Category: Fox News

Santorum’s Sunday Schedule Includes Appearances on ABC and CNN

Posted on Comments

Was Rick Santorum exaggerating when he accused Fox News of having a pro-Romney bias? We report, you decide: The “fair and balanced” network doesn’t have him scheduled for any interviews today. Santorum will appear on two other Sunday shows on ABC and CNN, while campaigning today in Louisiana before going to Illinois for a series of Monday rallies, including one in Ronald Reagan’s hometown of Dixon, Illinois.

SANTORUM CAMPAIGN PRESS RELEASE

Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum will hold the following open press events. All times are local.

Sunday, March 18:

Senator Santorum will appear on ABC News’ “This Week” and CNN’s “State of the Union.” Check your local listings for times in your area.

9:30am CT Senator Santorum will provide his personal testimony to the First Baptist Church of Bossier, LA.
Location: First Baptist Church of Bossier
2810 East Texas Street
Bossier City, LA

10:50am CT: Senator Santorum will attend the Calvary Baptist Church in Shreveport, LA.
Location: Calvary Baptist Church
9333 Linwood Avenue
Shreveport, LA

12:45pm CT: Senator Santorum will attend the LSU/Mississippi State baseball game in Baton Rouge, LA. All media must show press identification (business card, station identification, etc…) and enter through Gate 2.
Location: Alex Box Stadium
Corner of Nicholson Drive and Burbank Drive
Baton Rouge, LA

6:00pm CT: Senator Santorum will take part in community service at the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church in Greenwell Springs, LA.
Location: Greenwell Springs Baptist Church
19421 Greenwell Springs Road
Greenwell Springs, LA

Senator Santorum will also appear with Tom Bevan and “Beyond the Beltway with Bruce DuMont” on WLS in Chicago, IL. Times of airing to be determined.

Monday, March 19:

9:00am CT: Senator Santorum will hold a “Rally for Rick” in Rockford, IL.
Location: Venetian Club
2180 Elmwood Road
Rockford, IL

12:00pm CT: Senator Santorum will hold a “Rally for Rick” in Dixon, IL.
Location: Ronald Reagan Statue
Dixon Waterfront
Dixon, IL

3:00pm CT: Senator Santorum will hold a “Rally for Rick” in Moline, IL.
Location: Moline Club
513 16th Street
Moline, IL

7:30pm CT: Senator Santorum will hold a “Rally for Rick” in Peoria, IL.
Location: Davis Bros Restaurant
2402 East Washington Street
East Peoria, IL

Fox Not ‘Fair and Balanced’? Santorum Finally Mentions Pro-Romney Bias UPDATE: Exit Polls Show Mitt Wins Mississippi? Newt 3rd in Alabama?

Posted on Comments

I’ve been saying this for weeks, and it’s probably not a good idea for the candidate to say so himself, but it’s unquestionably true:

On Tuesday’s “Kilmeade & Friends” radio show on Fox News Radio, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum . . . accused Fox News of being in the tank for his competitor, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. . . .
“The man has had a 10-to-1 money advantage,” Santorum said. “He’s had all the organizational advantage. He’s had Fox News shilling for him every day, no offense Brian but I see it. And yet, he can’t close — he can’t seal the deal because he just doesn’t have the goods to be able to motivate the Republican base and win this election.” . . .
“I can tell you, we watch the coverage there and you know, look you guys are allowed to cover what you want to cover,” Santorum said.

The daytime programs, in particular, seem to have a pro-Romney bias, and there’s no doubt that Bill O’Reilly loves him some Romney. Rick gets his share on Hannity and Greta, but the rest of the lineup has been leaning ever more steadily Mitt-ward since Florida.

Someone could, and should, do an analytical study of how Fox has covered the GOP primary campaign, because as someone who spent the past 16 months cheering for underdogs — first Herman Cain, then Santorum — I’ve noticed how the bias works.

Forget about the commentary programs and candidate interview segments. The bias has actually been on the straight news side of the Fox operation. In horse-race campaign reporting mode, Fox always showed a bias toward the perceived “first tier” candidates.

Herman Cain was mostly a non-story until after Perry melted down and Cain won the Orlando straw poll. Then everything was Cain, Cain, Cain until it became obvious that the sexual allegations were non-survivable, at which point it was, “Hey, Newt!” And then it was Newt, Newt, Newt all the way through Christmas.

