Open thread: Are you ready for the Huckabee presidential forum? Update: Gingrich leads new Iowa poll, Paul second

posted at 7:25 pm on December 3, 2011 by Allahpundit

8 p.m. ET on Fox News, two full hours with Huck and the gang sans Huntsman and, of course, Cain. Rick Perry will attend despite his initial hesitation. No doubt he’d prefer to skip it given Huckabee’s issues with him, but he can’t afford to pass on a platform this prominent. Especially with social conservatives a core part of tonight’s viewership.

Speaking of debate attendance, second look at Ron Paul?

In a campaign statement released Saturday, Paul’s campaign called the [Trump] debate a distraction from the real issues of the campaign.

“The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity,” Jesse Benton, Ron Paul’s national campaign chairman, said in a statement.

He added, “Mr. Trump’s participation as moderator will distract from questions and answers concerning important issues such as the national economy, crushing federal government debt, the role of the federal government, foreign policy, and the like. To be sure, Mr. Trump’s participation will contribute to an unwanted circus-like atmosphere.”…

“Mr. Trump’s selection is also wildly inappropriate because of his record of toying with the serious decision of whether to compete for our nation’s highest office, a decision he appeared to make frivolously,” Benton said.

Gingrich will be there with bells on, allegedly for “entertainment value.” Is that also why he’s meeting with Trump next week?

Here’s your thread in lieu of a “Quotes of the Day” post. While we wait, watch the preview from yesterday’s interview with Jenna Lee. Huck’s vowing that the candidates won’t be allowed to attack each other, but good luck making Gingrich and an increasingly desperate Romney play completely nice with each other. (The White House, needless to say, is rooting for maximum casualties.) Oh, and keep your eye on this page at the Des Moines Register, as their new Iowa poll — the gold standard for the state — is expected to roll out sometime tonight. The numbers will be chaotic this week because of Cain’s in-or-out ambivalence when the poll was conducted, but if Gingrich is up big, the panic in Team Mitt this coming week will be palpable. I hope for his sake that the vaunted Romney organization is as good as they say.

Update: PPP will have its own Iowa poll coming out tomorrow. And it sounds like a doozy:

Initial impressions from Iowa: Newt winning, but by single digits. Expected bigger margin. Paul/Romney duking it out for 2nd

Other thing that grabs my attention in IA is Perry appears to be in double digits, much better than he’s been doing elsewhere


Update: As the clock strikes 8 p.m. on the east coast, the Register’s new poll is out.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul has risen into second place, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has slid to third with just over a month before the Iowa caucuses kick off voting in the presidential nominating process.

Gingrich has support from 25 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers, Paul is at 18 percent and Romney at 16 percent.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann ties with retired Georgia business executive Herman Cain at 8 percent. The poll was conducted before Cain suspended his candidacy on Saturday. Rounding out the field: Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania at 6 percent each, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman at 2 percent.

If it’s true that most of Cain’s support will break for Gingrich then Newt’s probably pushing 30 percent in reality. In fact, the Register says he’s the second choice for 43 percent of caucusgoers so he has room to grow. As for Rick Perry: Oof.

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 6 7 8

test

John the Libertarian on December 4, 2011 at 1:13 AM

All of the candidates have weak points and strong points. A supporter of one can go from one who flames out to another without abandoning his principles. He just makes a decision that on balance the good outweighs the bad.

sharrukin on December 3, 2011 at 11:39 PM

I like that. Elections are about choices. You can only vote on who’s running. Well… you can write in a vote and waste it too.

I liked this format, more than 11 minutes would have been better though.

Hog Wild on December 4, 2011 at 1:15 AM

We don’t even know what BHO’s GPA was.

Meritocracy is like democracy and capitalism. It’s a mediocre and imperfect system, until you compare it to cronyism and nepotism, and that’s exactly what you would have without meritocracy.

haner on December 4, 2011 at 12:29 AM

He graduated from HLS magna cum laude — they don’t just hand that out, Haner.

Meritocracy is just fine so long as it isn’t David Brooks’ idea of “meritocracy” — a meritocracy defined by shallow credentialism and university GPA. I am hoping Mitt wouldn’t endorse such a concept, but then again, Mitt does fit the mold of the Brooks’ meritocrat; pants crease and all, of course.

