No more. No MAS! Hurts. HURTS! Make them stop, Lord. Please make them stop!
Can we have a debate about whether we want to discuss the debate?
I agree with Vanderleun. We’ve heard enough of leading questions and attempts at stirring up more animosity. The positions of the candidates on the various issues are pretty clear. They all want smaller, more efficient, less expensive government. There are small differences that are mostly details. All except Ron Paul want a strong national defense and a forward leaning foreign policy. Their tax policy ideas vary, but all lean toward a flatter, lower tax code.
Cannot avoid commenting on Newt. He was in rare form and came up with some fine riffs. He managed to eviscerate Juan Williams when he asked Gingrich if his ideas about letting school children do paid janitorial work in schools wasn’t contemptuous of the poor and racist on its face. Newt let him have it full force, asking in the end if honest work for pay was something the poor shouldn’t be asked to do. He’s at his best in this type of format. He wasn’t nearly as impressive in the Huckabee forum Saturday night.
Super Pac ads were addressed. Both Newt and Romney expressed their dislike for them and wanted change because the Super Pacs are like IEDs – often doing unexpected damage to those they were supposed to be supporting.
Will not be watching any more of the debates. I can support whoever manages to get the nomination. I would have to swallow hard, but will even vote for Paul if he becomes the nominee. (Would not vote for him as a third party candidate, though.)
So far its unanimous: the ‘debates’ are worthless as conducted by the MSM. I would like to see all of the candidates in the race hold their own debate, moderated by the chairman of the RNC, and debate whether or not the MSM is the propaganda ministry of the DNC. That I would watch.
didn’t watch, haven’t watched, will not watch. The “debates” are an offense to reasoning people, and best serve the interests of the questioners and their masters. Juan Williams is like Joe Lieberman; personally likeable, correct on a few points but otherwise just another utopian Leftist.
JJ, as a white male kid in the 60’s, I did janitorial work for my small rural WA state grade school as a 6th grader. It was a coveted job, I earned a few bucks from the real janitor, and respect for honest work. Too bad that kind of thing doesn’t happen today, it would be a good part of schooling.
I never listen to these debates, I don’t have that much time to spend and don’t care for the format, but I do read the reviews and comments.
Worth watching. Best one so far, with the exception of Gingrich’s one-on-one’s with Herman Cain and Jon Huntsman.
Romney, evasive and stiff, Gingrich just gets to the core of the question, defines the issue, groks it, and solves it. Out of the park every time.
Pelosi and Reid et al won’t be pulling the wool over President Gingrich’s eyes, he knows how it all works, what makes them tic, and how to cut through the BS… whatever his failings, his policies and ideas seem to me – very moral. Work is good. Feeling self sufficient is good. Years wasted playing video-games and ‘hanging out’ because you aren’t allowed to work breeds nothing but trouble, I don’t care what race you are.
The prospects were actually quizzed about some current issues. Nice to know Mitt wouldn’t abuse any dictatorial power the NDAA authorizes.
RP made it plain that defense != military. If you think that the Constitution and the people have been fairly served by glossing over the link between killing terrorists and building infrastructure for people who hate us, you can’t vote for Paul.
I will have to knuckle down and read Mitt’s 59-page plan, because he likes to make promises to increase spending on wars but wants to limit taxes and balance the budget. I can accept that nonsense from Newt and the Ricks, but Romney is allegedly a business genius. On which page will I find the magic unicorn plantation that craps out money?
“personally likeable, correct on a few points but otherwise just another utopian Leftist Republican.”
Fixed that, to make it more widely applicable.
My overwhelming impression was the debates have outlasted their usefulness. At the beginning of the campaign, it was important to see the candidates side-by-side, see how they looked, how they sounded, how they parried, etc. At this point, however, it feels stale and redundant.
The only one who really impressed me with his performance was Perry. He’s clearly become a lot better, although it’s much too late to matter.
