Showing posts with label Jon Huntsman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Huntsman. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
GOP Primaries: Colbert outpolls Huntsman in South Carolina
Nothing for this but a Reynolds-like "heh."
Romney, Huntsman tied at 33% in Early New Hampshire Returns
OK, so it's a very small sample: Six GOP primary ballots cast in Dixville Notch, breaking out to two each for Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, one each for Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul.
The town is not necessarily a bellwether. In 1992, ten Dixville Notch voters cast their ballots in the Libertarian Party's presidential primary for Andre Marrou, while only nine cast ballots for GOP incumbent George HW Bush.
The town is not necessarily a bellwether. In 1992, ten Dixville Notch voters cast their ballots in the Libertarian Party's presidential primary for Andre Marrou, while only nine cast ballots for GOP incumbent George HW Bush.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Desultory In-Progress Debate Notes
9:01pm Central Time: Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ ... there are "major party" presidential candidates running on a platform of sending troops back into Iraq?
9:05pm: Obama wrapped up Iraq on the Bush timetable. He "surged" Afghanistan, amped up the drone war in Pakistan, launched a renewed covert war in Somalia, honchoed the takedown of bin Laden ... there's just no way to get around his "national security" flank from the hawk direction. But a bunch of these bozos are trying. As usual, the only one talking a lick of sense on foreign policy is Ron Paul.
9:07pm: Santorum notices that the Iranian people think America is cool -- then says what we need to do is keep trying to change that. Because the best way to overthrow an unfriendly regime is to do everything you can to keep its popular support level at the highest level possible.
9:13pm: Riffing on break commentary -- 53% of Americans support ending marriage apartheid. Republican candidates: "Fuck'em."
9:15pm: Newt Gingrich thinks that every issue is a "very big, very important topic." Ask him about his bunions and he'll roll out a plan for massive revisioning of NIH.
9:17pm: Mitt wants to get rid of all the "loopholes and deductions" that keep the poor politicians so destitute. Santorum wants to get rid of all the deductions except the ones that are actually there, so that it can be 1955 in Pennsylvania's factories again.
9:20pm: Mitt and taxes, sittin' in a tree ... Says we're "inches from not being a free economy any more." Because, you know, back in the days of Nixon's wage and price controls, things were so much freer.
9:21pm: Oh, shit, Paul's giving an economics lecture. Everything he's saying is absolutely right. He also sounds like he's about to scream "get off my lawn!" at any second.
9:23pm: That one guy from Texas, the other one, Rick somethin' or other, is flapping his gums. He's got the whole "get off my lawn" tone thing going, too. Someone plug in the shrill-meter.
9:24pm: Huntsman's glad someone's actually letting him speak this time. Mitt's rambling. He seems very much off his game tonight. He's worried he'll fall below 40% next Tuesday. He's right to be worried.
9:27pm: Newt thinks that Obama is a radical European socialist now. Quite a transformation from Kenyan anti-colonialist, huh? But now he's trying to make Romney into Obama, and I admit Romney looks more like Switzerland than Swaziland. Santorum looks ... lost.
9:28pm: Santorum will "use the language of bringing people together." As long as they're heterosexual and there's no contraception involved, of course.
9:30pm: Anonymous is ... China.
9:35pm: Huntsman: A trade war is a bad idea. Mitt: China will swerve first.
My partial impression (I came in way late): So far I'd say that Huntsman is picking up some points (that break into Chinese was gold), Santorum and Romney are cratering, Newt and Paul are holding their own, and Perry should have gone ahead and dropped out last Tuesday.
OK, wow, it's over. Or are there closing statements still to come? If that's it, I'm thinking the bloom came off Santorum's rose in a pretty big way already, but that the big loser was Romney. He sounded shrill and defensive, the whole time I was watching. Yes, it's over. Talking heads now. Buh bye.
9:05pm: Obama wrapped up Iraq on the Bush timetable. He "surged" Afghanistan, amped up the drone war in Pakistan, launched a renewed covert war in Somalia, honchoed the takedown of bin Laden ... there's just no way to get around his "national security" flank from the hawk direction. But a bunch of these bozos are trying. As usual, the only one talking a lick of sense on foreign policy is Ron Paul.