Punchenko on December 4, 2011 at 1:17 AM

O/T

To anyone else who is still awake, it looks like riot police are about to confront Occupy Portland: http://www.livestream.com/occupyptown

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Lawdawg86:Quick pop in,the Goons have moved there HQ’s to City Hall:)
================

Update: #occupyportland protesters regroup in front of City Hall; police gathering
14 Minutes ago.
Hot
Update
=========

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on December 4, 2011 at 1:19 AM

I think people are going to be bitterly disappointed if/when Gingrich is elected.

nswider on December 3, 2011 at 11:53 PM

They certainly will. When push comes to shove Newt cares about Newt. I am stunned at how uninformed or niave voters are. All I can think is we have a generation that were too young to remember when Newt quit the House because the House was going to oust him if he didn’t. He had a mutiny on his hands because he would tell them one thing one day and then talk to Clinton and change his mind and pull the rug out from under his caucus… they forget he paid a $300K fine… that he cheated on two wives… and much more. The thinking that is elevating Newt is the same thinking that existed in the Democratic Party and gave us Obama (in that case they forgot about Carter)…

Rapunzel on December 4, 2011 at 1:21 AM

momoftxmomof3 on December 3, 2011 at 11:26 PM

I didn’t know you were here! Welcome, ma’am, I’m glad to have you aboard.

(Laura from the DC visit/Pre-Beck Rally)

Laura in Maryland on December 4, 2011 at 1:25 AM

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on December 4, 2011 at 1:19 AM

You made my whole evening. I’ll get the popcorn. Let me know if I miss any good wood-shampooings.

Laura in Maryland on December 4, 2011 at 1:28 AM

You know what I’ve discovered from this primary? Conservative voters have no core principles.

haner on December 3, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Its such a shame that this is what conservatism has come to.

Conservative Samizdat on December 4, 2011 at 1:29 AM

He graduated from HLS magna cum laude — they don’t just hand that out, Haner.

Check out the how honors were handed out by Harvard Law back then, I think it was close to 80% that graduated with honors so probably close to 50% of his class graduated with magna.

lowandslow on December 4, 2011 at 1:30 AM

Punchenko on December 4, 2011 at 1:17 AM

grade inflation is rampant at harvard, the rise started back in the 70′s. if you get in and show up its almost impossible to not graduate w/ honors. its kind of a joke nowadays.

chasdal on December 4, 2011 at 1:32 AM

Part 4 – Why Apacalyps endorsed Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann should be strong in Iowa because she was born in Iowa. She was born and raised in Iowa and her family later moved when she was a kid. Her family moved to Minnesota, but she’s born and raised in Iowa. She has strong Iowa roots. So I think she’d be strong in Iowa. She may be strong in South Carolina too because of her Christian beliefs. So she can win and if we work together hopefully there will be some surprises in 2012. God willing.

apacalyps on December 4, 2011 at 1:33 AM

After several years of talk about Alinsky on the internet, at Tea Parties, on radio and TV, a lot of people know who he was.

INC on December 3, 2011 at 10:56 PM

KEYWORD:PEONS:(the 99%?) watch The View on TV, listen to Pop Radio, block out ‘racist’ T Party info, and haven’t the slightest idea what an alinsky is. Def. Not HA readers. Newt preachin to the choir.

Rea1ityCheck on December 4, 2011 at 1:39 AM

I don’t get along with dudes who listen to Mitt Romney and Karl Rove.

apacalyps on December 4, 2011 at 1:44 AM

I’m going to add one more thing to that list. Romney needs to immediately drop his “Romneycare was the right thing to do, and I would do it again” defense. It was understandable at first that he thought he needed to stand by his record so he didn’t feed the flip-flopper narrative or whatever, but seriously, every time he says “I’m proud of what I did in Massachusetts” with that ****-eating grin on his face it is like the dog-whistle version of scraping nails on a blackboard to Tea Partiers. And more generally, saying “I’m proud of what I did as governor of Massachusetts” in a Republican primary is like saying “I’m proud of what I did in Vegas” at a Baptist church picnic. He needs to come up with an answer that doesn’t involve sticking his thumb in the eye of the largest voting bloc in the primary.

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 2:00 AM

UGH! Bachmann, Perry, Paul, and Santorum need to go away. They are shallow, inarticulate, loony, and too hung up on religion to be electable.

Gingrich showed he is a typical unprincipled Washington insider that is so enamored with his own brilliance that he can’t tell when he has announced a progressive policy.

Romney was very articulate, precise, and in control once again. He was so cool, a person would have to suspect that the three Attorney’s General were in the bag for him and decided to give him softball questions for 11 minutes. No wonder Obama is scared $hitless to face Romney.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 2:01 AM

“I’m proud of what I did as governor of Massachusetts” in a Republican primary is like saying “I’m proud of what I did in Vegas” at a Baptist church picnic.