Only in the final week of December did it seem that somebody at Fox said, “Hey, maybe this Santorum thing is for real.” But on caucus night in Iowa, the Fox analysts — Karl Rove in particular — were clearly dismissive of Santorum’s success, treating it as a fluke. So, once Mitt won New Hampshire, as everyone knew he would all along, Santorum was once again relegated to “second-tier” coverage. Then came Santorum’s Feb. 7 “hat-trick,” but the talking heads on Fox kept repeating the misleading “non-binding” spin from the Romney camp, once again treating any Santorum success as an irrelevant fluke. (Iowa was also non-binding, but the Fox talking heads didn’t mention that when it looked like Romney had narrowly won there.)

Simply put, anyone who watched Fox News campaign coverage could detect two clear biases:

  1. Until the field was winnowed (i.e., after South Carolina), a bias in favor of covering the contest between perceived front-runners; and
  2. A generally dismissive attitude toward Santorum, so that even his victories were treated as insignificant, whereas any win by Romney — no matter how slender the margin, nor how much Romney out-spent his opponents — was treated as a solid victory.

Just as liberals don’t notice liberal bias in the media, people who hate Santorum don’t notice their anti-Santorum bias — and there are clearly some people at Fox News who hate Rick Santorum.

Finally, I’ll say this: Newt has gotten bend-over-backward fairness from Fox, which has ignored his campaign’s severe financial problems and blatant organizational ineptitude. People who saw Gingrich’s campaign at close range in Nevada pronounced it a “clusterf–k,” and I’m reasonably sure the campaign has been running deeper and deeper into the red for several weeks now.

Question 1: How much did Newt raise in February? Question 2: What was his campaign’s cash-on-hand and total debt as of March 1?

Until we see Fox News people asking those hard questions, I will continue to suspect them of bias.

UPDATE: Just as I was about to take my customary Tuesday nap — I expect a late night — a commenter notices that the Drudge Report has posted these exit-poll numbers:

AL
ROMNEY 32.07%
SANTORUM 25.24%
GINGRICH 23.6%

MS
ROMNEY 33.55%
GINGRICH 24.62%
SANTORUM 22.15%

OK, I’m adding several grains of salt: Exit polls can be screwy.

But if this works out — if Mitt wins both Alabama and Mississippi with Newt third in Alabama — then it’s all over for Gingrich.

And I’m sure you’ll remember my earlier prediction: When Newt quits, he will endorse Romney. Why? Just like Pawlenty, Gingrich will have campaign debts he can’t pay without Mitt’s money.


New TV Ad Quotes Mitt Romney

Posted on Comments

This will probably be denounced as an “unfair attack,” given that Romney’s entire campaign has been about avoiding his own record:

In a press release, Rick Santorum campaign spokesman Hogan Gidley said: “Since Mitt Romney refuses to talk about his own liberal record, we figured we’d show people what Mitt Romney says about Mitt Romney. We wanted to give Governor Romney’s long-held positions and statements an opportunity to be heard.”

Notice that when I quote a press release, I tell you I’m quoting a press release? That’s arguably more honest than booking Chris Christie onto Fox & Friends to spin for Romney the day after a debate and pretending that it was just a coincidence.

It would behoove those who talk about liberal media bias, and who boast of being “Fair and Balanced,” occasionally to acknowledge their own biases. If Fox News executives want to change the name of their morning show to Romney & Friends, OK. But don’t pretend that your biased coverage isn’t biased.

And don’t imagine we’re too stupid to notice what you’re doing.

An Idiot Obsessed With Commenters

Posted on Comments

What can we say about Charles Johnson’s increasingly desperate efforts to simulate relevance?

We will now examine (a) what happened, (b) what Charles Johnson wants us to believe happened, and (c) what the discrepancy between (a) and (b) tells us about Charles Johnson’s pathetic idiocy.

OK, what happened: Fox News posted a story on its Web site about the death of singer Whitney Houston. This story attracted worldwide attention, and it appears that many people commenting in that (unmoderated) Internet venue said very ugly things about the recently deceased singer, making cruel remarks about her notorious struggles with drug addiction and employing racial epithets.

