blueollie

Republican Presidential Debate: Iowa, August 2011

Here it is, in its entirety:

I didn’t watch it last night as I was at a play. And I have NOT read the spin or the polls…yet. But I did watch it early this morning (almost 2 hours!) and here are my impressions:

Mr. Cain, Mr. Santorum: Fringe candidates. Why are they even there?

Mr. Pawlenty: I cringed with embarrassment for him; he lost his series of exchanges with Michelle Bachmann! One reason why: the moderators brought up that when Mr. Pawlenty was governor of Minnesota, he got a package passed that included a “health fee” (tax) on cigarettes. It was also pointed out that then state legislator Ms. Bachmann voted for the package. She replied that she did because, while she didn’t like the fee, she liked the anti-abortion package in the bill. Mr. Pawlenty didn’t seem to understand that NOT voting for the bill was the pro-choice position, which is something that Ms. Bachmann clearly understood. He is finished.

Update Though I was right about how Ms. Bachmann voted, I was wrong about what she said in the debate; she said that the bill had “pro-choice” things in it when in fact it had “anti-choice” things in it. So Ms. Bachmann screwed up and misspoke, but I “heard” her saying that she voted for the bill due to the pro-life “sweetener” in the bill and that is why she compromised and voted for it.

Mr. Paul: on one level, he is a sideshow who is destined for his usual 5 percent. He made excellent points about our overseas military misadventures and he made an excellent point about how the US intervened in Iran to help the Shah come to power (in the 1950′s, well before the 1979 revolution). But his monetary policies (gold standard?) are off the charts loony.

Mr. Gingrich He is proof that someone can have a reasonably high IQ and still be a crackpot. He seems to conveniently forget that Ronald Reagan actually RAISED taxes. But he made several good points:
1. The moderators seemed to be asking questions that were more designed to solicit entertainment than serious discussions of policy. He called them out on that.
2. He brought up that he has had experience of getting things passed with a divided Congress.
Bottom line: working in Congress (getting deals) and running a national election require different skill sets and he has none of the latter. He has zero chance.

Mr Huntsman: He is probably the smartest candidate and the one with the most credibility. He got booed for supporting civil unions (which President Bush supported, by the way). He got heat for supporting Mr. Boehner’s initial deal with President Obama. And yes, he defended his serving as Ambassador to China at the request of President Obama.
I chuckled when he threw a barb at Rick Perry (prayers for the debate contestants).

So, were I forced at gunpoint to vote for one of these candidates, he’d get my vote. But I think that he is too moderate for the current Republican party; look for him in 2016.
He won the debate IN MY EYES which is not a good thing for someone running for a Republican nomination.

Ms. Bachmann Doesn’t know what she is talking about; the debt limit is NOT about spending; it is about meeting the obligations that Congress already authorized. But while she is, well, ignorant and dumb, she has political skill and had a decent performance. I’d consider her to be a co-winner of the debate; she humiliated Mr. Pawlenty.

Mr. Romney Skillfully dodged answering questions directly all night and kept his fire on President Obama. It is almost as if he considers himself the nominee already. Two things of interest:
1. His defense of his health care plan (which he pointed out applied specifically to the State of Massachusetts) was pretty good…and a good defense of the federal plan as well (e. g., I doubt if the “free riders” are limited to the state of Massachusetts).
2. His “personal unemployment account” plan sound a lot like a “new federal program + tax increase” to me. It might be a good idea; I’ll have to think about this some.
I’ll have to see what Republicans think about it, but I’d rate him as the other co-winner of the debate (with Ms. Bachmann).

But I’d say that the real winner was President Obama.

If the Republicans were serious, they should limit the next debate to Mr. Romeny, Mr. Huntsman, Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Perry. I understand why they can’t do that, and I remember that the Democrats kept inviting Mr. Kuchinich, Mr. Gravel, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Biden to their debates long after it was clear that none of these had a chance (why Mr. Kuchinich and Mr. Gravel were invited at all was a mystery to me).

