this whole time? These are great!
9:55- It is nice to see Ann Romney is as much as a natural blonde as I am.
OOH! There's a rumor on Twitter that Eastwood is a decoy. The real surprise might be W?? We shall see... any second now!
9:53- Sen. Marco Rubio's people just tweeted (because I seriously doubt he just said this standing backstage) "No matter how you feel about @BarackObama personally, this election is about your future, not his. #RomneyRyan2012#AmericanMiracle"
9:51- Bebe Winans was pretty dang amazing. But you know what will be more amazing? Clint Eastwood, especially if he says, "Mr. President, GET OFF OUR LAWN!" (I wish)
9:48- of all things, my comment about Jane Edmonds is getting retweeted like crazy. go figure.
9:46- Bebe Winans- now this should be good!
9:36 Took me way too long to figure out why Olympians would be at the RNC. Duh. I get it. But where are the Fab Five Gymnasts? Left out because they aren't old enough to vote yet?
9:34- phew! I remembered I was on DVR delay. Didn't have to watch that after all!
9:32- Who the heck picked Taylor Hicks to sing? Which reminds me, did anyone catch SEVEN, the opera group that sang the national anthem? They gave me chills. It was incredible!
9:28- CNN and MSNBC didn't show this. I am so grateful someone posted this on youtube so quickly!
9:22- I like Jane Edmonds. She's got spunk. A black, liberal, democrat woman is speaking at the RNC- now that's not something you see every day!
9:20 - C-span it is!
9:14 .@cnn seriously? your forcing your pundits on us? i'd much rather hear the speakers!! we're not watching to hear the arguments. #rnc
I'm forced to change channels. Again.
9:01- that didn't last long. I'm back to CNN. I really can't stand MSNBC.
Extraordinarily moving talk by Ted and Pat Oparowski about how Mitt #Romney befriended their dying son. So sad and poignant. #rnc
8:57- I was just forced to change channels away from CNN. PBS has Haley Barbour- can't stand that. And now I'm stuck with MSNBC. I may cry.
8:55- Can't remember his name to save my life, but I recognize someone over the shoulder of Piers Morgan.
8:51- I think the Oparowskis may have just won the election for Mitt! That was moving!
Ooh, CNN, you are making me mad. I see on Twitter there are more interesting speakers going on, and you're making me listen to Piers Morgan talk trash about Romney. RUDE! (And I was your one last fan!)
8:51- Wow. LDS, Mormon, and Mitt Romney are all trending on Twitter.
8:45: Unrelated: My dog has the hiccups. It is incredibly distracting &
alarming. Will she vomit, or won't she? More importantly, where will
she?
8:30: "Pure religion is to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction." Grant Bennett. As a Mormon, I say he nailed it
Tagg Romney just tweeted: Cool shot of Craig speaking and Mom watching w pride. #littlebrothershttp://instagr.am/p/O-MrKbkLjO/
7:30 - So who thinks we are going to see Callista Gingrich run for office soon?
Do political gaffes matter?
I was about to say no.
But then I thought, "What would Rick Perry say?"
President Obama said on Friday that “the private sector is doing fine.” Was this "gaffe" taken out of context for cable news ratings?
Let's go to the tape and hear what he said in context-
Nope, I'm going to go with- he completely meant what he said, and he wasn't taken out of context. (As compared to, let's say, the Romney "gaffe," where he said he "likes to fire people." Watch the link, and you realize that that is only a gaffe when taken out of context. In context, I think what he said is something nearly every single American agrees with! We like being able to fire service providers who do a bad job and hire better ones!)
Now, President Obama would like us to believe he didn't mean what he said. And maybe he didn't. I mean, he only explained himself quite well for over a minute.
It's not like very specifically suggested that the people need to give more money to the government. Because that just sounds a little bit too much like Prince John and Robin Hood, doesn't it?
Authors argue that video games and porn create "arousal addictions"
Young guys are digitally rewired in a new way that demands constant stimulation
Video games go wrong when the person playing them is desensitized to reality
Here's my question to the world today- how long until this becomes a political issue? It is already being addressed in churches and schools. And that tends to be where issues originate before moving into politics. (For instance homosexuality, women's reproductive rights, etc.)
So when will they become political issues? And when it happens, which side will the different parties take?
Yes, I am admittedly a huge AC360 fan. Even if I wasn't already, I would be now after seeing this great interview with Rep. Maloney.
If you have ever wanted to see a liberal feminist taken to task for random attacks and stupid associations, this is the clip for you.
My favorite part is when she attempts to accuse Big Oil of taking away women's reproductive rights, or something like that. I really can't tell at all what Big Oil has to do with anything.
Last week Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, a democrat, said,
“[Romney’s] family came from a polygamy commune in Mexico, but then
he’d have to talk about his family coming from a polygamy commune in
Mexico, given the gender discrepancy. [....Women are] not great fans of
polygamy, 86 percent were not great fans of polygamy. I am not alleging
by any stretch that Romney is a polygamist and approves of [the]
polygamy lifestyle, but his father was born into [a] polygamy commune in
Mexico.”
What he said tonight on Anderson Cooper 360
AC: You raised a lot of eyebrows in a comment to the Daily Beast saying that Romney's family comes from a polygamist commune in Mexico. Is that fair game? Is that fair to talk about?
BS (hey, it isn't my fault those are his initials): People took it way off base. I didn't say anything about any religion. I just said, as you mentioned earlier, that the Mormon religion hasn't accepted polygamy in 120 years. Mitt Romney, and his family, that I know of, doesn't accept polygamy today. The concern is that he took far right turns during the primary, including with immigration. And his opponents criticized him... (he then goes off on self-deportation).
AC: But in this interview you mention 6 or 7 times that his family was born into a polygamy commune in Mexico, repeatedly mentioning that. It was Romney's great-grandfather that practiced polygamy in the 1800s. Is that fair to raise that? Because Democrats were outraged when people brought up Obama's grandfather.
