My Predictions

It is still incredibly early in the game, but just for fun, here are my 2016 Presidential Election Predictions-

• Bernie Sanders will gain in momentum until the first real televised debate. He's fun, he's shocking, etc, but really, he's not presidential material. Once people see him on stage next to other candidates and realize he's radical, but not relate-able, he will dwindle off. 
• Hillary Clinton will always have deep pockets, so she will stay in the race. She won't exit until the Democrats produce a viable candidate who beats on a Super Tuesday in the primaries. I expect she will easily win Iowa and New Hampshire though. 
• I predict that sooner or later Joe Biden will enter the race, but not until Clinton has suffered an extreme blow that he (and Obama) can safely claim no relationship to. (Said blow, which is inevitable, since she gets them all the time, will not hurt her campaign, because said blows never do hurt Clintons somehow.) I do expect he will be a very likable candidate. 
• Carly Fiorina will continue to rise in the polls. 
• At the next major GOP debate, everyone will try to beat Fiorina, and be the anti-Donald, by being The Donald (with stunning sound bytes). 
• Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, and Rand Paul will survive till January/Iowa/South Carolina. The others will drop out due to lack of funds in the meantime. 
• There are too many GOP candidates to predict which ones will emerge as the real leaders. My hope, at this juncture, is that it will be Carly Fiorina, Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush. 
• The Democrats will eventually produce a few more candidates. 
• Bobby Jindal will be considered a VP candidate for the GOP
• We will be subjected to multiple news articles about the potential of another Bush/Clinton showdown. This will not change the actual likelihood of a Bush/Clinton showdown. 
• Iowa and New Hampshire will continue to be unfairly represented in campaigns. But the swing states will get a lot more time and attention. Ethanol will be discussed ad nauseum, because Iowa corn farmers like it, even though it's not good for the overall country. 
• I do think Jeb Bush will go far, but I can't see him winning the national election. But I do see him lasting at least 2-3 Super Tuesdays. 
• Bernie Sanders will break off and go third party. It will be an extreme, left wing third party, with the support of Ralph Nader. 

Let's Connect! https://www.facebook.com/AuthorErinAnnMcBride http://twitter.com/erinannie https://instagram.com/erinannie17 https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinmcbride https://www.goodreads.com/erinmcbride https://www.pinterest.com/erinannie/ http://www.amazon.com/Erin-Ann-McBride/e/B0094UQZSS/

Fox News Lowers Threshold for Debate

Fox News announced today that they have lowered the requirements for admission into the first GOP debate. This means candidates like Carly Fiorina, George Pataki, and Lindsay Graham will be able to participate.
This is fantastic news. Fiorina, Pataki, and Graham are all formidable and worthy candidates. They deserve to be heard and recognized.
As is usual at this point in the primary process, there is the showboat (Trump) and the extremists who are getting all of the attention. It makes sense that these are the candidates getting the attention right now, since only the truly passionate (extremist) voters are paying attention, and the media likes the showboats. So far this is a pretty predictable race. The more normal, stronger, less extremist candidates aren't interesting stories - yet. They are the candidates that the mainstream voters will want to learn more about in a few months. They just get overshadowed by the more flamboyant candidates in the early stages.
When all of the extremism starts to settle down, and more people start to pay attention, it will be the candidates like Fiorina, Walker, and Rubio that the general public will gravitate towards. But until then, people like The Donald, or Bernie Sanders, tend to steal the spotlight.
Fox News lowering the threshold is a win for the common man and mainstream America. 

Ruminations on the FINAL Presidential Debate (can I get an amen?)!

I love the body language and presence in this picture!

Here's a little secret for you-

When it comes to foreign policy, I am not a Republican. Nor am I a Democrat.  My personal foreign policies have never found a good political home and probably never will, unless Mother Theresa and General Schwartzkopf ever decide to form a party together.

I'm sure you want to know what my foreign policies are, so I'm going to tell you, in my roundabout sort of way. Have you ever read the book, The Ugly American? Well, to put it mildly, this 1960's novel had a profound effect on my political views. But it wasn't just the novel, it was traveling and volunteering in places like Haiti, Romania, and Cambodia and seeing scenes from the book play out in real life.

