by Jack Lee
Once again the candidate with the best answers who never showed a moment of confusion or hesitation was the guy who is unelectable, Newt Gingrich.
The first ever Tea Party presidential debate was hosted by Wolf Blitzer in conjunction with CNN. The Tea Party and CNN – now there’s an odd pair. However, it worked pretty well. My only criticism was allowing the audience to applaud spontaneously rather than to hold the applause until the end so we could get more candidate time.
Gov. Rick Perry probably skidded a couple of points when Congressman Bachman laid into him over his decision to force a 12 year old girl to be vaccinated. It wasn’t the issue so much as how he handled it. Bachman was clearly trying to regain some momentum in her failing campaign and repeatedly went into a tirade about a poor little girl being forced by the big ol mean governor to get a government injection – thus casting the event in the absolute worst possible light. The attack came off corny, contrived and hurt her more than it did Perry. Bachman is finished, but it may take a while for her campaign to figure it out.
Mitt Romney looked more like an electable contender than in previous debates. He was cool under fire, despite some hard jabs by Rick Santorum who is also floundering like Bachman. When I say Romney looks electable, its only because he has a wider voter base, if you left it up to the Tea Party folks it probably would be a toss up between Michelle Bachman, Herm Cain, and Ron Paul, they all drew thunderous acclamations from the audience, especially Cain when it came time to describing their plans for repairing our economy and Paul on drawing down military forces deployed to some 900 bases overseas and removing ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ron Paul comes off as the curmudgeon of the group, but it wouldn’t have been nearly as interesting without him. Paul has a fairly narrow base, so he is a long shot in this election, but he sure brings a lot to the table for discussion. He was a favorite on topics near and dear to ultra conservative Tea Party members and they showed it with their applause.
Who’s looking like the winner here? Well, its a tough call, but I would say Romney and Perry will benefit the most from last nights performance and they will be the top two to make it into the home stretch.
Of course, Bachman was not telling the truth. Perry never forced any 12-year old girls to be vaccinated for HPV. If the parents objected, it did not happen. And even then, the only penalty would be not being able to register for school — the same as it is for failure to get a vaccination for measles, mumps, polio, TB, flu, or whatever a particular state decides. Bachman doubled down on her error in a follow-up interview when she alleged that vaccinations might cause autism. That issue has been argued in court many times by distraught mothers and greedy lawyers trying to cash in on lawsuits against big pharmaceutical companies. After years of testing, the science is firmly settled — no connection whatsoever. I liked Bachman before this debate. Now I see that she is just another political opportunist, ready to make any false claim that she thinks might hurt her rivals and thereby help her.
“Of course, Bachman was not telling the truth.”
Of course. She’s Bachmann. She rarely tells the truth.
Just look at these stats from Politifact. Out of 34 statements, only 2 have been rated true. 2 others merited a “mostly true,” three “half true,” 6 “mostly false,” 13 “false,” and 8 have been rated “pants on fire.”
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/
She’s a liar, and after years of hearing her lie, it’s good to see some Republicans finally start to realize this.
Jack: “When I say Romney looks electable, its only because he has a wider voter base, if you left it up to the Tea Party folks it probably would be a toss up between Michelle Bachman, Herm Cain, and Ron Paul”
Which is completely insane. Mitt Romney beats every one of these people when it comes to his record. His state is one of the most prosperous in the nation. Some of that is due to the healthcare plan that Romney implemented a few years ago. And since that plan is awfully close to the plan they like to refer to as “Obamacare,” they can’t bring themselves to do this.
Sometimes I think the Tea Party hates the president more than they love their country.
Chris, some states are better off than others because they are dealt a good hand, and so their economy is not solely because of good leadership or vice versa. Romney is okay, don’t get me wrong, I’m just pointing some states have a special advantage.
Look at the this state for example, we’ve have the very best politicians money can buy and the state is still broke, and you know why? California has no natural resources. That’s right, there is nothing here to attract people or businesses – we’ve got nothing going for us here!
There is no gas and no oil in the ground or even off shore. The weather is always bad. the soil is bad for crops. There’s no nice beaches, no harbors suitable for shipping. We have nothing in the way of good parks, lakes or rivers. Basically all we have is our wonderful democratic party and thank God we’ve at least got them.
They have provided us our fabulous leaders who control every department in the state and we know they have desperately try to salvage what they can from this miserable state, but without something to work with what can we expect from them? And hey…that state budget of 20.7 billion dollars of revenue falls short by 16 billion, that won’t even keep us afloat, we need to raise taxes at least another 100%, increase these college tuition’s too and then get rid of these worthless companies and corporations that foul the air and water. If we can only do that maybe we could live as we were meant to live, but for now it is what is. A hopeless mess.