BS: People are taking this far away from what I was discussing. Romney currently has a problem with Latino voters. It is ironic that his father comes from Mexico. He should embrace his roots.
AC: But you were saying he had a woman problem because he doesn't want to talk about Mexico because of polygamy connection.
BS: He has both a gender gap and he has a Latino gap. Probably bigger than anyone who has run for president in recent years. The point is, now how can he reach to the middle?
INTERJECTION- why the heck is a Democrat governor from Montana even talking about the ways a GOP candidate should appeal to the middle, and complaining that he took "right turns?" Ironic that most Republicans cite Romney being too middle and moderate for their taste. Again, I ask, why is this guy offering advice?!
Ralph Reed then joined the conversation, really taking Schweitzer to task for bringing up religion, and called the dog and grandparent issues in the campaign silly. Cooper again brought in some tough questions, and Schweitzer responded by getting very defensive, and called Reed "cowboy," and continued to claim he wasn't making religious references. To which Reed said if comments like that keep up it would come off as a whisper campaign by the Obama side.
What do you think? You obviously know what I think.
Also worth pointing out, while CNN/AC360 may have come down tough on Gov Schweitzer, they also did a several minute piece from Mexico, talking to Romney's distant cousins, who have never even met him. And really dug in on polygamy roots and Mormon colonies.
And the Ridiculist was awesome. The Family Research Council saying the "break up" of Mike and Ike candy is the divorce of a gay marriage? We are talking about candy, right? Two faceless pieces of candy are now in a gay marriage? Talking about taking something too far.
Hilary Rosen, a Democratic National Committee political consultant, former Huffington Post editor, spin doctor, and overall liberal woman, was playing the part of talking head last night on CNN's AC360, when she was talking about the so-called, "War on Women," (which she says is a Republican term, not a Democrat term. I beg to differ. I say it is a media term, created by people like her for shock value.) and Romney's supposed problem with women voters, and the economy, when she said, “His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the
kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country
are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to
school and how do we — why we worry about their future.”
Hear it in context for yourself-
Just two hours later, Ann Romney and the Romney camp launched a new Twitter account for Ann Romney (@AnnDRomney). Her maiden tweet-
Less than an hour later, the Romney's son Josh came to his mother's defense as well.
Shortly after that, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina tweeted: “I could
not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were
wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize.”David Axelrod, Obama’s top strategist, tweeted: “Also Disappointed in
Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and
offensive.”
And Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, tweeted:
“Families must be off limits on campaigns, and i personally believe stay
at home moms work harder than most of us do.”
This all happened after 10 pm Wednesday night. To say it is the topic of the morning is an understatement.
Rosen, as of 10 am, has not yet apologized. But she did get pretty defensive online. Both she and Romney are making the rounds on talk shows this morning.
Via Twitter, Rosen said, (in this order)
9:55 pm: When I said @AC360 Ann Romney never worked I meant she never had to care for her kids AND earn a paycheck like MOST American women! #Truth
9:59 pm: Mitt Romney is running for President, not Ann. He hired only 10%women at
Bain; now makes up false concern for women's economic struggle.
10:09 pm: I've nothing against @AnnRomney. I just don't want Mitt using her as an expert on women struggling $ to support their family. She isn't.
10:11 pm @donnapt My point is that he should stop saying that she is his guide to women's economic problems. She doesn't have any. #IsntItObvious?
10:16 pm @morningmoneyben When Mitt says he listens to her about women's economic problems, it is fair to wonder why?
(10:18 pm- Ann Romney's tweet)
10:35 pm Bring it on!"@samsteinhp: i go away for 45 minutes and suddenly @hilaryr has become a campaign story despite not working for any campaign"
10:56 pm @AnnDRomney I am raising children too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children. You know that don't u?
10:58 pm @AnnDRomney Please know, I admire you. But your husband shouldn't say you are his expert on women and the economy. #HeNeedsMore
11:05 pm oh and @AnnDRomney welcome to Twitter. You will find it a very exhilarating and often unforgiving place!
Let's point out, just for fun, that Rosen defended her point of view five times before Romney even joined Twitter. This isn't an Ann v. Hilary war. This is conservative mothers v. Rosen war.
This isn't the first time we've seen Democrats accuse Republican, family-first, women of not having "real jobs." In 2004, Teresa Heinz Kerry, the incredibly wealthy heiress and wife of Senator and presidential wannabe John Kerry, said of Laura Bush, "... has actually never worked a day in her life, ... She's never
really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the
women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids,
how do we send them to school and how do we -- why we worry about their
future."
(Great irony in the fact that Teresa Heinz Kerry was born with a silver spoon in her mouth, while Laura Bush was a school teacher in the projects, and was anything but a wealthy child.)
But back to Rosen and Romney.
The backlash on Twitter has been fascinating. There are several interesting hashtags circulating to promote stay at home mothers, Ann Romney, and more. Some of my favorites have been #MomsDoWork, #WarOnAnnRomney, #WeLoveAnnRomney, and #Rosengate.
The support for Rosen has been fairly weak on Twitter. A quick search on her name shows very few people backing her up. Most "retweets" of her comments were by Romney supporters who added on insults to Rosen.
CNN tends to have a policy of not throwing their own under the bus. They are running a blog piece on it, but haven't distanced themselves or anything from her comments. Before anyone goes crying liberal foul, that has always been the CNN style. They just stay quiet, and don't flail their people publicly. Fox News, on the other hand, will have Ann Romney appearing live in just 15 minutes. That network is having a field day with the comments.
Rosen is a highly paid DNC consultant, bringing in over $200,000 for her work there. She was the chair and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) as well, a job with a fairly substantial paycheck. She was also the director of the Human Rights Campaign. She and her former partner, Elizabeth Birch, have twins together.