9:07pm: Santorum notices that the Iranian people think America is cool -- then says what we need to do is keep trying to change that. Because the best way to overthrow an unfriendly regime is to do everything you can to keep its popular support level at the highest level possible.
9:13pm: Riffing on break commentary -- 53% of Americans support ending marriage apartheid. Republican candidates: "Fuck'em."
9:15pm: Newt Gingrich thinks that every issue is a "very big, very important topic." Ask him about his bunions and he'll roll out a plan for massive revisioning of NIH.
9:17pm: Mitt wants to get rid of all the "loopholes and deductions" that keep the poor politicians so destitute. Santorum wants to get rid of all the deductions except the ones that are actually there, so that it can be 1955 in Pennsylvania's factories again.
9:20pm: Mitt and taxes, sittin' in a tree ... Says we're "inches from not being a free economy any more." Because, you know, back in the days of Nixon's wage and price controls, things were so much freer.
9:21pm: Oh, shit, Paul's giving an economics lecture. Everything he's saying is absolutely right. He also sounds like he's about to scream "get off my lawn!" at any second.
9:23pm: That one guy from Texas, the other one, Rick somethin' or other, is flapping his gums. He's got the whole "get off my lawn" tone thing going, too. Someone plug in the shrill-meter.
9:24pm: Huntsman's glad someone's actually letting him speak this time. Mitt's rambling. He seems very much off his game tonight. He's worried he'll fall below 40% next Tuesday. He's right to be worried.
9:27pm: Newt thinks that Obama is a radical European socialist now. Quite a transformation from Kenyan anti-colonialist, huh? But now he's trying to make Romney into Obama, and I admit Romney looks more like Switzerland than Swaziland. Santorum looks ... lost.
9:28pm: Santorum will "use the language of bringing people together." As long as they're heterosexual and there's no contraception involved, of course.
9:30pm: Anonymous is ... China.
9:35pm: Huntsman: A trade war is a bad idea. Mitt: China will swerve first.
My partial impression (I came in way late): So far I'd say that Huntsman is picking up some points (that break into Chinese was gold), Santorum and Romney are cratering, Newt and Paul are holding their own, and Perry should have gone ahead and dropped out last Tuesday.
OK, wow, it's over. Or are there closing statements still to come? If that's it, I'm thinking the bloom came off Santorum's rose in a pretty big way already, but that the big loser was Romney. He sounded shrill and defensive, the whole time I was watching. Yes, it's over. Talking heads now. Buh bye.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Coming Soon: The Second Ascent of Newt Gingrich
This looks like it was captured with a webcam in front of a TV set or something, but it was the only YouTube clip I could find of the scene I want to use to set up this post:
The situation isn't precisely analogous, but it's a good start. The thing to take away from it is that Mitt Romney can't win the New Hampshire primary next week. By "can't win," I mean that even the most crushing victory there will get him a yawn, but failing to pull away from the pack will just highlight his vulnerability.
As I noted in my Iowa wrap-up last night, Romney is the wounded gazelle. He entered this presidential race as the presumptive GOP frontrunner, and after six years of campaigning in Iowa, he "won" that state's caucus -- if the returns from Iowa really are finally final -- by a whopping eight votes, polling almost exactly as well in first place this year as he did in second place four years ago.
There's a smidgen of a chance that he'll take his big fall in New Hampshire: Instead of romping, or even credibly edging out his opponents, ending up in a three-way dogpile like he just did with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul in Iowa. If that happens, Newt Gingrich is more likely than Santorum to be the third guy in the mix.
The more likely scenario is that he ekes out a barely credible New Hampshire victory (anything less than 40%), then comes to grief in South Carolina (I know just the town for his primary night party there).
Who's going to bring him to a halt in South Carolina?
I know a lot of my readers want very much for Ron Paul to win the GOP presidential nomination. Sorry, I still don't see it happening. Like it or not, the bulk of Republicans still aren't with him on foreign policy, and the social conservatives don't trust his "states' rights" approach to issues they agree with him on. He does best in smaller states where a grass roots ground game and dedicated activist base pump him up versus turnout ... and even in those states, he's not winning outright. He's not going to win South Carolina. He's not going to win Florida. Dream of a deep enough split to get to a brokered convention if you want, but he's certainly not going to arrive in Tampa Bay with a majority of delegates.
