GOP Agonistes - Last Night's Debate

As always, I watch these things so you don't have to. But truthfully, there's more meat in what didn't happen and what shouldn't have happened than what actually did.

What shouldn't have happened is 20 odd GOP debates, especially with people like John King and George Stephanopoulos as 'moderators'. Half as many would have served equally well, and with a far different group of people running them.

The only people who benefited from this nonsense were the Obama campaign and its assorted media lackeys with a vested interest in seeing our Dear Leader re-elected. And the overkill has arguably turned a GOP base that was engaged and ready to get behind a standard bearer to take on probably the most dismally failed presidency in U.S. history into a jaded group that will now have to be re-energized by whomever is the nominee.

I still remain amazed that the Republican candidates agreed to perform in this circus. You would think they'd know better. The doubling down by the candidates last night on the Obama campaign's birth control setup when they should have been talking about taxes, jobs and gas prices was beyond embarrassing, and there were oly two bright spots. First, Mitt Romney's slapdown of John King's attempt to interrupt him in mid answer and drive the agenda.

Second Newt Gingrich's reminding the world that President Obama is a rabid fan of infanticide with a position more extreme than NARAL's, and that the media never questioned it and did their best to cover it up during the 2008 campaign. Unfortunately, he didn't go into more detail on what a hideous revelation this actually is and what is says about the current occupant of the White House. In more enlightened times, Barack Obama would have been driven out of decent society by that alone.

Last night's debate was Rick Santorum's chance to prove that he was ready for prime time, could trade punches with the big boys and is capable of taking President Obama on. He isn't, he can't and he's not.

It doesn't matter that some of the attack lines were unfair or unreasonable. It was Senator Santorum's task to hit them back over the net at his opponents, and he didn't, not in any convincing way. This leads me to believe that as likeable as he is, he has problems performing under pressure, something I've noticed more than once. And petulantly claiming after the fact that the fix was in and people are ganging up on him is not something that inspires confidence.

Another point worth mentioning was Senator Santorum's demeanor. Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich appeared relaxed and confident. Santorum appeared anxious and ill at ease, like a man with a jock strap one size too small.

If he's behaving like this now, one can only imagine what he'll be like he's debating President Obama i a debate 'moderated' by PBS when the fix will really be in and anything he's said in the past that's remotely questionable will be warped, taken out of context and looped endlessly by Soros' media galley slaves.

Republicans as well as the American people seem to be taking a more critical look at Rick Santorum as well. From having a solid lead in Michigan, he's now pretty much dead even with Romney, who is also up in favorability ratings against Obama according to Gallup.

Mitt Romney actually had a fairly decent night of it, and his tying of Santorum's endorsement of RINO Arlen Spector to the passing of ObamaCare ( Spector was one of the deciding votes) was a blow that caught Santorum flat footed and really hurt him.

The voting in Arizona and Michigan cometh, and it remains to be seen whether Rick Santorum's performance last night hurt him. I think it did, and badly.

GOP Agonistes - Last Night's Debate

As always, I watch these things so you don't have to. But truthfully, there's more meat in what didn't happen and what shouldn't have happened than what actually did.

What shouldn't have happened is 20 odd GOP debates, especially with people like John King and George Stephanopoulos as 'moderators'. Half as many would have served equally well, and with a far different group of people running them.

The only people who benefited from this nonsense were the Obama campaign and its assorted media lackeys with a vested interest in seeing our Dear Leader re-elected. And the overkill has arguably turned a GOP base that was engaged and ready to get behind a standard bearer to take on probably the most dismally failed presidency in U.S. history into a jaded group that will now have to be re-energized by whomever is the nominee.

I still remain amazed that the Republican candidates agreed to perform in this circus. You would think they'd know better. The doubling down by the candidates last night on the Obama campaign's birth control setup when they should have been talking about taxes, jobs and gas prices was beyond embarrassing, and there were oly two bright spots. First, Mitt Romney's slapdown of John King's attempt to interrupt him in mid answer and drive the agenda.

Second Newt Gingrich's reminding the world that President Obama is a rabid fan of infanticide with a position more extreme than NARAL's, and that the media never questioned it and did their best to cover it up during the 2008 campaign. Unfortunately, he didn't go into more detail on what a hideous revelation this actually is and what is says about the current occupant of the White House. In more enlightened times, Barack Obama would have been driven out of decent society by that alone.

Last night's debate was Rick Santorum's chance to prove that he was ready for prime time, could trade punches with the big boys and is capable of taking President Obama on. He isn't, he can't and he's not.

It doesn't matter that some of the attack lines were unfair or unreasonable. It was Senator Santorum's task to hit them back over the net at his opponents, and he didn't, not in any convincing way. This leads me to believe that as likeable as he is, he has problems performing under pressure, something I've noticed more than once. And petulantly claiming after the fact that the fix was in and people are ganging up on him is not something that inspires confidence.

Another point worth mentioning was Senator Santorum's demeanor. Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich appeared relaxed and confident. Santorum appeared anxious and ill at ease, like a man with a jock strap one size too small.

If he's behaving like this now, one can only imagine what he'll be like he's debating President Obama i a debate 'moderated' by PBS when the fix will really be in and anything he's said in the past that's remotely questionable will be warped, taken out of context and looped endlessly by Soros' media galley slaves.

Republicans as well as the American people seem to be taking a more critical look at Rick Santorum as well. From having a solid lead in Michigan, he's now pretty much dead even with Romney, who is also up in favorability ratings against Obama according to Gallup.

Mitt Romney actually had a fairly decent night of it, and his tying of Santorum's endorsement of RINO Arlen Spector to the passing of ObamaCare ( Spector was one of the deciding votes) was a blow that caught Santorum flat footed and really hurt him.

The voting in Arizona and Michigan cometh, and it remains to be seen whether Rick Santorum's performance last night hurt him. I think it did, and badly.

The Disgrace Of The Fourth Estate - The Obama Media Group

Interesting times, to say the least.

President Obama's surrogates in the dinosaur media are wasting no time in attempting to clear the way for him the same way this president has always won elections - by using Alinskyite tactics to destroy opponents in advance.

It worked with Jack Ryan, whose divorce records were mysteriously unsealed by Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's pals on the Chicago Tribune to the point where Ryan dropped out of the race and Obama coasted to an easy victory in a race he likely would have lost otherwise.

It was done to John McCain, where the campaign started with a bogus front page New York Times story about an affair he supposedly had with a lobbyist, and even continued with attacks on his war record, his age and his spouse's character.

And it was done to Governor Sarah Palin, with tons of opposition researchers combing Alaska, the setting up an entire network of local Democrat operatives, using the Journolist network to plan media strategy to demonize her, having the campaign collude with with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson in advance of the Palin interviews, mounting an organized attempt to bankrupt the Palin family and even stooping to attacking her children.

The same forces are at work once again. We've already seen the media hit jobs on Michele Bachmann attacking her religion, her relationship with her husband, and her generosity of spirit in adopting foster children. We saw how anxious the media were to jump on Herman Cain. We saw how the dinosaur media attacked the record of one of the most successful governors in America. Rick Perry.

And now, the assault is focused on Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

I think Rush Limbaugh is entirely correct that Matt Drudge threw a monkey wrench into the works by exposing the ABC interview with Newt Gingrich's ex-wife in advance.