It now appears that Fox has closed commenting on the story and removed all the previous comments. However, as of 9 p.m. Sunday the story had been shared 2,400 times on Twitter and “liked” 14,000 times on Facebook,  suggesting that it quickly reached a very broad readership.

Was this particular Fox story linked by Drudge or other major Web news aggregators? Were similarly derogatory comments were posted on Whitney Houston’s death at other news sites with unmoderated commenting policies?

I just throw those questions out there, as alternatives to the Charles Johnson Unified Field Theory of Every Damned Thing in the World:

There’s a real sickness running rampant in the right wing; the Fox News comment thread on Whitney Houston’s death is yet another disgusting deluge of outright racism.

“Right wing” + “Fox News” = RAAAAACISM!

Question: Do we know anything about the ideology or political affiliations of the people who left the scurrilous comments on the Fox News site?

Answer: No, we do not.

Once an item goes “viral” online, you cannot possibly generalize about the people commenting in an unmoderated format. For all we know, Fox News was the victim of a targeted effort by the Left — a category that arguably now includes Little Green Footballs — to create the appearance that Fox viewers are racists.

LGF’s Kilgore Trout once attempted such a dishonest trick aimed at Hot Air, and while I cannot state as a fact that the LGF crew is up to its old agitprop trickery, neither can I rule out the possibility. What I can say with certainty is that Johnson has clearly attempted to smear Fox News (and by extension, the “right wing”) by blaming them for these comments.

As to the attitudes reflected in the comments cited by LGF: Lots of white people in pop music — e.g., Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones, Janis Joplin, Keith Moon of The Who, John Bonham of Led Zeppelin — have died as a consequence of substance abuse. Anecdotal examples are not proof of an ethnic trait, and even if statistical evidence demonstrates a correlation between a behavioral trait and an ethnic group, we should be cautious about asserting any particular axis of causality.

The Irish have a reputation for alcoholism, and perhaps deservedly so. But it is very difficult to say, for example, that stupid Micks are prone to drunkenness (a) because they’re Micks or (b) because they’re stupid.

Furthermore, while it might be observed that Ireland has produced a lot of stupid drunks but precious few nuclear physicists, if we generalize too broadly from that example, stupid drunken Micks might take exception to our observations about the correlation between the stupidity and drunkenness of his type. And then some smelly ignorant Paddy O’Sheeney at the end of the bar will likely give us a demonstration of the tendency toward brutish violence for which that damned race of wretched drunkards are so universally notorious.

Therefore, I urge you to refrain from expressing offensive ethnic stereotypes about the Irish. However, you can insult the Frogs without fear, as the French are most famous for the cowardice of their men and the promiscuity of their women.

Gingrich, Romney, Trump Monopolize Media; Santorum Keeps Campaigning

Posted on Comments

“[Obama] made the claim that his policies of taxing the rich is authorized by the Bible. That he is doing what is biblically called for by taxing the rich, by having the government tax the rich. Now, I’ve read the Bible, and I must have missed that passage. . . . This is an administration that attacks religion, and then tries to cloak itself in religion in order to take your money.”
— Rick Santorum, Thursday in Fallon, Nevada

“Sincerity is the important thing on TV. A presidential candidate should at least seem to believe what he’s saying — even if it’s all stone crazy.”
— Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72

If you’ve been watching Fox News lately, you are perhaps aware that the “fair and balanced” network has jumped onto the same bandwagon as most of the rest of the major media: The GOP presidential campaign is now a two-man race between the frontrunners, Mitt and Newt.

This was evidently the narrative the media wanted back in December, before Rick Santorum shocked the world with his astonishing surge to victory in Iowa — a result that was immediately dismissed as a fluke by the media, so that they could get back to telling you about the two-man frontrunner race they had decided on weeks earlier.

That Fox is part of this media bandwagon is a fact I note in passing, while pointing out what was obvious to me long ago: Newt can’t beat Mitt.

It can’t happen and won’t happen, and those conservatives who believe they can make it happen are engaged in a type of behavior that Ace of Spades has called “wishcasting” — the idea that you can do anything you want to do, if only you wish and hope and believe in it enough.

There are many reasons why the seemingly possible dream of a Newt nomination is actually less practically feasible than the admittedly long-shot chance of an unexpected comeback by Rick Santorum. Most of these reasons have to do with Newt’s biography and character: His personal flaws and failings, which are well known even to his supporters, but which he (and they) suppose will be ignored by undecided voters who are less ideological than themselves because, doggone it, he has such great ideas!