The excitement over Newt’s performance eludes me. He was strong, but not in any way we haven’t seen before. When you break it down, what really separates his debating technique from the others’ is fairly simple: Other candidates tend to just take the general subject matter of the question and give a little speech on that topic, without necessarily addressing the question as phrased. Newt takes the question as literally phrased, identifies some disagreement with a premise of the question, pronounces that disagreement “fundamental” to a proper understanding of the underlying issue, and then maybe gives a little speech about that issue. The audience eats it up because Newt comes off looking smart at the expense of the poor bastard asking the questions. So, whereas the other candidates basically ignore the question itself, Newt very often scores his points by commenting on the question itself. Unfortunately, like every other trick, it becomes less and less impressive through repitition
The debates as done by the MSM have the substance and reality of the Emmy or Oscars, the show American idol, and the view… (and i can guess you can throw in such now co-opted and empty things as ms america, ms universe, the nobel prize, etc)
I’d like to see one debate where the moderators are staunch conservatives, like Rush, Mark Levin, Mark Steyn, Thomas Sowell, heck even a Krauthammer or George Will would be nice. I bet the questions would be alot different and alot more revealing. I guess real conservatives who espouse extreme concepts like individual and economic freedom are too polarizing to moderate a debate in a welfare state that demands always increasing amounts of authoritarian, government control.
About last night’s debate, I’d note that several days ago Romney said that he had no plans to release his tax returns. Now he’s being pressured to release them and so he says he may do so around April.
I wonder why he has a reputation for being an unprincipled flip-flopper?
Scott: because people like you make inane comments like that which define flip-flopping in an especially broad way when it applies to Romney.
Virtually all candidates do that sort of thing, and if you don’t know that, then you’ve been living under a rock for your entire life.
If you require candidates to always hold to the same points of view and positions their entire lives, fine, find someone like that and vote for him or her. I think Ron Paul might be a good choice (although perhaps even he he has changed his mind on occasion).
If you want to accuse Romney of flip-flopping—and a case can be made for that accusation, of course—make it on the merits of opinions he’s held and changed. As I’ve said several times, there’s no problem finding some of these changed positions (although I think many of them have been misrepresented by those who dislike Romney). But this isn’t one of them.
I would love to see Romney hold off on the tax return release until it’s a foregone conclusion that he’s the nominee and then link it to Obumbler’s release of his transcripts and records from his college years. It’s more important that we finally know why Obumbler is trying so hard to obscure his past.
Im thinking that having nickelodeon host the debate and allow green slime and such would make it just about right for today’s majority voters… given his numerous appearances, cornell west can host…
neo-neocon:
It’s not a life-long position. Romney flip-flopped in less than two weeks.
It was during the ABC debate earlier this month that Romney said he had no plans to release his tax returns. Now, in last night’s debate he said he “probably” will release them in April.
So, he took one position in one debate and a different position in the very next debate.
You can insult me all you want. You can even pretend that flip-flopping does not mean changing one’s position. But I suspect people who are more objective and reasonable than you are will agree that he flip-flopped when he said during one nationally televised debate that he “did not intend” to release his tax returns but in the very next debate he said that he “probably” would.
Scott: you misconstrue my point about the tax release decision.
This has nothing to do with being a “lifelong position” of Romney’s, or a flip-flop on a matter of policy or belief. It’s a political, strategic decision (smart or stupid, as the case may be), that only has to do with politics. It also has to do with timing (another political decision).
Now, if Romney had previously said he objected to ever releasing his tax records on some sort of principle, I’d say you had some sort of point. But there’s no there there in what you’re attempting to say.
And believe me, if I wanted to insult you, I could do a lot better than this.
By the way, you have insulted me in your last paragraph. As a blogger, I really don’t think it’s best to react with anger to every insult thrown my way. But saying I’m “pretending” that flip-flopping is not changing one’s mind is both insulting and incorrect.
Flip-flop as a term is used in many different ways; you can look it up. I know that some people regularly use it in politics to mean “change one’s mind,” which is a correct usage, but I think it’s more appropriate and meaningful in politics when it refers to repeatedly changing one’s mind on a single issue (definition: To move back and forth between two conditions or circumstances, sometimes repeatedly). Otherwise it would be appropriate for almost every politician, and rather meaningless.
My point is also that it is misleading to use the term as a general pejorative when referring to changing one’s mind about something. As a self-described specialist in political change and changers, I’ve studied it and I’ve experienced it, and there’s nothing bad about it if it represents a change of mind on the merits of some basic and important political question. Otherwise, a person’s ideas would be frozen in stone, and he or she could not change them based on new knowledge and information, as well as personal growth.