Update
Ok, I am snooping around to see what some Republicans think:

Dick Morris: focused on who handled themselves well and then gave other thoughts:

Mr. Morris seems to have changed his mind on Mitt Romney; he also thinks that Michelle Bachmann did ok; but no Rick Santorum did NOT get the better of Ron Paul.

What is interesting is that Mr. Morris’s take is, for the most part, similar to mine????
Joe Scarborough:

Joe Scarborough’s take on Michelle Bachmann

Watch Joe let it all hang out in bashing Bachmann.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Michele Bachmann’s first answer, Mark Halperin, was “I wish the federal government had defaulted.” Had defaulted, a week after Americans had lost–some of them perhaps lost half of their pensions. Lost half of their 401(k)s, when trillions of dollars went down the drain [pounds the table] with Americans suffering, she said that and got applause, and if anybody thinks that guys like my dad are going to be voting that way when this rolls out of Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina, in the early stages, and really gets going, they are out of their mind and they are too stupid not only to prognosticate, they are too stupid to run Slurpee machines in Des Moines. I’ll let you go now. I got it off my chest.

Michele Bachmann is a joke. She is a joke. And now I will pass it on to you. Her answer is a joke, her candidacy is a joke, and anybody that sits here and says she has any chance of winning anything is out of their mind. Take your straw poll, take your caucus, but Iowa, if you let her win, you prove your irrelevance once again.

:) I have to admit that this reaction is a pleasant surprise. But remember, she got the better of Tim Pawlenty…so what does that tell you about him?

Here is the CBS news take (reasonably accurate).

Also note that the Obama campaign sent us an e-mail asking us to watch! This is sort of “can you believe the idiots that we are running against” type of thing.

Ollie –

You probably weren’t planning to watch Fox News tonight. But at 8:00 p.m. Central Time, the Republicans will be holding their first Iowa debate. I’m planning to tune in — and you should, too.

What we’re seeing unfold on their side is a race to the right, where it’s becoming difficult to distinguish the candidates from each other — and from the Tea Party Republicans in Congress. I suspect that tonight it will become even more clear that this whole group is way out of the mainstream.

We’ve put together a helpful guide to a few of the more fascinating positions they’ve taken. Over the course of the night, we’ll be paying close attention to what these candidates say — and what they don’t say. Will they backtrack? Will they double down? Will they hope we forget? Check it out, and pass it on:

http://my.barackobama.com/GOP-Debate-Watch

Keep this page open as you watch the debate tonight — we’ll be keeping score of the candidates’ statements and misstatements, and asking folks to share what happens with their friends on Facebook and Twitter.

Don’t forget to watch the debate at 8:00 p.m. Central Time tonight.

More to come,

Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

If you click on the “debate watch” link, you’ll be taken to this:

Why the Obama campaign is bothering with Santorum, Cain, Pawlenty or even Paul is difficult to understand.

August 12, 2011 Posted by | 2008 Election, 2012 election, Barack Obama, michelle bachmann, Mitt Romney, political/social, politics, politics/social, Republican, republican party, republicans, republicans political/social, republicans politics, Tim Pawlenty | Leave a comment

The Economy and msnbc video: Presidential race draws hucksters

The economy

Robert Reich points out the demand side view of our economic problem.

Sure, the conservatives attacks his ideas; he responds to these attacks:

The much-vaunted Republican pledge not to raise any taxes is crumbling. Today 34 Senate Republicans voted to end the special tax breaks for ethanol.

According to no-tax-increase purists like Grover Norquist, this is tantamount to a tax increase.

The truth is, Republicans are divided between those who want to bring down the budget deficit and those who want to shrink government. Ending a special tax subsidy helps reduce the deficit but doesn’t necessarily shrink government. That’s why Norquist and his followers have insisted any such tax increase – including even the closing of tax loopholes – be directly linked to a corresponding tax cut.