You see a bit of this admiration for Newt’s ideas in Karl Rove’s campaign critique, where he faults Romney for relying too heavily on the “successful businesman” biographical narrative. But the problem for Newt is that, beyond his career as a leader of conservative Republicans, his biographical narrative is a major net negative. Even if Republican primary voters could overlook everything else, Gingrich’s two divorces are the kind of “baggage” that he can’t possibly carry to the White House.

Now, maybe you’ve got a divorce or two under your own belt and wish to believe that the American people would be willing to overlook this element of Gingrich’s biographical narrative — but this belief is only possible if you assume that most people share your own vehement opposition to Obama and would be willing to ignore the messy details of Newt’s narrative.

Please see R. Emmett Tyrrell’s column last week on that subject. Furthermore, let’s quote Tyrrell’s column this week:

Ah, yes, Newt Gingrich did in the last days of the Florida primary precisely what I predicted he would do. He hurled wild charges at Mitt Romney that suggested Newt was losing his grip. He charged Romney with lying and falling into the hands of George Soros and Goldman Sachs, and he did this while seeking the Republican presidential nomination!
Newt quoted Soros as saying, “We think either Obama or Romney’s fine, but Gingrich, he would change things.” Citing Goldman Sachs’ profiting from the bailout, he linked the Wall Street firm to anti-Gingrich ads, filling in the dots: “Those ads,” he averred, “are your money recycled to attack me.” On Sunday, he suggested that Rick Santorum drop out of the race and support him. Santorum had left the campaign trail to be with his desperately ill daughter. That is the kind of grace we have come to expect from Gingrich, who, by the way, supplied no evidence of Goldman Sachs’ or of Soros’s aiding Romney.

The astute reader will perhaps perceive that the esteemed editor of The American Spectator relied on his shoe-leather man’s reporting from Newt’s Fort Myers “Fear and Loathing” rally, a service I was more than happy to provide, and which in turn involves a debt to the good readers who hit the tip jar for the Florida trip. Continue reading Gingrich, Romney, Trump Monopolize Media; Santorum Keeps Campaigning →

Is Fox News the Problem?

Posted on Comments

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C.
After the debate last night, I talked to several people about the situation that we find ourselves in: Four days away from the crucial South Carolina primary and still we have three “not Romney” candidates — Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry — dividing up the conservative vote. Another 10 to 15 percent of the GOP primary vote here will probably go to Ron Paul, and thus it is altogether possible that Mitt Romney could win with less than 30 percent of the vote.

And so I ask: Is Fox News the problem?

This thought came to me this morning as I watched “Fox & Friends” and saw how, in the apparent interest of being “fair and balanced,” they distributed their attention between the various candidates. Knowing what an enormous influence the network has among conservative voters, is it possible that coverage by Fox News has played a major role in the way this campaign has developed?

Consider, for example, the case of Rick Perry. Traditionally, it has been said that there are “three tickets out of Iowa” — i.e., the top three finishers in the Iowa caucuses go on to contend for the nomination — and yet Perry, who placed a weak fifth in Iowa and didn’t even campaign in New Hampshire, is still running here in South Carolina despite the fact that polls show him likely to get less than 10 percent of the vote.

Would such a doomed and hopeless candidacy — the zombie shuffle of the undead Republican — be possible if it weren’t for the fact that the Perry campaign can count on Fox News covering them as if they were still a legitimate contender? And isn’t the availability of Fox News airtime a valuable resource that has been exploited by the GOP candidates, enabling them to keep campaigning even when the money starts drying up? And how has Fox News coverage more generally shaped public perception of the campaign? Have the prejudices of Fox News producers, reporters, analysts and anchors exercised a perceptible influence, a thumb on the scale as it were?

