Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktWatched the R debate tonight. Seemed to me the gloves came off, and it got pretty cutthroat at times. Anybody else watch? I didn’t keep notes, but there were some statements that really struck me. One example: in a litany of what Obama is doing wrong, Romney included that Obama “wants the government to run this country.” Really? As opposed to whom or what? The government is the surrogate for the people as expressed by our votes. It was notable that Romney has already pivoted sharply to the general election.
Notes/commentary by anyone else?
A few links from Ashot:
All about the Benjamins….and Newt’s marriage(s)
EJ Dionne thinks Gingrich won and may have done enough to win South Carolina.
I thought Jennifer Rubin had a few good lines in her take on the debate.
And last, but not least, The Fix weighs in on winners (Santorum, Gingrich, Mitt not on taxes) and losers (Ron Paul).
All Things in Moderation 
Mitt Romney got absolutely nailed by being pressured by his father’s example to release multiple years of tax returns and his reaction is a very smarmy “Maybe.” I wanted to slap my teenaged son when he used to answer that way. Romney pretty much has to release his taxes and soon.
Gingrich released his and Callista’s to show that he paid $994,708 on $3.1M or about 32% which is a higher effective rate than even Obama.
Newt took a very clever high road approach by saying that if Romney had nothing to hide releasing the taxes was a no-brainer but that it had to be Mitt’s call. I gotta think you have cauterize this wound as quick as possible.
LikeLike
yjkt, Newt was too clever by far, to his detriment IMHO (but then I’m not an R voter, so the last one who could judge that fairly). I think Newt is increasingly coming off as an elitist, arrogant a$$hole..
LikeLike
Newt is an elitist, arrogant asshole (I’m not as polite as you, oke)??????
News to me!
/snark
LikeLike
I haven’t watched a debate yet, I know I should and we started one, but couldn’t finish. Is it really #17? I’ll watch clips and read commentary but that’s the best I can do for now. Okie, were there any questions re our number one issue (NDAA) or is that a dead issue now as it’s already signed into law?
LikeLike
No questions about that issue. (That I saw; I admittedly had some interruptions.) Gee, what a surprise.
LikeLike
What is NDAA? I see your comments on this often enough. I’m never a single issue voter.
LikeLike
mcurtis- It stands fro the National Defense Authorization Act and the beef liberals have with it is that it allows for the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, included US citizens. Obama signed it on December 31, 2011.
LikeLike
I really do not know what you can do with that. Honestly, I mean honestly, even voting Libertarian will not make the slightest difference. Some of us, barely myself, are old enough to remember HUAC and all the black-listing that went on. This is very much akin to that. Lives were destroyed as well in the name of patriotism. This more modern version presents the same quandry. It’ll take a major group to get the politicians to flip it.
It probably will not happen within my state of Texas for people still think Perry is the bees knees.
So it does trouble me. Other issues issues is education and science and the influence of religion. I’m very heavy in First amendment rights. NDAA falls into this as well.
I suspect it is just too useful to policing right now and the battle to repeal will be fierce and very nasty.
LikeLike
“even voting Libertarian will not make the slightest difference”
ouch. but it will mean that I didn’t endorse this provision. I think that counts for something.
LikeLike
You didn’t endorse the provision? Neither did I. Voting for a group that has no one in congress will really say nothing to anyone in Congress. The scary part is that it will take confrontation. Name-calling like what Romney did to that guy he called un-American will result. It’ll take courage for those who are really against it to form up and fight it. Are there exisitng groups fighting it now that have legs?
LikeLike
Nite all. Hope you have a terrific day tomorrow okie……………..HB
LikeLike
Good night, lms. I’m right behind you.
Ah, thanks for the good wishes for tomorrow. This one really is bothering me (atypical for me).
LikeLike
Charles Pierce has taken the Otter Defense (which was linked here earlier) and Newt’s tirade against the media over dredging up his marital history and paired them together Wizard of Oz/Dark Side of the Moon style.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gop-debate-south-carolina-6641865
Eerie.
LikeLike
Thanks for that link, yello–I love Charlie Pierce’s writing. Have you read any of his books?
LikeLike
Somebody is not happy this morning.
Obama rolled out this class-war counter-narrative in his Dec. 6 “Teddy Roosevelt” speech and hasn’t governed a day since. Every action, every proposal, every “we can’t wait” circumvention of the Constitution — such as recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess — is designed to fit this reelection narrative.
Hence: Where does Obama ostentatiously introduce the recess-appointed head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? At a rally in swing-state Ohio, a stage prop for the president to declare himself tribune of the little guy, scourge of the big banks and their soulless Republican guardians.
For the first few weeks, the class-envy gambit had some effect, bumping Obama’s numbers slightly. But the story was still lagging, suffering in part from its association with an Occupy rabble that had widely worn out its welcome.
