Who was the night’s biggest winner?

posted at 10:05 am on June 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

After writing a curmudgeonly rant (or two) about one of the worst debate productions ever seen, I suppose I owe a word or two about how the candidates did.  Frankly, none of them turned in an inspiring or inspired performance, although all of them did at least a competent job.  I spent two hours looking for a breakout candidate or a charismatic performance that would stand out and frame the rest of the primary race.  Instead, perhaps as a result of the silliness and grunting foisted on us by CNN and its moderator John King, none of them stood out much from the others, and none of them did much damage to themselves or each other.

I’ll offer my thoughts on each candidate in no particular order:

  • Mitt Romney – He came into the debate as a weak frontrunner, and he went out the same way.  He did well, and just as he did in 2007-8, came across as an affable, competent executive and speaker.  He had the most to lose in the debate and managed to protect his position, in part because of the efforts of the other Republicans to attack Barack Obama rather than each other.  He stumbled only once, in saying that the Afghans needed to liberate themselves from the Taliban, who are, er, also Afghans.  Otherwise, he did well and reminded everyone why he was John McCain’s strongest challenger in the last cycle.  He was, as always, cool and collected.
  • Tim Pawlenty – Pawlenty will get crucified for his refusal to back up his “ObamneyCare” attack from a few days ago when faced with Romney on the stage, and in part deservedly so — but only because the candidates agreed to the sound-bite format in the first place.  On policy and substance, Pawlenty did fine, but he needed to outperform Romney to start building traction early.  At best this was an opportunity missed, and a reminder that it’s going to be tough to beat Romney in the debates.
  • Michele Bachmann – Bachmann’s good performance seems to have caught everyone by surprise except me.  The media paints Bachmann as a wild-eyed nut, but I’ve known her for years, and she’s very sharp and quick-witted.  She didn’t make any mistakes, and perhaps more than anyone last night allowed her personality to shine, impressing even Dana Milbank.  She can play with the big boys, as she will prove again and again, but other than the surprise factor, Bachmann turned in a solid but not breakout performance.  She’ll get a decent bump in polling after last night.
  • Newt Gingrich – Gingrich had nothing to lose last night and let it rip.  As always, he provided excellent analysis and spin, but Gingrich has a problem in debate formats, which is that he doesn’t like to be challenged — and it shows.  He looked angry and argumentative, and at times almost resentful.  He didn’t demonstrate the kind of poise that usually impresses in this format, and while some of that might be welcome in a hostile environment, Gingrich didn’t apply his annoyance where it would have counted … at the inane “This or That” questions.  It was impossible for Gingrich to hurt himself, but he didn’t exactly help himself either, especially when he appeared to endorse McCarthyism.
  • Herman Cain – Other than his attempt to defuse the issue of Muslims working in his government, Cain did a pretty good job, but nowhere near the blockbuster performance the last time.  That’s OK; it’s still early in the season for all of these candidates, and like college football, it’s the late losses that count, not the early ones.  He needs to regroup a little and try to muscle the conversation more towards his strengths on the economy and jobs, which CNN avoided like the plague last night to his disadvantage.
  • Rick Santorum – It’s been a while since I’ve seen Santorum in this context, and he looked and sounded good.  He also needs to muscle up a bit, but again, it’s early.  At times, Santorum seemed a little lost on stage, getting outshined by the other candidates.  It wasn’t memorable, but it’s a decent start.
  • Ron Paul – Well, if you like Ron Paul, you liked him last night, and if you don’t, you saw what you normally saw.  Other than Bachmann, he may have allowed more of his actual personality out than the other candidates, but again, that’s not necessarily a good thing for his electoral chances.  Paul offered a completely incoherent answer on emergency room treatment that ended up opposing attacks on the Catholic Church while offering the suggestion that Catholics fund indigent care.  On the other hand, he picked Blackberries over iPhones, so it’s a wash, I guess.

The biggest winner for me was None of the Above.  There is plenty of room for a charismatic, accomplished candidate to jump into this race and outshine the field as it stands at the moment.  For some that will be Sarah Palin, but I’d say that the 2-hour performance was a gilt-edged invitation to Rick Perry to join the field and command the stage.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

OK so listening to him, I’m hearing a standard issue supply side message delivered with a small side of corn pone. Nothing wrong with any of that :-)

MJBrutus on June 14, 2011 at 5:10 PM

For some reason Texas fatigue takes a LOT longer to wear on me than Chicago fatigue.