That is a great analogy and it is exactly why Romney is going to beat Obama in the general. Most people are not Baptists and don’t live their lives that rigidly. If the TEA Party were as ideologically pure as many here claim they are, they will never last. Thankfully, the real TEA Party folks are rational and will nominate the candidate that will beat Obama. And that candidate is Romney.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 2:05 AM

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 2:05 AM

I could just as soon have juxtaposed Vegas and Catholicism, or Orthodox Judaism, or any other stricter religious branch. I just figured since a lot of people here are evangelical (I’m an agnostic myself), my analogy would find a more receptive audience if I used Baptism. You see csdeven, one day you and all other Mittbots will learn that you get better results if you tailor your message and your metaphors to your audience. Too bad your candidate couldn’t figure that out, and now its costing him the election :(

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 2:20 AM

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 2:20 AM

You can rewrite it anyway you like and you’ll still make the same point that illustrates the error in your thinking. You want Romney to fit an ideologically pure model before you will support him. But that ideologically pure candidate will lose in the general because Americans ARE NOT ideological. They are center right which means we sit more toward the center than the right. Today, the TEA Party is viewed as too far right. Ergo, any candidate that adheres to your standard would lose in the general.

The model you are insisting on doesn’t exist. As a matter of fact, your standards would eliminate 1980 Reagan.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 2:28 AM

Romney was very articulate, precise, and in control once again. He was so cool, a person would have to suspect that the three Attorney’s General were in the bag for him and decided to give him softball questions for 11 minutes. No wonder Obama is scared $hitless to face Romney.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 2:01 AM

Here’s a rag for your chin

MeatHeadinCA on December 4, 2011 at 2:37 AM

MeatHeadinCA on December 4, 2011 at 2:37 AM

Save it for yourself. Wrap it around your ears so you can keep what few brains you still have left in your skull.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 2:40 AM

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 2:05 AM

I could just as soon have juxtaposed Vegas and Catholicism, or Orthodox Judaism, or any other stricter religious branch. I just figured since a lot of people here are evangelical (I’m an agnostic myself), my analogy would find a more receptive audience if I used Baptism. You see csdeven, one day you and all other Mittbots will learn that you get better results if you tailor your message and your metaphors to your audience. Too bad your candidate couldn’t figure that out, and now its costing him the election :(

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 2:20 AM

Mitt: Oh I know! Let’s throw in some good ole Brooksie!!!!

MeatHeadinCA on December 4, 2011 at 2:41 AM

You can rewrite it anyway you like and you’ll still make the same point that illustrates the error in your thinking. You want Romney to fit an ideologically pure model before you will support him. But that ideologically pure candidate will lose in the general because Americans ARE NOT ideological.

You are putting words in my mouth and making up phantom arguments to shoot down, Mittbot. I was not making a sophisticated argument for purity from Mitt Romney. I said that he is already looked on suspiciously by the base so he should talking about Massachusetts, and that he should definitely stop offering the same defense of Romneycare with that same sh*t-eating grin on his face every time he is asked about it.

I think someone is in need of a reboot.

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 2:43 AM

He graduated from HLS magna cum laude — they don’t just hand that out, Haner.

Punchenko

Then there should be no reason to keep his GPA secret, or any of his other college records, right?

xblade on December 4, 2011 at 2:43 AM

MeatHeadinCA on December 4, 2011 at 2:37 AM

Save it for yourself. Wrap it around your ears so you can keep what few brains you still have left in your skull.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 2:40 AM

Alas, those of us that refuse to be Romney’s bride will not partake in the drinking of the kool aid of knowledge…

MeatHeadinCA on December 4, 2011 at 2:43 AM

Thankfully, the real TEA Party folks are rational and will nominate the candidate that will beat Obama. And that candidate is Romney.

csdeven

What’s rational about replacing one big government democrat with another one?

xblade on December 4, 2011 at 2:50 AM

I think someone is in need of a reboot.

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 2:43 AM

Don’t feed the hamster… because then he just gets on that wheel and keeps everyone awake all night long.

beatcanvas on December 4, 2011 at 2:54 AM

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 2:43 AM

It’s clear that you’re committed to your misguided thinking. You want Romney to bow down to the TEA Party. He could do that to make you happy, but he would lose to Obama. We all realize you zealots don’t care about that because you are more interested in making sure the country burns to the ground under four more years of Obama. You want this because every candidate you have supported has been proven to be unmitigated failures. You blame Romney rather than the inadequate candidates you worshiped. Your solution is to pray for chaos so you can sit in your grammy’s basement hacking your nose off with a dull butter knife and screaming at the top of your lungs…”I TOLD YOU 8ASTARDS SO!!!!” You believe that this is the best way to validate your failed candidates.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 2:59 AM

Thankfully, the real TEA Party folks are rational and will nominate the candidate that will beat Obama. And that candidate is Romney.

csdeven

Lol, so now, not only are Tea Party voters going to come around to Mitt Romney for the general election, but they are actually going to propel him to the nomination in the primaries? This must be what Mittbot fan fiction looks like. I’m guessing you haven’t been to too many Tea Party rallies, have ya csdeven?

