Open thread: Republican debate in Ames

posted at 8:10 pm on August 11, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Tonight, the Republican candidates for the presidential nomination — most of them, anyway — square off for a televised debate in Ames, Iowa, from the Stephens Auditorium at Iowa State University. I will be in the media “spin room,” along with our partner in blogging Tina Korbe and our Townhall brother Guy Benson. The debate starts at 9 pm ET/8 pm local time here in Iowa, and Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier will moderate the event. We’re looking forward to a lively debate, and I’d expect some elbow throwing and sharp barbs between the contenders, along with a few shots at the absent Rick Perry.

Since live blogging has become a little passé in the age of Twitter (is it possible to feel like an old blogger? Yes, we can!), our friends at Townhall came up with this widget that will track our tweets, along with our Townhall colleagues Katie Pavlich, Erika Johnsen, and the indispensable Allahpundit.  Be sure to follow along, and perhaps open this post in two tabs — one to follow the Twitter feeds, and one for comment posting.

Tina, Guy, and I will capture some of the spin in the room after the show, so be sure to stay right here at Hot Air after the debate ….

Update (AP): While we wait, here’s Larry Sabato’s debate preview. Note this passage well:

The tension between Pawlenty and Bachmann will be even more fun to watch. T-Paw is in a corner on this one. If he wouldn’t smack a man last time, can he now do it to a woman — one who Republicans think was already wronged this week by Newsweek’s unattractive cover photo?

Pawlenty’s the only one onstage who can potentially make or break his campaign tonight. Huntsman needs to do well to make a good impression with Republicans who are seeing him for the first time, but Huntsman’s not competing in Ames or in Iowa more broadly. He can afford a mediocre performance. T-Paw can’t, and if he whiffs again when pressed to criticize his opponents to their faces, he’ll be a punchline before the night is out. I sure hope he’s ready if one of the moderators asks who he has in mind in his stump speech when he dumps on nameless “bobbleheads” among his competitors. It’s painfully clear that he means Bachmann, but who knows whether he has the stones to denigrate her when she’s standing right next to him. And if he does, he’d better hit Romney hard too or else he’ll get hammered tomorrow for precisely the reason Sabato gives. Long story short: Pawlenty needs to be throwing chairs tonight. He needs to walk in there in a cape, to the tune of “Pomp and Circumstance,” and be the Macho Man he keeps claiming he is. You’re an old hockey player, Tim, right? Drop the gloves.



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 17 18 19

JellyToast on August 12, 2011 at 8:43 AM

He is a very good debator for sure..:)

Dire Straits on August 12, 2011 at 8:45 AM

After last night, there are only three people left in this race as far as I’m concerned: Perry, Romney, and Newt.

Bachmann scored a little on Pawlenty, but then a 3-year-old girl could kick his arse. Pawlenty’s done. Bachmann was never going to get the nomination, though I like her fighting spirit.

Cain is a good man, but not ready for the presidency.

Huntsman. Oh. My. God. He is the only candidate there who would cause me, if the Angel Marconi came down and made him the nominee, to stay home on Election Day. Seriously.

Paul says a lot of things I like, but always follows it with The Crazy. Not going anywhere.

Santorum. Was he there?

Perry comes out on top because he wasn’t there, and the ones who were left us wanting.

Newt is a fighter, and we need a fighter. He would punch Obama over and over in a debate, and it would be awesome to watch. But he wants to be liked inside the beltway, and being liked means being left. I don’t fully trust him. Maybe as a VP pick? Debating Biden would be hilarious, but it might cause Biden to get the special ed sympathy vote.

Romney is cruising to “it’s his turn” nominee status. That’s never good. The problem with Romney is that his record has problems in it that are important to voters right now: laying off people, the individual mandate in health care. Obama will be well prepared to absolutely slam him with those in a debate. Romney better have some better come backs than we’ve seen so far.

Rational Thought on August 12, 2011 at 8:54 AM

America first.