The day before, ABC had gone after Mitt Romney with two stories so bogus they don't even qualify as intelligent commentary, let alone journalism. The first one attacked his Mormon faith directly and his charitable contributions to the Church of the LDS in terms that were designed to convey the impression of a sinister, behind the scenes religious right wing mafia in which Governor Romney's part was now 'newly uncovered'. The second focused on portraying him as a tax cheat and plutocrat with 'millions parked in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven'.

The original waited until the very end of the story to inform you that what Governor Romney was doing was entirely legal and that he pays taxes on the money. It has since been changed to include a line in the second paragraph saying 'spokesperson for the Romney campaign says Romney follows all tax laws and he would pay the same in taxes regardless of where the funds are based.'

A number of people sounded off in the comments section on how ridiculous the article was. Here's a sampling:

This article is completely uninformed and misleading. Investment groups use Cayman entities to avoid DOUBLE taxation of capital gains for foreign investors. It is not in any way depriving the US IRS of any money it is entitled to. There is no "hidden" money in this. Will the reporters simply call any reasonable corporate attorney who knows about fund formation to understand this, and then do the responsible thing - retract their story or clarify the intent of these Cayman investments. It is driving me crazy to even think about how misleading this article is. And judging by the comments, people are buying into it. Again, ask ANY corporate attorney that knows about fund formation. There is NO tax evasion that comes from this, and there is NO undeclared money in these Cayman funds. This is allowing international investors to invest through a single Cayman entity as opposed to investing through hundreds of foreign companies (German, Italian, Singaporean, etc.).


Very common for American Companies to set up operations in Cayman Islands an Bermuda. Virtually all major corporations do it. The impact has been litigated several times overs - and the tax rules are clear cut. It is common largely for corporations that self insure. There aren't all that many jobs connected with the overseas operations - a few accountants generally. Some of the resasons they do it have to do with holding foreign currencies. I don't think it is allowed here - but managing currency re-evaluations is a major risk management necessity for corporations. Nothing to see here.


Average Americans making $36,000 - $55,000 only pay 3.1% in income tax.yes, 3.1%, that's it.I'm actually impressed that Romney pays 15%, because take Obama's buddy, Warren Buffett, for example: Warren Buffett is far, far more wealthy than Romney,and Warren Buffett pays Less Than 1% in income tax.


I am writing in response to your article about Mitt Romney's use of Cayman vehicles. This is truly irresponsible reporting. I know first-hand about these structures, and they are completely legitimate. There is NOTHING unethical about this as the article's innuendo implies. This is legitimate, ethical, and the responsible thing for Bain to do for its investors. The motive for doing this is exactly as they explained. The corporations that Bain invests in pay their corporate taxes. The partners at Bain pay taxes. The investors in Bain pay taxes. They are helping their investors avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains. A foreign investor in say... Germany can buy a US company stock in Germany on the stock exchange. The US company will pay its taxes, so the IRS gets everything it is due. The German stockholder is ONLY liable for capital gains taxes in Germany, not the US. Now for a fund like Bain, they have investors in many countries. If Bain sets up a US corporation, LLC, or Partnership as the holding vehicle for all of their investors, then every investor will be subject to US capital gains taxes - even if they have no business, presence, or operation in the US. Then they will also have to pay their taxes in their homeland. This is ONLY because of using a US holding company. If the German investor invested directly through a German company, they would not be subject to US capital gains taxes. It isn't practical for a company like Bain to set up hundreds of holding companies for each country that they have an investor from, so they set it up in a tax jurisdiction that is neutral such as the Caymans. That way Bain doesn't have to set up hundreds of holding vehicles, and foreign investors who WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY US TAXES ON CAPITAL GAINS ANYWAY can all invest through one vehicle. This is to reduce the number of necessary entities and avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains, not to avoid taxes period.


Being a CPA, I know that dividends and capital gains are taxes at a 15% tax rate, What this article fails to mention is that this income comes from corporations that pay 35% in income taxes. Therefore the effective rate of this income is closer to 50%.

The entire idea was to slime Romney enough so that Gingrich either won South Carolina or finished a strong second and then unleash the interview from his ex-wife to take him out as well. Matt Drudge simply forced them to unleash it prematurely..not that it mattered to the media. CNN's John King's opening question in last night debate was to ask Newt Gingrich to respond to his ex-wife's recent television interview describing his desire for an open marriage. Gingrich's response:

GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.(APPLAUSE)

KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?

GINGRICH: Let me finish.

KING: Please.

GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. (APPLAUSE)

My two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. (APPLAUSE)

KING: As you noted, Mr. Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I'm not -- I get your point. I take your point.

GINGRICH: John -- John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it. (APPLAUSE)

Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They're attacking the governor. They're attacking me. I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.

I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.

Actually, they're already getting around to Rick Santorum, alleging that his wife had an affair with an abortionist before the Santorum's marriage - as if that has any place in a presidential campaign. They will not go after Ron Paul in great detail, and I've already explained to you why.

Meanwhile, hardly anyone in the dinosaur media has any interest in exploring Fast and Furious, Solyndra and the other Green Energy scams. Or President Obama's relationship with the Nation of Islam, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansour and Edward Said, or his corrupt deals with people like jailed bagman Tony Rezco, Big Pharma and a host of others.

With few exceptions, they aren't journalists in any sense 0f the word. They aren't even commentators for the most part, because commentators of whatever viewpoint usually attempt to present things honestly from their own viewpoints.

They're just campaign operatives in masquerade, following marching orders from upstairs including from the White House. They're simply bought and paid for whores, with the exception that a whore generally provides value for money.

They're worthy of no respect or consideration whatsoever, and it's about time people let them know about it, and often.

The Disgrace Of The Fourth Estate - The Obama Media Group

Interesting times, to say the least.

President Obama's surrogates in the dinosaur media are wasting no time in attempting to clear the way for him the same way this president has always won elections - by using Alinskyite tactics to destroy opponents in advance.

It worked with Jack Ryan, whose divorce records were mysteriously unsealed by Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's pals on the Chicago Tribune to the point where Ryan dropped out of the race and Obama coasted to an easy victory in a race he likely would have lost otherwise.

It was done to John McCain, where the campaign started with a bogus front page New York Times story about an affair he supposedly had with a lobbyist, and even continued with attacks on his war record, his age and his spouse's character.

And it was done to Governor Sarah Palin, with tons of opposition researchers combing Alaska, the setting up an entire network of local Democrat operatives, using the Journolist network to plan media strategy to demonize her, having the campaign collude with with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson in advance of the Palin interviews, mounting an organized attempt to bankrupt the Palin family and even stooping to attacking her children.

The same forces are at work once again. We've already seen the media hit jobs on Michele Bachmann attacking her religion, her relationship with her husband, and her generosity of spirit in adopting foster children. We saw how anxious the media were to jump on Herman Cain. We saw how the dinosaur media attacked the record of one of the most successful governors in America. Rick Perry.

And now, the assault is focused on Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

I think Rush Limbaugh is entirely correct that Matt Drudge threw a monkey wrench into the works by exposing the ABC interview with Newt Gingrich's ex-wife in advance.

The day before, ABC had gone after Mitt Romney with two stories so bogus they don't even qualify as intelligent commentary, let alone journalism. The first one attacked his Mormon faith directly and his charitable contributions to the Church of the LDS in terms that were designed to convey the impression of a sinister, behind the scenes religious right wing mafia in which Governor Romney's part was now 'newly uncovered'. The second focused on portraying him as a tax cheat and plutocrat with 'millions parked in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven'.