These are large and complex questions that I don’t have time to explore adequately this morning, because I’m supposed to be checking out of this motel and driving to Charleston today. But I wanted to throw it out there — discuss among yourselves — preparatory to linking my latest column for The American Spectator:

Mitt Romney came under the most intense fire he’s faced in a televised debate Monday night, hammered from the outset by his four remaining rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. And, according to one of his top advisers, Romney won.
“Governor Romney demonstrated tonight why he’s leading in South Carolina [and] why he’s leading nationally,” Eric Fehrnstrom said in the “spin room” where reporters gathered to get the post-debate perspective of candidates and their surrogates. “You heard him give strong answers about his business record, about Afghanistan and foreign policy, about his entitlement plan. And I think what these debates have turned into is a ‘get Mitt’ show, and anytime something like that happens and Mitt Romney comes out of it unscathed, then I think you can fairly conclude that he’s the winner.”
Whether Romney was “unscathed” in the debate here was, of course, disputed by the other campaigns. Rick Santorum’s campaign manager, Mike Biundo said his candidate “did really well.… He had a very pointed exchange with Governor Romney, showed that he certainly has debate skills and understands and has a command of the issues, and I think you’re going to need that in the fall.” . . .

Please read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Via Memeorandum, the headlines:

Attacks fly in Republican debate
— The Hill

Forceful Attack Against
Romney in G.O.P. Debate
— New York Times

Santorum Rattles Mitt Romney
— Buzz Feed

Memo From the National Affairs Desk: How’s the Weather Today in Vanuatu?

Posted on Comments

“Santorum is a social conservative, and everybody seems to have convinced themselves that social conservatives are a dead weight impeding the Republican Party and therefore no one should ever express support for any social conservative anywhere, under any circumstance.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “Slouching Toward Cedar Rapids”

“How long, O Lord, how long? Where will it end?
“All I ever wanted out of this campaign was enough money to get out of the country and live for a year or two in peaceful squalor in a house with a big screen porch looking down on an empty white beach, with a good rich coral reef a few hundred yards out in the surf and no neighbors. . . .
“What worries me now . . . is the strong possibility that my involvement in politics has become so deep and twisted that I can no longer think rationally about that big screen porch above the beach except in terms of an appointment as Governor of American Samoa.”
– Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72

Among the Christmas gifts I received from Mrs. Other McCain today: New luggage, thermal underwear and a wool overcoat — appropriate and much appreciated by a guy who’s about to head out on the campaign trail to Iowa and New Hampshire.

This trip wouldn’t be possible without the generous support of readers who have contributed to the Shoe Leather Fund, and there are more tip-jar hitters to thank on my last night at home before I fly the friendly skies to Cedar Rapids: Ronald in Charlottesville, Joe in Olympia, John in West Hartford, Victor in Virginia, Lamon in Missouri, Stephen in Alabama, Philip in Englewood, Dewayne in Evansville, Mike in New Hampshire, Barry in Florissant, William in Dallas, and Scott in Ontario.

Before I pack up the laptop and hit the Hawkeye State, however, there are a couple of things that probably need explaining, which might have been mysteriously puzzling even to longtime readers. Continue reading Memo From the National Affairs Desk: How’s the Weather Today in Vanuatu? →

SIOUX CITY IOWA DEBATE TONIGHT

Posted on Comments

Roundup:
Frank Luntz on the Hannity special edition:

Newt defined himeself as the Reagan conservative,
Mitt Romney, the private sector conservative,
Ron Paul, the civil liberties conservative,
Rick Santorum, the conviction conservative,
Jon Huntsman, the consistent conservative,
Michele Bachmann, the female conservative,
and my favorite is Rick Perry, the Tim Tebow conservative.

My ratings:

Rick Santorum: He sounded quite strong on foreign policy and all values.
Rick Perry: Perry sounded quite improved.
Mitt Romney: Really didn’t sound good on the internals of his Massachusetts tenure.
Newt Gingrich: Michele wrecked Newt on Freddy Mac.
Ron Paul: Ran aground in the Straights of Hormuz. I understood his reticence on judges, but the Progressive judges in the last century are as wrong as the Federal Reserve, Ron.
Michele Bachmann: She sounded calm and poised, and did the best job of going after Newt.
Jon Huntsman: A couple of good ideas. Should have served some Tea, but it’s too late.

Overall, I remain firmly committed to supporting the GOP candidate, plan to vote for Sarah Palin in the primaries, and hope that Newt, Mitt, Paul, and Jon don’t make it. I hope the ticket boils down to some combination of Santorum, Perry, and Bachmann.