My political views on international affairs begin with humanitarian aid, and education. I give just as much weight and importance to issues such as sex trafficking and education in low-income countries as I do to sanctions against Iran. Educate and feed the poverty stricken countries now, and you'll improve the world economy and have more peaceful allies in the future. Putting a higher emphasis on bringing clean water and education to countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, and large portions of Africa, can help prevent regimes like Gaddafi's in the future. 

Want to create more American jobs? Send Americans overseas to work in third world countries!

Now, back to the debates-

One man had a record to prove and defend; the other had an opinion to defend. And the one with the opinion often had no choice but to give his opinion to journalists before he ever had all of the facts. Of course I say this assuming that a sitting president has far more intel and details about world affairs than a former governor who until recently got his information from the media.

In short, the debate could be summed up as such- Governor Mitt Romney wants the U.S. to play a stronger role in international and peacekeeping conflicts, and would spend more money on the military. President Barack Obama believes the U.S. plays a strong role in the world theater, and tried to show that his leadership is working, and that Romney’s ideas would not work. The problem is that the two men want the same outcome, but their plans to get there are barely different from the other’s.

Shh! I can hear all of you Romney supporters screaming at me from here! I know you hate to hear anyone suggest such a thing, but it’s the truth. Romney and Obama are not that different when it comes to foreign policy. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I kind of missed Ron Paul tonight. He would have at least brought some color and a different opinion to the table.

Both candidates are firmly against Iran getting a nuclear weapon. (But then, is there any candidate, other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants Iran to have an nuke?) Both favor sanctions against Iran, and want to form better allies in the fight against Iran. Romney tried to set himself apart by saying he would take a harder line than Obama, and would indict Iran’s president for inciting “genocide.” Whether or not that is actually a feasible or possible plan, I do not know. It sounds exciting and strong, but may not actually play out well at the United Nations.

The facts of the matter are that we only have so many options in dealing with Iran- turn a blind eye and hope for the best, or military actions, sanctions, and strategic alliances. To the best of my knowledge only Ron Paul favors the blind eye approach.

On the subject of Libya, President Obama said he has taken a leadership role in the changing Middle East, including the ousting of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from power.
"I and Americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to—without putting troops on the ground, at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in Iraq—liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years, got rid of a despot who had killed Americans," he said. (And English teachers everywhere cringed.)

For some reason Romney didn’t take that opportunity to attack the President on the Benghazi assassination. He has not been shy about criticizing Obama on the issue in recent weeks. It was surprising that he didn’t do it in this debate. In my opinion, this was a big mistake.

The one place the two candidates differ significantly is on defense spending, and these differences aren’t just their differences, they are deep down to the core party differences. Democrats don’t like to put money into the military, Republicans do. It is that simple.

Here’s some food for thought: Democrats like to “create jobs” within the federal government. Republicans like to create jobs with military spending (the jobs come both within the military and in civilian contracts with the military). There is a well defined line between federal and military jobs. The biggest difference is that federal jobs don’t help the overall economy, they help the government. And it creates a finite number of jobs. Military sector jobs not only help the military, they help foster research, inventions, development, and improvements from the commercial sector, and help the economy. Not all military spending goes to bullets and bombs. Much of it goes to create new technology that starts out as a need for the military, and gets adapted for civilian use. Case in point- the internet (regardless of what Al Gore may have told you), microwaves, cargo pants, and duct tape.

Both men declared their support for Israel when asked what the U.S. should do if Israel were attacked by Iran. Obama said, “I will stand with Israel if Israel is attacked.” Moments later Romney declared, “If Israel is attacked, we have their back.” But again I ask, is there anyone who plans to turn their back on Israel?

Both candidates also oppose U.S. military involvement in Syria. Obama did try and make some points on his leadership efforts in Syria. However, most of these points failed to hit home, and will not resonate with anyone. The U.S. population overall has remained disconnected to the Syrian conflict, with most of the major news outlets (excluding CNN) largely ignoring it.

