Feb 23 2012

Finally, The Last Debate

Published by at 7:50 am under All General Discussions

All in all I think the large number of debates for the GOP primary was a good – if not torturous – exercise in democracy. But now thankfully we have seen the last debate. It was not really extraordinary and each candidate had good and bad moments. I think Romney’s worse moment was on ear marks. Newt nailed him on using them for his projects when it was fine and then trying to claim they were bad for others.

Feel free to weigh in below

35 responses so far

35 Responses to “Finally, The Last Debate”

  1. dhunter says:

    The solution to the price of gasoline will come from the Marxist in office and it will be to nationalize the oil companies. To unite his occupy wall street crowd with the ignoramuses of the country and the rat party by nationalization or price controls and Bill OReally will lead the way!
    aAcrisis too good to waste.

    Picture McCain, Grahamn, Brown, Snow, Collins, maybe Boehner and McConnell going along like good little lapdogs!

    There is an attempt to build a refinery here in the midwest within miles of the Keystone Pipeline and at every turn at every permit won the usual leftists drag the process out.
    I have no doubt should the Lyin kING somehow be re-elected he will kill this refinery after millions spent in permitting, land acquisition, enviro studies and legislation.

  2. WWS says:

    Dhunter – in the 30’s that could possibly have worked. But now it cannot happen, no matter how bad they may want to do it. If you analyze the situation, you will see how screwed we are right now when it comes to energy.

    Nationalization works IF and only IF your production is located inside your own borders. BUT – only the small independent companies like EOG, Range, MHR etc, have all of their production located in the US. The majors like Chevron, Exxon, etc, have most of their production scattered across the globe. Here’s why you don’t dare nationalize them: If the US were to nationalize oil companies, *every* country in the world would take that as the sound of a starting pistol to nationalize everything inside their borders. We can say we will nationalize Exxon – but Indonesia would immediately grab the assets of Exxon in Indonesia, and Mozambique would immediately grab Chevron’s assets in Africa (extensive!) and so on and so forth across the world. Every nation would grab everything it could instantly, once the US said by its actions that this was OK now.

    Basically, within 24 hours of trying to nationalize Exxon or Chevron, 90% of their production would be seized by other governments and there would be nothing we could do about it. Those companies would effectively cease to exist overnight. (what could we do, declare war on the world? Not likely) For the same reason you can’t threaten to seize the middle eastern fields; if we were to actually think of doing that, Russia and China would feel free to do the same, and given their proximity they’d beat us to it. Think anyone is going to risk nuclear war with Russia and China over oil? We won’t no matter how bad a shape our economy is in.

    I see more and more Dems starting to call for a release of oil from the SPR – Idiots! It can’t work! They don’t even understand why prices are going up – we don’t have a shortage of oil, in fact in North Dakota and Cushing, Oklahoma, right now we have a surplus. We have a shortage of refining capability and pipeline capacity. Extra crude supply here in the states will do *nothing* to change that situation, which is why releasing oil from the SPR will do *nothing* to affect gas prices!

    Oh, but watch them try it, and when gas prices fail to come down there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    This is why people like me have been saying for decades that you HAVE to build up production inside this country! If the production isn’t here, you can’t nationalize even if you want to, and you can’t control prices no matter how much you want to. All you can do is say “yes sir, may I have another sir?” to the countries that DO have all the production.

    We are screwed, and Obama himself doesn’t have a clue as to just how screwed we are! You know you are in a real crisis when EVERY option is bad, and that’s where we are right now.

  3. lurker9876 says:

    Don’t be surprised if Obama will be so dumb enough to nationalize oil industry. He will do it anyway.

  4. lurker9876 says:

    Jan’s post:

    “But, it seems you are projecting your anger onto Romney. How is he to blame for this, other than looking ‘weak’ in your eyes? Also, what or who do you think is worthy to address our problems? If the ‘elite’ are anointing a weak candidate, who is your strong candidate of choice?”

    I’m not blaming Romney for this topic. I’ve been reading a few things about Mitt in the last few days that he’s being vetted. And I don’t like what I’m reading about him and his comments. I don’t think any of them in the race is worthy and any of them are qualified as strong candidates. Of all of the 4 in the race, Santorum meets the most of my qualifications in a candidate.

    And I’m not sure that a brokered convention will yield the best and strong candidate either. I just hope that Jeb Bush and Chris Christie are not nominated through this process.

    I am just not that enthralled about any of them. But whomever wins the GOP nomination, I will lift the lever towards this name as ABOB (Biden).