Some of Romney’s changes (“flip-flops”) are spurious and the result of the manipulation of truncated quotes on the part of those seeking to discredit him. Some of Romney’s changes (“flip-flops”) are real stated changes of mind (usually, by the way, from more liberal to more conservative rather than the other way around). Whether they are changes of heart as well, and are sincere, is a very valid question. But some are pretty much meaningless politics-as-usual, common to all politicians, and not really changes of mind on policy at all, but are rather strategic changes.
Another point about Romney’s “flip flops” is that, to the best of my knowledge (and I’ve done a lot of research on this), his positions have not only gone almost entirely in the direction of less conservative to more, but he’s also not changed position on each issue repeatedly. He has changed on several issues, but only once—not back and forth, back and forth, which would to my mind merit the pejorative charge of “flip-flopping.”
One example of an unimportant, politically expedient change of mind (“flip-flop”), would be if Gingrich had said that he must win South Carolina or drop out of the race, and then if he lost South Carolina and stayed in the race. Even I (who doesn’t like Gingrich as a candidate) would not say he’s flip-flopping, and I wouldn’t criticize him for his decision at all; perfectly okay to change one’s mind in that way. (By the way, Gingrich didn’t say that, although he said something a bit similar; my example is hypothetical).
OK. I think I have it. After all that, you acknowledge Romney flip-flopped on the tax return issue. But you prefer using the term flip-flop when it has a slightly different meaning, so in your arrogant eyes that makes my flip-flop comment “inane”.
You then say I must have been living under a rock my entire life if I don’t know that politicians change their positions all the time — insultingly suggesting I’m uninformed. Then you offer your advice about who I should support. I’ll decide for myself who to support, so I’ll give your suggestion the consideration it deserves.
You’ve blown an innocuous comment way out of proportion and insulted a frequent reader/commenter who has always treated you and your readers respectfully.
Well done. It’s your blog.
Scott: I think it ought to have been obvious that my suggestion—that you support Ron Paul if you want a candidate who doesn’t change his mind—was a quip rather than an actual desire to tell you who to support.
And I have not used words like “arrogant” to decribe you, as you have me. When I wrote “inane” it modified the word “comment”:
Here was the exchange:
Scott: I wonder why [Romney] has a reputation for being an unprincipled flip-flopper?
neo-neocon: because people like you make inane comments like that [implying that Romney’s tax return release decision was an unprincipled flip-flop] which define flip-flopping in an especially broad way when it applies to Romney.
I think I’ve made it clear that I think there’s a case to be made for Romney as a flip-flopper. But in my opinion your comment about the tax release decision was irrelevant to that argument.
Nor did I say that you’ve been living under a rock your entire life. I wrote:
Virtually all candidates do that sort of thing [strategically change their minds on minor issues such as releasing tax returns], and if you don’t know that, then you’ve been living under a rock for your entire life.
In fact, I was assuming (and still assume) that you do know that virtually all candidates do “that sort of thing,” therefore that you have not lived under a rock your entire life, but are setting up a stricter double standard for Romney for some reason. That was the point of my comment to you.
You may think you made an innocuous comment when you indicated the change in Romney’s decision about releasing his tax return was an example of the sort of thing that has given him a reputation as an “unprincipled flip-flopper.” The implication is that changing his mind in that manner would justify such a reputation. But I don’t think it’s innocuous to set up a double-standard for a candidate, and call him “unprincipled” when he has changed his mind on a minor matter that really has little to do with principles, and is the sort of thing that virtually all candidates do who aren’t being called “unprincipled flip-floppers.”
I try very hard to be precise in what I say here, and to back up what I say with logic and examples. If I’m criticizing someone I try to criticize them for what they are actually doing, not something else. I am certain I sometimes fail to live up to those standards, but I try very hard. And when I see someone accusing a candidate of something the person hasn’t done in that particular instance, I reserve the right to call them on it.
I don’t think it’s an innocuous or trivial issue, although you are absolutely by no means the worst offender. In that sense your comment was minor compared to what is out there. But it was the word “unprincipled” in particular that I was reacting to.
😉 For anyone who wants a candidate who has never ‘flip-flopped’ RP is the one to choose. And IF I was given the opportunity to choose between RP or Mitt I would choose RP. If I was given an opportunity to choose between RP and BHO I would choose RP.