In order to save face on today’s vote, Norquist says renegade Republicans will still be considered to have adhered to the pledge if they vote in favor of an amendment offered by Senator Jim DeMint to eliminate the estate tax. Talk about grasping at straws. DeMint’s amendment isn’t even up for a vote. [...]

What are anti-tax Republicans to do now?

For one, continue to distort the arguments of those who believe corporations and the rich should pay more taxes.

For example, in the lead op-ed piece in today’s Wall Street Journal, Cato Institute fellow Alan Reynolds claims a higher marginal tax on the super rich will bring in less revenue.

Reynolds uses my tax proposal from last February as his red herring. “Memo to Robert Reich,” he declares, “The income tax brought in less revenue when the highest rate was 70 percent to 91 percent [between 1950 and 1980] than it did when the highest rate was 28 percent.”

Reynolds bends the facts to make his case, picking and choosing among years.

In truth, the most important variable explaining the rise and fall of tax revenues as percent of GDP has been the business cycle, not the effective tax rate. In periods when the economy is growing briskly, tax revenues have risen as a percent of GDP, regardless of effective rates; in downturns, revenues have fallen.

Reynolds also distorts my proposal, implying that the bracket on which I call for a 70 percent tax is the same as in today’s tax code. Wrong. My proposed 70 percent rate would apply only to incomes over $15 million.

$15 million, Alan!

Under my proposal, incomes between $5 million and $15 million would be subjected to a 60 percent rate, and incomes between $500,000 and $5 million to a 50 percent rate.

Importantly, my proposal calls for a substantial rate reduction for families with incomes under $100,000. (Conveniently, Reynolds fails to mention this.)

Now I agree that people will find Mr. Reich’s numbers distasteful but I think that it is silly to think that someone earning 250K a year is the same as someone earning 250 million a year. Taxing the rich won’t in and of it self completely solve the problem, but it will make a dent in it.

This year’s Republican candidates: how many are serious? I’d agree that Mitt Romney is serious; perhaps Michelle Bachmann is too.

msnbc video: Presidential race draws hucksters, posted with vodpod

June 17, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, economics, economy, Mitt Romney, political/social, politics, politics/social, republicans, republicans political/social, republicans politics, Tim Pawlenty | Leave a comment

16 June 2011 (am)

Workout notes Yoga with Ms. Vickie; I went to class with Lynn and lined up next to her; I should have worn ear plugs to muffle all of the whining. :)

Then I ran my 4.2 mile course in 44 minutes or so; the weather was too pretty to not get out there. I felt ok during the run (some mild tingles) and then lifted weights.

Weights: incline: 10 x 115, 10 x 130, 4 x 135, 4 x 135
curls (dumbbell) 4 sets of 10 x 25
pull downs: 3 sets of 10 x 140
rows: 3 sets of 10 x 200 (medium grip; Hammer machine)
sit ups: 40, 40, 20 (1, 2, 3 incline)
stretches, PT, hip hikes, rotator cuff stuff

Injury: the piriformis has been acting up; this started in April when I stubbornly started to do some longer walks. I am not ready for that; I don’t think that I have to go to zero miles but I’ll see where doing some gentle 3-4 mile run/walks gets me. Yes, I’ll have to stretch, do the pressure stuff, etc.

Good news: the shoulder feels ok.

What I never see on my runs:

(click on the thumbnail to see at the source; you might have to sign in)

It is a pretty photo….:)

Science
It was known that a spider can spin something like a “diving bell” for it to be able to go underwater. But:

But scientists didn’t know if the diving bell spiders’ diving bells, which the crawlers can leave behind while they go grab food or find a mate, were anything but scuba tanks, holding a one-time supply of air.