Is anyone surprised at all that a fairly wealthy, pro-LGBT activist, and Democratic consultant, has a problem with Ann Romney's idyllic life? After all, Ann Romney is everything Rosen sees as the enemy- pretty, straight women, raising successful, conservative, rich sons!
At the end of all this, I think the GOP needs to send Rosen a thank you card. She just did what they have struggled all along to do- unite conservatives behind Romney!
Hey, Rick Santorum, you just won the Louisiana primary, now what are you going to do?
More of the same. Talk about Mitt Romney, give him lots of free press, and then cuss out a NY Times Reporter.
“If you haven’t cursed out a New York Times reporter during the course
of a campaign, you’re not really a real Republican, is the way I look at
it,” Santorum told Fox News.
On CNN his spox with the funny hair tried to convince John King that Santorum is "an Italian guy from a steel town who knows how to finish a fight."
Sounds like the Santos are sending up a test balloon to see if the tough guy thing works against clean cut Romney. Speaking of which, what was Santorum talking about when he called BS? Romney. What else? It's all he ever talks about.
In fact, let's look at everything Santorum talked about today.
He paid a little visit to the Supreme Court where the constitutionality of Obamacare was discussed (if you are a Republican, that is what you think they are talking about anyway). Let's all take a moment to recall that the former Senator from Pennsylvania has absolutely no influence over the SCOTUS whatsoever (and he's not even on the DC ballot. But I do sincerely hope that he got to go to his home in the DC suburbs, see his little daughter, and sleep in his own bed for a night. Because it really sounds like he needs a good night's sleep.)
While standing on those hallowed grounds, just a few feet away from his former Hill offices, he said,
Mitt Romney should be in Washington, D.C. while the
Supreme Court hears a challenge to the national health care law, Rick
Santorum said Monday.
"Mitt Romney's 3,000 miles away. He should be here. He doesn't want to talk about the issue because he
can't on substance disagree with the policies of this administration."
He also responded to suggestions from
the Romney camp that his little outburst to the NY Times proves he's
unsuited to be president.
"After I won Louisiana by 23 points? I understand the game but this is, you talk about desperate
and pathetic, Mitt Romney can't run on his record."
I'd like to argue that it isn't his temper and language that makes him unsuitable. It is his inability to actually discuss a subject that isn't Mitt Romney.
So where was Mitt Romney?
In California, talking about health care and the Constitution.
"What's happening today in Washington is an attack on free enterprise,
an attack on economic freedom unlike anything we have ever seen before,"
Romney told an audience at NuVasive, a medical device company that
designs artificial spine replacements.
He did not directly discuss the Supreme Court docket, but there was a big sign over his head that said "Repeal and Replace Obamacare."
"I just don't think the president and his people understand that as
they burden enterprise with taxation and with regulation, they hurt all
of us," Romney said. He also discussed innovation and jobs creation.
A look at this evening's "top of the fold" cover on the Huffington Post is a sad look at media bias in politics. From the "Hiel Hitler" pose to the "hostile takeover" headline, there is nothing but bias in this image. And since when was a five year bid a "hostile takeover?"
I stopped watching Fox News years ago because of the hatred and vile on the network. Sure, maybe it is conservative friendly (it isn't fair and balanced, that's for sure), but I don't care to hear hatred for any party. I only read the Huffington Post to get a true liberal slant on stories for something to compare my own beliefs against. I prefer CNN because I think they actually spend more time on looking pretty and sleek graphics and theme music than they do on bias. (And because they are the only American network I can rely on to give me human rights stories.)
But if there is one thing to be learned from this political cycle it is that Mitt Romney has not won over the media. The news stories today have all been about how Romney has failed to win all Republicans. Or how the base is not yet behind him. And if I hear one more story about how the GOP doesn't have a strong candidate and may have to go to a brokered convention, I may pull my hair out.
Let's look at the straight up facts.
Romney now has 429 delegates, compared with 169 for Rick Santorum, 118 for Newt Gingrich and 67 for Ron Paul. Add it up, kids. That is 429 delegates for Romney, 354 for the other three guys combined. That is a majority of Republicans behind Romney. The other three guys put together can't outdo him. Yes, I've seen the stories about not getting enough delegates and a potential brokered convention. And if that happens, so be it. There's no point in saying "Well, historically..." anymore. This campaign cycle hasn't followed any historic patterns, so we can stop pretending it will in the future.
The plain and simple truth is that Gingrich needs to step down. He has 118 delegates, which in theory is impressive. Except 53 of those came from his own home state last night. He only got 79 delegates total last night. He came in third or fourth place in every single state except for his home state! He's not winning. His money is drying up. And he will have no momentum to move forward. He has no chance of suddenly winning at a brokered convention, although I suspect that a brokered convention would be a daydream of his. He loves history. He probably relishes the idea of a shouting match on the convention floor and the thought of being carried on the shoulders of his men through the room to the stage. But the truth is, if he hadn't been absolutely vile to the competition up to this point, if he were to drop out now, he would make a good VP. But he shot himself in the foot when it comes to that.
No one is more surprised than I am that Rick Santorum is a strong contender. And the truth is, I don't actually think he is that strong on his own merits. I think what he is is the poster child for the anti-Romney vote. I don't believe people are behind Santorum as much as they are against Romney. I believe if anything were to happen at a brokered convention that it would be a dark horse who could usurp Santorum support. And if that person were charismatic and surprising enough, he/she could really compete against Romney.
(As for Ron Paul, do I think he should bow out? Yes. But I don't think it would make any difference. I don't think his supporters would then fall behind someone else. I think they would follow him out of the party. However, I do think in the tightest races like Ohio last night, it would make a difference if there had been one less "anti-Romney" option available.)
So really, it all comes down to Romney at this point. He either has to finally, convincingly win over more voters, or we're going to a brokered convention. He's a by the book kind of guy, so I don't think we'll see any surprise moves come out of him. But if it were me, and I wanted to shake things up, I'd buck convention completely at this point and do something crazy like start talking seriously about VP possibilities. If you can't get the voters to love you, get them to love your ticket. (For instance, a Romney- Nikki Haley ticket? Who could argue with that?)