The original waited until the very end of the story to inform you that what Governor Romney was doing was entirely legal and that he pays taxes on the money. It has since been changed to include a line in the second paragraph saying 'spokesperson for the Romney campaign says Romney follows all tax laws and he would pay the same in taxes regardless of where the funds are based.'

A number of people sounded off in the comments section on how ridiculous the article was. Here's a sampling:

This article is completely uninformed and misleading. Investment groups use Cayman entities to avoid DOUBLE taxation of capital gains for foreign investors. It is not in any way depriving the US IRS of any money it is entitled to. There is no "hidden" money in this. Will the reporters simply call any reasonable corporate attorney who knows about fund formation to understand this, and then do the responsible thing - retract their story or clarify the intent of these Cayman investments. It is driving me crazy to even think about how misleading this article is. And judging by the comments, people are buying into it. Again, ask ANY corporate attorney that knows about fund formation. There is NO tax evasion that comes from this, and there is NO undeclared money in these Cayman funds. This is allowing international investors to invest through a single Cayman entity as opposed to investing through hundreds of foreign companies (German, Italian, Singaporean, etc.).


Very common for American Companies to set up operations in Cayman Islands an Bermuda. Virtually all major corporations do it. The impact has been litigated several times overs - and the tax rules are clear cut. It is common largely for corporations that self insure. There aren't all that many jobs connected with the overseas operations - a few accountants generally. Some of the resasons they do it have to do with holding foreign currencies. I don't think it is allowed here - but managing currency re-evaluations is a major risk management necessity for corporations. Nothing to see here.


Average Americans making $36,000 - $55,000 only pay 3.1% in income tax.yes, 3.1%, that's it.I'm actually impressed that Romney pays 15%, because take Obama's buddy, Warren Buffett, for example: Warren Buffett is far, far more wealthy than Romney,and Warren Buffett pays Less Than 1% in income tax.


I am writing in response to your article about Mitt Romney's use of Cayman vehicles. This is truly irresponsible reporting. I know first-hand about these structures, and they are completely legitimate. There is NOTHING unethical about this as the article's innuendo implies. This is legitimate, ethical, and the responsible thing for Bain to do for its investors. The motive for doing this is exactly as they explained. The corporations that Bain invests in pay their corporate taxes. The partners at Bain pay taxes. The investors in Bain pay taxes. They are helping their investors avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains. A foreign investor in say... Germany can buy a US company stock in Germany on the stock exchange. The US company will pay its taxes, so the IRS gets everything it is due. The German stockholder is ONLY liable for capital gains taxes in Germany, not the US. Now for a fund like Bain, they have investors in many countries. If Bain sets up a US corporation, LLC, or Partnership as the holding vehicle for all of their investors, then every investor will be subject to US capital gains taxes - even if they have no business, presence, or operation in the US. Then they will also have to pay their taxes in their homeland. This is ONLY because of using a US holding company. If the German investor invested directly through a German company, they would not be subject to US capital gains taxes. It isn't practical for a company like Bain to set up hundreds of holding companies for each country that they have an investor from, so they set it up in a tax jurisdiction that is neutral such as the Caymans. That way Bain doesn't have to set up hundreds of holding vehicles, and foreign investors who WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY US TAXES ON CAPITAL GAINS ANYWAY can all invest through one vehicle. This is to reduce the number of necessary entities and avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains, not to avoid taxes period.


Being a CPA, I know that dividends and capital gains are taxes at a 15% tax rate, What this article fails to mention is that this income comes from corporations that pay 35% in income taxes. Therefore the effective rate of this income is closer to 50%.

The entire idea was to slime Romney enough so that Gingrich either won South Carolina or finished a strong second and then unleash the interview from his ex-wife to take him out as well. Matt Drudge simply forced them to unleash it prematurely..not that it mattered to the media. CNN's John King's opening question in last night debate was to ask Newt Gingrich to respond to his ex-wife's recent television interview describing his desire for an open marriage. Gingrich's response:

GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.(APPLAUSE)

KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?

GINGRICH: Let me finish.

KING: Please.

GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. (APPLAUSE)

My two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. (APPLAUSE)

KING: As you noted, Mr. Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I'm not -- I get your point. I take your point.

GINGRICH: John -- John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it. (APPLAUSE)

Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They're attacking the governor. They're attacking me. I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.

I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.

Actually, they're already getting around to Rick Santorum, alleging that his wife had an affair with an abortionist before the Santorum's marriage - as if that has any place in a presidential campaign. They will not go after Ron Paul in great detail, and I've already explained to you why.

Meanwhile, hardly anyone in the dinosaur media has any interest in exploring Fast and Furious, Solyndra and the other Green Energy scams. Or President Obama's relationship with the Nation of Islam, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansour and Edward Said, or his corrupt deals with people like jailed bagman Tony Rezco, Big Pharma and a host of others.

With few exceptions, they aren't journalists in any sense 0f the word. They aren't even commentators for the most part, because commentators of whatever viewpoint usually attempt to present things honestly from their own viewpoints.

They're just campaign operatives in masquerade, following marching orders from upstairs including from the White House. They're simply bought and paid for whores, with the exception that a whore generally provides value for money.

They're worthy of no respect or consideration whatsoever, and it's about time people let them know about it, and often.

Why Gingrich Got A Standing O

The always scintillating James Taranto has a good piece on why GOP candidate Newt Gingrich's smackdown of Juan Williams in the last South Carolina debate went over as well as it did. Here's a slice:

The live-audience reaction to Republican presidential debates is a matter of great public significance--so great that even the president of the United States takes time out from his duties to evaluate it. We anxiously await President Obama's comment on what, as far as we know, is a first in the history of presidential debates: a standing ovation.

It happened at last night's debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., which was sponsored by Fox News Channel and The Wall Street Journal. FoxNewsInsider.com describes the exchange that prompted it:

Juan Williams questioned Newt Gingrich about his recent comments that black Americans should "demand jobs, not food stamps," and that Obama is a "Food Stamp President." When asked if he could see why these comments might be insulting to African-Americans, Gingrich said flatly, "No, I don't see that."

He then went onto [sic] propose a janitorial program that would allow students to do light janitorial work while continuing their studies, paying them and teaching them the value of work. He said that they would be earning money, "which is a good thing if you're poor. Only the elites despise earning money."

Williams then pressed, suggesting that Gingrich's comments, including references to President Obama as a "Food Stamp President," were intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities.

Gingrich responded, "The fact is more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history."

He proclaimed, "I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I'm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn someday to own the job."

One might ask: What's race got to do with it? An essay carrying that title appeared on the New York Times website two days before the debate, but the question turned out not to be rhetorical. The author, Lee Siegel, was writing about Mitt Romney's campaign, not Gingrich's, but there is a clarifying resonance between his piece and Gingrich's response to Williams.

Siegel writes that "Mitt Romney is the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory." That sounds like a promising start to a Chris Rock comedy riff, but Siegel means it as a serious thesis.

Read the rest here.

Why Gingrich Got A Standing O

The always scintillating James Taranto has a good piece on why GOP candidate Newt Gingrich's smackdown of Juan Williams in the last South Carolina debate went over as well as it did. Here's a slice:

The live-audience reaction to Republican presidential debates is a matter of great public significance--so great that even the president of the United States takes time out from his duties to evaluate it. We anxiously await President Obama's comment on what, as far as we know, is a first in the history of presidential debates: a standing ovation.