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 3:01 AM

What’s rational about replacing one big government democrat with another one?

xblade on December 4, 2011 at 2:50 AM

Because Romney is not a big government democrat. You keep repeating that because you don’t know what else to say. You think you are making the argument against Romney when in fact you are making the argument against Reagan. Every complaint we have seen made about Romney can be applied to 1980 Reagan.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM

. You blame Romney rather than the inadequate candidates you worshiped. Your solution is to pray for chaos so you can sit in your grammy’s basement hacking your nose off with a dull butter knife and screaming at the top of your lungs…”I TOLD YOU 8ASTARDS SO!!!!” You believe that this is the best way to validate your failed candidates.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 2:59 AM

Whoa. Chill out Mittbot. Did someone activate your kill sequence or something?

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 3:04 AM

Alas, those of us that refuse to be Romney’s bride will not partake in the drinking of the kool aid of knowledge…

MeatHeadinCA on December 4, 2011 at 2:43 AM

Who asked you to be his bride? If you think making the most rational choice to defeat Obama is akin to making him your bride shows exactly how misguided you are. I know of no rational TEA Party supporters who get that emotionally invested in a politician. We save that for our wives and families.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 3:06 AM

I’m guessing you haven’t been to too many Tea Party rallies, have ya csdeven?

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 3:01 AM

Sure have and I don’t run into ideological zealots. I meet rational concerned Americans that want to make changes but also understand how much work it is to make those changes. They certainly do not insist on winning battles that they know will result in losing the war.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 3:09 AM

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 3:04 AM

The truth scares you doesn’t it? Good. That is the first step in recovering from your zealotry.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 3:10 AM

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 3:10 AM

Um, I’m an irrational zealot? Let’s review your comment five minutes ago:

“Your solution is to pray for chaos so you can sit in your grammy’s basement hacking your nose off with a dull butter knife and screaming at the top of your lungs…”I TOLD YOU 8ASTARDS SO!!!!”"

What kind of sick **** thinks of stuff like that? You need help Mittbot, I’m afraid you have the Stuxnet.

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 3:22 AM

What kind of sick **** thinks of stuff like that? You need help Mittbot, I’m afraid you have the Stuxnet.

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 3:22 AM

The last three years have been a little hard on devy. Still not sure if the tp people want Mitt to bow to them or if they are going to support him because only he is a conservative.

MeatHeadinCA on December 4, 2011 at 3:30 AM

Who asked you to be his bride? If you think making the most rational choice to defeat Obama is akin to making him your bride shows exactly how misguided you are. I know of no rational TEA Party supporters who get that emotionally invested in a politician. We save that for our wives and families.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 3:06 AM

Emotionally invested? Bahahaha

MeatHeadinCA on December 4, 2011 at 3:33 AM

Intell Alert!
=============

Official: 13 injured, 2 critically, as fans storm field after Okla. State win over Oklahoma – AP
45 Minutes ago
===============

VIDEO: Fans storm field, tear down goal posts at Oklahoma State game where at least 13 injured – Youtube
10 Minutes ago.
Hot
====

http://www.breakingnews.com/
============================

2011 Big 12 Champions! Oklahoma State!!!!!
Uploaded on Dec. 3 2011
***********************
(Video-3:54 Min.length)

Tearing the goal post down!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npF6r_RT8nQ

canopfor on December 4, 2011 at 4:09 AM

Intell Alert!
=============

The FallOut,of Hopey/Changeys’s Awesome Foreign and National
Security Superior Smart Power’s Grand Epic Catostrophic Failure!!
(sarc)
——

Pakistani military officials confirm that US forces have started evacuating
***********
***********

Shamsi Air Base after Pakistan asked them to do so – NBC News
10 Mins.ago
Update
==========

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on December 4, 2011 at 6:00 AM

For those,that missed the Huck-a-bee Debate,here it is,
in its entirety!!
=================

Video: Watch the entire Huckabee GOP Presidential Forum
on December 4th, 2011
**********************

In case you missed the Presidential Forum from Saturday night’s “Huckabee” program on Fox News, here is the entire replay video. Six GOP candidates participated in the forum, taking questions from 3 state Attorneys General, on the topic of Federal power versus States’ rights.