Just a little interesting moment from Twitter last night. Judging by the surprising number of retweets, I'd say I'm not alone.
I will be live blogging and tweeting throughout the night during the Arizona and Michigan returns. This will be best read from the bottom up. I will update from the top, pushing older comments down. And I will put timestamps in as often as possible.
10:18- CNN waited until Santorum started getting boring before interrupting. They have now called it for Romney as well! WOOHOO!
41% Romney
37% Santorum
12% Paul
7% Gingrich
There will still be some questions about delegates later because they follow the congressional districts.
10:14- Looks like NBC is calling it first- for Romney in Michigan! (They interrupted Santorum speech to do it.) I wonder if CNN is just being polite to Santorum and waiting a few minutes to call it themselves? Or are they just not ready yet?
10:05- just to build on my question about how many Democrats voted for Santorum versus Catholics-
Again, basic math of 100
9 Democrats voted total, of which 4.77 voted for Santorum.
22 Republicans voted for Santorum.
And 10 Independents.
That's not a good sign.
It really is looking like it will come down to about 4-5% difference in who wins. That 9% may actually make a difference, but not enough of one!
9:58- Sounds like we may be minutes away from Michigan getting called for Romney!
Meanwhile- the exit polls on religion in Michigan.
Again using very basic math on 100 people.
39 voters were white evangelicals, of which 19.5 voted for Santorum.
61 were not white evangelicals (the question not being answered if this is where Catholics would identify, but we'll assume that they would)- and 26 of them voted with Romney, and 18 for Santorum. Again, it does not look like Santorum attracted the conservative Catholic vote he was angling for.
9:50- Food for thought- something to follow up on later tonight. Rumors are coming in that Santorum lost the Catholic vote in both AZ and MI. If it is true that more Catholics voted for Romney, and Santorum's robocall strategy really has brought out several thousand Democrats, that means Santorum may very well have more Dems voting for him than his own target audience.
9:40- The question has been asked multiple times over the last few days what it means if Romney loses Michigan. I want to address that question right now while we still don't know which way MI will go.
It will mean nothing. It will be a little bee sting to the campaign, and give talking heads something to talk about. Because what would they talk about if he won? The only reason it is an issue at all is because Gingrich is trying to make it one. Gingrich who is so far behind in most states that he's hanging out in Georgia, his home state, speaking at the college he used to teach at. Georgia with its 76 proportional delegates. It's Gingrich's only chance to catch up with Santorum. He is the one making the claims that it is an insult not to win your home state, because it is his home state that is his last chance to win something. And he knows both Santorum and Romney have fierce battles in their home states.
But does it matter? No. No matter who wins- Santorum or Romney- it is going to be very, very close, and it is proportional. There is a good chance that the winner will only walk away with 3 more delegates than the other one. And Romney just won 29 delegates in AZ tonight. Just as a reminder, Gingrich only has 35 delegates total.
So if Romney doesn't win, what happens is that Gingrich has something to harp on for one week. And that is pretty much it.
9:25- For all those people who claim that Romney won Arizona because it is so heavily Mormon, please see the Exit/Entrance polls at CNN.
Let's use basic math and pretend only 100 people voted.
That would mean-
14.8 Protestants voted for Romney, 12.2 voted for Santorum
7.38 Catholics voted for Romney, 6.3 voted for Santorum
12.74 Mormons voted for Romney, 2.8 voted for Santorum
6.12 "other Christians" voted for Romney, 6.66 voted for Santorum
In other words, Romney did not win because of the Mormon vote. 28.3 of the 41 votes (so, more than half) were not Mormon. He would have won without those votes!
9:20- According to The Fix Twitter feed- Santorum is winning self identified Democrats in Michigan by a 3-1 margin over Romney and Paul, according to exits.
9:03- Arizona is a winner-take-all state. That brings Romney up to 135 delegates.
9:02- Michigan update now has Romney at 41% and Santorum at 39%. Still only 19% of the votes in. This is going to be a very long night. (Oh and Ron Paul at 11% and Gingrich with 6%!!!)
9:01- All polls closed in AZ and MI. And as the polls close, CNN calls it for Romney in Arizona with 44%, Santorum 27%, Gingrich 16%, Paul 11%.
9:00- With 14% of the votes in from Michigan: Santorum 40%, Romney 39%, Paul 11%, Gingrich 7%.
8:30- It is already a nail-biter in Michigan. Romney was leading for the past hour (1% reporting), and now it is Santorum ahead by about 600 votes (6% reporting).
6:30- CNN is already saying that Michigan will be very close, and to expect it to be a very late night. I'm prepared!
In every primary everywhere there are always rumors that the other party has been infiltrating the polls to cast protest votes. When I worked at the South Carolina campaign office we had a lot of very concerned citizens calling in to say they had "seen Democrats" at the polls. Whether or not that sort of thing is ever true or something to be worried about, we'll never really know. But today we have a very different story with the Santorum campaign actually sending out robocalls to Democrats encouraging them to come out and vote for Santorum in protest of Romney. These aren't even PAC robocalls- they are actually from the real campaign. That is just a crazy, gutsy move. CNN is already showing that 10% of voters in Michigan have been Democrats today. (That is not the same as saying 10% of Democrats voted for Santorum, but you know that won't stop the crazies from saying it that way later.)
I'm back! With another round of "I watch the debates so you don't have to!"
The first hour recap-
The "table method" of having everyone sit next to each other is definitely blocking a little bit of the physical posturing.
Romney - I'm going to take programs that are important but that could be better run at state level, and send them back to states.
Ron Paul calls Santorum a fake conservative issues.