True_King on August 12, 2011 at 6:58 AM

Said the Jew haters who didn’t want to enter WW2.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 8:55 AM

The millions of Peggy Josephs’ were not impressed.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+pay+for+my+mortgage&aq=f

PappyD61 on August 12, 2011 at 8:57 AM

My take.

kingsjester on August 12, 2011 at 7:48 AM

Yes, I know what you mean, Vern ……

Palin 2012, accept no substitutes.

Jerome Horwitz on August 12, 2011 at 8:58 AM

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 8:55 AM

Congrats on getting Married!..I wish you both a great future together..:)

PS..Maybe you can let her comment on Hot Air sometime?!?..:):)

Dire Straits on August 12, 2011 at 8:58 AM

Ron Paul is the only current candidate who’s been endorsed by the founder of Stormfront and a rag that claims that the Shoah was a hoax. They constantly endorse him because in RP they see a kindred spirit.
Ron Paul is a Jew-hater and no friend of Israel.
Period.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 12, 2011 at 12:32 AM

America first.

True_King on August 12, 2011 at 6:58 AM

I’m not putting America first because I-and many others-point out that Ron Paul has been endorsed by neo-nazi and Holocaust ‘Revisionist’ groups and that he’s no friend of Israel or Jews and that =not putting America first.

Herr Buchanan-is that you?

annoyinglittletwerp on August 12, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Congrats on getting Married!..I wish you both a great future together..:)

PS..Maybe you can let her comment on Hot Air sometime?!?..:):)

Dire Straits on August 12, 2011 at 8:58 AM

Thank you so much, bud.

And I would, but she’s not that into politics.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 9:28 AM

And I would, but she’s not that into politics.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 9:28 AM

I know what you mean..My wife is the same way..:)

Dire Straits on August 12, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Ron Paul is the only current candidate who’s been endorsed by the founder of Stormfront and a rag that claims that the Shoah was a hoax. They constantly endorse him because in RP they see a kindred spirit.
Ron Paul is a Jew-hater and no friend of Israel.
Period.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 12, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Once gain, I’m also reasonably sure those organizations endorse Jesus Christ.

JohnGalt23 on August 12, 2011 at 12:40 AM

“Hitler’s dog liked him.”

I think I’m going to throw up. When Ronulans start justifying neo-nazis liking their candidate nonchalantly, it is truly sickening.

Hint: neo-nazis hate most real conservatives. They don’t admire his patriotic views. They admire his views on Israel. BECAUSE THEY’RE F**KING NEO-NAZIS(/white supremacists/white nationalists/holocaust skeptics/whatever the f**k they want to call themselves this week).

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM

I know what you mean..My wife is the same way..:)

Dire Straits on August 12, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Not to mention I’ve told her what this place is like, so she’d be scared to, anyway. ;)

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Thank you, Sir!

annoyinglittletwerp on August 12, 2011 at 9:35 AM

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM

I hear you..:)

Dire Straits on August 12, 2011 at 9:39 AM

I’m sure Don Black also endorses ice cream. Does that mean we should avoid ice cream, or just the flavors that Don Black endorses?

JohnGalt23 on August 12, 2011 at 12:19 AM

If that ice cream held the same views as him I’d certainly reconsider. I also don’t believe he endorses Ron Paul for his rich creamy taste.

anuts on August 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Said the Jew haters who didn’t want to enter WW2.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 8:55 AM

Who was that? Lindbergh?

The weekend of Bush’s inauguration in January 2000, a DC friend invited me out to attend. The day after, we spent the afternoon in the Newseum. There was a very interesting exhibit about the American media coverage of European Jews during the 1930s and 1940s. According to the exhibit, at that time, virtually all the American media took its cues from The New York Times, which was then owned by a Jewish man. Sadly, that man was hell-bent on avoiding the characterization of his paper as a pro-Jewish publication, so he consciously had reports buried in small items at the back of the paper. I’ll never forget the saying that prevailed at the time: “The New York Times is a newspaper owned by a Jew, written by Catholics to be read by Protestants.”