22:55 p.m. ET (Smitty): Brett Baher: Rick Santorum, what about Reagan’s 11th Commandment?
Santorum: Vet the candidates.
Perry: Bring it.
Mitt: They’re nothing new. Focus on BHO.
Newt: I’ve rebutted attacks, but focused on solutions.
Paul: Let’s be responsible. We’re picking up the media slack. Focus on issues.
Michele: We’re exposing who can do the best against BHO.
Huntsman: Respectful debate breeds trust.

22:50 p.m. ET (Smitty): Chris Wallace: Michele Bachmann, what about pro life issues?
Bachmann: We. Must. Get. Life. Right. Gingrich didn’t defund Planned Parenthood when he had the chance.
Gingrich: Bachmann is daft. I have an overwhelming pro life record.
Bachmann: He’s supported partial birth abortion candidates.

22:46 p.m. ET (Smitty): Chris Wallace: Rick Santorum, what’s your take on Mitt’s response.
Santorum: Yeah, if you peak at the details, Governor Romney issued gay marriage licenses.
Wallace: Mitt?
Romney: No, I’m all about traditional marriage.

22:42 p.m. ET (Smitty): Chris Wallace: Mitt, do you like those Cafe Press flip flops?
Romney: My position on gay rights is missionary, and mercenary. I have been firmly pro-life all along.
Wallace: Are you sure that those flip-flops are a good fit?
Romney: Yes, do they make my toes look furry?

22:37 p.m. ET (Smitty): Chris Wallace: Huntsman, should the GOP pander to Hispanics?
Huntsman: We just need to be true to conservative values, but illegal immigration is down. Immigrants are an engine of growth.

22:38 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Newt, what say you?
Gingrich: I agree substantially with Mitt. But drop the anti-state lawsuits, remove federal aid to sanctuary cities, secure the border.

22:37 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Mitt, do you expect illegals to go home and get all their paperwork in order to return?
Mitt: I will give them a RomneyCard to keep them in line.

22:35 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Rick Santorum, is Holder correct that Republican’s are politicizing Fast and Furious?
Santorum: Cartels are training terrorists in Central- and South America. BHO wrong. Reset.

22:34 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Rick Perry, would you take Eric Holder’s scalp?
Rick Perry: I’d toss an attorney general such as holder under the bus like it’s my frickin’ job, Megyn.

22:28 p.m. ET (Smitty): Cavuto: Rick Perry, you’ve criticized Solyndra, but you signed a 2003 bill for a natural gas company.
Perry: today is the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, including the 10th Amendment. So I’m all about letting states be competitive.

22:26 p.m. ET (Smitty): Cavuto: Michele Bachmann was the BP shutdown Bogus Policy?
Bachmann: BHO did no real investigation. Keystone XL is really important, BTW. BHO’s calculus is about his re-election, not policy.

22:24 p.m. ET (Smitty): Cavuto: Should we love Gaia or jobs.
Huntsman: Balancing act. We’ve got to quit shooting oil like heroine. We need alternatives like natural gas.

22:23 p.m. ET (Smitty): Cavuto: Newt, should the GOP get Zany about the XL pipeline?
Newt: The POTUS should use the XL pipeline to crush the OPEC threat, not pander to Lefty environmentalists?
Cavuto: AFTQ.
Newt: Vote it in and break it off in #OccupyResoluteDesks booty.

22:20 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Perry, should we throw cereal at Sryia?
Rick Perry: I’ve called for a no fly zone, and I will enumerate BHO foreign policy gaffes, and pray I don’t drop one.

22:17 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Huntsman, what say you?
Huntsman: I want a foreign policy that is based upon a good economy.

22:16 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Newt, can you quote something historical for us?
Newt: Yeah, Israel is under rocket attacks.

22:15 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Paul, are you dangerous?
Ron Paul: I’m too broke to be dangerous. Wage peace, muffers. Declare war when you need to.
Bachmann: The IAEA report points out that this is a weak response.
Ron Paul: No UN Report says such. This is nothing in comparison to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Chill!

22:12 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Michele Bachmann, we’re pulling out of Iraq today. Dangerously stupid, or stupidly dangerous?
Bachmann: I’ll go with fools and knaves for ignoring the Iranian plan. Ron Paul is dangerous.

22:09 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Mitt Romney, was the President totally metrosexual to ask for the drone back from the Iranians?
Mitt Romney: Yeah, that was as limp wristed as it gets. American century. Peace through superior firepower, muffers.