It turns out that, like plastrons, the diving bells behave like gills too. Roger Seymour of the University of Adelaide in Australia and Stefan Hetz from Humboldt University of Berlin discovered. At least five times the original supply of oxygen can diffuse into an occupied bell throughout the bell’s lifetime, Seymour says. Using tiny oxygen probes, the team discovered that the oxygen coming into the bell may, at times, match a resting spider’s consumption. By estimating the oxygen needs of a spider resting in an average-sized bell, “we showed that the spider was quite happy for more than a day,” Seymour says. In fact, the bells’ endurance seems to be largely limited by nitrogen rather than oxygen, he adds. Nitrogen gas slowly leaks out of the bubbles like helium from a helium balloon, leading to collapse.

Diving spiders may have to visit the surface more than daily, however, since they do more than rest. In this study, the team observed that before dining on insects captured in underwater webs — an energy-intensive feat — spiders paddled to the surface to squirrel away more air.

Fascinating, no?

Politics
Dick Morris talks about the Republican debate and the “state of the race” as he sees it. Remember that his initial call was “Huckabee, Gingrich and Bachmann” as the top 3. :)

Back to his analysis: yes I agree that Tim Pawlenty looked terrible; he appeared to be intimidated by Mitt Romney; it is almost as if he is salivating after the VP slot. But check out what Mr. Morris says about Ms. Bachmann:

Iowa will resolve the remaining question: Who will oppose Mitt? The first question is whether Newt Gingrich can survive. His debate performance was stunning. He showed an intellectual breadth and depth that the others did not have. Only Michele Bachmann could rival his real-time knowledge about what was happening in Congress. And the creativity of his thinking was evident to all. But politics is pragmatic. Someday the Internet will replace television and we won’t have to buy TV ads and fundraising will no longer be the deciding factor. But we aren’t there yet. And Newt cannot hope to prevail without grinding it out. You wonder if he’s got it in him.

Rick Santorum probably will not have the grassroots enthusiasm surrounding a Herman Cain or a Bachmann candidacy, and Romney will foreclose his ability to raise big money. Santorum is not going anywhere.

So it will be between Cain and Bachmann for the nod to oppose Romney down the stretch. In the debate, Bachmann showed how strong she is rhetorically and substantively. She has Palin’s zest and instinct for a killer zinger but Newt’s knowledge of substance.

Hmmm, I had to reread that; at first I thought that he was praising her knowledge of substance. Then I remembered this:

Ok, it was Smoot-Hawley and not Hoot-Smalley, but that isn’t what is important: these were Republican Senators and it was signed into law by President Hoover in 1930…a Republican. Remember this is a prepared floor speech and not an off-the-cuff gaffe; the latter is excusable from time to time.

Here is more of her “knowledge”:

Most ridiculous was her “carbon dioxide” gaffe. The problem is that too much of it in the atmosphere means that the atmosphere doesn’t permit enough heat to escape away from the earth. That is roughly how glass works in a greenhouse. Besides, if she doesn’t see the danger of too much carbon dioxide, let her put a plastic bag over her head and seal the opening. Hey, there will be a lot of CO2 in the bag! It isn’t dangerous, right? ;)

(for more of her quotes, go here)

I suppose that is what passes for intelligence in Republican circles! :)

June 16, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, big butts, biology, injury, Mitt Romney, politics, politics/social, running, science, shoulder rehabilitation, Tim Pawlenty, training, weight training, yoga | 1 Comment

Elephants in the Room – The Colbert Report – 6/14/11 – Video Clip | Comedy Central

ColbertNation.com video – Michele Bachmann announces her candidacy at the second Republican debate, and Tim Pawlenty runs for Mitt Romney’s vice president.

Elephants in the Room – The Colbert Report – 6/…, posted with vodpod

June 15, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, Mitt Romney, political humor, politics, republicans, Tim Pawlenty | 2 Comments

14 June 2011 (am)

Workout notes yoga in the morning followed by a 6.4 mile walk (10.4 km) (1:29:56)

I did a few “less slow” segments and focused on posture. It was drizzling and in the low 60′s F.

Note: I have some tingles in the calf/foot/side of the leg, but no sharp pain. I’ll just have to keep stretching this area as well as my back.