A CNN poll released right after the debate showed no clear “winner” for the night. An MSNBC poll showed 59% of viewers were more likely to vote for Obama after the debate (no surprise there). The ABC poll showed the candidates in a virtual tie on international affairs. And a CBS poll showed 53% of the people feeling Obama “won” the debate, 23% felt Romney won, and 25% felt it was a tie. As of midnight, there was not a Fox News report on who “won” the night. But I'm pretty sure we can all predict what their poll will inevitably say. 

It is unfortunate that international affairs and foreign policy will continue to stay the American people’s shortcoming. Equal or adequate time is rarely given in classrooms or the media when it comes to the subjects. There are enough domestic issues to fill newspapers and news reports, without needing to invest much in conflicts and stories in faraway lands. And so we are often misinformed and under-informed. We are naively guided by biases, rumors, and third hand ideas, rather than facts and figures. We build opinions on what another country needs having never been to that country, met someone from that country, or listened to the voice of the people in that country. All too often we assume that what they need is a little dose of our American medicine and trample our military in to give it to them. I am happy that both presidential candidates shy away from this approach, and instead lean to negotiations and sanctions first.

All this talk about Iran has me thinking of one of my favorite Saturday Night Live digital shorts- 

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Thoughts on the Second Presidential Debate

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..........................)

Debates- do they matter?

Debates- do they matter?

I live in a swing state (obviously). I like politics (obviously). I can't go 30 minutes without somehow being bombarded by a political ad (TV, radio, internet, road signs, and/or phone calls). So I admit it is hard for me to fathom that there are undecided voters out there. How can anyone not know at this point?!

The "presidential debates" will start tomorrow night. President Barack Obama versus Former Governor Mitt Romney.

Is there possibly even one thing that could happen in these debates that could sway a voter? Is it wrong of me to assume that the undecideds are also the uninformed? And are they the type likely to watch a debate?

I can't say I don't want to see the two candidates pitted against each other. But only because I want to see my candidate win. It isn't because I want to be taught. Don't get me wrong, there is that tiny modicum of a possibility that maybe President Obama could do something so outrageously unexpected (for instance, admit he sucks at the economy and is a crappy leader) that could make me like him (not the same as sway my vote). Really, I only watch these things in hopes of another Newt Gingrich, "No I would not!" moment.

Which brings me back to my question.

Debates- do they matter?

 

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

I watch the CNN debate so you don't have to!

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. 

What to Expect from the GOP Debate Tonight in Arizona

The view from my seat at the SC GOP debate

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.

CNN FL Debate wrap up- I watch these things so you don't have to

CNN Florida GOP Debate (Linked to source CNN)

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!

A quick look at the FL polls before they all change again

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?

AC360 

@erinannie Wolf Blitzer and then #AC360 hosts the after-party

Thoughts on the NBC Debate

A few mostly unfiltered thoughts on the NBC debate-
Newt's personality is a major problem for me. If you recall, at one point he was my second favorite choice. And may have even been my first choice. But right now he has proven himself to be so arrogant, grandiose, and quite frankly a complete a** hole, that I want to see him defeated more than I want to see my own guy win!
He doesn't address the accusations (of ethical violations, cheating, etc). He shrugs it off, flips it around, and insults the questioner. I HATE this style of debate and personality. To me there is nothing more aggravating than someone who thinks they are right because they refuse to admit they are wrong, even when the facts are stacked against them.
This debate is annoying and boring. Allowing Romney and Gingrich to go on sparring for 9 straight minutes isn't helping anyone. Newt clearly cannot function without validation, and the silences are just awkward.
Mitt did a great job of taking questions, and instead of getting defensive about it, flipping it around and talking about policy.
It irritates me to no end that the debates are wasting time on the personal issues, and then asking the same policy questions over and over. We learned nearly nothing new in this debate except that Dr. Ron Paul can give a coherent explanation end of life and do not resuscitate procedures. (Seriously? Terri Schiavo, NBC? What the hell??)
I actually found myself wishing they would involve Santorum and Paul more because I was so tired of the sparring. But I must say that I think Mitt wiped the floor with Newt.
And as for the completely outrageous claims by Newt that he is NOT Washington Establishment?? I'll let Jon Stewart respond for me-  (I may have made the same exact befuddled and exasperated noises of shock as he utters here)- (while this whole thing is awesome, the most awesomeness starts around 5:30 in)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - The Gingrich Who Stole South Carolina
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Campaign Life