John the Libertarian on June 14, 2011 at 4:21 PM

I heard that. There is nothing wrong with Texans, don’t let any one tell you different. When it comes to looking after people their response is “We got room” The day after Katrina, Texans were going door to door for Red Cross etc.. they were already organizing. Ask the folks who got evacuated from NOLA about Texans. Gov Rick Perry – Will make room. Louisiana – Gov White (D), didn’t have a disaster plan, that’s okay Texas had one for us, and one for Louisiana :) Could Rick Perry handle the U.S. Presidency? Yes.

Nope, I don’t have Texas fatigue, anyway Dubya’s from the North East. Perry was born in Texas.

Dr Evil on June 14, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Gotta say Ed as good as your analysis is your Week pic makes you look like Lex Luthor, just sayin’…

BKennedy on June 14, 2011 at 5:13 PM

LOL. That’s not alliterative, but I get your point :-)

MJBrutus on June 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM

You’re right! I guess it’s consonance? Anyway, I like it.

Rational Thought on June 14, 2011 at 5:14 PM

OK so listening to him, I’m hearing a standard issue supply side message delivered with a small side of corn pone. Nothing wrong with any of that :-)

MJBrutus on June 14, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Wait till you see him in full glad handing mode LOL!

Dr Evil on June 14, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Yeah, but in fairness a lot of red states are doing OK, and not all of them have petro dollars either.

pseudoforce on June 14, 2011 at 4:56 PM

My red state has a Dem governor. Our unemployment is near 10 percent.

fossten on June 14, 2011 at 5:15 PM

delivered with a small side of corn pone MJBrutus on June 14, 2011 at 5:10 PM

That’s what the southern governors always have going for them Clinton and Bush, they have that folksy charm down. Barack Obama was stuck with Chicago and Harvard, he can’t come off as folksy. American’s relate to folksy persona.

Dr Evil on June 14, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Wait till you see him in full glad handing mode LOL!

Dr Evil on June 14, 2011 at 5:14 PM

I haven’t seen a lot of Perry in action. How do you think people outside of Texas and the south will find his…style? I’m genuinely curious. I find Obama to be so brittle and sarcastic, slipping into that ghetto twang when he’s really gonna put someone down. How might Perry stand next to that do you think? What potential contrasts do you see side by side on a stage?

Rational Thought on June 14, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Dr Evil on June 14, 2011 at 5:11 PM

I agree. It isn’t like we’re talking about Jeb Bush.

MJBrutus on June 14, 2011 at 5:19 PM

O/T but good for a few laughs:

“Pmail”: Jon Stewart on Palin’s E-mails

steebo77 on June 14, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Perry gets a cameo on Beck. Classic.

John the Libertarian on June 14, 2011 at 5:24 PM

John the Libertarian on June 14, 2011 at 5:24 PM

On radio or does he still have a show on Fox?

MJBrutus on June 14, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Rational Thought on June 14, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Perry is a professional politician he has good instincts. He has his charm lots of smiles. In fact, I haven’t witnessed him doing it, but I believe he would smile, while he is telling someone to go to hell. He doesn’t get shook up easy, maybe that’s a Texas thing. When it comes to attacking him, he’s pretty good at deflection. He had negatives down here, when he ran for reelection the last time, they were not so great he couldn’t over come them. He was running against Bill White (D) who used to be Mayor of Houston. For the life of me, I am having a difficult time remembering the attack ads, he ran against Perry, though I could have told you at the time. I probably even left a comment about them here on Hot Air.

Dr Evil on June 14, 2011 at 5:28 PM

On radio or does he still have a show on Fox?

MJBrutus on June 14, 2011 at 5:26 PM

He still has a show on FOX until the end of June.

Kataklysmic on June 14, 2011 at 5:30 PM

On radio or does he still have a show on Fox?

MJBrutus on June 14, 2011 at 5:26 PM

He’s wrapping up his Fox broadcast. The Perry showing wasn’t anything to write home about. He just talked about job creation.

John the Libertarian on June 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM

“Pmail”: Jon Stewart on Palin’s E-mails

steebo77 on June 14, 2011 at 5:22 PM

That was pretty funny. You should flip it to AP in tips.

John the Libertarian on June 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Here is the attack adds the Republicans ran against Bill White: Too Liberal for Texas

Basically they went after his record as Mayor of Houston, then they hung Obamacare around his neck.