Chris: “Sometimes I think the Tea Party hates the president more than they love their country.”
Disagreement and disapproval is seen as hatred? This belies a very shallow thinking process, Chris. I think you are more capable than this stupid remark would suggest, so I will ask:
How much do you have to “hate the country” to continue to support this president and his failed ideas?
Just how many Americans must lose their jobs, businesses, homes, marriages, 401K’s, and status as middle class citizens before you will begin to question his ability to lead?
How many people must fill the food stamp rolls or make it to the poverty level before you develop a distaste for his policies?
How many billions (in YOUR generations future taxes) will you allow him to redistribute before it begins to grate on you a bit?
Obama doesn’t own all of the elements that will ruin the apple but it certainly could be said that he represents an invasive worm infestation that is hastening and enlarging the rot.
We are not moving in a direction that will create a strong recovery or one that will be good for America long term.
Jack…priceless. Thanks for thelate afternoon giggle!
Now the big ego thinks he’s America?
Tina, you seem to be forgetting that our country was in a deep recession before President Obama took office. And that the CBO has concluded many times that many of Obama’s policies, such as the stimulus plan, kept things from getting as bad as they could have been.
The President has also spent his entire term compromising with the unreasonable demands of the Republicans, watering nearly every major proposal down until it barely resembles anything that can be called progressive. Meanwhile, your party continues to support policies that punish the poor. You continue to argue that tax increases on the rich will hurt business and stall job growth, despite the fact that their extremely low current rates have been around for years and have had no positive effect on the economy. While you are always willing to stick up for the rich, you deny help to those who truly need it. You oppose extending unemployment benefits, which stimulate the economy in a far faster and more meaningful way than tax cuts on the wealthy. You want to scale back or eliminate nearly every progressive piece of legislation of the nineteenth century: minimum wage laws, social security, the ADA, the EPA…some in your party have even proposed getting rid of pieces of the Civil Rights Act! Nothing is safe. And in order to justify this radical agenda, you have to make the foolish and discredited argument that the New Deal was actually bad for America, and that it didn’t help pull us out of the Great Depression. You won’t learn this in any history class in America, because it’s not true. It’s pure historical revisionism, based on politics rather than facts. And this is only one of the many lies you push in service of your agenda. You’ve said in the past that most small businesses make over $250,000 a year, and would be effected by raising taxes on this income bracket. This has been proven to be a lie many times over. Then there’s the death panels lie, the many lies about Obama’s birth certificate…the list goes on and on.
President Obama may not be perfect, but he has been good for our country. Your extremely regressive and unpopular policies would only make our country worse.
Chris, you’re right to point out the recession. Obama inherited the “Great Recession” that according the National Bureau of Economic Research began in Dec. 2007. As you know Obama was not elected until Nov. 2008 and sworn in on January of 2009, 13 months after the recession began.
The forces that led us into the recession were begun over the course of the previous 3 years and quite possibly even earlier.
The recession ended according to the technical indicators on June 2009 (Obama had only been president for 5 months) although many could argue with some credibility that the recession is still ongoing. The lingering effects were that bad! Such is our high unemployment and this stalled economy. These things continue to plague the United States and it’s been a painfully slow recovery. Now we’re threatened with a double dip recession thanks to policies put in place by the Obama Administration that are centered around borrowing money to spend our way out of a flat economy teetering on the brink of stagflation.
Chris: “the CBO has concluded many times that many of Obama’s policies, such as the stimulus plan, kept things from getting as bad as they could have been.”
A bone they could throw not an endorsement.
“The President has also spent his entire term compromising with the unreasonable demands of the Republicans…”
Factually rediculous. The super majority Congress ensured that the Democrats had enough votes to pass any legislation they chose to pass without a single Republican vote. The problem he had was his Democrats…he couldn’t get 100% support from them. Moreover, all presidents get to work with the opposition. Our system was designed to work in exactly this way, yet, even with a super majority, Obamas did not get his way on everything. They passed Obamacare against the will of the people with tricks and bribes.
“Meanwhile, your party continues to support policies that punish the poor…”
This is a flat out LIE. Republican policies uplift the poor:
Policies that encourage job growth, savings and investment help all economic classes. Debunking Reagan myths Cato: “…it is not true that the gains by the wealthiest Americans came at the expense of low-income Americans. From 1981 to 1989, every income quintile–from the richest to the poorest–gained income according to the Census Bureau economic data”
We have called for reforms that encourage the poor toward improving their own lives and you progressives, who pretend to care so much, scream rediculous accusations in the extreme. (Republicans want to kick old people out in the snow…Republicans want to starve old people…Republicans won’t fund education…won’t pay their taxes. ALL LIES.)