22:07 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Rick Santorum, Iran has been supplying terrorists against us. How are we responding.
Rick Santorum: Yeah, Iran has been at war with us. Sorry Ron, they hate us. We should go all Spec Ops on Iran with the Israelis.

10:04 p.m. ET (Smitty): Foreign Policy. Ron Paul. Iran may be a year off. Say you had solid intel about Iran. You’d remove sanctions?
Ron Paul: I’d run with the American people. I’ll play the UN card: they have no evidence on Iran. It’s another war buildup. I fear over-reaction.
Baher: Say you had solid intel. Still pull back sanctions.
Ron Paul: Hey man, sympathy for the devil. They just want respect. It makes more sense to work with people. No war.
Baher: One more time. Say they blockade Hormuz?
Ron Paul: Well, we’re teasing them into doing it. Sanctions are an overreach. We will launch doves.

Welcome, Instapundit readers!

9:58 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: who is the best justice?
The conservative justices get kudos. From all but Paul. Ron Paul likes/dislikes them all. He made the point of the split on personal liberty and economic liberty, and how the SCOTUS has screwed the whole discussion.

9:55 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Mitt Romney, you sure nominated a fistful of Dems when you were a governor. Whaddup?
Mitt: yeah, I had to play the game. Congressional oversight over justices is a dodgy idea. We can impeach judges. Tools exist already.

9:54 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Ron Paul, is this too much?
Ron Paul: let’s hold our horses. Might lead to trouble if the Congress goes judging judges.

9:51 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Michele Bachmann, should we trash the 9th Circuit?
Bachmann: we need to have the separation of powers restored. Go Iowa! for scuttling the 3 justices over the marriage issue. Original intent!

9:49 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Newt, your Court plan is really tough. Is it too much?
Gingrich: Newt.org has a paper about how we need to liquidate judges who attack American Exceptionalism. I will make the Judiciary lay by its dish. Historians may have a better grip on the picture than lawyers.

9:48 p.m. ET (Smitty): Mitt Romney: let the markets figure out where the jobs will grow. Manufacturing, high tech, and energy are it. I promise an American Century.

9:45 p.m. ET (Smitty): Rick Santorum, we need to let money return to the U.S. to rebuild industry. Cut corporate tax. I will snuff every BHO regulation with extreme prejudice.

9:43 p.m. ET (Smitty): Governor Huntsman, can you fix China? Sure, invite dissidents to dinner. Let’s share us some values.

9:42 p.m. ET (Smitty): Rick Perry goes after Newt Gingrich’s confusion on the difference between lobbying and influence. Part time Congress, like in Texas, balanced budget amendment.

9:41 p.m. ET (Smitty): Ron Paul sounded great on earmarks.

9:38 p.m. ET (Smitty): Newt, did you waffle on the ‘right wing social engineering’ bit on Press the Meat?
Gingrich: Look, I have to go all Reagan here to be a great communicator. I must kiss up to Mitt to get him to soak up some heat.
Romney: We’ve really got to do it for the kids.

9:35 p.m. ET (Smitty):
Ron, do you buy Newt’s noise?
Paul: GSE is neither fish nor fowl. This bunk leads to fascism.
Newt, what do you say?
Gingrich: Hey, lots of other people do the same thing, and it wasn’t lobbying.
Michele, are you smelling what Newt is stepping in?
Bachmann: Quite whiffy. He’s tainted.
Newt, can you refute?
Gingrich: I can slice the facts anyway you like.
Michele?
Bachann: He took 1.6 million.
Newt?
Gingrich: I did not have sex with the definition of ‘lobbyist’. And I will kill Fanny & Freddy if they are too politically painful.

9:29 p.m. ET (Smitty):
Newt, GSEs have lined your wallet, and you’ve supported them. Are you Michael Moore without a ballcap?
Gingrich: look at the full picture. I was in private enterprise. Habitat for Humanity. Love me.

9:28 p.m. ET (Smitty) DC Culture:
Mitt, are you vulnerable to charges of being a capitalist meanie?
Romney: it sucks if you were on the receiving end, but if you look at the bigger picture, we’re better under capitalism. How did BHO do as dictator of Government Motors?