Dr Evil on June 14, 2011 at 5:44 PM

O/T but good for a few laughs:

“Pmail”: Jon Stewart on Palin’s E-mails

steebo77 on June 14, 2011 at 5:22 PM

That was good. I like the ending a classic, they should keep sifting through her emails, I’m sure there is a pony in there somewhere.

Dr Evil on June 14, 2011 at 6:03 PM

link for the details

Is Mitt Romney the New Nelson Rockefeller?

@ The American Spectator

In the world of politics it was Nelson Rockefeller who had the misfortune to have all the political assets one could possibly imagine — looks, charm, brains, energy and literally all the money he could use. Yet with all of this Rockefeller was totally unable — if not stubbornly unwilling — to understand the significance of the conservative revolution that was swirling around him as his own career unfolded. And in not understanding, much less not leading that conservative revolution Rockefeller not only failed spectacularly as a presidential candidate but made himself into a defiant symbol of resistance. He transformed himself into a man so stubbornly enamored of the liberal status quo and its supporting Establishment that his very name attached to that of his party became not simply a descriptive to conservatives but an epithet:

“The Rockefeller Republican.”

– a short-hand, derisive description for Republicans now labeled as a “RINO” …

The Rockefeller Republican became immutably identified as someone whose philosophical moorings and political instincts lay not in the Constitution but rather with the American progressive movement and the liberal Establishment that movement had become. Or, as Rockefeller’s longtime intra-party rival Ronald Reagan once described the problem to Time magazine:

“I think the division of the Republican Party grew from pragmatism on the part of some, the Republicans who said, ‘Look what the Democrats are doing and they’re staying in power. The only way for us, if we want to have any impact at all, is somehow to copy them.’ This was where the split began to grow, because there were other people saying, ‘Wait a minute. There is great danger in following this path toward Government intervention.’”

Is Mitt Romney the new Nelson Rockefeller?

The question takes on even more import in the wake of the New Hampshire GOP debate last night as [progressive "pragmatist"] Romney reinforced the doubts of Reaganites.

How did Rockefeller actually beat his match of an opponent as Gov./NY? By playing Mr. Congeniality, real or not, to the T.

There was Rockefeller rhetoric — [vs.] Rockefeller in action as chief executive.

Say what people want to hear, regardless of what you do.

Nelson Rockefeller was not just a follower of the Establishment line — as a Rockefeller he was a card carrying member of that Establishment. His hand was literally no sooner off the swearing-in bible than he was enthusing about the need for this long range planning group and that future-oriented commission. He wanted to pour endless amounts of money into [x, y, z]. …

How to pay for all of this?

A mere two weeks after taking office Governor Rockefeller let the world glimpse how he really thought by ramming tax increases through the legislature for gasoline and diesel fuel. Then he really got going. A month later he was demanding a staggering $227 million increase in state taxes that would come from taxes on everything, from personal income taxes to cigarette fees. …

Eventually it would be a Rockefeller brain child, so-called “Urban Development Corporation Bonds” that … was presented with the usual liberal moral glow of a “moral obligation.” … Note: by 1974 Governor Rockefeller was Vice President Rockefeller — gone from state politics and any direct responsibility for coping with the results.

What this Rockefeller pattern demonstrated in a particularly vivid fashion was his inability to break away from the liberal Establishment thinking of the day. That, in sum, was his major flaw. While Ronald Reagan was already crisscrossing the country challenging the Establishment by laying out conservative principle in speeches for General Electric, Rockefeller was busy playing the Establishment game.

WHAT REALLY SEALED the image and the derisive coining of the term “Rockefeller Republican” was Rockefeller’s quite visible and verbal disdain for those who parted politically from the liberal Establishment way of thinking. Nelson Rockefeller would not — could not — contain his contempt for those who were beginning to abandon Republican liberalism in droves. It wasn’t simply that he could not summon the vision that was already crystal clear to Reagan … Rockefeller castigated them as not being “in the mainstream of American political thought and action,” sneering at them as “the radical Right lunatic fringe.” Conservatives, he insisted, employed the “tactics of totalitarianism” as they sat out there on the “extreme Right.”

Nelson Rockefeller accepted — believed to the core of his being — in the Establishment way of government. And the modern conservative movement was nothing if not a threat to the liberal Establishment way of doing business. But Rockefeller was wrong. He had misjudged conservatives completely.