Rick Santorum ran a hell of a campaign in Iowa (contrary to the claims of some Paulistinians who are screaming "fraud!"). He spent most of his time there, and most of his money there. He visited all 99 counties, and he had 250 volunteer county and precinct workers. And as a 100% Catholic candidate, he had the advantage of an electorate that's 23% Catholic. South Carolina is 7% Catholic. Absent a miracle of some sort, it's all downhill from here for Santorum. He doesn't have the money to buy South Carolina, and he doesn't have time to build the kind of ground game there that he ran in Iowa.
Michele Bachmann "suspended" her campaign about the time I started writing this post, and after her Iowa finish she didn't have the gas to get to South Carolina in fighting shape anyway.
It looks like Rick Perry's still in, but he's run a lackluster campaign so far, so much so that the pundit buzz continues to be that he's just basically burning money to make work for a raft of consultants who weren't able to get on payroll with other campaigns.
I'm not ready to write Perry off completely just yet, but the "Mitt is too moderate but I can't stomach Paul" vote is about to start coalescing either around Perry or around Gingrich, and Gingrich has the advantage.
The next two big primaries are in South Carolina and Florida, southern states adjacent to Gingrich's native Georgia. If he shuts Perry down there, it's going to be tough for the Texan to catch a break -- next comes the Nevada caucus, where Romney and Paul (and maybe Jon Huntsman, if he's still playing at this) will suck any anti-Gingrich air out of Perry's efforts.
By Super Tuesday, I expect the three remaining candidates who remain in the contest in anything but name to be Gingrich, Romney and Paul, with Gingrich in a clear lead for the nomination.
The situation isn't precisely analogous, but it's a good start. The thing to take away from it is that Mitt Romney can't win the New Hampshire primary next week. By "can't win," I mean that even the most crushing victory there will get him a yawn, but failing to pull away from the pack will just highlight his vulnerability.
As I noted in my Iowa wrap-up last night, Romney is the wounded gazelle. He entered this presidential race as the presumptive GOP frontrunner, and after six years of campaigning in Iowa, he "won" that state's caucus -- if the returns from Iowa really are finally final -- by a whopping eight votes, polling almost exactly as well in first place this year as he did in second place four years ago.
There's a smidgen of a chance that he'll take his big fall in New Hampshire: Instead of romping, or even credibly edging out his opponents, ending up in a three-way dogpile like he just did with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul in Iowa. If that happens, Newt Gingrich is more likely than Santorum to be the third guy in the mix.
The more likely scenario is that he ekes out a barely credible New Hampshire victory (anything less than 40%), then comes to grief in South Carolina (I know just the town for his primary night party there).
Who's going to bring him to a halt in South Carolina?
I know a lot of my readers want very much for Ron Paul to win the GOP presidential nomination. Sorry, I still don't see it happening. Like it or not, the bulk of Republicans still aren't with him on foreign policy, and the social conservatives don't trust his "states' rights" approach to issues they agree with him on. He does best in smaller states where a grass roots ground game and dedicated activist base pump him up versus turnout ... and even in those states, he's not winning outright. He's not going to win South Carolina. He's not going to win Florida. Dream of a deep enough split to get to a brokered convention if you want, but he's certainly not going to arrive in Tampa Bay with a majority of delegates.
Rick Santorum ran a hell of a campaign in Iowa (contrary to the claims of some Paulistinians who are screaming "fraud!"). He spent most of his time there, and most of his money there. He visited all 99 counties, and he had 250 volunteer county and precinct workers. And as a 100% Catholic candidate, he had the advantage of an electorate that's 23% Catholic. South Carolina is 7% Catholic. Absent a miracle of some sort, it's all downhill from here for Santorum. He doesn't have the money to buy South Carolina, and he doesn't have time to build the kind of ground game there that he ran in Iowa.
Michele Bachmann "suspended" her campaign about the time I started writing this post, and after her Iowa finish she didn't have the gas to get to South Carolina in fighting shape anyway.
It looks like Rick Perry's still in, but he's run a lackluster campaign so far, so much so that the pundit buzz continues to be that he's just basically burning money to make work for a raft of consultants who weren't able to get on payroll with other campaigns.
I'm not ready to write Perry off completely just yet, but the "Mitt is too moderate but I can't stomach Paul" vote is about to start coalescing either around Perry or around Gingrich, and Gingrich has the advantage.