Your comment suggests that we refrained from entering WW II because of a handful of Jew haters.

Oversimplify much?

Explain that ship of Jewish refugees that FDR turned away in, I think, the late 1930s?

That sad chapter can’t be explained by the position of a handful of people.

BuckeyeSam on August 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM

background noise for me…

cmsinaz on August 12, 2011 at 8:27 AM

Copy that.

Jaibones on August 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM

My understanding is that submission as practiced means that the husband is the head of the household first and foremost.
The wife is to submit to his judgement in most matters. Examples are easier to understand. Say the wife wants to buy a new house, car, vacation etc. They discuss it but the husband has the final say and the wife submits to his decision. Money matters and most other matters, same thing. In a family that holds to this, you will hear “I’ll ask my husband and see what he says”

I think that was the purpose of the question. In other words if she were President, how would that submission to the husband play out.

She spoke about love and respect instead. I love and respect my brother-in-law, but I don’t submit to him:-)

bluefox on August 12, 2011 at 12:00 AM

And she didn’t really answer the question. According to her (and your?) beliefs on submission, she dodged it. She will probably come up with a better answer in case the question arises again. My views on submission are one of mutual equality, which is vastly different from hers. RBMN responded on a different page that this submission wouldn’t apply to political issues, but not all would agree with that view. I think it is an inconsistent application of that belief too. She brought up the issue and I think the public deserves an explanation, i.e., I don’t think this particular question is misogynist given her reasons for becoming a tax lawyer.

Anyway….If anyone wants to jump on me for this, sorry I won’t be able to respond. Busy day. Just want to let you know I’m not avoiding a response. :)

conservative pilgrim on August 12, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Who was that? Lindbergh?

BuckeyeSam on August 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Yes. You know, the pro-eugenics nitwit that was the prime figure for the America First committee. Who was quite the buddy of Henry Ford(you know, the guy who reprinted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion):

Lindbergh may or may not have been simply a genteel antisemite, but he certainly was appreciated by more virulent types. He enjoyed a long professional and personal relationship with Henry Ford — who, in July 1940, told Detroit’s former FBI bureau chief that “when Charles comes out here, we only talk about the Jews”

Not to mention that Pat Buchanan loves him some America First. I’ve already talked about what a Hitler-loving, Jew-hating old fool he is.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Explain that ship of Jewish refugees that FDR turned away in, I think, the late 1930s?

That sad chapter can’t be explained by the position of a handful of people.

BuckeyeSam on August 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM

The paper was the New York Times, and the ship was this one.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 12, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Lon Chaney on August 12, 2011 at 2:21 AM

I believe you prove my point. BTW, I’m a speed reader with comprehension. Ms. West is a, shall we say, curiosity.

Vince on August 12, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Explain that ship of Jewish refugees that FDR turned away in, I think, the late 1930s?

BuckeyeSam on August 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM

You mean the MS St. Louis?

Well, FDR never *explicitly* denied them asylum in the US, but let’s just say FDR wasn’t a big fan of the Jews, and Evian was a huge bust.

Needless to say, they were turned away from the States and from Cuba. They probably could have gone to the DR, which was the only country at Evian to really offer a helping hand; not sure why they didn’t.

Good Solid B-Plus on August 12, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Hint: neo-nazis hate most real conservatives. They don’t admire his patriotic views. They admire his views on Israel. BECAUSE THEY’RE F**KING NEO-NAZIS(/white supremacists/white nationalists/holocaust skeptics/whatever the f**k they want to call themselves this week).

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM

There’s a little froth in the corner of your mouth, MadCon… you might want to wipe that away.

Just a hint: Histrionics don’t become you. Of course, I expect it to get worse in about 36 hours, so…

JohnGalt23 on August 12, 2011 at 10:43 AM

There’s a little froth in the corner of your mouth, MadCon… you might want to wipe that away.