The most interesting thing I have learned so far is that Santorum is so passionate on abstinence/birth control issues that he wanted to pass legislation to pass federal funding for teaching abstinence to counteract Title 10 Planned Parenthood legislation. Ron Paul, of course, is against spending money period, but he makes the point that Santorum voted for Title 10. Santorum was willing to pay twice for social programs, rather than not vote for the first one (Planned Parenthood) at all. Santorum loses big time on the fiscally conservative count, and backs up Paul's "fake" label.
Second hour-
Heading in to the second hour we're discussing both birth control and apparently Romneycare/Obamacare.
Santorum still lacks finesse at debating. He's bringing his A-game tonight, but he lacks the ability to regulate his emotions and channel his energy. (something Romney has perfected, and Gingrich exploits).
Romney says Santorum supporting Arlen Specter led to ObamaCare. He supported Specter over the Republican Toomey.
Santorum says he supported Specter because he thought Toomey was too conservative to win. Umm...
Apparently Gingrich still doesn't have an angle except for dropping Reagan's name. To which, I'd like to remind everyone what it is Gingrich has said about Reagan.
Ooh, after the commercial the candidate get to define themselves using one word. What word would you pick? I'm sure they are all scrambling to find a synonym for conservative right now. I would pick-
Newt- Grandiose.
What I think he will pick- Leader
Romney- business leader
What I think he will pick- Leader
Santorum- moral extremist
What I think he will pick- Conservative (he's not creative enough to find a different word)
Ron Paul- crack pot
What I think he will pick- liberty activist (because he won't play by rules)
Their actual answers- Paul: Consistent
Santorum: Courage
Romney: Resolute.
Gingrich: Cheerful.
I spit out my drink when he said cheerful.
From Twitter, Ralph Reed says "Good, spirited debate. Best by Mitt yet.
Santorum folded contraception Q into broader need to strengthen the
family. Well done. #CNNDebate"
It absolutely kills me that women in combat is even an issue. I am 100% in favor of women being equal with men in combat. If men have a problem with that, fine, they can quit and let the women take over.
How out of touch with social media is Rick Santorum? Well, he still has his endorsement of Specter up on youtube -http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9cXPSyLNgYk.
And we've moved on to Iran.
Santorum's stance- take the opposite view of VP Biden.
Romney- We simply cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. No greater obama failure than this.
Paul- We don't know if they really have a weapon.
UM??? You mean other than them showing the footage this week of Mahmoud looking at the technology???
No Child Left Behind Act Question-
Santorum voted for it. However, his answer explaining why (party politics dictated that he should). But why he doesn't believe in it now was a believable answer. He gets a pass from me (and a flipflop), but the audience boos. The reaction here sets apart anyone who has actually worked in real politics versus the armchair quarterbacks. If you've worked on the Hill, you understand where Santorum is coming from on this one. NCLB passed by a majority because the party leader said so. Before it got passed though nobody liked the final product because both sides put in too many caveats and regulations. It was not the bill the POTUS started with or wanted. But no one could back out by then. Santorum may very well have never believed in it (we'll never know), but had to vote for it, because as he said, "politics is a team sport." Boo if you want, but if you've worked in the real trenches, you know what he means.
The Twitter feedback really looks like people feel Santorum didn't do his best tonight, and that Romney has really made a comeback.
I'm looking forward to the AC360 recap after the debate to see what the "experts" think.
We've had 3 weeks and 6 beautiful days between GOP debates, but
that all changes tonight when John King and Wolf Blitzer take to the
CNN stage again.
A lot has changed in the last four weeks. First and foremost, Rick
Santorum grew a spine, and Newt Gingrich drifted off into
irrelevancy. Mitt Romney has lost his favored status, and Ron Paul
continues to be, well, Ron Paul.
Tonight the candidates won't be trying to appeal to just one
state, but instead will be trying to appeal to both Arizona and
Michigan- two very different states, with very different issues. On
top of that, there won't be another debate before the real Super
Tuesday next week. So chances are good we won't see pandering to any
one state like we did with Gingrich and the moon colony in Florida.
Rick Santorum has the most to lose tonight. He has been running on
a social conservative platform since day one. And now, he's finally
turned the tide and made everyone else talk about it too. But
considering the extremist views he has, the real question is how long
can that last?
Santorum has not performed well in any of the debates so far. He
hasn't performed badly, he just has failed to connect or make an
impact. And because debating hasn't been his strong suit, expect both
Romney and Gingrich to capitalize on that.
If it is Santorum that wins, it will be considered Romney that
lost. Romney absolutely has to connect with the voters, and he needs
to re-establish his Superman-bullet-deflecting-Teflon-armor persona
where the attacks just bounce off of him. I predict we will not see
Romney engage with Santorum or vice versa. Both will go after Obama
instead. Gingrich, as always, will be the wild card. Will he attack
Romney and Santorum, or go after Obama? If he goes after Obama, we
may be in for one really dull debate where no one is willing to
confront each other. But Romney and Santorum would both be wise to
take on Gingrich if he's not too much of a loose cannon. Taking on
each other is too risky and admits the other is the competition.
Shutting Gingrich up just makes people like you more.
Gingrich has everything at stake. If there is anything we have
learned in the last 4 weeks it is that he fails to be relevant or
interesting if he's not fighting on stage. I expect he will come out
swinging, and that we may see the return of Grandiose Newt tonight.
Some would suggest that he would be up for an image change right now.
Gingrich doesn't do that, he refuses to change. He will definitely be
the unknown factor tonight.
Ron Paul- why does he even show up at these things?
Some interesting other notes-
Tonight the debate will be held at a desk and everyone will be
sitting. This may put a small damper on Gingrich's literal posturing
and strutting.
The debate is being held in Mesa, Arizona, a VERY Mormon friendly
town, on a Catholic holy day. It will be interesting to see how
religious attitudes effect the proceedings.