It happened at last night's debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., which was sponsored by Fox News Channel and The Wall Street Journal. FoxNewsInsider.com describes the exchange that prompted it:

Juan Williams questioned Newt Gingrich about his recent comments that black Americans should "demand jobs, not food stamps," and that Obama is a "Food Stamp President." When asked if he could see why these comments might be insulting to African-Americans, Gingrich said flatly, "No, I don't see that."

He then went onto [sic] propose a janitorial program that would allow students to do light janitorial work while continuing their studies, paying them and teaching them the value of work. He said that they would be earning money, "which is a good thing if you're poor. Only the elites despise earning money."

Williams then pressed, suggesting that Gingrich's comments, including references to President Obama as a "Food Stamp President," were intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities.

Gingrich responded, "The fact is more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history."

He proclaimed, "I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I'm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn someday to own the job."

One might ask: What's race got to do with it? An essay carrying that title appeared on the New York Times website two days before the debate, but the question turned out not to be rhetorical. The author, Lee Siegel, was writing about Mitt Romney's campaign, not Gingrich's, but there is a clarifying resonance between his piece and Gingrich's response to Williams.

Siegel writes that "Mitt Romney is the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory." That sounds like a promising start to a Chris Rock comedy riff, but Siegel means it as a serious thesis.

Read the rest here.

Tonight's Debate: The Palmetto Ping Pong Match

Four of the five GOP candidates obviously had a mission tonight, and it wasn't to tell Republicans how they were going to defeat Obama - it was to try and derail Mitt Romney,the front runner.

I doubt they gained much ground.

One positive thing is that this particular debate was moderated by FOX, so partisan antics by the likes of people like George Stephanopoulos were mercifully absent and a much more professional atmosphere ensued.

Newt Gingrich quite correctly caught some heat from Bret Baier about the anti-capitalist attacks on Romney, but also managed to get off a number of good lines, especially when Juan Williams tried to play the race card and accused Gingrich of belittling minorities for suggesting that poor, young kids be paid for "light janitorial work" at school.

Gingrich replied, "No, I don't see that."

"They'd be getting money, which is a good thing if you're poor. Only the elites despise earning money," he said to tremendous applause.

Romney continued to be basically untouched, and continued to concentrate on taking on President Obama.

"I know the Democrats are going to be showing videos of, you know, old people being thrown off cliffs and so forth. But don't forget who it was that cut Medicare by $500 billion, and that was President Obama to pay for Obamacare."

He also did a decent job of defending himself from the expected Bain Capital attacks.

Rick Perry accused Bain of coming into Georgetown, S.C., closing a steel mill and said Bain had "..picked that company over, and a lot of people lost jobs there", Romney replied that Bain had actually invested in two steel mills and invested for seven or eight years, but that the mills closed because of foreign competition which killed their business.

"Ultimately, what happened from abroad, dumping steel into this country, led to some 40 different steel mills being closed," Romney said. "I understand what happens when China cheats, or when others cheat and dump products into this country. That's one of the reasons I'm running, is to make sure we crack down on cheaters."

It's not so much cheating as the problem of unionized American steelworkers competing with Chinese labor, but he's essentially correct and Bain's steel mills weren't the only ones affected.

Romney defended his record at Bain, saying he invested in more than 100 businesses and had an overall successful record of job creation, which is normally what happens when businesses thrive.

"If people want to have someone who understands how the economy works, having worked in the real economy, then I'm the guy who can best post up against Barack Obama," he said.

The only two points were Romney was rocked back for a second concerned calls from Rick Perry and Rick Santorum for him to release his tax records,and accusations that he had failed to challenge a Massachusetts law that that allowed convicted felons to vote while still on parole.

Romeny's answer to the first was that he'd likely get around to doing it eventually, and to the second that he was faced with a state legislature that was 85% Democrat and realized it was a no win situation.

An interesting head to head occurred between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, of all people when Paul cited Santorum's record of voting for raising the national deficit, supporting Sarbanes-Oxley banking laws and voting against right-to-work labor laws, a particular sore point in South Carolina after the dust up over Boeing wanting to relocate jobs here. Santorum accused Paul of quoting left wing Soros backed sources for his information, but didn't really effectively dent them as untrue.

Overall, I don't think anyone particularly did any damage to Romney,although Newt Gingrich may have done himself some good in putting himslef back to the front - by a nose- of the anti-Romney forces.

Rick Santorum looked just uneven enough to give Gingrich the edge, and a lot of what came out tonight about Ron Paul's stance on the military will not play well in South Carolina, although his claim that taxes should be lowered to zero certainly raised a cheer.

Tonight's Debate: The Palmetto Ping Pong Match

Four of the five GOP candidates obviously had a mission tonight, and it wasn't to tell Republicans how they were going to defeat Obama - it was to try and derail Mitt Romney,the front runner.

I doubt they gained much ground.

One positive thing is that this particular debate was moderated by FOX, so partisan antics by the likes of people like George Stephanopoulos were mercifully absent and a much more professional atmosphere ensued.

Newt Gingrich quite correctly caught some heat from Bret Baier about the anti-capitalist attacks on Romney, but also managed to get off a number of good lines, especially when Juan Williams tried to play the race card and accused Gingrich of belittling minorities for suggesting that poor, young kids be paid for "light janitorial work" at school.

Gingrich replied, "No, I don't see that."

"They'd be getting money, which is a good thing if you're poor. Only the elites despise earning money," he said to tremendous applause.

Romney continued to be basically untouched, and continued to concentrate on taking on President Obama.

"I know the Democrats are going to be showing videos of, you know, old people being thrown off cliffs and so forth. But don't forget who it was that cut Medicare by $500 billion, and that was President Obama to pay for Obamacare."

He also did a decent job of defending himself from the expected Bain Capital attacks.

Rick Perry accused Bain of coming into Georgetown, S.C., closing a steel mill and said Bain had "..picked that company over, and a lot of people lost jobs there", Romney replied that Bain had actually invested in two steel mills and invested for seven or eight years, but that the mills closed because of foreign competition which killed their business.

"Ultimately, what happened from abroad, dumping steel into this country, led to some 40 different steel mills being closed," Romney said. "I understand what happens when China cheats, or when others cheat and dump products into this country. That's one of the reasons I'm running, is to make sure we crack down on cheaters."

It's not so much cheating as the problem of unionized American steelworkers competing with Chinese labor, but he's essentially correct and Bain's steel mills weren't the only ones affected.

Romney defended his record at Bain, saying he invested in more than 100 businesses and had an overall successful record of job creation, which is normally what happens when businesses thrive.

"If people want to have someone who understands how the economy works, having worked in the real economy, then I'm the guy who can best post up against Barack Obama," he said.

The only two points were Romney was rocked back for a second concerned calls from Rick Perry and Rick Santorum for him to release his tax records,and accusations that he had failed to challenge a Massachusetts law that that allowed convicted felons to vote while still on parole.

Romeny's answer to the first was that he'd likely get around to doing it eventually, and to the second that he was faced with a state legislature that was 85% Democrat and realized it was a no win situation.

An interesting head to head occurred between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, of all people when Paul cited Santorum's record of voting for raising the national deficit, supporting Sarbanes-Oxley banking laws and voting against right-to-work labor laws, a particular sore point in South Carolina after the dust up over Boeing wanting to relocate jobs here. Santorum accused Paul of quoting left wing Soros backed sources for his information, but didn't really effectively dent them as untrue.

