The Blogfather had the best comment on Newt’s lady problem:  at least he’s screwing women, not America.

Newt made a good showing. I think Paul won by default. Romney had his worse debate. Santorum seemed hateful and vindictive, although all the candidates had good answers.

Not quite sure whether or not Gingrich won the debate — although he got a strong start with that first question.

I am absolutely sure that Romney lost. He stuttered and stammered the whole time, and had a look in his eyes like a rich kid who just got thrown in the drunk tank about 4am on Saturday and looks around to see that he’s in there with three dudes who got hammered and busted after finishing the night shift at his daddy’s sweatshop.

Great debate with highs and lows for each candidate.  If Paul had been able to resist injecting his isolationism into a couple of answers, he might have been the winner.  If any of the others had pointed out why his policy outlook is insane, they might have won.

The big three each had strong and weak moments.  Romney blew it on his taxes, he should have pulled a Newt out of his butt and blustered “When the hell did it become mandatory to release returns in February?  Because Newt and Obama demand it?”

Santorum did well and scored some points against Gingrich, but he is far behind in known support.  Organization may be the key as many precincts gets consolidated when it is a one-party primary in SC; people turn up at polling places to see a sign telling them to vote 5-10 miles away and some will and some won’t make the drive.

If  Gingrich gets to be President and gets pissed at some other country, no telling what he would do to retaliate. That`s scary thing to me, besides he would have take an extra plane just to carry the baggage he packs from passed days in office, where is trying to live off of other presidents records. Duane.

Oh, I’ll vote for the nominee, even Paul.

But I’ve been around for a long time, and Newt is not the prototype of a successful general election candidate – especially since the independents already hate him.

He served with over 300 Republicans in the House over the years, most of them as Speaker.  How many of them have endorsed him?

Why not?

Newt was frantic and  ineffective when during the government shutdown.  How do you think he would be if Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz?

I’m floored as to why so many Republicans do not comprehend the magnificence of the only world historical figure on the stage. Why should this great man be held to the standards that we little people are held to?

OK, but this is like Newt’s court-stripping rhetoric in that it’s something that is possible, but will never actually happen. it hasn’t happened with anything else recently has it?

I can see from conservative readers/commentators of this blog that Mitt’s tax record is going to be a problem. Not sure why since no other candidate up there had released theirs. Newt did today but the issue came up well before today. Santorum will much later and Paul maybe never but for some reason this is a big deal for Romney. The only thing from a tax return we learned from previous past presidential elections is how much was made from speaking fees and given to charity. The dems were notorious stingy charitable givers but that never mattered to their constituency. Speaking fees were interesting but never important to an election. There is no question that Romney was generous to charities in fact the complaint seems to be he gave too much to his church among the many contributions he made. Can’t imagine that being a problem for a GOP candidate.

So I am very curious as to why this tax return is so important this early in the campaign. And why amongst GOP voters? Not a complaint, I just don’t understand.

Second amongst curious things is why are answers to questions ignored as candidates are considered. The conservative commentators and writers with the exception of a few are anit-Romney. Not because of his answers in debates but because of efforts to govern in the bluest of blue states. Romney’s answers and demeanor has been to the right of Gingrich on most points except on the NDAA. As far as past political moves every candidate but Paul has evolved on certain points and none more than Gingrich. We should all forgive Gingrich for multiple adulteries that led to multiple marriages, forgive him for AGW beliefs and advocacy for of Cap and Trade, forgive him for advocacy of an Obamacare like solution on the Federal level, and recently forgive him for turning on Paul Ryan’s proposal to turn around the Medicare cost explosion. But Romney … not so much. No forgiveness what so ever. Personal life and adultery..He has no moral problems. He said in the past he believes in AGW but that cap and trade is a bad solution. He steered Mass. Medical insurance act the best he could and signed it into law but never, not even once said it should be the national system. He forcibly fought advocates of a national plan even when he was working on Mass. medical insurance plans. He advocated Paul Ryan’s plan. So now, on some things he has evolved and now takes one of the best conservative stands in the debates. But zero forgiveness for Romney.

So I guess it boils down to abortion. Only Romney was for allowing abortion (the state law) and now has changed his stance. No forgiveness on that I guess. Romney took a beating in Mass when he ran for office both times. The ads zeroed in on his advocacy in private life against abortion, both as a man and as a mormon leader. The abortion advocates took the lash to him in TV ads and in the debates his opponents tore into him. Many of our great Republican leaders evolved on abortion and other beliefs but the attackers on Romney do not allow for any evolution in beliefs by him and him alone so his debate points do not get heard.