The real winner of this debate? CNN and Wolf Blitzer. In spite of this being the umpteenth debate and viewers being completely tired of the same old questions, Blitzer managed to bring his A game and keep things lively. And lively they were. Newt Gingrich thought he could start off using his well-honed Saul Alinsky tactics, and hack Mitt Romney off at the knees and attack Blitzer at the same time. It took two seconds to see that the tables have turned. Romney came out swinging and didn't back down. And Blitzer didn't back down either. Gingrich was outplayed at his own game, and spent the entire night swinging wildly without connecting. Gingrich insulted and jabbed, then looked to the audience for affirmation. But affirmation didn't come. Instead Blitzer reminded Gingrich that he's tried these attacks before, and how about trying to say these things to Romney's face.
Turns out Gingrich is all bark and little bite.
The crowd turned on Gingrich. They laughed. They jeered. And stood and cheered for Romney as he put Gingrich back in his place.
But Romney wasn't safe either. Blitzer played fair and launched into a Romney tax
question designed to put him in the hot seat. Romney took it, flipped it, and made it about Gingrich.
The nailbiting moment of the night was when Gingrich accused Romney of investing in Fannie and Freddie. (Which begs the question, which is more condemnable- consulting for millions in fees for them? Or investing in them like millions of Americans have done?)
But! Romney shocked us all by sharing that Gingrich too had invested in them. The look on Gingrich's face was priceless. You could almost see the steam coming from his ears. Bested at his own game. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul were nearly invisible for the first twenty minutes, with the exception of a very touching moment at the opening when Santorum introduced his "date" for the night- his 90 year old mother in the audience. The crowd didn't hold back in giving her the applause she deserved. Whether or not you plan to vote for him, you have to admit, she has raised a very good man.
Truth is, Santorum had his best night yet. Romney came off the winner, soundly pounding Gingrich into the ground. But my prediction is that we don't see Gingrich fence-sitters run to Romney. It is Santorum that will gain new supporters this week, demobilizing the Gingrich base.
Romney and Gingrich quite frankly sparred and insulted like jilted ex-wives, but Romney didn't lose his cool. The same cannot be said for Gingrich.
Additionally, Romney finally gave a strong answer on
his wealth with a testimonial of capitalism and self-made men. And the crowd loved it all.
Santorum did knock Romney down a peg or two on Romneycare. He made excellent points and proved himself to be stronger and knowledgeable than he usually does in debates.
Ron Paul knows he has nothing to gain in Florida. It is a winner take all state, and he's in fourth place. He didn't waste his energy pandering to pork-barrel ideas, or making empty promises. (A colony on the moon, Newt? Really? In this economy, and with all of the problems around the world, and you want to pander to the Space Coast with a moon colony??) Instead he served mostly as the comic relief for the night, which was very welcome between the intense sparring moments. As usual he had a few completely left field moments about foreign policy that failed to connect, but really, he had a good night.
Now we just sit back and wait for the poll numbers to roll in. Can Romney hold on to his lead until the actual vote on Tuesday? Will Santorum be a real threat? Will any one of them suddenly produce new dirt at the last minute that destroys the competition (again)?
There was a lot of discussion and confusion on Twitter regarding Romney's possible blind trust that invested in Fannie and Freddie. During the debate he claimed that any investments he may have made in them were done by a blind trust, and therefore out of his control. However, by the end of the debate Twitter was alight with the news that this may not be true. Look for this to possibly turn into a news story if Romney was wrong. However, is it really that bad? Find just one home-owning American with a mutual fund that hasn't had some involvement with Fannie and Freddie. There's at least one American who made over a million dollars consulting for them!
Let's take a quick look at the FL polls before everything changes all over again. This is honestly the craziest thing I have ever seen. Romney is ahead, ahead, ahead, and then Gingrich comes out as the biggest jerk alive, and suddenly Gingrich jumps 20 points? And then, in those 5 days that are missing in the middle there, Gingrich slowly slips back down, and Romney scoots a wee bit up. And now, incomprehensibly, they are pretty much tied in Florida?
Unfortunately, this yet again means that the debate on Thursday night is going to change everything. At least, that is what we have seen every.single.freaking.debate. thus far.
Do we really want to see Romney and Gingrich go round and round again? I submit no. But that won't change anything. I've looked online and can't figure out who will be hosting the debate tomorrow night. It is being co-sponsored by CNN, the Republican Party of Florida, and the Hispanic Leadership Network. My guess is it won't be John King alone up there. But I really do hope we see John King attack Newt.
Expect the questions tomorrow night to be focused considerably on illegal immigration, and health care for lower and middle class families. These are the issues the rest of the country thinks matters to Floridians. Really, most Floridians are very focused on education, the military/defense spending, and taxes. Floridians don't have to pay state income taxes, and therefore are very aware of their federal tax burden. They are also very interested in relations with Cuba. (Oh heavens, please, no one bring up the Elian issues! Terri Schiavo was bad enough! And for the love, NO Casey Anthony!) I, for one, would love to hear their opinions on improving relations with Cuba now, and not just after Fidel finally kicks it. And I think we can all expect to hear Newt rant on and on about how he is going to build a colony on the moon- you know, with all of that money we have lying around!
** Update** I asked CNN via Twitter who was moderating the debate. Response?
Have you checked out the "Match-O-Matic" from ABC and Yahoo News yet? This fun little interactive game has you answer a series of questions to see which candidate (6 major GOP + Obama) you best match up with. Even knowing the candidate's platforms as well as I do, and trying to skew the results to get a certain one, I was very surprised at my result. I got the candidate I wanted (Mitt Romney) for my first choice, but the second place was Huntsman, and the third place was Obama. Obama?? I took it a second time, again skewing my answers to try and get Bachmann, and it gave me Rick Perry. Go figure. It is a fun game, I'm just not sure that it is accurate.