Posture: I am going to have to focus on this intensely.

Wildlife: in addition to the usual rabbits and squirrels, I saw a large raccoon on Cooper st. It walked away from me warily but appeared to be injured or ill; it’s back was arched.

Last night’s debate
One of the things that I had forgotten about was this: this is super early in the election cycle; hence the average voter has yet to pay attention. Hence the candidates were really focused on appealing to those who can write big campaign checks and those who have lots of friends who can write big campaign checks; hence the appeals to “get the government off of our backs”, “low taxes”, blah, blah, blah.

The people that they were talking to have money and aren’t worried about health insurance!

Nate Silver explains this well. He also says a couple of other things:

That is not to say that Ms. Palin will necessarily engage in such a careful analysis when she decides whether to run for president. But it’s possible that she’s missed her moment — whether or not she decides to run. Rather than being a proxy for Ms. Palin, Ms. Bachmann may instead be preferred to her in the eyes of Republican voters.

*-*

Besides Ms. Palin, the other candidate whose decision will have the most influence on the race is Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Mr. Perry — although he has some vulnerabilities — could potentially fulfill William F. Buckley’s commandment to Republicans: nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable.

I agree with Mr. Silver about Palin. But I disagree about Gov. Perry. For one, Gov. Perry has made too much secessionist noise.

Besides, his “Texas miracle” is a big sham and this is coming to light.
For one thing: states can always compete with each other as far as racing to the bottom; that is, a state can tell a business: “open up here; we have no environmental laws and we won’t tax you and you can fire workers whenever you like”. Hence national jobs don’t increase; they merely get shifted.

The other thing is that Texas is now paying the piper, so to speak:

So, to recap: Texas schools are in crisis, but the government’s response to a budget shortfall is to cut funding for education even further. It doesn’t take someone with good math SAT scores to figure out what’s going to happen next.

Once upon a time Texas prided itself on what it called the “Texas Miracle.” The state initially didn’t get hit as hard by the recession as other parts of the county, a fact that legislators claimed was due to its low-regulation, low-tax, business-friendly culture. During Rick Perry’s re-election campaign last year, the governor boasted that the state had “billions in surplus.” Less than two months later, however, the news of a gaping deficit made the miracle look a bit less wondrous, as Paul Krugman was quick to observe:

But reality has now intruded, in the form of a deficit expected to run as high as $25 billion over the next two years.

And that reality has implications for the nation as a whole. For Texas is where the modern conservative theory of budgeting — the belief that you should never raise taxes under any circumstances, that you can always balance the budget by cutting wasteful spending — has been implemented most completely. If the theory can’t make it there, it can’t make it anywhere.

Krugman is not exaggerating. Texas ranks 49th out of all 50 states in per capita state tax burden. There is no fat left to cut. When revenue collapses because of an economic downturn, what little social services remain must be gutted. And it’s only going to get worse, because Texas’ population is growing, and the demands for services will continue to rise.

Debate Spin
The DNC made an interesting video of the debate:

In all honesty, they caught the candidates answering the questions that was asked of them. Mr. Cain was answering the “are you uncomfortable with Muslims” question, Mr. Romeny was answering the “are you going to repeal Obamacare” question, Mr. Gingrich was answering the “space program” question (his answer is that private enterprise would have advanced us further than NASA did) and Mr. Pawlenty was asked about the “gay marriage” situation (“how would you handle the fact that some states have made it legal”).

Still, it was a hard hitting, if a bit misleading, ad. :)

June 14, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, injury, Mitt Romney, Political Ad, political/social, politics, politics/social, Tim Pawlenty, training, walking | Leave a comment

My winner: Romney (ok, it was really Obama but never mind that)

It appeared to me that Mitt Romney flat out intimidated Tim Pawlenty; no “Obaney care” remarks from him tonight. Ms. Bachmann appeared to be the strongest “non-Romney” though she wasn’t exactly an intellectual heavyweight.

Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Santorum are non-factors and won’t be around for long. It is almost time to put Pawlenty in that group.

June 14, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, Mitt Romney, republicans, republicans political/social, republicans politics, Tim Pawlenty | 1 Comment

Republican Debate (June 13): Conclusion

Foreign Policy
Question: OBL is dead, shouldn’t we leave Afghanistan.

Romney: bring the troops home when Afghanistan can handle things (kind of Obama’s position); uses conditions on the ground. No wars of independence.
Paul: wouldn’t wait…he’d bring them home as soon as possible. No more bombing overseas. No purpose being there.
Pawlenty: “Paul said no bombing in Yemen”. “What say you”: Pawlenty: blah, blah, thanks for your service, blah blah…
(yes, I served in the Navy…)…Make us safe, yes, I’ll attack targets in Yemen.

Ooops, no mike…
question on Libya
Bachmann: said that Gates couldn’t identify a US interest in Libya. She says “we don’t “lead from behind”…we let FRANCE lead! How terrible! We lead! but we shouldn’t be there…
Gingrich: yes, the pricetag is a factor in involvement. He says that we don’t know how many Libyan rebels are Al Qeada. Totally new strategy:

Cain: make sure we understand the problem? Vital interest of the US?

Question Why the military bases all over the world? Will we shut down these bases (the non-vital ones)

Santorum: Obama’s fault.,..lack of leadership…we need to be able to confront the threats and to be nimble. Accuses Obama of embracing our enemies and turning his back on our allies? (gibberish)…

Question: why does the public think that you all suck.
Cain: they don’t know us well.

Pawlenty: said that Biden has been wrong (mentions his partition); Gov. Palin is a “remarkable” leader…she is better than Biden. (sure…)

Romney: we are all better than Obama. Says that he doesn’t have a coherent foreign policy. (wrong!)
Bachmann: who would be your VP: “American VP”
Paul: which one would I pick…he’d have to more quizzing.

Last minute: what have you learned in the last 2 hours?
Santorum: we have great candidates
Bachmann: we’ve learned about the goodness of the American people.
Gingrich: NH has good people.
Romney: economy is the issue
Paul: we can talk and be civil
Pawlenty: Burins have more heart.
Cain: all of the candidates: “it isn’t about us”.

I’d love to see the spin.

June 14, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, Mitt Romney, political/social, politics, politics/social, Republican, republicans, republicans political/social, republicans politics, Tim Pawlenty | Leave a comment

Republican Debate Part III

Question: Medicare: how do we propose to keep Medicare solvent.

Paul: it won’t be solvent point out that people take out more than they put in. Says it has to change; says we are dependent.
Takes it out of other places. Says individuals could opt out.

Pawlenty: asked about Ryan plan. His proposal, has his own plan (not Ryan plan), talks about performance pay, and allows to opt out or participate.

Gingrich: asked about his initial reaction to the Ryan. Says that he supported the Ryan proposal, says that they shouldn’t run over. He claims that he disagrees with Ryan on Medicare…allows for contract with doctors. “Not pay the crooks”.

Santorum: says that the Republicans shouldn’t slow down (Gingrich says we should). He supports to Ryan’s plan (Part D). Claims that Obama’s payment advisory board is bad…..uses the R-word (rationing).

Cain: we don’t need to slow down. Says “sir, you aren’t going to get your money back”. Supports the Paul Ryan program…gets on the Democrats for demagoguery.

Question Specifics on Social Security reformation.

Cain: personal retirement account. Brings up Chile. Says about 40 years… won’t raise the retirement age.

Question Credit limit…raise the debt ceiling.

Romney: won’t raise the debt ceiling ….says that Obama needs to lead on the spending, excesses of government, etc. Says “entitlements” are 60 percent and accuses the President of not having ideas.

What happens if we don’t raise the ceiling? He won’t answer the question. Spending, blah, blah, blah….