    I see that the fake AP article about Obama’s Occidental records quietly going to the US Supreme Court with the new title, “Biden could become an interim President by end of 2012″

  5. jan says:

    Lurker

    The following is what baffled me about your Romney comments:

    So Obama is offering small treats to buy votes and win November against a very weak race. UGH

    This is something that the GOP has been doing for a very long time…Dole-wit, McCain, Bush (both), and now Romney????

    Are you saying that Romney is part of those who are offering small treats and buying votes? Or, are you just lumping him with all those you see as being chosen by the republican elites?

    Somehow, I don’t see Romney as being a permanent part of the government establishment like Gingrich and Santorum have been. He was governor for 4 years, period. Other than running for office, and losing, he has been a part of the private sector for most of his adult life. Does his wealth make him part of the elite establishment? Do his big donors imply something insidious? Because if they do, both Santorum and Gingrich have wealthy contributors financing their campaigns as well.

    While I do agree with you that no one in this republican primary is particularly riveting, I think Romney is being unfairly cast as someone less worthy, less qualified, even though he has the most successful and abundant of any in private sector business experiences, which is what this country needs at the moment.

  6. Redteam says:

    jan
    “Somehow, I don’t see Romney as being a permanent part of the government establishment like Gingrich ”

    I think the only reason this is true is that he’s not good at being a politician. (this certainly may have it’s pluses) He ran for the senate and lost, he ran for governor and won he ran for president and lost. he’s running for president again. So I think it’s safe to say he’s basically been an unsuccessful politician for 18 years. Yes, he did do other things when he lost, but only because he lost.
    I’m a anybody but obama voter, so if I have to, I’ll certainly vote for Romney.

    I’m not too sure that running a huge political machine is the thing for a ‘businessman’ to be doing. That would be like hiring a politician to run a business. There are no good answers but anybody but obama is a good start.

  7. lurker9876 says:

    I don’t find Romney to be a principled man. He has not been consistent to the point where I have no idea where he stands on certain things, such as abortion, RomneyCare, taxes, balanced budget and spending cuts, etc.

    I’m also almost anybody but Obama, Hillary, Biden, and people that share their ideologies.

    Yes, I will vote for Romney but I do not back him up.

    Interesing…Cain has never been a politician but a successful businessman.

  8. jan says:

    Lurker,

    Again, I don’t really understand some of your criticisms of Romney.

    His abortion ‘evolution’ has been much the same as Santorum’s, where he was more progressive towards it, especially in the 90’s, and then defined his stance more fully as he got older. Salena Zito, of the Pittsburgh Tribune, worked for Santorum, and reported on him in his state of Pennsylvania, and this is her take on both Santorum and Romney on abortion.

    Romneycare was health care created for the state of MA, changed and approved by a 85% democratic legislature, and currently looked upon favorably by two-thirds of the adults in that state, as well as a healthy majority of physicians. Obamacare may have been formulated from a similar blueprint, but was a 2730 page longer bill, with a majority of people not in favor of it’s passage, and still not approving of it as it looms ahead of us. Physicians also have lots of problems with Obamacare.

    Romney raised fees rather than taxes in MA, along with spending cuts to address the deficit problems in that state, leaving MA with a surplus at the end of this term as governor. He also balanced MA’s budget while he was governor.

    Where is Romney unprincipled?

  9. WWS says:

    Jan, I salute your continuing defense of Romney. Your arguments are logical, cohesive, and intelligent. How I wish he was as good a candidate as you are an apologist for him!

    My problem with Romney is simple: if he can’t beat Santorum, who is NOT a good candidate, then there’s no way he can beat Obama.

    I’m increasingly worried that winning the GOP nom this year will be like winning the Special Olympics and thinking that qualifies you to play in the NFL.

  10. lurker9876 says:

    “I’m increasingly worried that winning the GOP nom this year will be like winning the Special Olympics and thinking that qualifies you to play in the NFL.”

    There’s not much excitement there yet. Will there be in a few months? I don’t know.

    Which is why we’re going to need to build a very strong conservative majority in both houses to overcome a weak President. Newt and Rick will do the right thing in regards to the foreign policy. Ron will screw up the foreign policy big time. As for the domestic policy, Ron’s probably the strongest in terms of conservatism; however, he might do the right thing at the wrong time.

    Assuming that Obama loses, can’t just cut spending right away…not the first few years.