Overall, I don't think anyone particularly did any damage to Romney,although Newt Gingrich may have done himself some good in putting himslef back to the front - by a nose- of the anti-Romney forces.

Rick Santorum looked just uneven enough to give Gingrich the edge, and a lot of what came out tonight about Ron Paul's stance on the military will not play well in South Carolina, although his claim that taxes should be lowered to zero certainly raised a cheer.

Newt Doubles Down On 'Palestinians' Remarks:"Enough Lying About The Middle East"

One of my absolute favorite moments of last nights debate...especially since it was a response not only to ABC's talking heads but to 'anti-Zionist' Ron Paul. And note how the audience responded to Gingrich's smackdown!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Newt Doubles Down On 'Palestinians' Remarks:"Enough Lying About The Middle East"

One of my absolute favorite moments of last nights debate...especially since it was a response not only to ABC's talking heads but to 'anti-Zionist' Ron Paul. And note how the audience responded to Gingrich's smackdown!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Last Night's Debate - The War Zone

Yes, I watch these things so you don't have to.

With the Iowa caucus just around the corner, the potential GOP nominees were a lot more contentious and in attack mode than at any of the debates thus far.

As you might expect,most of the fire was directed at perceived front runner Newt Gingrich, which Mitt Romney also taking a few hits as some of the candidates a little lower in the polls saw this as a chance to damage the front runners and gain traction.

Michele Bachmann was particularly outspoken, since she's devoted a great deal of time, energy and resources to Iowa. A poor showing here would damage her quite a bit, since her support and presence in New Hampshire is fairly low key.

Speaking of attacks, I frankly have had it with Rick Perry. Previously, he refused to repute a bigoted, anti-Mormon supporter of his until pressed, and even then I felt it was halfhearted. Last night, he attacked Newt Gingrich in a particularly nasty and personal way, saying you can’t trust people who violate their marriage vows -- vows made, as he said, not only with one’s spouse but also with G-d. "That’s even stronger than a handshake in Texas".

Gingrich does have some issues here, everyone knows it and he's been fairly candid about it. But to attack him in that fashion on nationwide TV was cowardly and beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.

It drew some criticism in certain quarters, but I personally thought it was just wonderful when Mitt Romney, attacked by Perry about a supposed revision in Romney's book stuck out his hand to Perry and bet him a cool $10,000 that Perry was dead wrong. The look on Perry's face when he turned away and said "I'm not in the betting business' was priceless. It was almost as good as his brain freeze the other night when he was challenged to name the three government departments he had been thumping his chest about closing down and then couldn't even name them.

Hopefully Perry will be riding off into the sunset after Iowa.

Mitt Romney also tried to attack Newt Gingrich, and didn't do so well at it.

Trying to explain his differences with Gingrich, he ticked off a whole series of issues, but the big difference he tried to capitalize on was the idea of Gingrich as a career politician and Washington insider.

“We don’t need folks who are lifetime Washington people to get this country out of the mess it’s in,” Romney said. “We need people from outside Washington, outside K Street.”

Gingrich's response? “Let’s be candid,” he said. “The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994. . . . You’d have been a 17-year career politician if you’d won.”

The candidate who actually made took the best shots at the two front runners was Michele Bachmann. She focused on the likenesses between both of them and got in some very good shots.

Rick Santorum also had a fairly good night of it, with a message that seemed focused on Iowa caucus voters. People who used to support Herman Cain or have soured on Newt Gingrich need a place to go, and Santorum seemed to concentrate on reassuring them that he was a safe place to land.

Bottom line? Newt Gingrich seemed to shrug off most of what was thrown at him, although it's going to be hard to tell. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum may have advanced their chances a notch, although whether it will be enough to keep going after Iowa remains to be seen.

One important caveat about Iowa...it's a caucus not a primary. Rather than actual votes, it's a contest to see which candidate is better at mobilizing his or her troops on the ground, getting them to the caucus meetings and then having them take over the meetings once they're there.Which is why no one should be surprised to see a marginal candidate like Ron Paul do well there.

By the way, I'll have some interesting news on Ron Paul a bit later that sheds a lot of light on things.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Last Night's Debate - The War Zone

Yes, I watch these things so you don't have to.

With the Iowa caucus just around the corner, the potential GOP nominees were a lot more contentious and in attack mode than at any of the debates thus far.

As you might expect,most of the fire was directed at perceived front runner Newt Gingrich, which Mitt Romney also taking a few hits as some of the candidates a little lower in the polls saw this as a chance to damage the front runners and gain traction.

Michele Bachmann was particularly outspoken, since she's devoted a great deal of time, energy and resources to Iowa. A poor showing here would damage her quite a bit, since her support and presence in New Hampshire is fairly low key.

Speaking of attacks, I frankly have had it with Rick Perry. Previously, he refused to repute a bigoted, anti-Mormon supporter of his until pressed, and even then I felt it was halfhearted. Last night, he attacked Newt Gingrich in a particularly nasty and personal way, saying you can’t trust people who violate their marriage vows -- vows made, as he said, not only with one’s spouse but also with G-d. "That’s even stronger than a handshake in Texas".

Gingrich does have some issues here, everyone knows it and he's been fairly candid about it. But to attack him in that fashion on nationwide TV was cowardly and beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.

It drew some criticism in certain quarters, but I personally thought it was just wonderful when Mitt Romney, attacked by Perry about a supposed revision in Romney's book stuck out his hand to Perry and bet him a cool $10,000 that Perry was dead wrong. The look on Perry's face when he turned away and said "I'm not in the betting business' was priceless. It was almost as good as his brain freeze the other night when he was challenged to name the three government departments he had been thumping his chest about closing down and then couldn't even name them.

Hopefully Perry will be riding off into the sunset after Iowa.

Mitt Romney also tried to attack Newt Gingrich, and didn't do so well at it.

Trying to explain his differences with Gingrich, he ticked off a whole series of issues, but the big difference he tried to capitalize on was the idea of Gingrich as a career politician and Washington insider.

“We don’t need folks who are lifetime Washington people to get this country out of the mess it’s in,” Romney said. “We need people from outside Washington, outside K Street.”

Gingrich's response? “Let’s be candid,” he said. “The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994. . . . You’d have been a 17-year career politician if you’d won.”

The candidate who actually made took the best shots at the two front runners was Michele Bachmann. She focused on the likenesses between both of them and got in some very good shots.

Rick Santorum also had a fairly good night of it, with a message that seemed focused on Iowa caucus voters. People who used to support Herman Cain or have soured on Newt Gingrich need a place to go, and Santorum seemed to concentrate on reassuring them that he was a safe place to land.

Bottom line? Newt Gingrich seemed to shrug off most of what was thrown at him, although it's going to be hard to tell. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum may have advanced their chances a notch, although whether it will be enough to keep going after Iowa remains to be seen.

One important caveat about Iowa...it's a caucus not a primary. Rather than actual votes, it's a contest to see which candidate is better at mobilizing his or her troops on the ground, getting them to the caucus meetings and then having them take over the meetings once they're there.Which is why no one should be surprised to see a marginal candidate like Ron Paul do well there.

By the way, I'll have some interesting news on Ron Paul a bit later that sheds a lot of light on things.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

SNL's Spoof Of The Last GOP Debate...

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

SNL's Spoof Of The Last GOP Debate...