Air Time: Saturday, December 3, 2011 at 8pm ET on Fox News

Candidates: Romney, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, Perry

Here is the entire video courtesy of MRCTV:
(Video-80:14 Length)
=====================

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/12/video-watch-the-entire-huckabee-gop-presidential-forum/

canopfor on December 4, 2011 at 6:07 AM

Intell Alert!!
==============

Another Hopey/Changey’s Steller Job’s Plan
Policy ClusterFark!!
And,kiss 3,000 US Jobs bye-bye!
(sarc)
====================

This one is a real head shaker
U.S. Bridges Built By Chinese
*****************************

Don’t these dip sh*ts (U.S. government decision makers on bridge construction) know that their paychecks are funded by the American private sector’s taxes.
Added: 18 hours ago Occurred On: Dec-3-2011
********************************************

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fd1_1322929091

canopfor on December 4, 2011 at 6:35 AM

The Fox live stream is still up and Ken Cuccinelli is coming up on F&F.

mike_NC9 on December 4, 2011 at 7:14 AM

The Fox live stream is still up and Ken Cuccinelli is coming up on F&F.

mike_NC9 on December 4, 2011 at 7:14 AM

mike_NC9:Excellent,I thought it signed off,after the debate!!
==============================================================

Live Video Stream: Republican GOP Debate, Mike Huckabee Presidential Forum, New York City, December 3rd, 2011

Live Fox News TV Stream

**Fox News Streaming Live NOW**
*********************************

http://bx.businessweek.com/2012-presidential-election/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isavesmart.com%2Fpolitics-news%2Fpresidential-debates%2F332635-live-video-stream-republican-gop-debate-mike-huckabee-presidential-forum-new-york-city-12-3-11.html

canopfor on December 3, 2011 at 7:51 PM

canopfor on December 4, 2011 at 7:27 AM

canopfor on December 4, 2011 at 7:27 AM

Thank you for that link. I don’t do cable or sat. TV.

mike_NC9 on December 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM

canopfor’s doing the breaking news leg work. Bravo!

US pulling out of Shamsi Air Base after Pakistan asked them to leave, terminating a US predator drone base, following Pakistan granting its Military forces permission to fire in self defense when fired upon, specifically the response to the past week’s NATO incursion killing Pakistani forces.

maverick muse on December 4, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Every complaint we have seen made about Romney can be applied to 1980 Reagan.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM

Strange, I don’t recall hearing about ReaganCare…

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 8:21 AM

What would we do without canopfor?

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2011 at 8:28 AM

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 8:21 AM

For sheer entertainment value, you got to love it.

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2011 at 8:32 AM

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2011 at 8:28 AM

amen sister

cmsinaz on December 4, 2011 at 8:41 AM

Strange, I don’t recall hearing about ReaganCare…

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 8:21 AM

It’s called EMTALA.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM

You want this because every candidate you have supported has been proven to be unmitigated failures. You blame Romney rather than the inadequate candidates you worshiped.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 2:59 AM

Romney’s the one who seems to be fading at the moment. He and his Mittbots are realizing that 80% of GOP voters want someone — just about anyone — else.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Strange, I don’t recall hearing about ReaganCare…

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 8:21 AM

It’s called EMTALA.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Not even close, Mittbot.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:19 AM

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 3:22 AM

Hahahaha….you should step back from the forest for a minute so you can see your behavior the way the rest of HA does. Your attitude is that of a person setting up for an epic fail. You have created such an unrealistic standard for a politician to meet that even Reagan would be rejected by you. You know this as it has been explained many times, but yet you continue to persist. You clearly are doing that because you are bitter that your candidates have all been shown to be of inferior quality and unelectable. So, you lash out irrationally by putting your efforts into defeating the person that will beat Obama because you feel that the rest of us, and future generations, must suffer for not having the foresight to support your failed candidates. Fortunately, the rest of us are rational and will moderate out hopes for the perfect candidate for one that will beat Obama. So, your response is to sit at home hacking your nose off to spite America for not supporting your failed candidates.

Do us a favor…..send us some pictures of you hacking your nose off. We are making an album of you guys and we need the laughs.

ROTFLMMFAO!

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 9:20 AM

You have created such an unrealistic standard for a politician to meet that even Reagan would be rejected by you.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 9:20 AM

Oh, cut it out with the bullsh1t revisionism. In 1980 you would’ve been (or perhaps were) pimping George H. W. Bush or John Anderson as being more electable, since they were much closer to the center than far-right Reagan.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:24 AM

Not even close, Mittbot.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:19 AM

EMTALA opened the door to forcing private companies to provide care to those who could not pay and guaranteed that the federal government would pick up the tab. This is the problem all states are faced with and why many states have sought solutions that include government involvement. Obama took it the next step and decided to entirely take over the healthcare system on the premise that those people who cannot pay are affecting the commerce between the states and thus he can use the commerce clause to force us to buy a commodity. Thanks Reagan. Oh, and thanks for amnesty too. And gun control. And pro-choice legislation.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 9:26 AM

Fortunately, the rest of us are rational and will moderate out hopes for the perfect candidate for one that will beat Obama. So, your response is to sit at home hacking your nose off to spite America for not supporting your failed candidates.