9:20 p.m. ET (Smitty): 30 second government shutdown responses:
Santorum: Motivate people with a righteous narrative.
Perry: 3 years OJT, BHO AFU. Stupor committee is a leadership joke.
Mitt: If I could drive an 80% Dem legislature in Mass. Leadership, muffers: I speak it.
Newt: The Saul Alinksy leadership is killing us. I know better.
Paul:We’ve got to cut this Leviathan down.

9:12 p.m. ET (Smitty): Rick Perry: your debate stack-ups are of Indy 500 proportions. Perry: I will have Tebow coach me to victory.

9:11 p.m. ET (Smitty): Michele Bachmann: can you capture the cross-eyed twenty-something barista demographic? MB: why yes, if I can pick them up in Minn, then I can do it elsewhere.

9:10 p.m. ET (Smitty): Mitt and his hair serve up some hope and change. Mentioning his whole resume without the Bain Capitol.

9:09 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn goes to Santorum. Will you douse yourself in gasoline and set yourself on fire to get your campaign going? Rick Santorum plays the political AND personal life cards. Go, Rick!

9:06 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn goes to Paul. Can you win the nomination, and if not, will you guarantee not to sandbag the nominee? Paul contrasts himself nicely with the others.

9:05 p.m. ET (Smitty): Newt. Who says I am not pretty, conservative? And I’ve got facts at my fingertips, too.

9:04 p.m. ET (Smitty): Newt I am the master debater!

9:03 p.m. ET (Smitty): First question to Newt. Can you guarantee nothing will go wrong if you’re nominated? Newt plays the Reagan card. Electability!

9:01 p.m. ET (Smitty): Brett paints a grim picture of the world situation. Electability. Is that tonight’s codeword?

9:00 p.m. ET (Smitty): Brett Baher still doesn’t look old enough to be on TV. They’re all on stage, saving the walk on time. Huntsman is back!

PREVIOUSLY (8:20 p.m. ET)
***

Just 19 days until the crucial Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, and the final pre-caucus debate in the Hawkeye State is at 9 p.m. ET on Fox News:

SIOUX CITY, Iowa – It’s been 32 weeks since the first Republican presidential debate. Since then, a changing cast of contenders has faced off a dozen times across the country with millions watching at home.
Of the original combatants from that May 5 meeting in Greenville, S.C., only two, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, remain. There have been four lead changes in national polls, two candidates drop out, four candidates join the field and billions of pixels poured out by reporters and pundits trying to make sense of it all.
Tonight, that all culminates here on the western edge of Iowa with the 13th showdown — the last chance for candidates to make their cases before voters start the process of picking a presidential nominee. Even in a cycle that has been shaped by televised debates like no other, the stakes for the candidates this evening are enormous.

The tension in the Sioux City Convention Center tonight is reportedly so extreme that Republicans in the audience have chewed their fingernails to bloody nubs, and the candidates are washing down Xanax with whiskey just to be able to calm their stress-strained nerves.

The Fate of the Free World hinges on what will transpire on that stage tonight, and here are some headlines that capture the dramatic political landscape on which will be fought the struggle destined to be known as Armageddon in the Heartland:

Iowa: Romney 23%, Gingrich 20%, Paul 18%
— Rasmussen Reports

Gingrich Momentum Slows, Polls Suggest
— New York Times

Mitt Romney’s life as a poor Mormon
missionary in France questioned
— U.K. Telegraph

Newt Gingrich shows signs of slide in Iowa
— Politico

“Something Incredibly Stupid”
— Andrew Sullivan

What Sully said, if you must know, was that Chris Wallace should recuse himself as moderator of tonight’s debate because Wallace said something bad about Ron Paul, and therefore is not “objective.” And if there is one thing that Andrew Sullivan insists on, it is that journalists must be completely objective — although no one could ever aspire to being as objective as Andrew Sullivan.

Anyway: Smitty will be liveblogging here — even though he’s kinda upset that I offered to sell him to a Las Vegas billionaire — and we’ll have updated reactions from all over. Commenters are welcome to add their objective observations about tonight’s proceedings. That is, if you’re not so distraught by the extreme tension that you’ve completely chewed off your fingers before it begins.

Just to help settle your nerves: Christina Hendricks and whiskey. Objectively speaking, I didn’t much notice the whiskey. IYKWIMAITYD.