RP is rock steady consistent. That is beyond argument. Do I agree with him 100%, no of course not. However, I admire his consistency, a rare thing in a politician.
No more. No MAS! Hurts. HURTS! Make them stop, Lord. Please make them stop!
Can we have a debate about whether we want to discuss the debate?
I agree with Vanderleun. We’ve heard enough of leading questions and attempts at stirring up more animosity. The positions of the candidates on the various issues are pretty clear. They all want smaller, more efficient, less expensive government. There are small differences that are mostly details. All except Ron Paul want a strong national defense and a forward leaning foreign policy. Their tax policy ideas vary, but all lean toward a flatter, lower tax code.
Cannot avoid commenting on Newt. He was in rare form and came up with some fine riffs. He managed to eviscerate Juan Williams when he asked Gingrich if his ideas about letting school children do paid janitorial work in schools wasn’t contemptuous of the poor and racist on its face. Newt let him have it full force, asking in the end if honest work for pay was something the poor shouldn’t be asked to do. He’s at his best in this type of format. He wasn’t nearly as impressive in the Huckabee forum Saturday night.
Super Pac ads were addressed. Both Newt and Romney expressed their dislike for them and wanted change because the Super Pacs are like IEDs – often doing unexpected damage to those they were supposed to be supporting.
Will not be watching any more of the debates. I can support whoever manages to get the nomination. I would have to swallow hard, but will even vote for Paul if he becomes the nominee. (Would not vote for him as a third party candidate, though.)
So far its unanimous: the ‘debates’ are worthless as conducted by the MSM. I would like to see all of the candidates in the race hold their own debate, moderated by the chairman of the RNC, and debate whether or not the MSM is the propaganda ministry of the DNC. That I would watch.
didn’t watch, haven’t watched, will not watch. The “debates” are an offense to reasoning people, and best serve the interests of the questioners and their masters. Juan Williams is like Joe Lieberman; personally likeable, correct on a few points but otherwise just another utopian Leftist.
JJ, as a white male kid in the 60’s, I did janitorial work for my small rural WA state grade school as a 6th grader. It was a coveted job, I earned a few bucks from the real janitor, and respect for honest work. Too bad that kind of thing doesn’t happen today, it would be a good part of schooling.
I never listen to these debates, I don’t have that much time to spend and don’t care for the format, but I do read the reviews and comments.
Worth watching. Best one so far, with the exception of Gingrich’s one-on-one’s with Herman Cain and Jon Huntsman.
Romney, evasive and stiff, Gingrich just gets to the core of the question, defines the issue, groks it, and solves it. Out of the park every time.
Pelosi and Reid et al won’t be pulling the wool over President Gingrich’s eyes, he knows how it all works, what makes them tic, and how to cut through the BS… whatever his failings, his policies and ideas seem to me – very moral. Work is good. Feeling self sufficient is good. Years wasted playing video-games and ‘hanging out’ because you aren’t allowed to work breeds nothing but trouble, I don’t care what race you are.
The prospects were actually quizzed about some current issues. Nice to know Mitt wouldn’t abuse any dictatorial power the NDAA authorizes.
RP made it plain that defense != military. If you think that the Constitution and the people have been fairly served by glossing over the link between killing terrorists and building infrastructure for people who hate us, you can’t vote for Paul.
I will have to knuckle down and read Mitt’s 59-page plan, because he likes to make promises to increase spending on wars but wants to limit taxes and balance the budget. I can accept that nonsense from Newt and the Ricks, but Romney is allegedly a business genius. On which page will I find the magic unicorn plantation that craps out money?
“personally likeable, correct on a few points but otherwise just another utopian
LeftistRepublican.”Fixed that, to make it more widely applicable.
My overwhelming impression was the debates have outlasted their usefulness. At the beginning of the campaign, it was important to see the candidates side-by-side, see how they looked, how they sounded, how they parried, etc. At this point, however, it feels stale and redundant.
The only one who really impressed me with his performance was Perry. He’s clearly become a lot better, although it’s much too late to matter.