    We know how Obama will attach each one:

    – Newt: his personal issues.
    – Rick: his social conservatism (is the country ripe and hungry for revival of restoration of founding principles? No.)
    – Ron: alleged racism. Amazing that Obama will have a hard time defending his foreign policy against Ron’s.
    – Mitt: Similar “policies” and principes. Obama will campaign something about him and Mitt being similar in many ways so; therefore, they should reelect him.

    Funny that Jonah Goldberg twitted last night of similar complaint of mine about this race. He’s not enthralled about any of them but he will vote ABOB.

    BTW, if you haven’t read Jonah’s book about Liberal Fascism, then I can understand why some people are defending Mitt. Regardless, I still have a hard time understanding why many Congressional members decided to endorse Mitt…because of his electability or they share his ideology? IOW, have they lost their way when it comes to the founding principles?

    A friend and I argued about the timeline of the constitutional amendments that correlates to ideological influences at the time of their initial draft to enactment. Our third friend still cannot tell the difference between statism (socialism, collectivism, progressivism, communism, Marxism, etc.) and capitalism.

    What a shame.

  11. lurker9876 says:

    Ah…my previous post…still awaiting moderation…

  12. jan says:

    WWS

    You are kind in describing my so-called ‘defense’ of Romney. However, I am simply stating what I have read up on him. He is someone who I have reluctantly come to support, as my first impressions of him were blah and rather dismissive of his capabilities.

    Romney is one of those kinds of people who hasn’t made a lot of waves in his life. He is a conformist, led a straight-edge kind of life, respected his parents, loved his wife and children, grew a successful career, didn’t make lots of headlines mouthing off incendiary comments. However, while fire-cracker types get more press, I think Romney has the steadiness of temperament and business savvy to get things done.

    While people tend to diss his governorship in MA as not being conservative enough, I look at it as a semi-miracle that he got as much done as he did, working with an overwhelmingly liberal legislature and constituency (12% registered republicans). What is seen as flip-flopping in some of his policies, I see as a tact used by Reagan, of giving up some ground to gather more ground in other areas. We need someone with a strategic defense/offense to work around democrats, as, so far, direct confrontations have gotten us nowhere but stand-offs producing not only a greater erosion of confidence but an anemic economy.

    As far as the Santorum/Romney battle — it has been created by political maneuvering of the dems. They subtly generated greater concerns about contraceptives, abortion, leading more to a social issue platform being debated, and that is where we are today. It has become a war of social issues within the republican party, rather than a focus on the fiscal travesty called the Obama economic policies. Once we are able to get out of this prefabricated ditch, there will be substance in the debates, and I think this is where Romney can and will excel.

  13. lurker9876 says:

    “I’m increasingly worried that winning the GOP nom this year will be like winning the Special Olympics and thinking that qualifies you to play in the NFL.”

    There’s not much excitement there yet. Will there be in a few months? I don’t know.

    Which is why we’re going to need to build a very strong conservative majority in both houses to overcome a weak President. Newt and Rick will do the right thing in regards to the foreign policy. Ron will screw up the foreign policy big time. As for the domestic policy, Ron’s probably the strongest in terms of conservatism; however, he might do the right thing at the wrong time.

    Assuming that Obama loses, can’t just cut spending right away…not the first few years.

  14. lurker9876 says:

    We know how Obama will attach each one:

    – Newt: his personal issues.
    – Rick: his s-o-c-i-a-l c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-s-m (is the country ripe and hungry for revival of restoration of founding principles? No.)
    – Ron: alleged racism. Amazing that Obama will have a hard time defending his foreign policy against Ron’s.
    – Mitt: Similar “policies” and principes. Obama will campaign something about him and Mitt being similar in many ways so; therefore, they should reelect him.

    Funny that Jonah Goldberg twitted last night of similar complaint of mine about this race. He’s not enthralled about any of them but he will vote A-B-O-B.

  15. lurker9876 says:

    BTW, if you haven’t read Jonah’s book about L-i-b-e-r-a-l F-a-s-c-i-s-m, then I can understand why some people are defending Mitt. Regardless, I still have a hard time understanding why many Congressional members decided to endorse Mitt…because of his electability or they share his ideology? IOW, have they lost their way when it comes to the founding principles?

    A friend and I argued about the timeline of the constitutional amendments that correlates to ideological influences at the time of their initial draft to enactment. Our third friend still cannot tell the difference between statism (s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m, c-o-l-l-e-c-t-i-v-i-s-m, p-r-o-g-r-e-s-s-i-v-i-s-m, c-o-m-m-u-n-i-s-m, M-a-r-x-i-s-m, etc.) and c-a-p-i-t-a-l-i-s-m.

    What a shame.