JohnGalt23 on August 12, 2011 at 10:43 AM

There’s not enough napkins in the state to wipe the froth from the mouth of that Zionist nutcase.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Explain that ship of Jewish refugees that FDR turned away in, I think, the late 1930s?

BuckeyeSam on August 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM

What do you mean, explain it? FDR’s attitudes about the Jews were quite nuanced. Sure, he was renown for having more Jews in his cabinet than any other president, because he recognized the skills and aptitude of those he chose. On the greater topic of Jewry, however, he had plenty of closeted contempt.

That despicable and destructive screed penned by a Jew-hating Russian general at the end of the 19th century, better known as “The Protocols”, is without question the primary catalyst responsible for anti-Jewish sentiment for the last hundred plus years. Its fraudulence has been well established and known for almost that entire time, but it always comes back. Right now it’s a tremendous hit in the Middle East. No doubt that even FDR himself flipped through it.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM

bluefox on August 12, 2011 at 12:00 AM

conservative pilgrim on August 12, 2011 at 10:22 AM

According to the Bible and the Church, a wife is to submit to her husband as head of the house. If she was head of state, that would not make him head of state or head of the decisions that belong to her as head of state anymore than a husband would be in charge of telling his wife how to cook.

She should submit to his wishes about whether or not she should run for Pres and how that would affect their marriage and home. But she does not have to submitt to his beliefs on how to run the country.

And the submit part and the head of house part does rest on mutual respect and are hard to describe. As a wife who usually gets her own way, I know how to respect and treat my husband as head of our house, but it’s hard to put into words.

A man is the head of the house and a woman is the heart of the home.

But we aren’t talking about a house or home. We are talking about a country.

Elisa on August 12, 2011 at 10:51 AM

There’s a little froth in the corner of your mouth, MadCon… you might want to wipe that away.

Well, when your entire argument is “well, I’m sure Stormfront likes kittens, too”, it’s pretty damned mind-blowing.

Just a hint: Histrionics don’t become you. Of course, I expect it to get worse in about 36 hours, so…

JohnGalt23 on August 12, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Oh, do expound.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Read ‘While Six Million Died’ by Arthur Morse.
It’s all about FDR’S view of the ‘Jewish problem’-and FDR doesn’t come out looking good @ all.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 12, 2011 at 11:04 AM

There’s not enough napkins in the state to wipe the froth from the mouth of that Zionist nutcase.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM

You’re not fit to hold MadCon’s jock you worthless Jew-hater prick.
God Bless America! Am Yisrael Chai!
*A friend always has their friend’s back*

annoyinglittletwerp on August 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM

When Ron Paul wins the straw poll? I don’t know, I don’t see you as emotionally tied to that but that’s just me.

Cindy Munford on August 12, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Elisa on August 12, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Good explanation. I always thought that was a reference to a tie breaker. I am simplifying.

Cindy Munford on August 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM

There’s not enough napkins in the state to wipe the froth from the mouth of that Zionist nutcase.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Cool. I always like seeing who drops the “Z” bomb so I know that I can safely ignore them.

Good Solid B-Plus on August 12, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Cool. I always like seeing who drops the “Z” bomb so I know that I can safely ignore them.

Good Solid F-Minus on August 12, 2011 at 11:20 AM

And pay complete attention to the blathering nutcases like MadCon? Win the future, dude.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 11:23 AM

There’s not enough napkins in the state to wipe the froth from the mouth of that Zionist nutcase.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Thanks for letting me know that you’re not worth engaging in discussion.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Read ‘While Six Million Died’ by Arthur Morse.
It’s all about FDR’S view of the ‘Jewish problem’-and FDR doesn’t come out looking good @ all.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 12, 2011 at 11:04 AM

I’ll take a look at it. Maybe it can bolster my Zionist nuttery. I’ll ask one of the five Jew banking cartels to charge it to my expense account.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Thanks for letting everyone on the entire thread know that I’m not worth engaging in discussion.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM

FTFY.

I wonder how you’ll cope when we finally run out of funds to back Israel (assuming we don’t prop them up until we collapse).