Which is precisely the pattern of misjudgment that Mitt Romney is exhibiting with every increasing moment he spends campaigning for the very Republican presidential nomination that eluded Nelson Rockefeller. A pattern Romney reinforced yet again in last night’s New Hampshire debate.

As Rockefeller was great on what we now call Reagan-esque rhetoric of freedom and economic growth, Mitt Romney is Nelson Rockefeller on steroids.

“the base.”

Yet unmistakably, the Nelson Rockefeller mind-set oozes not only from Romney’s book but his presentations on the campaign trail. To say, as Romney does in his book, that “Despite my affiliation with the Republican Party I don’t think of myself as highly partisan” is simply one way of summing up the creed of the Rockefeller Republican — pragmatism. Which Reagan, of course, disdained.

From RomneyCare and its health insurance mandates (or, as rival Tim Pawlenty slyly called it, “ObamneyCare”) to his belief in climate change (which inevitably means the government must do X), to last night’s double confirmation that his goal as president would be merely to clip the hedges of big government, Mitt Romney is displaying his bona fides to the GOP liberal Establishment as the consummate Rockefeller Republican.

Says the group of Romney in this regard:

His contribution to history reads like a roster of “who’s who” of the Republican establishment.

The ultimate question for Republican primary voters, then, is whether the next Republican president should be a Rockefeller Republican or a Reagan Republican.

Or, as Mark Levin said of Romney with his usual sharp eye to discerning those who love to cite Ronald Reagan while in fact demonstrating they are anything but:

In Iowa he’s for ethanol subsidies [and] in New Hampshire he’s for controlling man-made global warming. I can’t support this man in the Republican Primary. There’s just no way without compromising all my principles.

Romney “basically destroyed health care in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” Levin added, and with no pleasure, speculating on the disaster that would ensue in an administration where the Romney mind-set was appointing an EPA administrator.

Rockefeller Republicanism is Mitt Romney’s political core, his every political instinct, and it expresses itself and will continue to express itself as Romney moves through this campaign. Asking him to stop is like demanding the Pope not sound so, well, Catholic.

All of which poses an interesting dilemma for Republicans.

Here’s a great candidate for president. He’s got the looks, the charm, the energy, the brains and, if not Rockefeller-style money, at least enough plus the ability to raise more.

The problem:

He tries hard to sound like Ronald Reagan.

But he thinks like Nelson Rockefeller.

maverick muse on June 14, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Badger – I’m a lifelong Texan born & raised (except for 4 years in Libya in the 60s and 10 years in Denver ’93 – ’03)………I won’t argue for one SECOND that Perry’s not a good politician because he IS……….but if ANY of Yall think he’s a good CONSERVATIVE I have some PRIME beachfront property to sell you in Nebraska – right on the beach!

Katfish on June 14, 2011 at 6:12 PM

And NO……….I am NO FAN of Romney whatsoever in any way, shape, manner, or form

Katfish on June 14, 2011 at 6:13 PM

American’s relate to folksy persona.

Dr Evil on June 14, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Except when they use it as proof of idiocy, dontcha know.

alwaysfiredup on June 14, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Katfish on June 14, 2011 at 6:12 PM

But you see, the opinion makers don’t care about conservatism anymore, if they ever did. It’s all about keeping “undesirables” out and stepping on the necks of the undesirables’ supporters so they quit infecting others with their optimism and excitement.

Isn’t it obvious?

alwaysfiredup on June 14, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Just a thought…………if Perry would just get serious about SECESSION (there I said it)………..he wouldn’t have to RUN for anything – he’d already have a country to be PREZ of!

WHOOPS there I go employing common sense again……..

Katfish on June 14, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Except when they use it as proof of idiocy, dontcha know.

alwaysfiredup on June 14, 2011 at 6:16 PM

But it’s not that effective both Bush and Clinton served two terms.

I am waiting on Palin’s decision if she doesn’t jump in. I am going to cowboy up just watch me LOL!

Dr Evil on June 14, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Rick Perry just did a cameo on Glenn Beck. Hints at running: http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/6535592126/texas-gov-rick-perry-cameos-on-glenn-beck-hints-at

poorrichardsnews on June 14, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Perry/Bachmann 2012

kg598301 on June 14, 2011 at 7:40 PM

funny how all these new “texans” jump out from under their rocks telling us that Perry is not a conservative

beware of palinbots I mean texans bearing “gifts”

windansea on June 14, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Romney: “No, I think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country. Our nation was founded on a principal of religious tolerance”

And Islam has no tolerance, except when forced to, of others. Often they don’t even tolerate other Muslims. Romney seems completely clueless or willfully blind on this and hence would be very dangerous to America and Western Civilization as President.