Last night was just plain awesome. I got to go to Charleston for the CNN debate, and be in the room live. It was so interesting to see things in person. Here's a few thoughts about how it was different in person.
First, if you have never been to a live televised event, you probably don't know there's a producer running around, telling the audience when to applaud, when to applaud louder, when to be back in their seats, etc. When the room is clapping so loud that you can't hear John King open the show? There's a producer frantically waving, telling the audience to clap louder and louder.
The biggest news making moment out of the debate was the very first opening question, directed at Newt Gingrich about his ex-wife's allegations. It is true that Newt's first nasty jab at John King where he said he was appalled that he would start off a presidential debate that way, and went on to use those ever popular words "liberal elite media." That comment got a standing ovation. I won't lie. I even applauded loudly. We're Republicans! That's what we do! We applaud when people say bad things about the liberal elite media! But NO ONE was applauding in support for Newt dodging the issues about cheating on his wife. Newt did a fantastic job of flipping the situation into something else. Good for him. But it doesn't change the fact that he's a lying, cheating bastard.
Next, CNN bringing out Herman Cain this morning to talk about the situation? Are you kidding me? You bring out the womanizer the GOP ran out of town to talk about Newt?? Yeah, I don't think so!
Today (Friday) was my first 19 hour work day in a very long time. I'm exhausted! But in less than 24 hours it will all be over. Today was incredible, and I loved every second of it. We had 180 volunteers come from around the country and the state, to help Get Out The Vote (GOTV). They would walk in the door, and we'd give them a job, flip them around, and send them off to do the good work. We had them going door to door, making GOTV calls, attending rallies, and more. It was a crazy day trying to manage that many people. Plus in the late afternoon I got a call saying I needed to get up to Greenville and bring materials. I dropped everything to drive the 100 miles up there, and attended a rally while I was there.
Tomorrow will be even bigger and crazier. Rallies, voting, and more. I can't wait. I really need to go to bed.
Pictures coming soon!

I watch the debates so you don't have to

"Oh it's on like Donkey Kong!" "Donkey Kong? Is that a kid's game?" (linked to source)

 
Highlights and low lights from the New Hampshire ABC News Debate-

Newt Gingrich-"The sacrament of marriage is at the core of our civilization." This was Mr. Speaker's brilliant commentary on gay marriage, and it did not go over well in the Twitter-sphere. Just a little too hypocritical. Gingrich did get a little bit more respect back for flipping the question around, and pointing out that anti-Christian bigotry is becoming a serious problem, especially when it comes to Catholic Charities being forced to close services because of gay adoptions. Mostly throughout the night he just sounded angry, bitter, and like he was living in the past, when he got a chance to speak at all.

Huntsman: "I have seven kids. I'm glad we're off the contraception discussion."
And that concluded all of his good comments. And he lost major points by speaking in Mandarin Chinese. 

Santorum - "There are no classes in America." He also spent several minutes reminding us that his daddy was a poor coal miner. Santorum managed to say more tonight than he has in all of the previous debates combined. America finally got to hear what the man has to say. It will be interesting to see if he goes up, down, or stays still in the polls as a result.


Paul -He gained and lost points when he defended his chicken hawk accusations of Gingrich. If he had stopped before going too far, he would have made a good point. But he kept digging at it and just ended up coming off as cranky and rude. And not at all like a good leader. 

Romney- (To Huntsman) "While we fought for GOP principles, you implemented Obama policies in China for the past 2 years." Without question he came across as a leader, smart, and confident. He was in the hot seat, and still looked cool and smooth. No question about it, biased or not, he was the winner tonight.

Perry- I'm pretty sure he was there. But I have no idea if he said anything.