CNN has an interesting piece about how top Iowa faith leaders have backed Rick Santorum, but wish they didn't have to choose between so many pro-life candidates. I find this particularly odd that they would back the losing candidate, while saying they wish they didn't have to choose. Kudos for saying they wish some of the candidates would drop out. I agree. But it is Santorum who is taking away support from bigger candidates! One-issue candidates annoy me. Good for them for bringing attention to their one issue. But they need to think about the party, or overall conservative movement, as a whole, when it comes down to voting time. Otherwise, they are doing more harm than good, pulling support away from a stronger, bigger, candidate with similar views.
Meanwhile MSNBC is running a big whiny piece about Newt Gingrich. The Newt isn't so happy that his competition is running negative ads about him. He's complaining it is causing his drop in the polls. Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe you just had an unexpected rise in the polls on name recognition only, then you opened your mouth, people heard what you had to say, and went running? You can't blame your competition for reminding people about who you are!
As for why his campaign is struggling to get his name on the ballot in Virginia (see, I'm not the only one saying that!), and is unorganized in Iowa, he says, “We are still putting our campaign together. It is wild. It is amazing. Some candidates have been running
for five or six years and raised millions and millions of dollars.
They're better organized than I am.”
You would think a man who has been in politics for as many years as he has would have a lot of connections with campaign managers. Oh wait, he did. And they all quit working for him over the summer!
Last, but not least, the AP is running a story that some folks in Iowa are worried that the voting results might be hacked.
"It's very clear the
data consolidation and data gathering from the caucuses, which
determines the headlines the next morning, who might withdraw or resign
from the process, all of that is fragile," said Douglas Jones, a
computer science professor at the University of Iowa who has consulted
for both political parties.
"If I were one of
these `hacktivists' who had no scruples, I would be really strongly
tempted to see if I could get into the computer and see if I could make
`SpongeBob SquarePants' win."
While I wouldn't put it past some rabid supporters to do that (coughpaulitescough), all I can really say is anyone who believes that must not have access to C-SPAN, where you can sit and watch the different caucuses "vote" live on TV. It is one of the most boring spectacles you can watch live, but there is no question who they caucus for. Hacking the computers would be pointless when we can watch it all live.
Welcome back to another round of comparing the weekly GOP 2012 polls. Let's quickly recap last week's standings (polls for week ending Dec 5).
Last week I wasn't very impressed with Real Clear Politics and their overall wrap up. They were using the same polls over the same exact dates for the past
three weeks, but representing it as new. They tossed in one new poll and mixed it in with the old data to create new numbers. The polls weren't even
conducted in the same time period, which really throws off the accuracy
of the gauge. Nationally they were showing Newt Gingrich leading by 6.2, and their one new poll (Rasmussen) had Gingrich ahead nationally by 21! So I am looking forward to figuring out today's numbers, and hoping for a lot of new data, especially since this will be our first non-Cain week.
And yet again, RCP is disappointing me by mixing old data with new data, which throws things off by keeping Cain numbers in the older data. Ugh.
Taking out the old data, and only looking at the specific polls, feels different to me. Same frontrunner, and the results don't change much. (Remember, without Cain the totals won't be 100%.) But I'm more comfortable this way. In short, Gingrich is still showing a meteoric rise. Laid out this way you can also really see how very little change the bottom 3 candidates are seeing in the polls. Why won't they just drop out? Are they hoping to be the next Gingrich?
Look at that the Gallup poll for 10/7/11. Gingrich had 7% and was in 5th place (Cain had 18%). He was still behind Perry and Paul! So I guess you can't blame the back of the pack for wanting to be a dark horse. But I really don't see that happening.
Basically it all comes down to Romney and Gingrich at this point. Romney is such a strange number in all of this. He really has managed to hold on to exactly his 20% of registered Republicans for a year now. That tells you something- he has a very solid and loyal group of supporters.
This got me to thinking. There are 312,759,000 people living in the United States according to the 2010 Census. (Source: Wikipedia.) There were 218,054,301 individuals in the "voting eligible population" for the 2010 elections (which takes out illegals, those under 18, overseas, non-citizens, anyone incarcerated, etc) (Source: US Elections Project).
It will be an imperfect number, but here's some food for thought. In 2008 (and in the 2 previous elections) we saw the country split in close to 50/50 numbers in the presidential elections. Obama won over McCain with 53%. There are 55 million registered Republicans (source: AskMe), while Pew Research Center says that 27% of Americans identified as GOP in 2008 (come to think of it, I didn't identify as GOP in 2008, because I didn't like McCain/Palin. I identified and registered as Libertarian. Living at that time in a heavily red state, I knew my third party vote and the electoral system wouldn't help Obama get elected, but would send a message to the GOP that they were losing their base.) So using these numbers, I wanted to see how many people are staying local to Romney nationwide.
We could break down the numbers a few ways-
27% of the 312,759,000? Not good enough, since that number includes the under 18, illegals, and incarcerated.
But first let's see what 27% of the voting eligible population comes out to- 218,054,301 x .27 = 58,874,661.
59 million(ish), which isn't too far off from the 55 million registered Republicans. Don't you just love it when numbers actually come close?
So of 55 million Republicans, we know that roughly 20% have stayed loyal to Romney. That comes out to 11 million loyal Romney fans.
Obama won with roughly 67 million votes in 2008. (Source: CNN)
Assuming the country goes close to 50/50 again (and really, do we have a reason to think it won't?), Romney has 8% of the base. (Erin Math: he has 16% of the 50% which is GOP, therefore 8% of the 100%). Granted, with the electoral college system, that isn't going to really make much of a dent, (especially since Utah only has 5 electoral votes), but if he were to choose 3rd party, he could mess things up for Gingrich.
But since he's never threatened such a thing, and Ron Paul does all the time, let's see what kind of damage Paul could do-
Paul holds steady with 9.5% of the GOP. That gives him roughly 55 million x 9.5 = 5.2 million Ron Paul supporters
5.2 million supporters equals 2% of the voting eligible population.
Sorry, Paulites, but I don't see him doing any significant damage. Or winning. Ever.