The next two big primaries are in South Carolina and Florida, southern states adjacent to Gingrich's native Georgia. If he shuts Perry down there, it's going to be tough for the Texan to catch a break -- next comes the Nevada caucus, where Romney and Paul (and maybe Jon Huntsman, if he's still playing at this) will suck any anti-Gingrich air out of Perry's efforts.
By Super Tuesday, I expect the three remaining candidates who remain in the contest in anything but name to be Gingrich, Romney and Paul, with Gingrich in a clear lead for the nomination.
Iowa Caucus Predictions: Hot Washup
Well, there you have it: My caucus predictions were off in key respects.
I got the top three (Santorum, Romney, Paul) right, but not in the right order, or within 3 percentage points of each candidate's actual performance. It looks at the moment like I just about pegged Gingrich and Perry, and gave Bachmann and Huntsman more than their due (I did get everything below the top three in the right order as well).
Tonight's big winner, of course, is Rick Santorum. Last time I looked, he was five votes ahead of Mitt Romney. Even if that changes, and even if he ends up technically placing second, he radically outperformed the expectations, as of a month ago, of all but his most devoted supporters.
Ron Paul's a winner in an important sense too. He held the lead at one point, he carried 17 of Iowa's 99 counties (the same number of counties as Mitt Romney), he finished in the top tier, he outperformed his 2008 run, and he did it all in a record high turnout caucus in good weather (both of those factors tend to diminish the "my supporters are dedicated activists" advantage). His campaign and his supporters will be nearly as energized by this outcome as they would have been by a win, and he may be able to manage it again, or even move up a notch to second place, in New Hampshire.
The huge loser -- even if he makes good that five-vote difference and technically beats Santorum -- is Mitt Romney. He's been campaigning in Iowa for six years, he's been the presumptive national front-runner thus far ... and yet he wasn't able to improve on his 2008 Iowa performance as a percentage of the vote. He is a limping gazelle, and there are lions waiting to take him down for good in South Carolina.
The 25-delegate question, of course, is which lion will gorge on him. I've got some thoughts on that (okay, okay, it's Gingrich) but they'll wait for another post.
I got the top three (Santorum, Romney, Paul) right, but not in the right order, or within 3 percentage points of each candidate's actual performance. It looks at the moment like I just about pegged Gingrich and Perry, and gave Bachmann and Huntsman more than their due (I did get everything below the top three in the right order as well).
Tonight's big winner, of course, is Rick Santorum. Last time I looked, he was five votes ahead of Mitt Romney. Even if that changes, and even if he ends up technically placing second, he radically outperformed the expectations, as of a month ago, of all but his most devoted supporters.
Ron Paul's a winner in an important sense too. He held the lead at one point, he carried 17 of Iowa's 99 counties (the same number of counties as Mitt Romney), he finished in the top tier, he outperformed his 2008 run, and he did it all in a record high turnout caucus in good weather (both of those factors tend to diminish the "my supporters are dedicated activists" advantage). His campaign and his supporters will be nearly as energized by this outcome as they would have been by a win, and he may be able to manage it again, or even move up a notch to second place, in New Hampshire.
The huge loser -- even if he makes good that five-vote difference and technically beats Santorum -- is Mitt Romney. He's been campaigning in Iowa for six years, he's been the presumptive national front-runner thus far ... and yet he wasn't able to improve on his 2008 Iowa performance as a percentage of the vote. He is a limping gazelle, and there are lions waiting to take him down for good in South Carolina.
The 25-delegate question, of course, is which lion will gorge on him. I've got some thoughts on that (okay, okay, it's Gingrich) but they'll wait for another post.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Hot Corn, Cold Corn, Bring Along That Dummy Jon
"They pick corn in Iowa," said Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman from the Granite State, dismissing his anticipated single-digit performance in Iowa's caucus on Tuesday, "and pick presidents here in New Hampshire."
Iowans may take that bon mot as an insult, but it's really a compliment of the highest order.
From Iowa's 92,600 farms (according to the US Department of Agriculture) springs forth 19% of America's corn, 17% of its soybeans, 30% of its pork, and 14% of its eggs.
Laid alongside such bounty, of what conceivable worth are the political aspirations of a sniveling little grifter like Jon Huntsman?