Bachmann: “what is your pricetag”; says that she will vote “no”. Misleads on the increase on the debt (much of it comes from previous obligation)

Question Separation of church and State:

Pawlenty: says that we are a “nation under god”; more gibberish (protects believers from state versus the other way around)

Santorum: uses “faith and reason”; will converge if correct. Whines about people of faith are pushed away.

Paul: faith: says it doesn’t separate church and state.

Question The Muslim question; directed to Cain

Cain: I wouldn’t be comfortable with a Mulsim; “the militants are trying to kill us”, Sharia law, brings up Sharia law

Cain: makes it clear says he would ask Muslims certain questions that he might now ask others.

Romney: says “of course Sharia law” won’t be applied (Thank you!) Mentions religious tolerance.

Gingrich: makes a comment about the Pakistani and says that the Pakistani lied: talks about loyalty oath…brings up fear.

Break…I need pink bismuth…

Question Bachmann: gay marriage…
Bachmann: would she attack state laws to allow for gay marriage? “Marriage is between a man and a woman”. Mentions children. But doesn’t answer the question. She won’t challenge the state laws…doesn’t see it as a role of a President.

Constitutional Amendment to ban marriage:

Cain: up to the state.
Palwenty: Amendment.
Paul: get the government out
Romeny: Constitutional Amendment.
Santorum: Constitutional Amendment
Bachmann: Constitutional Amentment
Gingrich: Constitutional Amendment

Question: DADT overturned…would we return.

Cain: leave it alone; too many other things
Pawlenty: listen to the military
Paul: blah blah…”rights don’t come in group”
Romney: didn’t answer; should have kept DADT
Gingrich: meets with military and go back.
Bachmann: go back
Santorum: “repeal”

Question: prolife question
Santorum: asked: did Romeny deliberately flip-flop? Brings up Romeny’s background when he held office.
Says that he would push the issue.
Romney: says that his last campaign said it all, and would appoint pro-life justices.

Others: case closed.

Question
Bachmann: pro-life…what about rape and incest? “Only god”…right to life …she waffles.
Pawlenty: brings up NRO: Pawlenty was the most pro-life candidate…says he is “solidly pro-life”.

Question How do you prevent illegal immigrants from using our welfare systems (education, health care, etc.)

Santorum: won’t require states to require state government to provide services.
Paul: no mandates, no easy citizenship, protect borders, brings up the economic issues…freedom, blah blah blah…
Cain: “birth right citizenship”: he is against it for kids of illegal immigrant parents. Empower the states to deport them.
Pawlenty: let the states do it if the Federal government wont.
Gingrich: “what would you do…some path to status?” He says: break this down, control the border. Use the National guard, take half of Homeland Security to the Mexico border states. Says that extreme answers are not helpful.

Question Bill that restricts the state’s ability to use eminent domain for energy uses.

Paul: Laws never meant to take from private and give to private. Get the courts out of the way.
Romney: land shouldn’t be taken a private person to give to private corporations; talks to natural gas, more drilling, “clean coal”, “nuclear power”…blah blah…

Question Senate to abolish ethanol tax credits.
Santorum: phase out the subsidies over a 5 year period of time, and phase out the tariff on ethanol.

June 14, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, Mitt Romney, Republican, republican party, republican senate minority leader, republicans, Tim Pawlenty | Leave a comment

Republican Debate Part II

Question Federal Government gives subsidies to private enterprise.

Paul: shouldn’t have any. Says that private companies should do R & D.

Cain: once supported TARP. He is being asked about. He complains about how TARP was administrated; he conflated it with the auto-bail out (different thing)

Question: Romeny was asked about the bail-out program.

Romney says that the bail out program wasted money. He would have let them go bankrupt…at least mentioned the Bush administration.
Claims 17 billion dollars was wasted and claims that Obama gave the company to UAW.

But Romney said that you could “kiss the industry goodbye”….won’t admit that he was wrong……the companies are healthy now.