Which tells me you don’t really care about the quality of life or the economic and educational well-being of the poor but insead you care about programs and power and programs and power.
Hell you don’t even care if the programs work as long as there are more programs or more money for programs!
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/17/morning-bell-how-many-trillions-must-we-waste-on-the-war-on-poverty/
Chris we need JOBS and Americans need a thriving economy. More welfare spending will not help; it will tip the scales quickly to put us in a permanent third world reality. If we don’t stop the madness there really will be a few wealthy with the rest of us stuck in poverty.
Why are you against Americans having the opportunity to earn a living that private sector investment would bring?
“You continue to argue that tax increases on the rich will hurt business and stall job growth, despite the fact that their extremely low current rates have been around for years and have had no positive effect on the economy.”
The economy is not in the shape it is in because of tax rates. The economy will not go into recovery mode unless you stop the attack on business and the uncertain conditions that threaten higher tax rates.
“While you are always willing to stick up for the rich, you deny help to those who truly need it.”
Chris that just is not true. Tax cuts will not change the amount this country spends on the poor. In fact, budgets have always increased. We are in favor of reforms that ask more of the poor because we believe it would be better for them to gain the self respect that comes from bettering ones own life. (I’m really sick of this particular lie)
“You want to scale back or eliminate nearly every progressive piece of legislation of the nineteenth century: minimum wage laws, social security, the ADA, the EPA…”
You’re going to have to get over the idea that change equals heartlessness…IT DOESN”T! It also doesn’t mean cruelty or unreasonableness. What we want is an acknowledgement that these programs have generally made situations worse for the poor. The Heritage statistics demonstrate this clearly.
We want to find ways to move people out of poverty and into the middle and upper classes. We want policies that give people incentive and opportunity to improve their lot in life. Your side has tried its ideas; its time to try something different. And as you noted yourself, nothing happens quicly or easily in DC.
“some in your party have even proposed getting rid of pieces of the Civil Rights Act”
Like what? I haven’t heard this? How popular do you think it would be? (No friggin chance).
“Nothing is safe.”
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!
And in order to justify this radical agenda…”
Grossly overstated!
“…you have to make the foolish and discredited argument that the New Deal was actually bad for America, and that it didn’t help pull us out of the Great Depression.”
It isn’t a foolish, discredited argument. It is an argument made by credible historians and economists. Sorry honey, you just don’t have all the smart people on your side. It’s one thing to realize there is disagreement, it is quite another to pretend the opposing argument is held by idiots and wrong just because you say so.
“It’s pure historical revisionism, based on politics rather than facts.”
Yep, that’s the leftist line. Dismissal is so easy,,,removes the discomfort of looking at all of the facts and determining what you think for yourself.
“You’ve said in the past that most small businesses make over $250,000 a year, and would be effected by raising taxes on this income bracket…”
I did not say MOST small businesses. I said there were small business owners who would fall into that catagory who really don’t belong in that catagory. I said it as part of an overall argument against raising taxes and specifically taxing “the rich” which, particularly at this time, would be a stupid move…that’s where the money to stimulate the overall economy is. (And it will if it stays in the private sector)
“President Obama may not be perfect, but he has been good for our country.”
I challenge you to defend this statement. Back it up! In what way can you say with a straight face that he has been good for nthis country? By what possible measure?
“Your extremely regressive and unpopular policies would only make our country worse.”
You don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about…you sound like a robot mouthpiece. Think, Chris! All of your arguments are emotional and based on exageration and lies.
Chris…tell me how you can blame Republicans or the Tea party for this:
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-california-healthcare-20110915,0,7723001.story
Chris…how about this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/us/politics/democrats-in-congress-balking-at-obamas-jobs-bill.html?_r=1
And the Washington times reminded us:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/14/obamas-poverty-problem/print/
Bush inherited a recession and then 911 happened and under his leadership America pulled through and recovered. He kept the economy on a steady path. He spent too much and that lost the Republicans the House and Senate. But people had jobs and if Barnie Frank had listened and done something about Fannie and Freddie we might have avoided the housing bubble and financial crisis.
Oh nad by the way, during the six years that Republicans had the majority, how many of those scary policies were passed or put in place?
Nothing changes quickly in DC.
Tina: “They passed Obamacare against the will of the people…”
Against the will of Republicans, maybe. Generally, Americans were pretty evenly split on the bill at the time of its passage, and support for it seems to have only grown since then.
It’s also important to note that polls have shown that many people still do not understand the ACA, and have a number of beliefs regarding the bill that are simply factually untrue.
