So much for Minnesota Nice. The headline to emerge from the Republicans' first Iowa debate is the bitter scrap between the two Minnesotans standing side by side onstage, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and ex-Governor Tim Pawlenty. Chris Wallace of Fox News shamelessly goaded these rivals into a fight, and fight they did. Taking the bait may not have been smart politics for either candidate, but it did make for riveting television.
Two months ago, in her debate debut in New Hampshire, Bachmann turned in an impressive performance that propelled her candidacy forward. But Thursday night in Ames, the congresswoman suffered a bad case of sophomore slump. Bachmann did not get the better of her exchange with Pawlenty. As he attacked -- directly and with precision -- she stood lifelessly, staring straight ahead like an animatron with its power turned off. When he questioned her effectiveness as a member of Congress, the best she could summon by way of defense was her heroic efforts to save the good old American incandescent lightbulb.
Throughout the evening Bachmann's energy was off. Her big lines did not connect with the audience, and too often her responses sounded defensive. One of the strangest moments of the debate came at the halfway point, when the program resumed after a commercial break. While all the other candidates were shown waiting in position, raring to go, Bachmann's lectern stood empty, and only after the segment had gotten underway did she stride onstage. Even her look was peculiar, with a dress that appeared to have been designed by NASA and an errant string of pearls that shifted positions with each camera shot.
The evening produced several winners:
Neither hurting nor helping himself was Jon Huntsman, making his presidential debate debut. Huntstman performed adequately, although adequate may not be good enough. The former Utah governor exudes little warmth on camera; his affect is reminiscent of Michael Murphy in Robert Altman's Tanner series. But he does come across as thoughtful and intelligent, far more than your typical Republican politician.
Newt Gingrich had a mixed night. Whining about "gotcha questions" is never a wise use of debate time, and Gingrich did it twice. On the other hand, he made several interesting contributions to the discussion. Rick Santorum tried mightily to stake out his own far-right turf, but his stridency and utter lack of appeal make him difficult to listen to. There's a hectoring quality to Santorum's debate persona, one that functions as an automatic audience turnoff.
The flaws of Santorum and Gingrich will not be long remembered, however. In the final analysis, the debate in Ames was about Michele Bachmann, who lost ground -- and Tim Pawlenty, who gained it.
Bill Schneider: The Death of the Bush Doctrine
Pawlenty's big problem is that he's deadly boring. The only thing worse than being boring in a debate is being nasty. He was. Pawlenty still has the same problems he had before the debate: he is uninspiring, and his record sucks. His third-place finish in Ames marks him for elimination. He must win Iowa in order to continue. He won't. Bachmann will. So Bachmann did better in the debate than Pawlenty.
==========Â==========
Ever ask yourself, after 3 long years, why obama keeps inciting hatred toward the rich......Âbut has not moved one finger to eliminate the tax loop holes given to.......oÂh lets say General Electric? Apple? Google?
CNN contacted the banks that were given the biggest chunks of the bailout: Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Bank of America ... The latter received $15 billion.
Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo each received $25 billion -- the largest amount given to any bank.
The political agenda that has facilitated the upward tidal wave of wealth...and the massive prosperity vacume for the vast majority has been lockstep right wing republican almost exclusively.
When the the venere of dogmatic talking points is penetrated many professed "conservatives" I meet reveal a populist progressive personal sentiment.
I often attempt to explain to them that their party affiliation contradicts both their beleifs and their interest. Sadly, few abandon their political allegience, like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders when they should vote for Bernie Sanders.
Answer.....in 3 years.....why hasn't obama clamped down on the tax loop holes?
Sadly....the old American democratic party has been overrun by european liberals that believe in "feeding a man"......not "teaching a man"
Uh huh.
They all lost my vote. Each proved they are unable to govern in a Republic.
Incidentally, Obama doesn't automatically get my vote, either. I am very unhappy with him lately.
FDR must be rolling in his grave. With this crop of holier than thou Republicans, it's easy to imagine that Hoover and Eisenhower are too.
We already have good historical examples of what to do in a Depression, but our DC "deciders" want to make it about cutting the deficit when the people are crying for jobs.
Can we say "Let them eat cake"?
Say. I've been gone for a bit. Where'd my picture go?