I was not compensated for this post. All math is mine and mine alone, and I was BA, not a BS. But I did get a B in Math 110 from a state university.
Newt Romney at the Iowa Debate. Linked to Source at NY Daily News.
Having read nearly all of the Iowa debate coverage news (and having not seen the debate yet myself), I hereby give you the summary without any hidden bias-
Rick Perry attacked Mitt Romney by saying, "I read your first book and it said in there that your mandate in
Massachusetts should be the model for the country. And I know it came
out of the reprint of the book. But, you know, I'm just
sayin', you were for individual mandates, my friend." In return, Romney denied such a thing, and went so far as to bet him $10,000 Perry was wrong. Romney haters (also known as Southern Baptists, Texans, and Democrats) are saying a wager of so much money makes him out of touch with real people. Romney supporters love him all the more for it.
The facts? In the first version of Romney's book, a line referring to a universal
health care mandate reads: "We can accomplish the same thing for
everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government
take over health care." In the later paperback version, the line was edited to read, "And it was done without the government taking over health care."
Apparently Twitter loved this moment, and Romney stole the Twitter show. Analysts report that out of 43,000 messages about the debate on Twitter, Romney was most popular with 30 percent. The rest: Gingrich at 22
percent, Bachmann at 19 percent, Paul at 13 percent, Santorum at 10
percent, and Perry at 5 percent.
Michele Bachmann's big zinger (and she does love her zingers) of the night was aimed at Newt Gingrich's lobbying past (ahem, present), saying that his office was located on "the
Rodeo Drive of Washington, D.C., K Street." (A great way to make sure the deeper pockets of DC don't donate to your campaign. Also, K Street? Not that impressive to us local girls. We prefer to do our shopping on M Street.)
The Washington Post's political blogger, "the Fix," proclaimed his winners of the debate to be Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry. And solely put Mitt Romney as the only candidate in the loser column. The Fix feels that Gingrich had a few good moments, wasn't condescending, and was approachable. He commended Bachmann for her ever so popular soundbites and zingers, particularly, "Newt Romney." And for pandering to the former Herman Cain fans. And he lauded Rick Perry for his now popular line, "If you cheat on your wife, you will cheat on your business partner." Oh, and for Perry's attack on Romney about the health care mandates, which we've now learned are incorrect. So strike 1 for The Fix. Interesting to note that the winners and losers (Romney was considered a loser for his wagering), had nothing to do with policy and accuracy.
So how did Gingrich respond to Perry's (and others) attacks on his three marriages? (Let's not forget both Perry and Romney have ads out right now touting their fidelity. And Perry's is an unforgiving pandering to the religious right.) “I think people have to render judgment,” Mr. Gingrich said. “In my
case, I said up front openly, I’ve made mistakes at times. I’ve had to
go to God for forgiveness. I’ve had to seek reconciliation.” How can all those evangelicals turn their back on a penitent sinner? Well played, Mr. Speaker, well played. Of course, I'd like you more if you hadn't cheated on your wife and married the mistress, but that's not the point now, is it?
Gingrich, who has promised to take the high road and not resort to mean or personal attacks, lobbed one at Romney anyway, "The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is that you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994." Oh and Romney started it by calling Gingrich a career politician. (Well, duh.)
Not to be left out of the Gingrich attacks, Ron Paul reminded us that Gingrich received a lot of money from Freddie Mac. (Gingrich was paid up to $1.8 million in consulting fees.) “By the way, Newt, you probably got some of our
taxpayer money.” He added, “You were a spokesman for them and you
received money from them.” Gingrich again denied being a lobbyist for
Freddie Mac, (he claims he was an historian), “I offered strategic advice — I was in the private
sector.” To which Romney replied, “K Street is not the private sector!” Wow, K Street was popular last night.
In no-brainer news, all of the candidates attacked President Obama and the economy. And yet, they are split down the middle on who supports extending the Social Security payroll tax cuts (Romney, Gingrich, and Paul), and who are against it (Bachmann, Perry, and Rick Santorum.) (Jon Huntsman was not present.)
CNN didn't really have anything different to say from the other news outlets, but was the only site to explain that Huntsman opted out on his own accord. They also mentioned that Huntsman immediately sent out press release announcing he'd purchased the website 10kBet.com, after the Romney-Perry wager.
With all of the news sources titling their articles with "Newt Attacked!" I was surprised at how few of them actually listed what those attacks were. Here is what I could find amidst the wreckage-
Romney to Gingrich: "We could start with this idea to have a lunar colony that would mine
minerals from the moon," referring to a Gingrich proposal
to mine for precious minerals on the moon.
Paul on Gingrich, "has taken some positions that are not conservative."
Bachmann's big zinger, "if you look at Newt-Romney, they were for Obamacare principles. If you look at Newt-Romney, they were for cap and trade." Apparently she was going for a 2 for 1 attack.
No quotes on barbs from Santorum. In fact, the only quote I can find from Santorum in any article is where he defended Gingrich's marital woes. Marital character is important, but added, "I would not say it's a disqualifier." Wait, wasn't Santorum running on the pro-family first ticket? Has he dropped his one and only platform idea to run for Gingrich VP?
CNN also brought back their debate analyst, Todd Graham. Graham is a professor of debate at a small, no-name university in Illinois. I bring this up, because I don't get why they keep going back to this guy. He doesn't even have a professional head shot next to his byline which bugs me for some reason. After every debate, Graham has written lengthy diatribes about how he doesn't like Romney's style. Not that he doesn't like Romney's policies (although, I suspect he doesn't), he doesn't like Romney's stage presence. Seriously, that's what he wastes 1,000 words to tell us. This week was no different, so I'm not feeling compelled to repeat him. But let it be known, CNN ran a piece saying Romney lost the debate.
Also, I felt like sharing this little cutout from the front page of CNN. Apparently their editors slept in on Sunday morning.
How many spelling errors is that?
Want to see the whole debate for yourself? ABC News already has it up and running on their site.