Then came the twist. Then came the most remarkable political surprise since the 2010 midterm: The struggling Democratic class-war narrative is suddenly given life and legitimacy by . . . Republicans! Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry make the case that private equity as practiced by Romney’s Bain Capital is nothing more than vulture capitalism looting companies and sucking them dry while casually destroying the lives of workers.
Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO nods approvingly. Michael Moore wonders aloud whether Gingrich has stolen his staff. The assault on Bain/Romney instantly turns Obama’s class-war campaign from partisan attack into universal complaint.
Suddenly Romney’s wealth, practices and taxes take center stage. And why not? If leading Republicans are denouncing rapacious capitalism that enriches the 1 percent while impoverishing everyone else, should this not be the paramount issue in a campaign occurring at a time of economic distress?
LikeLike
Heh, heh, heh.
I would have to say, a day without Krauthammer happy is a good day for the rest of us! 😉
LikeLike
I love the Michael Moore line, yuk, yuk, yuk.
LikeLike
Good morning, lms. Agree, he is in fine form in this piece. I especially liked “Now, economic inequality is an important issue. . . .” Seems like just yesterday that economic inequality did not even exist.
Did you put up the daily quote? LOL. Ogden Nash, how appropriate.
LikeLike
It was Scott as far as I know. Good one I thought.
LikeLike
I think this is an error. I don’t think economic inequality is a problem. I think poverty is the issue, more specifically, absolute poverty. Relative poverty can change — all you have to do is move the line where the poverty level is set. bingo, you either have more poor people or poverty is solved.
LikeLike
Okay, economic inequality = tons of money within the economy held by the top 1%. Very little in all those other people.
Another issue is the climbing poverty rates. Why is this happening?
LikeLike
“economic inequality = tons of money within the economy held by the top 1%. Very little in all those other people.”
right. I’m saying that it’s not a problem. not a big one anyway. unless the result is absolute poverty for the 99%. which is not the case here.
LikeLike
Don’t wave away the increase in families entering the the definition of poverty. This fact is substantiated and it will cost the country as a whole. Again, why is this happening?
LikeLike
Part of it is we changed the definition of poverty.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0303/Who-s-poor-in-America-US-tweaks-how-it-defines-poverty
LikeLike
After 45 years it is about time. Do you want to discuss the details of the article? Still the question remains unanswered in detail. Why is this happening. It is a fact that wages are regressing. People are out of work for a loger period of Time. The longer they are out of work the more their skills deteriorate and lag in the minds of employers. Even though they work to keep up on their own. Business has learned to do more with less and people are working more tasks to make up for those lost and not replaced. There are a lot of factors and none of them simplistic.
LikeLike
“Do you want to discuss the details of the article?”
sure thing — next week? let’s do a post on it and continue the discussion.
LikeLike
Okay. this is not one of my areas, but I will try.
LikeLike
sounds like a plan.
also, you’re new here, right? forgot to say welcome to the club.
LikeLike
Scott
An excellent quote today. Happy Birthday Okie!!!!!!!!!!!!! ♪♫♪♪♫♫♫♪
LikeLike
Ah, Scott, you put up the quote? Thanks! See my comment above.
And thanks, lms, for the Happy Birthday. I wish I had arranged to take the day off work, but I didn’t. In fact, I need to leave earlier than usual. We have a funny tradition in our department. When it’s your birthday, you bring treats for everybody else. Given yesterday, I’m sure not making anything homemade for these folks, so I need to stop by the bakery/deli on my way in.
LikeLike
Actually, it was me that put up the quote. I’ll take it as a compliment that it lived up to expectations of Scott’s high quality! 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks, michi. It made me laugh! That’s a good thing.
LikeLike
Good one Michi. Sorry I confused you with scott. 😉
LikeLike
I don’t know who will be more disturbed that you confused me with Scott–me or Scott! LOL!!! 🙂
LikeLike
Jonathan Bernstein:
If you like presidential debates, you’ll want to go back and watch the rebroadcast of this one; it was a doozy.
LikeLike
Happy Birthday, Okie! Hope it is a good day even if it isn’t a day off.
The Daily Show did a piece a week or two ago with quotes from Santorum, Perry and Newt et al essentially criticizing Romney’s ability to buy or influence the election with all his money. It was basically the same thing as what Krauthammmer points out above.
Changing topics slightly, can Newt still position himself against homosexual marraige in light of his request for an open marriage? Maybe his Republican competition will leave it alone, but I would imagine Obama would have a field day with it in the general election.
LikeLike
Newt has had three marriages. A gay couple deserves at least one.
I have a dog in this fight. My cousin is marrying her girlfriend this summer despite it still not being legal in Maryland yet. It frosts me that Newt can take his vows so lightly while other genuinely in-love people are denied.
LikeLike
I like Ron Paul’s position: the federal government should get out of the marriage business. So many divisive national issues can be solved by getting the federal government out of them. The War on Drugs, gay marriage, even abortion.