The losers tonight? The audience- for being forced to listen to 17 straight minutes of contraception talk. First of all, Moderators, let's get something straight. You were talking to Republicans- you know, that party that likes to make everything a STATE issue, and not a federal issue? So yeah, the answer was going to be, over and over, that IF anybody wanted to actually outlaw contraception, they would do it at the state level, and not the federal level. Oh, and NOBODY cares! Sure, it is a Santorum issue, but not one he's actually trying to campaign on. Shame on the moderators for forcing us to endure that topic! And seriously, where did you think a conversation was going to go with 2 Mormons (with large families), 2 Evangelicals, Mr Constitution, and a Catholic on the stage?

(I won't be covering the Sunday morning debate. Anyone want to do it for me?)

Let's Talk Debates!

Fox News 2012 GOP Debate, Linked to Source: ABC News

I watch the debates so you don't have to!
Here's what you missed by watching "Bones" last night (Was it good? I haven't seen it yet! No spoilers!)
I could really tell this was hosted by Fox News. The candidates were hit from the right about their conservative positions. For instance, abortion and right to life were made an issue, as was gun control. These haven't been issues in this campaign at all, so it was surprising to hear how much time was spent on those subjects.

"MOM! He keeps interrupting me!" "Am not! "Are too!" (linked to source)

Apparently Michele Bachmann ate her Wheaties yesterday, and came out fighting. At several different points it felt like it was Bachmann v. Everyone Else. She reminded me of an angry Yorkshire Terrier, barking and nipping at Newt Gingrich's heels. She also had a very memorable heated exchange with Ron Paul on foreign policy. She flat out said she had "never heard a more dangerous answer" than Paul's positions on Iran. (Which is to say, he doesn't think they have a nuke.)

"My name is Ron Paul, and until we open free trade with Iran, I won't be able to find a suit that fits." (linked to source)

Ron Paul doesn't back down in a fight, which is amusing considering his pacifist position on other issues. He really spent sometime standing up for his positions on Iran. "Why are we flying a drone over Iran?" He apparently thinks Iran sings kumbaya at night and prays for our peace.
I can finally sum up how he feels about Iran and Israel. "Our neighbor have guns, so we don't need to worry that we'll get attacked." (My words, not his.) His most memorable quote of the night was, "I don't want to run the world. I don't want to police individual activities or people's lifestyle, and I don't want to run the economy." Strange talk for a man running for the most powerful position in the world. It doesn't matter if anyone thinks he won or lost, because his supporters will think it was all rigged anyway.
In other news, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ali Khamenei endorse Ron Paul. He finally gets some big name, national endorsements!

"My name is Mitt Romney, and I wear better ties than you!" (linked to source)

Mitt Romney was Mitt Romney last night. In many ways it was his night to lose, and I don't think he lost. But I don't think he "won" either. My favorite quote for him last night was, "Timidity and weakness invite aggression on the part of other people. This is a president, the spy drone being brought down, he says 'pretty please'? A foreign policy based on pretty please? You got to be kidding."
When attacked (by the moderators, and then Santorum) about his changing positions, his response essentially sounded like, "I used to favor flip-flopping, but now I'm against it."

Tim Tebow 'tebowing' (linked to source)

Rick Perry- what do I say there? I think he will gain a fan or two. It was definitely his best debate so far. But probably too little, too late. Calling himself the Tim Tebow of politics was pretty funny. Other than that, he wasn't all that notable or quotable. He did suggest that we should limit Supreme Court terms. That was sort of interesting.

Latest Dispatch from the Huntsman Campaign

This afternoon, Governor Huntsman is participating in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate in New Hampshire with Newt Gingrich.  We fully expect Governor Huntsman to demonstrate that he is the candidate voters can trust to lead in this substantive format that moves beyond sound bite politics.
Please visit our website to watch the live stream of the debate at 4 PM ET. C-SPAN is also broadcasting the debate at 8 PM ET.  Please forward this email to your friends, family members and co-workers and encourage them to watch as well.
With less than a month until the New Hampshire primary, we’re ramping up our efforts on the ground in New Hampshire. This morning we released our New Hampshire statewide leadership team that includes nearly 140 community leaders representing all 10 New Hampshire counties and 90 towns.
Every day enthusiasm grows in New Hampshire as we spread Governor Huntsman’s message of consistent, conservative leadership.  Please tune in this afternoon or tonight and help us spread the word.
Sincerely,
Matt David
Campaign Manager

I read the Iowa debate coverage news so you don't have to

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.