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Last Night's Debate - 'Oops'

Ouch.

The big news out of last night's debate is that Rick Perry may have crippled his campaign beyond repair.

After saying there were three government departments he'd eliminate, he was only able to name two and froze for an agonizing 53 seconds when he tried to name a third one...ending with an embarrassed "Oops."

OK, anyone can have a brain freeze, but the problem here is two-fold; first, that he did it to himself, and second, that it reinforces his reputation with voters as someone who is an abysmal debater and likely to look like a fool facing President Obama. And that's a pretty low bar, frankly.

Even worse, he tried to recoup during th eanswer to another question, saying "It was the Department of Energy I was trying to think of." Aside from being lame, the Department of Energy is one of the last government departments I think you want to close given that our whole approach to energy independence needs to be ramped up and the efforts co-ordinated nationally.

Even Governor Perry realizes what a game changer this is.

Perry came into the debate at 9.3 percent on InTrade. He’s now down to 4.9 percent and dropping. One of his top fundraisers is reportedly saying that his campaign is over and it's time for him to focus on being governor of Texas.

Herman Cain managed to skate through on the sexual harassment question. Moderator Maria Bartiromo brought the topic up, saying: “Shareholders are reluctant to hire a CEO where there are character issues.”

Cain's response was to sort of sidestep an answer and attack the premise of the question: “The American people deserve better than someone being tried in the court of public opinion based on unfounded accusations,” Cain said. “This country’s looking for leadership and this is why a lot of people, despite what has happened over the last nine days, are still very enthusiastically behind my candidacy.”

It was an obviously prepared and rehearsed answer that got some cheers and was probably the smartest thing he could have said, but it doesn't really address the situation - or his poor handling of it thus far.

The candidates seem to have decided, individually or collectively that there's not going to be any sparks between candidates and they will focus on the positive. Newt Gingrich was his usual articulate self and Mitt Romney also continued to look like the most presidential person on the stage, at least in terms of his poise and ready answers.

He spent a decent amount of time talking about national security and foreign policy issues,an area where he's fairly strong. He reiterated unequivocally that as president, he would see to it that Iran did not obtain nuclear weapons.

When asked to address the flip flopping image, he was likewise strong, saying,“I think people know me pretty well, particularly in this state. I think people understand that I’m a man of steadiness and constancy.”

“I will be true to my family, to my faith and to my country, and I will never apologize for the United States of America.”

In summation, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich came out of the debate with some momentum, Herman Cain managed to avoid any major mistakes and Rick Perry is going to have some serious thinking to do about his next move.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Last Night's Debate - 'Oops'

Ouch.

The big news out of last night's debate is that Rick Perry may have crippled his campaign beyond repair.

After saying there were three government departments he'd eliminate, he was only able to name two and froze for an agonizing 53 seconds when he tried to name a third one...ending with an embarrassed "Oops."

OK, anyone can have a brain freeze, but the problem here is two-fold; first, that he did it to himself, and second, that it reinforces his reputation with voters as someone who is an abysmal debater and likely to look like a fool facing President Obama. And that's a pretty low bar, frankly.

Even worse, he tried to recoup during th eanswer to another question, saying "It was the Department of Energy I was trying to think of." Aside from being lame, the Department of Energy is one of the last government departments I think you want to close given that our whole approach to energy independence needs to be ramped up and the efforts co-ordinated nationally.

Even Governor Perry realizes what a game changer this is.

Perry came into the debate at 9.3 percent on InTrade. He’s now down to 4.9 percent and dropping. One of his top fundraisers is reportedly saying that his campaign is over and it's time for him to focus on being governor of Texas.

Herman Cain managed to skate through on the sexual harassment question. Moderator Maria Bartiromo brought the topic up, saying: “Shareholders are reluctant to hire a CEO where there are character issues.”

Cain's response was to sort of sidestep an answer and attack the premise of the question: “The American people deserve better than someone being tried in the court of public opinion based on unfounded accusations,” Cain said. “This country’s looking for leadership and this is why a lot of people, despite what has happened over the last nine days, are still very enthusiastically behind my candidacy.”

It was an obviously prepared and rehearsed answer that got some cheers and was probably the smartest thing he could have said, but it doesn't really address the situation - or his poor handling of it thus far.

The candidates seem to have decided, individually or collectively that there's not going to be any sparks between candidates and they will focus on the positive. Newt Gingrich was his usual articulate self and Mitt Romney also continued to look like the most presidential person on the stage, at least in terms of his poise and ready answers.

He spent a decent amount of time talking about national security and foreign policy issues,an area where he's fairly strong. He reiterated unequivocally that as president, he would see to it that Iran did not obtain nuclear weapons.

When asked to address the flip flopping image, he was likewise strong, saying,“I think people know me pretty well, particularly in this state. I think people understand that I’m a man of steadiness and constancy.”

“I will be true to my family, to my faith and to my country, and I will never apologize for the United States of America.”

In summation, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich came out of the debate with some momentum, Herman Cain managed to avoid any major mistakes and Rick Perry is going to have some serious thinking to do about his next move.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Farce In Las Vegas

There's only one word to describe last night's GOP debate in Vagas - embarrassing.

Part of it was Rick Perry's desperation to do anything to stop his campaign's freefall, and part of it was that CNN's Lefty moderator Anderson Cooper did an abysmal job and not only allowed some of the candidates to behave like kids fighting in a schoolyard but actually egged them on.

The wildest swinging came from Governor Perry, who tried to make an issue about Governor Romney's supposed 'hiring' of illegal aliens for landscaping and maintenance work at his home, something that been unsuccessfully thrown at Romney before. Romney's explanation is a simple and plausible one, that he hired a company to do the work and simply had no way of knowing they had illegal aliens among the work crew.

I've got news for Rick Perry. In most states with substantial populations of illegal aliens, you've probably unknowingly 'hired ' one of them if you've gone to a car wash,visited a restaurant, gone to a fast food drive through, had your house painted or your roof repaired or hired anyone to do your gardening or brush clearance. In fact, if Governor Perry has done any of these things, he's almost certainly 'hired' an illegal alien or three himself.

So instead of actually discussing the issue intelligently, what we got was a silly brawl.

Most of the debates have highlighted a certain lack of substance among all the candidates, although that's definitely a product of the way the debates have been conducted. No one with any real understanding of the issues America faces should be expected to answer some of these questions in a minute, and when you get someone like Anderson Cooper in charge, you get exactly what you got last night. I don't think it's accidental that the questions asked seem skillfully constructed steer away from anything that could be construed as an avenue to attack President Obama's failed policies, although some of the candidates are better than others in using the brief time they're allowed to work a mention of that in.

After last night, it struck me that most of the candidates on that stage might justifiably mention President Reagan as someone worthy of emulating, but they seem to have forgotten what President Reagan called his eleventh commandment: 'Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.'

As I look at the GOP field, I think I mirror the feelings of many Americans. While we realize that almost anyone on that stage would be better than what we now have in the White House now, (let's eliminate Ron Paul please, in spite of his occasional good idea) we're still undecided because of the lack of substantive answers on most of the issues from any of these candidates.

A capsule look at the three frontrunners makes the reason for this uncertainty obvious.

Herman Cain, likeable though he is seems to answer almost every question aside from his unworkable 9-9-9 plan by saying he would 'gather all the intelligence/information, look at all the angles and make my decision based on that.' He's an intelligent candidate with a compelling personal story who's been impressive in how quickly he's learned the political ropes, but his answers in certain areas have highlighted the fact that he simply isn't knowledgeable about a lot of areas like foreign policy or how government works. I'm simply not convinced he's ready for the top job yet.