HalJordan on June 14, 2011 at 8:00 PM

windansea on June 14, 2011 at 7:47 PM

We live in Texas, we are telling everyone to go in “Eyes Wide Open” that’s not attacking Perry, we are telling you all, don’t make him into something he isn’t, then attack him for it, when he doesn’t live up to your expectations.. Take him as is, he is a social conservative.

Dr Evil on June 14, 2011 at 9:13 PM

maverick muse on June 14, 2011 at 6:07 PM

President Reagan wasn’t always a conservative. In light of the union fights today Google Reagan and Solidarity. He kinda supported unions.

Anyway, I could live with a leader as conservative as Governor Palin but Mitt blasts this administration better than she does and if he continues to distance himself from his lefty past and our Alaskian savior starts morphing into a drama queen, I say line up behind someone who showed up for work.

Aside from that, only Huntsman and Newt have demonstrably more brains.

IlikedAUH2O on June 14, 2011 at 10:05 PM

OH, compared to Senator Goldwater Reagan was a flamin’ lefty.

IlikedAUH2O on June 14, 2011 at 10:06 PM

funny how all these new “texans” jump out from under their rocks telling us that Perry is not a conservative

beware of palinbots I mean texans bearing “gifts”

windansea on June 14, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Don’t take my governor and then turn him in to a punching bag when he doesn’t live up to your imagination. I had to watch the social cons turn on Bush in the middle of a damn war for our survival because he did exactly as he said he would do.. no child left behind, prescription drugs for Medicare and immigration reform. He advertised himself as a compassionate conservative and got elected only to see those who said they supported him turn on him right here at HA.. led by social conservatives.

Best you figure out now just how much you support him. Me .. I know who he is and I won’t expect any more than I know if he gets in.

Texas Gal on June 14, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Pawlenty will get crucified

And he has.
We’ve heard all of the T-Paw slams about his debate performance.
Let’s let him respond to the criticism now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijSLDjmZfaU

itsnotaboutme on June 14, 2011 at 11:52 PM

funny how all these new “texans” jump out from under their rocks telling us that Perry is not a conservative

beware of palinbots I mean texans bearing “gifts”

windansea on June 14, 2011 at 7:47 PM

So just exactly WHAT constitutes an “old Texan” Hmmm? I’ve been one for 56 & 100/365ths years. While I do kinda like Palin – she LOST me when she endorsed Guvnah Goodhair. Please do not misunderstand – I’d vote for almost ANYONE against the current sad excuse for a POTUS. IMHO Tricky Ricky is ONLY a conservative during campaign season…………………..that Herman Cain Gent looks promising (at least currently)…..Alan West looks good too (currently)……….

Katfish on June 15, 2011 at 10:55 AM

For the record, again, I fully supported Fred Thompson’s First Principles and Common Sense POTUS campaign ’08.

And so far as Palin is concerned, we could do a lot worse. But she was never my first choice, though were she the name on the loyal opposition’s ticket running against Obama, I’d again vote for her.

Were you actively aware of recent Texas politics, you’d remember that Palin failed to endorse long-time Republican organizer, political volunteer and Tea Party activist Medina’s solid platform that ran against Perry’s latest. Perry failed miserably in two televised debates vs. Medina. Instead of supporting the smaller and constitutionally limited government platform, fully aware of Perry’s unconstitutional orders and decisions, Palin endorsed the smear campaigner Perry for her own political alliance.

funny how all these new “texans” jump out from under their rocks telling us that Perry is not a conservative

beware of palinbots I mean texans bearing “gifts”

windansea on June 14, 2011 at 7:47 PM

In comparison to many Texans posting at HotAir, and formerly at Captain’s Quarters, you’re the newbie. And from what you’re writing, you seem ignorant of Texan matters and events.