Sources:
ABC News: Iowa Debate: Republican Candidates Clash Amidst Newt Gingrich Surge, Mitt Romney Attacks
Washington Times: Gingrich assailed by rivals, fires back
ABC News: Bet On It: Twitter Loves Romney's Wager
NY Times: In GOP Iowa Debate, Rivals Target Newt Gingrich

Should Trump moderate a debate?

Donald Trump Speaks at the Faith and Freedom Coalition in June 2011, Source: E McBride

Back in June 2011 I had the opportunity to hear Donald Trump speak at the Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting. At the time rumors were still flying that he might run for president. I sat in the second row, center aisle, right in front of him, and listened to every word. I went into it a complete skeptic about what this millionaire playboy of casino and reality show fame could have to offer a meeting of mostly Tea Party activists. (I am not a Tea Party activist.)
Here is how I described him back then-

He's pro-life and Catholic. He hates ObamaCare. He is still proud of himself for making Obama produce "that excuse for a birth certificate." He occasionally refers to himself in the third person. And a few quotes, "OPEC is laughing at our leaders." "Our leaders are stupid, you know, right? I'm not a politician, I can say stupid." The thing he said that really bothered me was regarding the war in Iraq. "To the victor go the spoils." He believes that the U.S. (and Allies) have the right to take over the Iraqi oil fields, and take the oil from them. He also wants to give a million dollars to every Iraqi family hurt by the war, and to every American soldier wounded or killed in the war, from the profits of those oil fields. This is one of those huge ideas that non-politicians come up with who truly don't understand international laws. This made me a little mad to hear, because people will like it, and it is not something that could ever actually happen.
But over all, I would say he's a smart guy and he knows his stuff. I'm starting to understand his appeal. And I'd be really surprised if we don't see him pull a Ross Perot towards the end.

That all being said, let's discuss whether or not he should be a moderator of a televised debate.
Reasons against it-
I don't find it appropriate that someone who may enter the ring as a third party candidate should be given the chance to moderate a debate where he can sabotage his opponents.
If he were moderator the attention will be on him instead of on the candidates.
He lacks the political and news authority to be recognized as well-informed on the issues.
His mere presence turns things into a 3 ring circus, again taking attention away from the candidates and issues.
He's a loud mouth and outspoken on the issues. Can he actually "moderate?"

Reasons in favor of a Trump moderated debate-
A Trump moderated debate will be widely watched by an audience that probably hasn't tuned in for previous debates, giving candidates the chance to reach a previously uninformed audience.
Maybe the general public doesn't realize it yet, but he is very smart on the issues.
Likely to be far more entertaining than some of the previous, incredibly dull debates.

At this point in time Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman Jr. have all respectfully declined the invitation to participate in the Dec 27 Newsmax Debate hosted by Trump. That leaves only Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum appearing. Of the debate, Gingrich has said, "If the candidates can’t handle Donald Trump, why in the world would anyone think they can handle [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez or al-Qaida?"

With only Gingrich and Santorum left in the debate, you have to wonder what the point will really be? The leader versus the most distant trailer? In many respects this is good for Santorum. People will finally hear his message - if he actually steps up to the plate and delivers. (And I do believe he's a good man. I hope he rises to the occasion and take advantage of the situation.) I think it will make or break Gingrich's campaign as well. Even though he's right on target with most of the GOP, he is a little bit out of line in a few areas. And those are exactly the same areas that Trump disagrees with him. The debate may very well end up Gingrich v. Trump on the war, how to fix the economy, and foreign policy. Don't underestimate how persuasive and convincing Trump can sound on those issues. Trump could end up crowning Gingrich on live TV, or burying the guy with his own shovel.

The more I think about it, Rick Santorum is the only person with something to gain from this debate.

Source:

NewsMax: Trump Debate: Candidates Should Jump at the Chance.