He's spent his entire life, apart from seven years holding down a sinecure in his family's corporation to burnish his image as a "businessman," in politics. While Iowans keep themselves busy producing 19% of America's corn, Huntsman's life revolves around schemes to seize and dispose of 19% -- or more -- of everything those Iowans, and other Americans, create or earn.
They say politics is a dirty business. They're wrong. It's dirty, but it's not a business. At least not a legitimate one, like picking corn.
They say politics is a blood sport, but that's not true either (unless you consider professional "wrestling" a sport). Huntsman's really no different than the other presidential candidates glad-handing their way across Iowa and New Hampshire this week. Every one of them thinks exactly the same way as Huntsman about the yokels in "fly-over country." They just won't say it, because they're not at 2% in the Iowa presidential polls.
Politics is a scheme, a scam, a con, a fraud. It's the mechanism through which men like Jon Huntsman hope to convince you that they can handle your affairs for you better than you can handle those affairs yourself -- for a price, which they'll extract at gunpoint and spend on chains to wrap around you, the better to keep you locked into that rotten deal forever after.
As we find ourselves engulfed in yet another quadrennial presidential contest, keep a couple of things in mind:
Every cab driver, every janitor, every burger-flipper, every corn or cotton picker across the fruited plain does more, every day, to make the lives of everyone around them better, happier, more rewarding than the whole raft of politicians hectoring them for their votes will do in a thousand lifetimes.
Every creator, every investor, every entrepreneur, every businessman who actually makes the things we need and offers the services we use -- as opposed to those sorry specimens who plot with politicians to get over through government privilege instead of honest effort -- is a walking rebuke to the Jon Huntsmans of the world.
Think about that while you watch the 10-month "wrestling" match to come. Ask yourself if watching these scoundrels work each other with folding chairs and spit fake blood all over each other for most of another year is really worth the price of the ticket.
Iowans may take that bon mot as an insult, but it's really a compliment of the highest order.
From Iowa's 92,600 farms (according to the US Department of Agriculture) springs forth 19% of America's corn, 17% of its soybeans, 30% of its pork, and 14% of its eggs.
Laid alongside such bounty, of what conceivable worth are the political aspirations of a sniveling little grifter like Jon Huntsman?
He's spent his entire life, apart from seven years holding down a sinecure in his family's corporation to burnish his image as a "businessman," in politics. While Iowans keep themselves busy producing 19% of America's corn, Huntsman's life revolves around schemes to seize and dispose of 19% -- or more -- of everything those Iowans, and other Americans, create or earn.
They say politics is a dirty business. They're wrong. It's dirty, but it's not a business. At least not a legitimate one, like picking corn.
They say politics is a blood sport, but that's not true either (unless you consider professional "wrestling" a sport). Huntsman's really no different than the other presidential candidates glad-handing their way across Iowa and New Hampshire this week. Every one of them thinks exactly the same way as Huntsman about the yokels in "fly-over country." They just won't say it, because they're not at 2% in the Iowa presidential polls.
Politics is a scheme, a scam, a con, a fraud. It's the mechanism through which men like Jon Huntsman hope to convince you that they can handle your affairs for you better than you can handle those affairs yourself -- for a price, which they'll extract at gunpoint and spend on chains to wrap around you, the better to keep you locked into that rotten deal forever after.
As we find ourselves engulfed in yet another quadrennial presidential contest, keep a couple of things in mind:
Every cab driver, every janitor, every burger-flipper, every corn or cotton picker across the fruited plain does more, every day, to make the lives of everyone around them better, happier, more rewarding than the whole raft of politicians hectoring them for their votes will do in a thousand lifetimes.
Every creator, every investor, every entrepreneur, every businessman who actually makes the things we need and offers the services we use -- as opposed to those sorry specimens who plot with politicians to get over through government privilege instead of honest effort -- is a walking rebuke to the Jon Huntsmans of the world.
Think about that while you watch the 10-month "wrestling" match to come. Ask yourself if watching these scoundrels work each other with folding chairs and spit fake blood all over each other for most of another year is really worth the price of the ticket.
Monday, January 02, 2012
Iowa Caucus Predictions
Because it would just be chicken to wait until any closer to make them.