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8217.cfm
http://www.ncoa.org/press-room/press-release/most-seniors-misinformed.html
Much of this misunderstanding can undoubtedly be attributed to the sustained campaign of lies and misinformation waged by Republicans against the bill. “Death panels,” anyone?
“Hell you don’t even care if the programs work as long as there are more programs or more money for programs!”
I do care. You don’t seem to recognize the programs that do work. The stimulus worked. Extending unemployment benefits worked. The individual mandate works, as we can see by looking at Massachusetts (which employs a plan very similar to the ACA, and which many conservatives supported wholeheartedly up until only a few years ago).
“Chris we need JOBS and Americans need a thriving economy. More welfare spending will not help; it will tip the scales quickly to put us in a permanent third world reality.”
A third world reality like in Sweden? Like in Massachusetts? Welfare spending seems to be working very well in those places…
“If we don’t stop the madness there really will be a few wealthy with the rest of us stuck in poverty.”
The situation you’re referring to is called income inequality, also known as wealth disparity. As I showed you a while back, places that devote more resources toward social welfare actually have much lower rates of income inequality than the U.S. So your conclusion doesn’t seem to be backed up by example.
“We want to find ways to move people out of poverty and into the middle and upper classes. We want policies that give people incentive and opportunity to improve their lot in life.”
This is called “social mobility” in economics. Care to take a guess on what countries have the highest rates of social mobility?
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland.
Meanwhile, social mobility in the U.S. is on a downward spiral.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html
Our country has always prided itself on the American Dream, the ability to fulfill one’s potential and achieve great things no matter what one’s social background…obviously, there are still some people who are able to do this, and they should be admired. But the trends show that this dream is disappearing. And the fact that we’re being beat by these other countries, which have governments that you would describe as “socialist,” clearly shows that “too much social welfare spending” can NOT POSSIBLY be the problem. Social welfare spending in those places is exactly what helps lift people out of poverty.
And on a personal note, social welfare spending here is helping me do the same. Simply put, if I were not receiving FAFSA, I would not be graduating from college this semester. And the same is true for thousands of American students: without FAFSA, some of them would never be able to go to college.
“Like what? I haven’t heard this? How popular do you think it would be? (No friggin chance).”
Rand Paul made waves a while back when he stated that he disagreed with portions of the Civil Rights Act. John Stossel agrees with him. And just a few days ago, a FOX News segment listed Title VII of the CRA and the Americans with Disabilities Act among what were allegedly unnecessary regulations that should be repealed:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201109140007
I do agree it wouldn’t have a chance…I don’t tend to believe in “slipper slopes” as much as you do. But the fact that this is not considered a fringe view among Republicans tells me, and other Americans, that their party is embracing some pretty radical stuff.
For instance, the claim that the New Deal didn’t work. It is completely fair to call this viewpoint radical. I don’t have time to do a thorough rebuttal of this absurd chestnut, but I’ll let David Sirota of Think Progress sum it up for now:
“If the right wants to try to stop a serious economic recovery package and financial regulations by trying to vilify one of the most popular presidents and popular policy programs in American history, then I’ll say what George Bush once said: Bring it on. Every high school civics class teaches the broad truth about Roosevelt, the New Deal and how it helped end the Great Depression, and if the conservative movement has gone so off the deep end that they want to make crazy-sounding arguments that even high schoolers know are silly, then the progressive movement is in an even better position than we may have thought.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/fox-news-historians-prett_b_153482.html
“I did not say MOST small businesses.”
I could have sworn you did, but I apologize if I was mistaken.
“I said there were small business owners who would fall into that catagory who really don’t belong in that catagory. I said it as part of an overall argument against raising taxes and specifically taxing “the rich” which, particularly at this time, would be a stupid move…that’s where the money to stimulate the overall economy is. (And it will if it stays in the private sector)”
Taxes on the rich have never been lower. If your economic theory is correct we should be seeing positive results by now. But the fact is, the rich haven’t been using their money to stimulate the economy. They’ve been squirreling it away…meanwhile, you continue to oppose measures that actually DO stimulate the economy…leading economists, even conservative economists, have explained that things like unemployment benefits and food stamps have an immediate and powerful stimulatory effect, yet you choose not to listen.
“I challenge you to defend this statement. Back it up! In what way can you say with a straight face that he has been good for nthis country? By what possible measure?”
By the same measures you use…you thought it appropriate to post on this site census data that showed the poverty rate has grown worse. Yet you chose to interpret that as a point against the president, even though the same exact census concluded that his stimulus plan, in addition to his extension of unemployment benefits, helped save millions more from falling below the poverty line. The CBO and other leading economists have also come to the same conclusion.
I have very good reason to continue to support the president, and to oppose the measures supported by you and other Republicans, measures that would have made this recession even worse than it currently is.