Do us a favor…..send us some pictures of you hacking your nose off. We are making an album of you guys and we need the laughs.

ROTFLMMFAO!

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 9:20 AM

By the way, Gingrich leads Romney in Iowa and Florida. If and when Gingrich implodes, some other NotRomney will come forward. Romney is that unwanted.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:28 AM

EMTALA opened the door to forcing private companies to provide care to those who could not pay and guaranteed that the federal government would pick up the tab. This is the problem all states are faced with and why many states have sought solutions that include government involvement. Obama took it the next step and decided to entirely take over the healthcare system on the premise that those people who cannot pay are affecting the commerce between the states and thus he can use the commerce clause to force us to buy a commodity. Thanks Reagan. Oh, and thanks for amnesty too. And gun control. And pro-choice legislation.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 9:26 AM

All of which were post-1980, dunmbass.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM

The best sessions with candidates this season, to date, have been:

- The Value Voters Summit – Getting to see the candidates explain their values and how they influence their lives is something to be applauded.

- Cain and Gingrich – This was an excellent two-man presentation that allowed both candidates to speak up about how they see issues and illuminate similarities and differences between them.

- Huckabee’s Forum – By far the best presentation of the candidates with a civil grilling by State AGs who are on the front line of conservative law and enforcement of same.

I put these three above every single, glitzy presentation done by the regular networks as they have helped show how candidates can help themselves by a direct means of not going into a quiz show, but by having time to talk about their rationale for their stances.

The presentation, style and ability to allow candidates to expound at the expense of THEIR OWN TIME placed an emphasis on cogent brevity, and yet allowed for them to also weave out a view of the powers, checks, and balances of the Constitution between the federal government, the States and the people. Gone unstated for so many decades, it is this vital set of external checks and balances that are a mirror to the internal ones for the federal government that have come across clearly. Some may see it as a weak system for a strong centralized government with checks, a system of an equal players, or a player where the federal government is hemmed in by the States and the people. You won’t get this from the glitzy shows, but did get this in this forum.

For this I applaud Mike Huckabee for putting on one of the best presentation of the candidates so far in this season and, perhaps, in some decades. I came away liking all of the candidates more and there were some surprises amongst them, too… much food for thought in it and I found it compelling viewing this morning after.

This is the first time this concept of federalism has been put into play and it is a powerful one that the Progressives and liberals have been trying to plough under. Yet now it is something that all of these candidates have had to address: agree or disagree on their stances, it is now out in the open and stated as clearly as the candidates can state it. For getting that outside of the usual mush of the alphabets, Mike Huckabee is to be thanked and deeply so, for doing such a service by providing this forum.

ajacksonian on December 4, 2011 at 9:30 AM

* “dumbass”. Can’t get your handle wrong. By the way, in EMTALA you’re missing one big ingredient: the individual mandate. As for amnesty, Reagan himself would want that one back.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:31 AM

- Cain and Gingrich – This was an excellent two-man presentation that allowed both candidates to speak up about how they see issues and illuminate similarities and differences between them.

ajacksonian on December 4, 2011 at 9:30 AM

I think I read that Romney refused a one-on-one debate with Gingrich. Gutsy move!

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Much like the 2008 run up, all the poll leaders could very well just implode….

Remember Iowa 2008?

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/IA.html

Tim Zank on December 4, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli On Huckabee Forum. He’s not happy with Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. (Smart man)

Newt Gingrich may be the latest hot ticket in the anybody-but-Romney wing of the Republican Party.

But he hasn’t yet convinced Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli he’d be a conservative president.

Cuccinelli, who announced his plans to run for governor in 2013, said Saturday that Gingrich’s answers during a forum on Fox News didn’t pass muster with him.

“My benchmark was I want to leave with comfort that each of these six candidates is going to be a limited government conservative president. And despite pressing Newt Gingrich several times, I didn’t get that. I did not get that. We could have another compassionate conservative on our hands. I did not get that commitment,” Cuccinelli said on Fox in a post-forum interview.

He also was unconvinced by Mitt Romney’s explanation for how he’d be able to draw a contrast with President Obama on health care after implementing an insurance program with a mandate in Massachusetts.

“I don’t see a lot of distance there between him and the president,” Cuccinelli said.

Cuccinelli was one of three Republican attorneys general who peppered the six leading GOP hopefuls with questions during a forum moderated by Mike Huckabee.

He also earned considerable praise in the Twitterverse for asking some of the best questions.

Jeff Greenfield said he offered up some of the “sharpest” queries. “Really pushing his fellow conservatives,” he tweeted.

Slate’s Dave Weigel pondered, “Too late to draft Cuccinelli for 2012?”

“I like Cuccinelli a lot in this role,” tweeted Liz Mair, a GOP strategist advising Rick Perry.