Rant even more? Go put your money and hide where your mouth is?

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 11:31 AM

When Ron Paul wins the straw poll? I don’t know, I don’t see you as emotionally tied to that but that’s just me.

Cindy Munford on August 12, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Ron Paul winning a straw poll is roughly as significant as L. Ron Hubbard winning a “Who’s the greatest person who ever lived?” contest at the Church of Scientology.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 11:31 AM

You’re not fit to hold MadCon’s jock you worthless Jew-hater prick.
God Bless America! Am Yisrael Chai!
*A friend always has their friend’s back*

annoyinglittletwerp on August 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Thanks again. Shalom aleikhem. (I can’t wait till the cretins start accusing me of being Jewish)

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM

I wonder how you’ll cope when we finally run out of funds to back Israel (assuming we don’t prop them up until we collapse).

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I wonder the same about you when we finally run out of funds to back every country and organization that would masturbate at the thought of every Israeli dying in a fiery mushroom cloud.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 11:35 AM

I wonder the same about you when we finally run out of funds to back every country and organization that would masturbate at the thought of every Israeli dying in a fiery mushroom cloud.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Well, we’re probably going to have to deal with the fact of a nuke-armed Iran unless we either:

A. Cancel either the Iraq or Afghanistan occupations and redirect the effort toward them.

B. Gear up for a war effort not seen since WW2.

…and I don’t see either of those happening, though they might. The thought doesn’t make me happy, but I’m not in a flailing panic over it either. We let the the nuclear genie out of the bottle long ago and trying to put him back is proving ever-more futile.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 11:41 AM

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Not to mention we should have quit subsidizing the entire Middle East (in various ways and for various ends) long ago. Let them subsidize themselves with all that oil.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 11:45 AM

And pay complete attention to the blathering nutcases like MadCon? Win the future, dude.

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 11:23 AM

I disgaree with MadCon on quite a few issues; I’m sure he can tell you that himself. But he hasn’t dropped a Z bomb yet, so he’s worth reading.

Good Solid B-Plus on August 12, 2011 at 11:54 AM

All the candidates missed a golden opportunity to talk to the American people last night when the question was asked about getting things done with a divided house. They should have told us that if the country does not elect enough republicans to the Senate that the country will continue it’s course to bankruptcy. And that they would work just as hard to get them elected. MB mentioned it, but, missed the mark. Everyone else just blew it.

derft on August 12, 2011 at 12:05 PM

All the candidates missed a golden opportunity to talk to the American people last night when the question was asked about getting things done with a divided house. They should have told us that if the country does not elect enough republicans to the Senate that the country will continue it’s course to bankruptcy. And that they would work just as hard to get them elected. MB mentioned it, but, missed the mark. Everyone else just blew it.

derft on August 12, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Ron Paul was the first to be asked about that, and everyone else saw him hit a brick wall head-on. It scared the hell out of them.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Ron Paul was the first to be asked about that, and everyone else saw him hit a brick wall head-on. It scared the hell out of them.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Not surprising. I wouldn’t imagine any of those candidates would try to bring up the problem of their own accord in the first place. If you think SocSec is the ‘third rail’, just TRY to address that!

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 12:14 PM

conservative pilgrim on August 12, 2011 at 10:22 AM

On Bachmann and the question of submission during the debate.

I think the question was legitimate. There could be a conflict arise due to that. She didn’t answer the question the way I can tell you many Christians would.

I also think that as you say, your views on what submission means may be different than hers. Others hold different views.

I was addressing her answer according to Biblical Doctrine and those I know that adhere to that.