A lot of Texans, including myself, are reminding readers of Gov.Perry’s anti-Constitutional record, having already presided over three egregious decisions to rescind US Constitutional Rights from US citizens in Texas. Readers need to also realize that it is an erroneous assumption to think that because Perry is a multi-term TX Governor, that should translate into solid “executive experience”. So far as the Texas Legislature is concerned, according to the Texas State Constitution, it is the LT. GOV. (not the governor) who presides over the legislature and therefore has the power over legislation and over the tax fund purse strings. What Perry has done is to reward himself with financial PAC kickbacks by issuing Executive Orders that benefit outside globalist interests, not even Statewide or local special interests. There is always his permission enabling CPS kidnapping of an entire community’s non-adult population, forcibly taking children into State Child Protective Services that were NOT prepared or capable of handling hundreds of children whom Perry simultaneously ordered into foster homes. That Perry crumbled under social pressure from his West Texas voter base. He functioned using false evidence making his administration’s own false report from a known liar with her own false report record on file. For a year, parents and children and siblings were denied any communications with each other while the children themselves were ostracized as unacceptable people by the State of Texas.

THAT is representative of Perry’s “executive experience”, abusive performance of duty with the best of intentions, of course, for our own good. That you call such leadership style “conservative” marks your own point of reference as an authoritarian apologist.

btw, the TX Biennial Legislature only meets every other year. If Perry were to tout having been the BIPARTISAN Lt. Gov. under Gov.Bush, that stint didn’t last long enough to prove legislative leadership before Bush quit to become POTUS. It was the former and great Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock who actually deserves the credit for non-partisan statesmanship during that era of TX recent history.

maverick muse on June 15, 2011 at 3:26 PM

IlikedAUH2O on June 14, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Yes, “conservatism” depends upon contextual application, referential to what is being conserved.

Re: Reagan’s political party affiliation, sure the name changed. But so far as being anti-communist, Reagan was always that sort of conservative who loved preserving the Constitution “the American Way” promoting “the American Dream”. Having not served American in WWII/Korean combat, he fought Communism politically. And as a neoconservative POTUS, he felt compelled to fight undeclared military wars against communism in Latin America, and to illegally sell arms to fight against anti-American Jihad in the Middle East.

Given the Polish Solidarity Movement of Labor to (ironically) gain independence from the USSR, of course Reagan supported that Union cause. After all, Reagan’s original executive experience as the president of the screen actors’ union (pro-FBI)? That Reagan would sign amnesty for illegal aliens and promote farm workers’ rights also defines his affinity with GHBW/GWB neoconservative “compassionate conservatism”.

As things developed, he certainly was known to delegate authority, and chose an inner circle Cabinet of neoconservatives. NIXON/Kissinger would likely win the unprecedented prize being the first neoconservative Republican administration.

maverick muse on June 15, 2011 at 3:50 PM

And Islam has no tolerance, except when forced to, of others. Often they don’t even tolerate other Muslims. Romney seems completely clueless or willfully blind on this and hence would be very dangerous to America and Western Civilization as President.

HalJordan on June 14, 2011 at 8:00 PM

A few points. Romney was the target of a nasty religious smear campaign. One that probably cost him the nomination and left us with McCain. Second, you are painting with too broad a brush when you tar all Muslims. It is not unlike holding all of Christianity responsible for the Westboro nuts.

MJBrutus on June 15, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Best you figure out now just how much you support him. Me .. I know who he is and I won’t expect any more than I know if he gets in.

Texas Gal on June 14, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Excellent advice.

But when GWB initially campaigned with the “compassionate” propaganda, most people had no idea just how far revisionism of language usage had already gone to effectively invert “meaning” into the opposite.

With President GWBush, we supported his best efforts to protect America after 9/11. But obviously, chronologically Bush did not initially campaign publicly for a war against terror, the Patriot Act to result should another WTC act of terrorism succeed, or the international agenda that he established.

As events unfolded, it was not simply our American right but our duty as citizens to protest our President when he acted in favor of open borders despite criminal illegal aliens and his wars against drugs and against terror. There is absolutely no excuse for the Bush/Paulson Federal Reserve Ponzi scheme “requiring” TARP, claiming to bail-out bankrupted homeowners with mortgages under water, but instead paying off the very globalist investment industry that ripped off the world’s various mutual interest funds and pensions.

We can admire good manners. But just because someone smiles and speaks well while they piss on us doesn’t mean we’re supposed to let it happen, let alone thank them.

maverick muse on June 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM

But when GWB initially campaigned with the “compassionate” propaganda, most people had no idea just how far revisionism of language usage had already gone to effectively invert “meaning” into the opposite.

maverick muse on June 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM

LOL… thanks for providing the example I was talking about from the ‘true conservatives’.

Texas Gal on June 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4