TriciaNC on December 4, 2011 at 9:44 AM

That 3:03 a.m. propagandist has attempted various voices since his arrival, none logical, none consistent. In ’08 he was screaming “bigot!” at any criticism of his idol.

Romney? Hell, he forfeits the Constitution itself to lawyers to determine whether relevant, or how to dissolve it for whatever authoritarian purpose he would officiate. “Promise them anything; just get their votes.” ’08 Given Mitt’s flip flop nature, what would he say next? Promise nothing; just buy their votes. As per mandated healthcare, whether taking Fred Thompson’s argument during ’08 debate with Mitt, or Nancy Reagan’s famous line, just say no. Tennessee had already experienced the bankruptcy of state health care, and the worsening of availability, turning against it even when Mitt determined to sign it in for Massachusetts while touting it as a template for our nation. And while ObamaCare was being forced through Congress, what was Romney saying?

Strange, I don’t recall hearing about ReaganCare…

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Rather than laugh or cry, I’ll chuckle while shaking my head.

I suppose the HMO corporatism destroying private medicine = ReaganCare.

So far as AFFORDABLE medical care goes, the more corporate insurance inserted, the more mandate, the higher the inflated costs and worsening of treatment availability.

Affordable medical care? Limiting lawsuits is one thing. But so far as justice goes, limit the lowered percentage that attorneys take from awards. Severe arbitrary limits on victims of malpractice remain the only legislation to expect from legislators whose membership majority are lawyers.

If people were serious about lowering costs, we’d banish corporate “health” insurance. Buy accidental and catastrophic health insurance, and deal with the realistic costs that arise with payment plan arrangements (doctors/hospitals) as has been available to those with no insurance. Before or after the kneejerk response, consider that the banking/investment/INSURANCE global corporations (they’re amalgamated) have already bet all of our policy payment funds on FRAUD and lost.

Spare me the lecture on the patient’s costs from malpractice without insurance. We went through malpractice with a SETON policy coverage, and had to fight for YEARS after our series of hospitalizations, resulting from the series of malpractices performed, to get the insurance to actually pay each and every one of the bills for our covered policy during which time, hospitals and doctors were referring our account to bill collectors, despite daily and weekly update calls on OUR PART to straighten out the insurance bureaucratic fiasco. Until it happens to you, you have no idea the stress that prevents the healing at the very time when life is hanging by faith. If we weren’t such pugilists by nature, survival as it is might not have succeeded. Btw, no. Through all these hagglings with the insurance, we came across the surgeon’s own insurance paper trail admitting to his malpractice which he denied to us all along. We did not threaten lawsuits though we’d have collected a sum had we chosen such a litigious course in life. But life boils down to doing the right thing for the right reason, and trying our best to enjoy the love of God by sharing it.

maverick muse on December 4, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Strange, I don’t recall hearing about ReaganCare…

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Rather than laugh or cry, I’ll chuckle while shaking my head.

I suppose the HMO corporatism destroying private medicine = ReaganCare.

maverick muse on December 4, 2011 at 9:51 AM

In 1980?

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli On Huckabee Forum. He’s not happy with Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. (Smart man)

TriciaNC on December 4, 2011 at 9:44 AM

I agree, who’s still out?

Fallon on December 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM

^ By the way, HMOs were more the brainchild of Ted Kennedy than Ronald Reagan.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Mike Huckabee is to be thanked and deeply so, for doing such a service by providing this forum.

Missed it, so I’m gone to find a link to read/view last night’s forum.

maverick muse on December 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Yes. They weren’t Reagan’s idea though they took hold during his administration. I don’t recall Reagan’s interest in them one way or the other. The propaganda from the HMO was all the “free” stuff available by our employers for a mere co-pay down the primrose path.

maverick muse on December 4, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Yes. They weren’t Reagan’s idea though they took hold during his administration.

maverick muse on December 4, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Right. Actually they go back to the Nixon administration.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 10:05 AM

If people were serious about lowering costs, we’d banish corporate “health” insurance. Buy accidental and catastrophic health insurance, and deal with the realistic costs that arise with payment plan arrangements (doctors/hospitals) as has been available to those with no insurance.

maverick muse on December 4, 2011 at 9:51 AM

With a ridiculously high deductible on our policy, that is essentially what we have. We get the benefit of a brokered lower cost, but, thankfully due to good health, we’ve paid out-of-pocket for all of our healthcare since 2002.

We do take advantage of a health savings account (HSA) but expect that to be taken away if Obamacare is allowed to be fully implemented.

Fallon on December 4, 2011 at 10:07 AM

maverick muse on December 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM

I think a link was provided up thread by our always intrepid……..

canopfor on December 4, 2011 at 7:27 AM

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2011 at 10:26 AM

I think I read that Romney refused a one-on-one debate with Gingrich. Gutsy move!