In one of the debates Newt said that Judge circuits should be defunded if they go off track of constitutional principles. Judges should be called before congress to account for constitutional rulings. The audience went wild. Everyone of us hates the way judges have overruled congress and even the constitution. A good percentage of the time they are eventually reined in but not always. Sometimes the Supreme Court runs off the rails but I cannot think of a worse thing to do, to destroy the checks and balances of our government and the republic form of government than this. Remember whatever we do the liberals can also do. They always seem to have their turn (like 2008-2010) at running things. Remember that terrible unbalance of Democrats to Republican we just a short time ago. This is not the only time this has happened. Jimmy Carter had some time with an top heavy number of Democrats in all branches as did President Clinton when he first came in. Once in power the Democrats could just remove any Republican Circuits and have a field day in congress hauling up Republican judges. Right now we are having redistricting battles all over. Imagine the damage that could be done if judges were politically attacked and even removed. If you want to change the judicial rulings you do it the hard way: vote in decent senators and Presidents and Governors. It is a slow and cumbersome way to change things but there is a wise purpose in the design. To prevent radical shifts in power though all branches of government and setting up a fixed mechanism to slow the power shift momentum. With judgeships changing slowly and non-responsive to the political group in power, radical change is resisted. BUT Newt just threw it out there! In excitement of the moment the audience rose exuberantly. This is classic Newt, big ideas said with classic one liners that raise the blood level but after the exuberant moment some of these ideas turn out to be corrosive. (see AGW and Obamacare above)
Milquetoast, too steady, and usually unflappable Romney or a steady but sometimes too intense Santorum would be preferable. Newt talks big ideas and big change but Romney and Santorum talk of moving back to founding principles and strong values of work, faith, steady consistent families as the ideals to move back too.

Lastly, we really do have a problem with the medical delivery system. The doctors, nurses, and research is very good but the system of paying for it is in big trouble. The government has gotten too deep into the private system and now it really does cost too much. Many hospitals are in deep trouble, especially in the rural areas. The payments for Medicare patients is too low, the poor who come in and need assistance and then cannot pay, and illegal’s who use the hospitals and disappear add a tremendous cost to the system; these all must be made up. It falls on the those who work to pay more (a hidden tax). Rural hospitals are being crushed. Hospitals in lower income areas in cities are also being crushed. A one night stay in the hospital with nothing more than an IV or observing cost more than the average working mans wages for a whole month. 12 days and you have lost an entire years salary. This is what the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and Romney were trying to remedy. They came up with the idea of getting more people paying for their own insurance. These guys knew that they could not overnight change the medicare, state welfare medical and Chip programs as they are too entrenched so they tried big new idea. It sounded good but will probably fail in the long run and it appears to me that insurance in general shares a big portion of the blame. Insurance as a system of payers has a fatal flaw in the incentive department. A very large portion of Americans know in their hearts that a FEDERAL program of insurance and health care delivery will end up in lousy incentives for health care givers, shortages, and little incentive for research and development. Obamacare must be stopped and that probably also contributes to the dislike of Romney even though he never ever wanted or advocated a national plan. But by all means forgive Gingrich he has repented.

“Romney’s answers and demeanor has been to the right of Gingrich on most points except on the NDAA.”

As of 10 minutes ago, maybe. The problem is that he’s shown every demeanor possible on every position, and that’s just this campaign. His most faithful position is his support of ORomneyCare… which is the issue above all others that energized the Tea Party to throw as many bums as possible out last election. Sorry, if I want a socialist, I can vote for a real O!ne.

The courts can’t rule an Amendment unconstitutional. The minute they did that there would be riots in the streets, and I would be right there with them, even if it was an amendment I wasn’t crazy about. That would amount to judicial tyranny.

As opposed to Gingrich’s steadfast views?

Get real.

When people talk about the Clinton economy they should be precise and call it the Clinton-Gingrich economy. Gingrich might well be the greatest House Speaker in US history. Why should we care about all the little toadies who wanted him gone so they could have all the power and the glory, and of course the crony contracts for their friends. I’m always hearing this shit about how bad Newt was and how he was kicked out by these so-called “conservatives”, like Denny Hastert (ROFLMFAO). So what exactly did Gingrich do? And what exactly did Hastert and his ilk accomplish after Gingrich was gone. Bear in mind, losing the 2006 mid-terms doesn’t amount to much of an “accomplishment” in my book.

I wish more Republicans remembered those days.  Sigh.

Fun to discuss the debate after the fact, but I’ve got to say…I don’t get why bloggers bother covering live television broadcasts.

Liveblogging is mere stenography. It’s so rushed and abbreviated that it doesn’t even adequately convey the facts of an event–never mind add some value. If I were that interested in the debate, I’d watch the debate instead of punching F5 every minute to follow somebody else’s frantic note-taking.

Just to be clear here, I’m not advocating for the “take it away from the court” approach.

But, could they get away with it? Probably.

The last two administrations have basically done whatever the hell they want regardless of what congress or the courts say, with a few rhetorical flourishes for deniability.

Newt has thrown down a Jacksonian gauntlet and then some, pretty much threatening to send any judge who looks at him cross-eyed to Gitmo.

So I’d say we’re rapidly moving toward the day when a sitting president openly tells SCOTUS to go f-ck itself.

Is that experience talking?

That statement could apply to both Newton Leroy and Willard.

While never rich [and this is all I will say on the subject], I do know the meaning of the term ‘protective custody’.

No he’s already screwed America with GATT and the other things he did as Speaker under the radar that set the stage for what we’re experiencing now.