Ron Paul, of all people took advantage of this when he slapped Cain around last night about his 9-9-9 plan by saying that the Republicans were at fault for the debt problem 'because we were in charge during the last adminsitration' . A confident and informed candidate would have responded by reminding Paul that according to both the Federal Manage and Budget office and the Congressional Budget Office, the major debt problems and the bulk of the outlandish spending occurred after January, 2007 - the date when the Democrats got control of both houses of Congress. ...followed up by a line about how he,Cain, was more about solutions than blame, and maybe even including a stinger by alluding to Rep. Paul's long and successful career in bringing pork and government largess to his home district.

Another question mark I have about Cain is his not revealing what advisers he has, if any. As a successful CEO, he obviously knows how to hire, a significant aspect of what a president does, and especially one with no governing experience - so whom has he hired? And why the secrecy?

And then there's Cain's propensity for shocking gaffes,like the recent one about building an electrified fence on the Mexican border. While he later dismissed it as a joke after it raised eyebrows even among his supporters, he certainly didn't deliver the remarks as one.

Mitt Romney may come across as presidential, and he's obviously done some deep thinking about the issues, but his convenient endorsement of policies that resonate with the GOP's conservative base as opposed to some of his former positions has created a lot of uncertainty.

He's become pretty good at fending off some of the slapshots sent his way by the other candidates, but there still seems to be a packaged, slightly insincere aura about him, mainly because he does seem so crafted.

As a former Blue State governor who created the clear antecedent to ObamaCare, is he serious when he says he wants to repeal it? As a Harvard-trained technocrat, can he really be counted on to rein in the excesses of Big Government run amuck? Who is the real Mitt Romney? That's essentially what people want to know, and while he's given off some positive signals, he's been far too cautious about revealing it, and it's no certainty that he ever will.

Rick Perry's executive experience as a governor is obviously a plus, but his obvious weaknesses as a debater and his facile endorsement of boilerplate conservative positions set against his failure to adequately address his endorsement of Big Government programs like the Gardisil vaccination dust up, the Trans America Super Corridor or his defense of instate tuition rates for illegal aliens makes me wonder if he ever really wanted to run for president at all in the first place, deep down.

His performance in last night's debacle couldn't have gratified anyone but his hard core supporters.

He's proven himself skillful at raising campaign cash and at slapping together an organization in record time, but the question remains at how serious the whole endeavor is. Thus far, Perry has proven himself to be good at mechanics but poor at both process and substance.

There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, but at least one of these three men is going to have to take some serious steps to address these questions in order to get voters to support them for any other reason than the fact they aren't Barack Obama.

I doubt it would happen, but I would love to see representatives of the major GOP candidates ore even the candidates themselves sit down quietly somewhere, take an honest look at what happened last night and whom it actually helped and come to an agreement about better ways to conduct themselves with each other so that the American people get a better and more substantive look at the candidates.

It may be that our politics have degenerated to the point that someone who's actually a real leader simply can't surface in today's political circus, but I think I speak for a great many people in saying that I'm sick and tired of simply voting for the lesser of two evils.

The stakes in 2012 are higher than they've ever been.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Farce In Las Vegas

There's only one word to describe last night's GOP debate in Vagas - embarrassing.

Part of it was Rick Perry's desperation to do anything to stop his campaign's freefall, and part of it was that CNN's Lefty moderator Anderson Cooper did an abysmal job and not only allowed some of the candidates to behave like kids fighting in a schoolyard but actually egged them on.

The wildest swinging came from Governor Perry, who tried to make an issue about Governor Romney's supposed 'hiring' of illegal aliens for landscaping and maintenance work at his home, something that been unsuccessfully thrown at Romney before. Romney's explanation is a simple and plausible one, that he hired a company to do the work and simply had no way of knowing they had illegal aliens among the work crew.

I've got news for Rick Perry. In most states with substantial populations of illegal aliens, you've probably unknowingly 'hired ' one of them if you've gone to a car wash,visited a restaurant, gone to a fast food drive through, had your house painted or your roof repaired or hired anyone to do your gardening or brush clearance. In fact, if Governor Perry has done any of these things, he's almost certainly 'hired' an illegal alien or three himself.

So instead of actually discussing the issue intelligently, what we got was a silly brawl.

Most of the debates have highlighted a certain lack of substance among all the candidates, although that's definitely a product of the way the debates have been conducted. No one with any real understanding of the issues America faces should be expected to answer some of these questions in a minute, and when you get someone like Anderson Cooper in charge, you get exactly what you got last night. I don't think it's accidental that the questions asked seem skillfully constructed steer away from anything that could be construed as an avenue to attack President Obama's failed policies, although some of the candidates are better than others in using the brief time they're allowed to work a mention of that in.

After last night, it struck me that most of the candidates on that stage might justifiably mention President Reagan as someone worthy of emulating, but they seem to have forgotten what President Reagan called his eleventh commandment: 'Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.'

As I look at the GOP field, I think I mirror the feelings of many Americans. While we realize that almost anyone on that stage would be better than what we now have in the White House now, (let's eliminate Ron Paul please, in spite of his occasional good idea) we're still undecided because of the lack of substantive answers on most of the issues from any of these candidates.

A capsule look at the three frontrunners makes the reason for this uncertainty obvious.

Herman Cain, likeable though he is seems to answer almost every question aside from his unworkable 9-9-9 plan by saying he would 'gather all the intelligence/information, look at all the angles and make my decision based on that.' He's an intelligent candidate with a compelling personal story who's been impressive in how quickly he's learned the political ropes, but his answers in certain areas have highlighted the fact that he simply isn't knowledgeable about a lot of areas like foreign policy or how government works. I'm simply not convinced he's ready for the top job yet.

Ron Paul, of all people took advantage of this when he slapped Cain around last night about his 9-9-9 plan by saying that the Republicans were at fault for the debt problem 'because we were in charge during the last adminsitration' . A confident and informed candidate would have responded by reminding Paul that according to both the Federal Manage and Budget office and the Congressional Budget Office, the major debt problems and the bulk of the outlandish spending occurred after January, 2007 - the date when the Democrats got control of both houses of Congress. ...followed up by a line about how he,Cain, was more about solutions than blame, and maybe even including a stinger by alluding to Rep. Paul's long and successful career in bringing pork and government largess to his home district.

Another question mark I have about Cain is his not revealing what advisers he has, if any. As a successful CEO, he obviously knows how to hire, a significant aspect of what a president does, and especially one with no governing experience - so whom has he hired? And why the secrecy?

And then there's Cain's propensity for shocking gaffes,like the recent one about building an electrified fence on the Mexican border. While he later dismissed it as a joke after it raised eyebrows even among his supporters, he certainly didn't deliver the remarks as one.

Mitt Romney may come across as presidential, and he's obviously done some deep thinking about the issues, but his convenient endorsement of policies that resonate with the GOP's conservative base as opposed to some of his former positions has created a lot of uncertainty.

He's become pretty good at fending off some of the slapshots sent his way by the other candidates, but there still seems to be a packaged, slightly insincere aura about him, mainly because he does seem so crafted.