LikeLike
However, Paul is pro-life so he hasn’t really made up his mind on total government abstinence. The War on Drugs is much more difficult. What can we do with or about the violence along the Mexican border? Should we legalize certain drugs? If so, then what does this add to DUI laws? I agree on social issues and we have learned historically the effects of state and local laws on abortion. Lest we forget, the rich could always access that service while the poor paid the price.
LikeLike
“If so, then what does this add to DUI laws?”
I think the case can be made that “impairment” is the problem. how you got there (alcohol, drugs, up all night) is irrelevant.
LikeLike
novahockey: Of course. However, this will add all kinds of new tests and intrusions. Talk about search and seizure rights going down the tubes . . .
LikeLike
i was thinking more along the lines of witnessed problems — swerving, running a light, etc.
LikeLike
Experience tells me there will be a nashing of teeth. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks, ashot. It’s a significant one for me, I’m the big 6-0 so I guess now officially counted as one of the elderly. I plan to make it a light day, so maybe I’ll violate policy and comment today from work. Wow, how daring of me. There’s a certain freedom to this “elderly” stuff.
Could be way off base here (that’s a joke), but I don’t see the R evangelical base in the south making any connection between a request for open marriage and marriage equality. Doubt they even believe the Newt requested an open marriage. It will not affect him at all.
I’m off to the bakery. A good day to all.
LikeLike
Enjoy your day. I hope you have many more.
LikeLike
but I don’t see the R evangelical base in the south making any connection between a request for open marriage and marriage equality.
I agree and even if they did, they would still probably vote for the guy. If they aren’t particularly bothered by his numerous marriages, I doubt this will bother thme. I just recall a clip with Gingrich talking about how the sanctity of marriage would be destroyed if homosexual were allowed to get married. Seems even more hollow in light of this allegation.
I do agree most people proably won’t believe a jilted ex-wife. I’m not sure who do believe to be honest.
LikeLike
I thinks folks would be less bothered by the number of marriages (I wouldn’t be) than the manner in which he entered and exited them. But Newt has other issues.
LikeLike
Good point Kevin with respect to Newt having other issues. Focusing on the marriage issue also gives him opportunities to go after the media like he did last night. The Republican base largely seems to eat that up.
LikeLike
mcurtis
What is NDAA?
I’m not generally a one issue voter either…..but I’m having a lot of trouble with this one, as are a few others.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012[1] was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011 by President Barack Obama.[2][3]
The Act authorizes $662 billion[4] in funding, among other things “for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad.” In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad, and military modernization.[5][6] The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against Iran (section 1045), commissions reviews of the military capabilities of countries such as Iran, China, and Russia,[7] and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security.[8]
The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism.” In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House[9] and Senate sponsors[10] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress “affirms” this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.[11][12] The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President’s authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.
LikeLike
Patriot Act and then I know right off the bat. I wrote a response above.
LikeLike
The NDAA seems to function mostly as a method of funneling even more tax payer money into other countries for nebulous defense issues. The detention authority is unconstitutional and shouldn’t survive a court challenge, although I imagine it would work its way up to the supreme court.
But where are my gridlocking Republicans when it comes to throwing tax payer money willy-nilly at other countries in the name of “defense”?
LikeLike
Throwing money foreign defense probably costs us a lot less and it keeps our youth out of there. That’s one cynical view.
I wonder exactly how long they have been detaining people out of country. In this information age it is harder and harder to keep things under wraps.
We used to have a very strong attorney general who pointed out that our past administration excuses for these issues really violate the principles we stood for at Nuremberg. It seems that the majority did not like that coming from him.
LikeLike
Happy Birthday, Okie. 60 really is the new 40.
Did Newt, who is “grandiose” (a bad thing to be), actually BRAG that he thought “grandiose thoughts”? WOW.
That investment income is taxed at preferentially low rates is apparently starting to be understood by the usually unaware. The R attacks on WMR are responsible for this and I am somewhat amazed. No amount of populist rhetoric about this for twenty years has raised awareness like having an actual professional investor run for POTUS.
LikeLike
Lunch sometime sounds good.
LikeLike
NDAA: I see constitutional issues galor. The Army is not really supposed to be used against us and this goes back to the framing fear of a standing Army.
We have several agencies that are quite possibly unconstitutional and all the spy agencies form within the question. Especially so the natioanl security council.
There is a mugging of our rights under the Bill of Rights and within the main body of the Constitution that are taking big hits. Why? We do not teach this stuff very well at any level of schooling until one gets to college and sees Constitutional History as a course. Usually this is a pre-law student who is drawn to this course. After passing the course you then are officially a cynic.
LikeLike
How many presidential candidates in history were effective at thinking on their feet?
Romney is awful at it.
JFK was excellent. Can you name others?
LikeLike