One rule with my bro-in-law is that we don’t discuss Politics or the Bible:-)

I’m sure no one is going to “jump” on you or at least they shouldn’t.

bluefox on August 12, 2011 at 12:23 PM

I’ve been really pissed at Newt lately. But the guy was amazing last night. He answered everything with clarity and real solutions. I want to hate him for going after the Ryan plan, but at the end of the day he is one of the few that can go head to head with Obama. I think all of us should take a real hard look at Gingrich for the nomination.

msipes on August 12, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Sorry, I couldn’t hear what you said. I’ve got all this matzo stuck in my ears.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Sorry, I couldn’t hear what you said. I’ve got all this matzo stuck in my ears.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 12:36 PM

You just reminded me of an Archie comic. Now I have this mental image of you as Jughead, dressed up in traditional Jewish garb, and with matzo balls in your ears. |-}

Uncle Sams Nephew on August 12, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Elisa on August 12, 2011 at 10:51 AM

As I’ve expressed to conservative pilgrim here:
bluefox on August 12, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Different points of view are fine on the meaning of “submission”. But it is not our view that is important, but Michelle Bachmann’s, since she is running for the Presidency, not us.

Your viewpoint differs from mine and CP, so you can see how that goes, LOL

As CP said, perhaps she’ll explain her answer better the next time.

bluefox on August 12, 2011 at 12:50 PM

All the candidates missed a golden opportunity to talk to the American people last night when the question was asked about getting things done with a divided house. They should have told us that if the country does not elect enough republicans to the Senate that the country will continue it’s course to bankruptcy. And that they would work just as hard to get them elected. MB mentioned it, but, missed the mark. Everyone else just blew it.

derft on August 12, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Ron Paul was the first to be asked about that, and everyone else saw him hit a brick wall head-on. It scared the hell out of them.

MadisonConservative on August 12, 2011 at 12:10 PM

That was a stupid question. Translated into plain English, the question was “how are you going to make nice so you can get along with the democratics?”

slickwillie2001 on August 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM

My layman’s thoughts: I’m no pundit, and I missed the first hour.

Bachmann: bad makeup job made her look horrible. The question about being a submissive wife was offensive. Her voice grates on people. She is a classy woman, I’ve met her, talked to her, she truly is a sweet woman, but I don’t think she will be the nominee.

Cain: He has excellent business experience but needs to polish his debate image. He speaks with a booming baritone voice and has the energy and charisma of Obama, but is not as smooth on topics that he is less familiar with. But his business experience matters in this race, America needs a business turnaround expert, which he is. He did well, but didn’t seem to get the air time the others did.

Gingrich: He was opinionated, he smacked the moderators and I agree with him doing so. They were focusing on stupid crap while we have serious national issues to address. Personally, I hate the phrase “gotcha question.” Stupid question makes more sense to me.

Huntsman: As I posted on FB last night, I think he looks like a SNL character trying to act presidential. His money will not buy him the nomination, he is truly disliked by much of the conservative new media.

Paul: Get off the stage you crazy old fart. You are like a taller, crazier version of Ross Perot. And take your immature Paul-bots with you.

Pawlenty: Good on policy, but boring as hell. The way he looks and the way he moved his hands reminded me of Kermit the Frog. I thought he looked defeated most of the time, I imagined a though bubble above his head saying “wtf am I doing here…”

Romney: Looked the most presidential. Some of my peers say he appears too scripted and too robotic. I agree he’s not energetic, but his words make sense to me.

Santorum: He was fired up and said some good things. He was certainly on the offensive, I think he did well.

cannonball on August 12, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Paul reminded me of the crazy uncle that no one wants to sit next to at the dinner table…he is an unlikable Norm from Cheers—”Ummm, it’s a little known fact that the number of troops in Afghan equal the number of eggs that can be given to SS recipients, thus lowering the debt ceiling and sealing the borders”.
Yeah, thanks Uncle Paul, pass the mashed potatoes please, no, they are not spiked or have transmitters that are monitored by black helicopters…

right2bright on August 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM

DON”T BUY IT!!!

Ron Paul Ain’t A Crazy Uncle

Bachman, Palin et al. ain’t nuts either

These candidates are fighting to take a job from a guy who is claiming that a tiny group from their party single handedly ruined his ability to govern and ruined his nascent economic recovery.

People don’t think He is nuts.

IlikedAUH2O on August 12, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 17 18 19