Santorum: says he wouldn’t have done either. Unions are the bad guys.
Bachmann: “was in the middle of the debate” and backdoor with Secretary Paulsen. She says that TARP was wrong.

Question Gingrich: what role should the government play in the space program?

Gingrich: NASA is bad….private sector would have done it better. We would have had all of these neat things had private industry been allowed to do it. NASA is in the way.

Pawlenty: says we shouldn’t eliminate the space program.

Gingrich: gets on Pawlenty for saying to get rid of the space program.

Romney: government doesn’t know as well as the private sector.

Question: home mortgage crisis

Pawlenty: get government out of this mess….(how did they get us into it?) Get the government out of it…blah, blah, blah…

Paul: do less, sooner. We should let the prices fall.

Question: food safety.

Cain: look at the FDA and steamline it. He thinks that we should have FDA.

Romney: asked about Joplin; thinks that Federal government is too large but won’t talk about the Joplin disaster….blah, blah, blah, blah….

Round two: facepalm.

June 14, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, Mitt Romney, republican senate minority leader, republicans, republicans political/social, republicans politics, Tim Pawlenty | 2 Comments

13 June 2011: which Republican wants to lose to Obama? Part I

First question Jobs?

Herman Cain: zero capital gains tax, more corporate tax breaks….

Santorum: won’t criticize Pawlenty, says that Obamacare is “oppressive”. Regulations are horrible! He just contradicted himself…

Pawlenty: question on 5 percent a year growth claim: still won’t say how tax cuts will help. Talks about growth rates of the US versus countries with less mature economies. He didn’t answer the question.

Romney: says that Obama didn’t created the recession, but made it worse? Says that Obama has failed.

Gingrich: higher taxes hurts job creation; invokes Ronald Reagan….calls Obama’s agenda “anti-American”.

Bachmann: talks about repealing Dodd-Frank, announces that she is running. Didn’t answer the question.

Paul: can’t name one thing that Obama did right, calls the current problem a “Keynesian bubble”.

In other words: no answer.

Next question: How to repeal Obamacare?

Bachmann: will repeal Obamacare. Says that the CBO says that Obamacare will kill 800,000 jobs. This claim is false.

Romney: my plan is better and only a state level.

Pawlenty: claims that Obama broke his promise to cost-contain. Slams the mandate. Pawlenty is back peddling on his term “Obamney care”.

Romney: says that Obama’s plan isn’t like his.

Gingrich: asked about mandate; says that it is unconstitutional therefore back peddles on his previous position; mentions that one needs Congressional approval, especially in the Senate (filibuster proof majority)

Next question: wonders where the “balanced approach” to governing.

Santorum: talks about the Contract with America, says he can get it and lead; says that the Tea Party is great….calls it the backbone.

Bachmann: mentions that she is the Tea Party caucus head and says that the tea party consists of disaffected Democrats and independents. says that Obama IS A ONE TERM PRESIDENT.

Cain: Tea Party isn’t too critical, says that he will take it to the people….his business skills will get the people involved.

Question: how do the candidates plan on returning manufacturing jobs to the US?

Paul: goes back to currency and wants the Fed to quit printing more money, less regulation, less tax, blah, blah, blah….

Pawlenty: Fair trade, make the burdens on industry low…Obamacare is too burdensome. “get the government off of their bock”, blah blah.

Bachmann: job creation: US has the second highest corporate rate in the world. But loopholes are rampant.

Santorum: blah blah…

Question Right to work?

Pawlenty: he supports “right to work” legislation for the nation. He throws Limbaugh a bone.

Gingrich: Defund the national labor relations board; says to defund it now. Keeps it “right to work” at the state level.

Cain: right to work….keeps it at the state level, says that the National Labor relations board is killing the economy.

Now for some fluff and a break…

Gads…this was pathetic.

June 14, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, Mitt Romney, republican party, republicans, republicans political/social, republicans politics, Tim Pawlenty | Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 645 other followers