When Romney said, "corporations are people too, my friend" re corporate undue influence/money, like huge subsidies &tax breaks/exemptions, I thought "Soylent Green is people". The entire GOP candidate panel is noisily sucking up tothe huge corporate teat, just eating up ordinary people so they can stay fat/comfortable. Corps are not "people"; small businesses are; &huge corps are just taxpayer cannibals. When the Koch brothers, who largely fund the PACs that toss out hundreds of millions of$ to right-wing candidates, like sardines to "arfing" seals (their mantras no more intelligent than "arf"), do so without having to disclose where the money is coming from, disguising Teabag campaigns as if they were heartland or grassroots campaigns, seek to kill the EPA (whether by legislation or killing its funding) so that corporate polluters who are subsidized to pollute (falsely inflating profits because the taxpayer picks up the cleanup tab), &seek to kill very modest financial reforms (that address the root causes of the continued Great Recession), & seek to kill beneficial regulations, they are just cannibalizing ordinary citizens. So, just like the Soylent Green corp, the GOP candidates are cannibals &support making people into the food that runs the gristmill. EVERY hand went up when asked if they'd refuse to support even a modest bill that for every $10 in reduced government spending on what matters to the future& that creates many jobs, would also ask for merely $1 in increased revenue.
====================
Ever ask yourself, after 3 long years, why obama keeps inciting hatred toward the rich......but has not moved one finger to eliminate the tax loop holes given to.......oh lets say General Electric? Apple? Google?
CNN contacted the banks that were given the biggest chunks of the bailout: Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Bank of America ... The latter received $15 billion.
Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo each received $25 billion -- the largest amount given to any bank.
One of the fundamental problems with the Wall Street bailout was the people who had caused the problem were never called in front of Congress to explain what they had done, what needed to be done.
Congress did not put conditions on the bailout money, leaving lawmakers to press the Treasury Department for transparency after the money was handed out.
Vote: http://www.wepolls.com/p/1823034
I voted for Huntsman because he seems the most sensible. It was fun to see Pawlenty and Bachmann, Paul and Santorum get rowdy. Still, My vote will be for Obama in the general.
REMEMBER, IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THAT WAS THE DEMS TO LOSE THEY DID JUST THAT. THEY NOMINATED JOHN KERRY.
AGAIN, IN THE RECENT ELECTION THE REPS HAD THE EDGE. UNTILTHEY FIELDED MCCAIN AND PALIN---DUMB AND WORSE, AN UNELECTABLE COMBO. I ADMIRE SEN. MCCAIN. AFTERALL, HE GAVE ME A NRCC AWARD AS ONE OF 12 REP. BUSINESS MEN OF THAT YEAR.
SO WHY JON HUNTSMAN ?
1. HE'S HONEST
2. HE'S INTELLEGENT. OUR PRESIDENT PICKED HIM, A REP. FOR OUR MOST
IMPORTANT AMBASSADORSHIP--CHINA !
3 HE HAS FOREIGN AFFAIRS EXPERIENCE.
4. HE HAS EXECUTIVE SKILLS AS THE ACCLAIMED GOV. OF UTAH.
5. HE'S PHOTOGENIC.
6. HE HAS A HANDSOME AND LOVING FAMILY.
7. HE WINS ELECTIONS. GETS REELECTED AND HAS A HIGH APPROVAL RATING AMONG HIS CONSTITUENTS.
WHERE IS THE PROBLEM HERE ? OK, HE'S NOT THE GREATEST CAMPAIGNER. SO WHAT !
HOWS OUR PRESIDENT GOING TO DEBATE (ATTACK) THE VERY GUY HE PICKED TO REPRESENT THE USA . AND THIS IN THE HOME COURT OF OUR NOW AND FUTURE COMPETITOR FOR WORLD LEADERSHIP.
HUNTSMAN FOR PRESIDENT !!!
ALLEN MARKELSON
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009 -- it was actually January 3rd 2007.
That day, the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and Senate, the start date of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in
1995.
For those of you who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault," think about this:
On January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment
rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember the day January 3rd, 2007 was also the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took
over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND
FINANCIAL SERVICES! THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment to this CRISIS by (among
MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOS!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).