GOP Debate Number 895637

First question about last night's debate: why is Jon Huntsman even there? He's at point zilch in the polls and is more RHINO than Republican. But he has lovely daughters who support him and lend him a smidgeon of cred.

Scott Your-Time-is-Up Pelley

Now the debate. Scott Pelley from CBS, and Major Garrett, from National Journal, (and a mother who gave her son a somewhat mediocre ranking for a military position), moderated the debate, which lasted 90 minutes, 60 of which was televised and 30 of which was on the internet for those with longer attention spans. The questions were asked by these liberal moderators, and one minute was given for the answers with 30 seconds for follow-up questions by liberal moderators not satisfied they heard what they wanted to hear, or thought they could get the debaters to fight it out between themselves.


Herman Cain got the first question which was about Iran's weapon threat and what he would do about it. Herman basically talked about how he would involve the Iranian opposition forces within the country and help them fight back. Cain was clear that if push came to shove, he would not engage Iran militarily if they developed a weapon. For me, bad answer--they will use a nuke as quickly as they would use a prayer rug.


Mitt Romney was asked the same question by the Major moderator and he was clear that if Obama was re-elected, Iran would have a weapon; if Romney was elected, they would not. He also made it clear that he would do whatever was necessary militarily to stop weapons production. Good answer--I want a happy future without having to pray to Kukla, Fran, or Allah. After 30 seconds of trying to answer the question, Scott Pelley cut Mitt off then realized he was a jerk and apologized. Mitt kept his presidential smile intact and continued on in his Mitt-like way.


Then Newt was asked by Major Garrett about Romney and he tried to get Newt to attack him. But Newt refused to comply with the minor Major, and made it clear that every single person up on the dais would do a far better job running the country than Obama. Newt rocks when he isn't rolling.

Perry tried to speak about Iran but was disparaged by the moderator (I believe it was Pelley, but it doesn't matter since they both were as vacuous as a black hole). He made it clear that he could answer both the moderator's new question and the more important one as he sees it. Perry's answer, like Cain's was okay, but it was something that he could have gotten from a conservative newspaper, like the Daily Planet, since that may be the only conservative newspaper left.

Then we have Ron Paul, along with his enthusiastic and loud audience, The Pauliberalatos. They cheer when he speaks, and boo when anyone else does. They hang on every word he utters, much like baby monkeys hang onto mommy's udders when they suckle. But Paul, who probably wasn't much of a physician, would not be much of a president, heaven-forbid that would ever happen. He is the epitome of what a true RHINO is, and even said that if he is not nominated (speaking like the proverbial snowball in hell), he would not support the Republican nominee. This, to me, is an excellent reason to not have him speak at the Republican debates--he's not a true Republican.

About three days into the debate, the moderator asked Michele Bachmann her first question and her answer, about tactical strategy in Afghanistan, was spot on. Of course the moronic moderator Pelley, interrupted her, but that's to be expected on CBS, which stands for Consistent Balless Swill. Both she and Perry made it clear that Obama was wrong and dangerous to our troops for announcing to the enemy when the pullout would take place. Next thing you know, Obama will email Ahmadinejad the plans for our nuclear weapons systems and brag that he'll never be able to duplicate them.


For me, Newt won the debate, hands down. He consistently refuses to allow the left to dictate the rules of engagement in these debates, and his knowledge, encyclopedic information, and verbal acumen makes him stand out and makes him outstanding. 

Dumbest and Dumbester

I think a pretty cool guy once said, "He who amongst us is free from sin, should cast the first stone." Newt's past is laden with mistakes that men of power frequently make. Does that make them poor leaders? I don't think so. Does it make them bad people? Definitely no worse than many of us who refuse to cast stones. Oh, and while that goes for Newt, it also goes for Herman, who I still believe is totally innocent of all claims that were made without proof. The left, as I've said before, never needs actual proof--their proof is their feelings. And how can feelings be wrong? Just ask Roseann Barr and Michael Moore.





Tweet