As a former Blue State governor who created the clear antecedent to ObamaCare, is he serious when he says he wants to repeal it? As a Harvard-trained technocrat, can he really be counted on to rein in the excesses of Big Government run amuck? Who is the real Mitt Romney? That's essentially what people want to know, and while he's given off some positive signals, he's been far too cautious about revealing it, and it's no certainty that he ever will.

Rick Perry's executive experience as a governor is obviously a plus, but his obvious weaknesses as a debater and his facile endorsement of boilerplate conservative positions set against his failure to adequately address his endorsement of Big Government programs like the Gardisil vaccination dust up, the Trans America Super Corridor or his defense of instate tuition rates for illegal aliens makes me wonder if he ever really wanted to run for president at all in the first place, deep down.

His performance in last night's debacle couldn't have gratified anyone but his hard core supporters.

He's proven himself skillful at raising campaign cash and at slapping together an organization in record time, but the question remains at how serious the whole endeavor is. Thus far, Perry has proven himself to be good at mechanics but poor at both process and substance.

There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, but at least one of these three men is going to have to take some serious steps to address these questions in order to get voters to support them for any other reason than the fact they aren't Barack Obama.

I doubt it would happen, but I would love to see representatives of the major GOP candidates ore even the candidates themselves sit down quietly somewhere, take an honest look at what happened last night and whom it actually helped and come to an agreement about better ways to conduct themselves with each other so that the American people get a better and more substantive look at the candidates.

It may be that our politics have degenerated to the point that someone who's actually a real leader simply can't surface in today's political circus, but I think I speak for a great many people in saying that I'm sick and tired of simply voting for the lesser of two evils.

The stakes in 2012 are higher than they've ever been.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

GOP Candidates Boycott Univision Presidential Debate Over Rubio Smear

US Spanish only channel Univision is holding a GOP presidential debate - but Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney will be giving it a miss.

The reason? Oh, nothing much. The five candidates are refusing to participate at the request of three Florida Hispanic Republican lawmakers who accused Univision of running a 'news' story about the 24-year-old drug bust of Senator Marco Rubio’s brother in law in retaliation because Rubio refused to do an interview on the show Al Punto, which supports amnesty for illegal aliens.

Univision of course is denying the attempted blackmail, and said in a statement that has called the allegations of a quid-pro-quo “absurd,” and said that the July story was reported fairly and accurately.

Yes, and of course the arrest of Rubio's brother in law back in 1987 when the Senator was 16 is a major story that merited two full days of extensive coverage.

Meanwhile Univision isn't covering the story of President Obama being photographed campaigning with Malik Shabazz, one of the members of the New Black Panther Party who was convicted of civil rights violations for "patrolling" a voting station in Philadelphia with a night stick. You might remember that one..the charges were dismissed right after Obama was elected over the career prosecutor's objections and after the conviction was made.

But then neither is much of the Dinosaur Media.You can only imagine what the coverage would be like if Michele Bachmann or Mitt Romney was caught campaigning with David Duke or with members of the Aryan Brotherhood.

Three of Rubio’s friends and political allies – U.S. Rep. David Rivera, state House leader Carlos Lopez-Cantera, and Miami-Dade Republican Chairman Erik Fresen – called Monday for the Univision boycott in a letter to the Republican National Committee and the campaigns.

“This attempt at extorting a respected Republican elected official like Senator Rubio, who is also a proud American of Hispanic descent, is offensive and unacceptable,” they wrote.

They called for Univision to apologize and to fire its news president, Isaac Lee, who was accused of offering the quid-pro-quo deal to Rubio. Lee has repeatedly denied the charge.

"We respectfully decline your request to issue a public apology or to request the resignation of our President of News, Mr. Isaac Lee. Lost in the inflammatory language being used by you is the that our story was truthfully and accurately reported," Univision said in a written statement issued before midnight Monday.

“More importantly, Univision takes exception to the false assertion that it attempted to ‘extort’ Senator Rubio in any way, shape or form,” the statement said. “At no point in time did anyone from Univision offer to kill or soften the story regarding Senator Rubio’s brother-in-law in exchange for appearing on any Univision news program."

You see, Marco Rubio made a mistake. He doesn't believe in demonizing illegal aliens, but he doesn't believe in amnesty for them either and that didn't sit well with the people in charge over at Univision because he's a high profile politician who might very well get offered the vice presidential nomination...and as *gasp* a conservative Republican. Dios Mio!

Not only do the GOP candidates gets props for standing on principle and doing the right thing, they're also not losing anything. Both NBC and Telemundo will be airing GOP presidential debates in Spanish, and Spanish speaking voters will ample opportunity to see those debates.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

GOP Candidates Boycott Univision Presidential Debate Over Rubio Smear

US Spanish only channel Univision is holding a GOP presidential debate - but Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney will be giving it a miss.

The reason? Oh, nothing much. The five candidates are refusing to participate at the request of three Florida Hispanic Republican lawmakers who accused Univision of running a 'news' story about the 24-year-old drug bust of Senator Marco Rubio’s brother in law in retaliation because Rubio refused to do an interview on the show Al Punto, which supports amnesty for illegal aliens.

Univision of course is denying the attempted blackmail, and said in a statement that has called the allegations of a quid-pro-quo “absurd,” and said that the July story was reported fairly and accurately.

Yes, and of course the arrest of Rubio's brother in law back in 1987 when the Senator was 16 is a major story that merited two full days of extensive coverage.

Meanwhile Univision isn't covering the story of President Obama being photographed campaigning with Malik Shabazz, one of the members of the New Black Panther Party who was convicted of civil rights violations for "patrolling" a voting station in Philadelphia with a night stick. You might remember that one..the charges were dismissed right after Obama was elected over the career prosecutor's objections and after the conviction was made.

But then neither is much of the Dinosaur Media.You can only imagine what the coverage would be like if Michele Bachmann or Mitt Romney was caught campaigning with David Duke or with members of the Aryan Brotherhood.

Three of Rubio’s friends and political allies – U.S. Rep. David Rivera, state House leader Carlos Lopez-Cantera, and Miami-Dade Republican Chairman Erik Fresen – called Monday for the Univision boycott in a letter to the Republican National Committee and the campaigns.

“This attempt at extorting a respected Republican elected official like Senator Rubio, who is also a proud American of Hispanic descent, is offensive and unacceptable,” they wrote.

They called for Univision to apologize and to fire its news president, Isaac Lee, who was accused of offering the quid-pro-quo deal to Rubio. Lee has repeatedly denied the charge.

"We respectfully decline your request to issue a public apology or to request the resignation of our President of News, Mr. Isaac Lee. Lost in the inflammatory language being used by you is the that our story was truthfully and accurately reported," Univision said in a written statement issued before midnight Monday.

“More importantly, Univision takes exception to the false assertion that it attempted to ‘extort’ Senator Rubio in any way, shape or form,” the statement said. “At no point in time did anyone from Univision offer to kill or soften the story regarding Senator Rubio’s brother-in-law in exchange for appearing on any Univision news program."

You see, Marco Rubio made a mistake. He doesn't believe in demonizing illegal aliens, but he doesn't believe in amnesty for them either and that didn't sit well with the people in charge over at Univision because he's a high profile politician who might very well get offered the vice presidential nomination...and as *gasp* a conservative Republican. Dios Mio!

Not only do the GOP candidates gets props for standing on principle and doing the right thing, they're also not losing anything. Both NBC and Telemundo will be airing GOP presidential debates in Spanish, and Spanish speaking voters will ample opportunity to see those debates.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!