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Candidates can help themselves the most by speaking out with other candidates either on 1 on 1 sessions, something like the VVS or Huckabee forum, or agreeing to choose a few topics to discuss at a roundtable or similar forum (like the old Fred Friendly meetings).

Going for the alphabet ‘debates’ is now not the best way to get your message across, while these new presentation formats and forums are showing themselves to be a wonderful way for candidates to express themselves in a civil manner and put their views across without the constant sniping the ‘debates’ try to create.

maverick muse on December 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM

I watched it at the RightScoop and they edited out the commercials and post forum blather.

More of these, please!

ajacksonian on December 4, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Your solution is to pray for chaos so you can sit in your grammy’s basement hacking your nose off with a dull butter knife and screaming at the top of your lungs…”I TOLD YOU 8ASTARDS SO!!!!” You believe that this is the best way to validate your failed candidates.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 2:59 AM

Do us a favor…..send us some pictures of you hacking your nose off. We are making an album of you guys and we need the laughs.

ROTFLMMFAO!

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 9:20 AM

You are scaring me Mittbot. I figured the whole “cutting off the nose in your grandmother’s basement while screaming at the powers at be” thing was the product of too much beer. Yet, here you are seven hours later, still crazy as a sh*thouse rat. You need a therapist or a good electrical engineer.

Now come clean Mittbot, is this you singing?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTwgScWYjhc

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 11:42 AM

All of which were post-1980, dunmbass.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM

That’s the point you stupid *uck. You would reject the pre 1980 Reagan if he were running against Gingrich today.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM

You are scaring me

Lawdawg86 on December 4, 2011 at 11:42 AM

You should be scared after being shown what you really are. You are a bitter former worshiper of failed candidates and you want the country to burn down under four more years of Obama so you can scream at the top of your lungs “I TOLD YOU 8ASTARDS SO!!!”. Hopefully when you are faced with the stark reality of what you want and why, common sense and decency might just change your attitude.

But if it turns out that you just cannot get it together, please send us pictures of your spiteful come apart. We need something to laugh at.

Bwahahahahaha!!!

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 1:02 PM

All of which were post-1980, dunmbass.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM
That’s the point you stupid *uck. You would reject the pre 1980 Reagan if he were running against Gingrich today.

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Uh, no. You specifically referred to the 1980 Reagan, dumbass.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 1:58 PM

But if it turns out that you just cannot get it together, please send us pictures of your spiteful come apart. We need something to laugh at.

Bwahahahahaha!!!

csdeven on December 4, 2011 at 1:02 PM

“Us”? You mean you and that other 10% Romney’s going to have? Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Update: Gingrich leads new Iowa poll, Paul second

Paul placing second in Iowa gives that poll zero credibility. Besides, Operation BACHMANN IA, is in full effect as we see speak. It changes everything.

apacalyps on December 4, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Gingrich now the leader in Iowa – NBC News/Marist Poll
53 Mins ago.
Update

http://www.breakingnews.com/
==============================

12/4: NBC News/Marist Poll: Gingrich Races to the Head of the Pack in Iowa
December 4, 2011 by Marist Poll
********************************

With less than one month to go until the Iowa caucus, Newt Gingrich has surged to the top of the leaderboard in the state. Gingrich outdistances his closest rivals, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, by 8 and 9 percentage points, respectively.

Click Here for Complete December 4, 2011 Iowa NBC News/Marist Poll Release

Click Here for Complete December 4, 2011 Iowa NBC News/Marist Poll Tables

Here is how the contest stands among likely Republican caucus-goers including those who are undecided yet leaning toward a candidate:

26% for Newt Gingrich
18% for Mitt Romney
17% for Ron Paul
9% for Herman Cain
9% for Rick Perry
5% for Michele Bachmann
5% for Rick Santorum
2% for Jon Huntsman
9% are undecided
=================

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/124-nbc-newsmarist-poll-gingrich-races-to-the-head-of-the-pack-in-iowa/

canopfor on December 4, 2011 at 7:03 PM

NBC News/Marxist Poll

X Marks The Spot

apacalyps on December 4, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Uh, no. You specifically referred to the 1980 Reagan, dumbass.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Yeah, the 1980 Reagan. Exactly when do you think he began his presidency? Previous to that, he was responsible for many liberal laws and supported many liberal policies. Even afterward he signed amnesty and EMTALA. So we have Reagan to thank for the amnesty and Obamacare issues.

Ideologues like you have created this vision of what you want as a nominee that even Reagan could not measure up to. You keep using president Reagan as the metric, but before he was elected POTUS, he was supporting liberal policies.

So, spare the group your derangement.

csdeven on December 5, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8