The excitement over Newt’s performance eludes me. He was strong, but not in any way we haven’t seen before. When you break it down, what really separates his debating technique from the others’ is fairly simple: Other candidates tend to just take the general subject matter of the question and give a little speech on that topic, without necessarily addressing the question as phrased. Newt takes the question as literally phrased, identifies some disagreement with a premise of the question, pronounces that disagreement “fundamental” to a proper understanding of the underlying issue, and then maybe gives a little speech about that issue. The audience eats it up because Newt comes off looking smart at the expense of the poor bastard asking the questions. So, whereas the other candidates basically ignore the question itself, Newt very often scores his points by commenting on the question itself. Unfortunately, like every other trick, it becomes less and less impressive through repitition
The debates as done by the MSM have the substance and reality of the Emmy or Oscars, the show American idol, and the view… (and i can guess you can throw in such now co-opted and empty things as ms america, ms universe, the nobel prize, etc)
I’d like to see one debate where the moderators are staunch conservatives, like Rush, Mark Levin, Mark Steyn, Thomas Sowell, heck even a Krauthammer or George Will would be nice. I bet the questions would be alot different and alot more revealing. I guess real conservatives who espouse extreme concepts like individual and economic freedom are too polarizing to moderate a debate in a welfare state that demands always increasing amounts of authoritarian, government control.
About last night’s debate, I’d note that several days ago Romney said that he had no plans to release his tax returns. Now he’s being pressured to release them and so he says he may do so around April.
I wonder why he has a reputation for being an unprincipled flip-flopper?
Scott: because people like you make inane comments like that which define flip-flopping in an especially broad way when it applies to Romney.
Virtually all candidates do that sort of thing, and if you don’t know that, then you’ve been living under a rock for your entire life.
If you require candidates to always hold to the same points of view and positions their entire lives, fine, find someone like that and vote for him or her. I think Ron Paul might be a good choice (although perhaps even he he has changed his mind on occasion).
If you want to accuse Romney of flip-flopping—and a case can be made for that accusation, of course—make it on the merits of opinions he’s held and changed. As I’ve said several times, there’s no problem finding some of these changed positions (although I think many of them have been misrepresented by those who dislike Romney). But this isn’t one of them.
I would love to see Romney hold off on the tax return release until it’s a foregone conclusion that he’s the nominee and then link it to Obumbler’s release of his transcripts and records from his college years. It’s more important that we finally know why Obumbler is trying so hard to obscure his past.
Im thinking that having nickelodeon host the debate and allow green slime and such would make it just about right for today’s majority voters… given his numerous appearances, cornell west can host…
neo-neocon:
It’s not a life-long position. Romney flip-flopped in less than two weeks.
It was during the ABC debate earlier this month that Romney said he had no plans to release his tax returns. Now, in last night’s debate he said he “probably” will release them in April.
So, he took one position in one debate and a different position in the very next debate.
You can insult me all you want. You can even pretend that flip-flopping does not mean changing one’s position. But I suspect people who are more objective and reasonable than you are will agree that he flip-flopped when he said during one nationally televised debate that he “did not intend” to release his tax returns but in the very next debate he said that he “probably” would.
Scott: you misconstrue my point about the tax release decision.
This has nothing to do with being a “lifelong position” of Romney’s, or a flip-flop on a matter of policy or belief. It’s a political, strategic decision (smart or stupid, as the case may be), that only has to do with politics. It also has to do with timing (another political decision).
Now, if Romney had previously said he objected to ever releasing his tax records on some sort of principle, I’d say you had some sort of point. But there’s no there there in what you’re attempting to say.
And believe me, if I wanted to insult you, I could do a lot better than this.
By the way, you have insulted me in your last paragraph. As a blogger, I really don’t think it’s best to react with anger to every insult thrown my way. But saying I’m “pretending” that flip-flopping is not changing one’s mind is both insulting and incorrect.
Flip-flop as a term is used in many different ways; you can look it up. I know that some people regularly use it in politics to mean “change one’s mind,” which is a correct usage, but I think it’s more appropriate and meaningful in politics when it refers to repeatedly changing one’s mind on a single issue (definition: To move back and forth between two conditions or circumstances, sometimes repeatedly). Otherwise it would be appropriate for almost every politician, and rather meaningless.
My point is also that it is misleading to use the term as a general pejorative when referring to changing one’s mind about something. As a self-described specialist in political change and changers, I’ve studied it and I’ve experienced it, and there’s nothing bad about it if it represents a change of mind on the merits of some basic and important political question. Otherwise, a person’s ideas would be frozen in stone, and he or she could not change them based on new knowledge and information, as well as personal growth.