CNN: Bachmann will not take part in Trump debate

Pin It

Who won the GOP National Security Debate last night?

GOP National Security Debate, Photo Source: NY Times (linked)

I read the news, so you don't have to!

So who won the GOP contenders National Security Debate as hosted by CNN? Let's do a quick recap of what the major media outlets are saying! (And in some cases what the different reporters at each outlet are saying.)


Washington Post's Stephen Stromberg - "Romney and Gingrich won. Romney because he is still the putative frontrunner and the likely nominee, and he did not mess up tonight. Gingrich because he held his own in the spotlight, unlike some of the previous anti-Romneys in this primary campaign. Otherwise, Perry still looked tired, Bachmann still sounded kooky, Huntsman was still too moderate, Ron Paul was still Ron Paul, and Cain still gave no sense he belonged on stage, even among this cast of characters."

Washington Post's Jonathon Bernstein - "I don’t think Gingrich has any plausible chance of winning the nomination... Beyond that, I agree with what seemed to be the Twitter consensus during the debate that Mitt Romney wasn’t doing especially well. He didn’t offer much to convince reluctant Republicans to resign themselves to him, but he didn’t do much to hurt himself, either. Given that he’s well in the lead, that’s probably an acceptable enough outcome for him. I do think that Perry continues to improve."

Washington Post's  Jennifer Rubin- "Both Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Jon Huntsman were predictably buffoonish, calling for pullout from Afghanistan, cuts in the military and other positions far to the left of the Obama administration. To sum up, then, the winners tonight: Romney, Bachmann, Romney, AEI and Heritage, and Wolf Blitzer. The losers: Cain, Huntsman, Paul. Potential problems: Gingrich on immigration."

Todd Graham for CNN - "Knowing your arguments and facts is one way to gain credibility. Mitt Romney fattened his credibility bank account at the expense of Rick Perry, who supported a no fly zone over Syria."
"on Huntsman made a similar deposit when he stated that sanctions on Iran would not work since "the Chinese aren't going to play ball and the Russians aren't going to play ball," and Iran has already decided to go nuclear."
"Another way to maintain credibility is to cite proof for your arguments. Michele Bachmann has said things in previous debates (President Obama wants Medicare to collapse) and in last night's debate (suggesting that the CIA cannot interrogate terrorist suspects any longer because the ACLU is in charge) that were not very credible. These frequent ATM withdrawals hurt Bachmann because a lack of believability spills over."
"Bachmann called Pakistan "too nuclear to fail," and chastised Perry for being naïve when he said he would not give Pakistan one penny until it proved it had America's best interests in mind."  (her naivety accusation was truly a highlight of the evening - in my humble opinion)
"Ron Paul is an enigma. He can provide such thoughtful answers at one time and later interject completely unsubstantiated statements."
"Answering questions with non-answers simply isn't credible. For example, Herman Cain twice last night reached into a very old bag of tricks to answer questions with the standard "I'd consult the experts" line."
"Finally, to save credibility, you should be prepared to defend your position when giving a potentially unpopular answer. Newt Gingrich had two answers that the conservative wing of his party might not like, but he defended them well."

GOP 2012 Nomination Race Polls Nov 14, 2012

SOURCE: Real Clear Politics
(Click images to enlarge)

The polls released today may not look like they are showing any significant losses for Herman Cain after last week's sex scandal allegations until you look at the CBS News polls from the week prior- (but first, do you see that huge Perry blue line nosedive? OUCH!)

In the week of 11/6-11/10 Cain is polling at 18. In the week of 1019-10/24 he had a 4 point lead over Romney at 25. A 7 point loss is fairly significant.

It is also worthwhile to note that Romney did not gain those 7 points from Cain. Romney also went down 6 points in that time. The 13 points lost between the leaders appear to have been spread out fairly equally among the other candidates, but with 5 of the points going to Gingrich. It is significant to note that these polling numbers would have been taken before Perry's huge gaffe at the debates. Or maybe this is just an indication that the debates really don't impact voters' opinions as much as the media likes to think they do? Or maybe we just really learn from this that the CBS polls and debates are biased?