Some of Romney’s changes (“flip-flops”) are spurious and the result of the manipulation of truncated quotes on the part of those seeking to discredit him. Some of Romney’s changes (“flip-flops”) are real stated changes of mind (usually, by the way, from more liberal to more conservative rather than the other way around). Whether they are changes of heart as well, and are sincere, is a very valid question. But some are pretty much meaningless politics-as-usual, common to all politicians, and not really changes of mind on policy at all, but are rather strategic changes.
Another point about Romney’s “flip flops” is that, to the best of my knowledge (and I’ve done a lot of research on this), his positions have not only gone almost entirely in the direction of less conservative to more, but he’s also not changed position on each issue repeatedly. He has changed on several issues, but only once—not back and forth, back and forth, which would to my mind merit the pejorative charge of “flip-flopping.”
One example of an unimportant, politically expedient change of mind (“flip-flop”), would be if Gingrich had said that he must win South Carolina or drop out of the race, and then if he lost South Carolina and stayed in the race. Even I (who doesn’t like Gingrich as a candidate) would not say he’s flip-flopping, and I wouldn’t criticize him for his decision at all; perfectly okay to change one’s mind in that way. (By the way, Gingrich didn’t say that, although he said something a bit similar; my example is hypothetical).
OK. I think I have it. After all that, you acknowledge Romney flip-flopped on the tax return issue. But you prefer using the term flip-flop when it has a slightly different meaning, so in your arrogant eyes that makes my flip-flop comment “inane”.
You then say I must have been living under a rock my entire life if I don’t know that politicians change their positions all the time — insultingly suggesting I’m uninformed. Then you offer your advice about who I should support. I’ll decide for myself who to support, so I’ll give your suggestion the consideration it deserves.
You’ve blown an innocuous comment way out of proportion and insulted a frequent reader/commenter who has always treated you and your readers respectfully.
Well done. It’s your blog.
Scott: I think it ought to have been obvious that my suggestion—that you support Ron Paul if you want a candidate who doesn’t change his mind—was a quip rather than an actual desire to tell you who to support.
And I have not used words like “arrogant” to decribe you, as you have me. When I wrote “inane” it modified the word “comment”:
Here was the exchange:
I was using the second meaning of the word “inane” here by the way: “lacking significance, meaning, or point.”
I think I’ve made it clear that I think there’s a case to be made for Romney as a flip-flopper. But in my opinion your comment about the tax release decision was irrelevant to that argument.
Nor did I say that you’ve been living under a rock your entire life. I wrote:
In fact, I was assuming (and still assume) that you do know that virtually all candidates do “that sort of thing,” therefore that you have not lived under a rock your entire life, but are setting up a stricter double standard for Romney for some reason. That was the point of my comment to you.
You may think you made an innocuous comment when you indicated the change in Romney’s decision about releasing his tax return was an example of the sort of thing that has given him a reputation as an “unprincipled flip-flopper.” The implication is that changing his mind in that manner would justify such a reputation. But I don’t think it’s innocuous to set up a double-standard for a candidate, and call him “unprincipled” when he has changed his mind on a minor matter that really has little to do with principles, and is the sort of thing that virtually all candidates do who aren’t being called “unprincipled flip-floppers.”
I try very hard to be precise in what I say here, and to back up what I say with logic and examples. If I’m criticizing someone I try to criticize them for what they are actually doing, not something else. I am certain I sometimes fail to live up to those standards, but I try very hard. And when I see someone accusing a candidate of something the person hasn’t done in that particular instance, I reserve the right to call them on it.
I don’t think it’s an innocuous or trivial issue, although you are absolutely by no means the worst offender. In that sense your comment was minor compared to what is out there. But it was the word “unprincipled” in particular that I was reacting to.
😉 For anyone who wants a candidate who has never ‘flip-flopped’ RP is the one to choose. And IF I was given the opportunity to choose between RP or Mitt I would choose RP. If I was given an opportunity to choose between RP and BHO I would choose RP.
RP is rock steady consistent. That is beyond argument. Do I agree with him 100%, no of course not. However, I admire his consistency, a rare thing in a politician.
Parker: Well, as Emerson said:
So I guess it depends on whether you think RP’s consistency is foolish or not.