My predictions:
Paul -- 24%
Santorum -- 22%
Romney -- 20%
Gingrich -- 13%
Perry -- 9%
Bachmann -- 9%
Huntsman -- 3%
Plus or minus 1% on each, of course, with the minuses more likely toward the bottom half of the field.
The RealClearPolitics polling averages for the last 10 days show Mitt Romney and Ron Paul in tight -- within 1.1% of each other and closing in around 20% each -- and Paul gaining (with Rick Santorum surging up toward them). That can only be bad news for Romney.
The caucus rules for Republicans aren't as beneficial toward "activist-enthusing" candidates as the Democratic rules are (I thought they were, but Jake Porter corrected me on that awhile back), but it's still not just "walk up and fill out a ballot." You have to listen to some speechifying, etc. before voting. That benefits Paul (and Santorum) as well. Their supporters would walk six miles in the snow, uphill both ways, then wait in line for a month, to support them. A large portion of the Romney crowd will have trouble deciding whether to spend the evening at home with some popcorn, watching Lifetime® movies or hang out for more than 20 minutes or so for their guy.
Unfortunately for Paul and Santorum, it's not supposed to snow in Iowa on Tuesday. Matter of fact, after starting cold in the morning, it's supposed to pop above freezing for awhile. That reduces the "my supporters are like those bare-chested, purple-painted guys you see at every one of their teams' football games, even the exhibition games in Angkor Wat" advantage some, but doesn't eliminate it.
Of course, I could have this all wrong. It's happened before. The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that Mitt Romney isn't going to come out of Iowa with anything that looks like a convincing victory. And hell, I could be wrong about that too.
Addendum: Could anyone have possibly predicted the "Santorum surge" a month ago? No? Actually, The Other McCain did ... and he's a little miffed that nobody writing about it now is acknowledging that. Thought I'd mention it both by way of "credit where credit is due" and because at my level of blog traffic a link back here from there is a sort of scale model "Instalanche" (which I like to encourage).
My predictions:
Paul -- 24%
Santorum -- 22%
Romney -- 20%
Gingrich -- 13%
Perry -- 9%
Bachmann -- 9%
Huntsman -- 3%
Plus or minus 1% on each, of course, with the minuses more likely toward the bottom half of the field.
The RealClearPolitics polling averages for the last 10 days show Mitt Romney and Ron Paul in tight -- within 1.1% of each other and closing in around 20% each -- and Paul gaining (with Rick Santorum surging up toward them). That can only be bad news for Romney.
The caucus rules for Republicans aren't as beneficial toward "activist-enthusing" candidates as the Democratic rules are (I thought they were, but Jake Porter corrected me on that awhile back), but it's still not just "walk up and fill out a ballot." You have to listen to some speechifying, etc. before voting. That benefits Paul (and Santorum) as well. Their supporters would walk six miles in the snow, uphill both ways, then wait in line for a month, to support them. A large portion of the Romney crowd will have trouble deciding whether to spend the evening at home with some popcorn, watching Lifetime® movies or hang out for more than 20 minutes or so for their guy.
Unfortunately for Paul and Santorum, it's not supposed to snow in Iowa on Tuesday. Matter of fact, after starting cold in the morning, it's supposed to pop above freezing for awhile. That reduces the "my supporters are like those bare-chested, purple-painted guys you see at every one of their teams' football games, even the exhibition games in Angkor Wat" advantage some, but doesn't eliminate it.
Of course, I could have this all wrong. It's happened before. The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that Mitt Romney isn't going to come out of Iowa with anything that looks like a convincing victory. And hell, I could be wrong about that too.
Addendum: Could anyone have possibly predicted the "Santorum surge" a month ago? No? Actually, The Other McCain did ... and he's a little miffed that nobody writing about it now is acknowledging that. Thought I'd mention it both by way of "credit where credit is due" and because at my level of blog traffic a link back here from there is a sort of scale model "Instalanche" (which I like to encourage).
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Bit'o'Liveblog: GOP debate
Coming in a little late as usual.
8:58 -- They're taking a break and I'm packing it in. This one is like watching paint dry.
Favorite SCOTUS justices: Santorum -- Thomas; Perry -- Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia; Gingrich -- Scalia, but the other three Santorum named as well; Paul -- All good, all bad; Bachmann -- Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito; Huntsman -- Roberts and Alito. Did they skip Romney?
8:55 -- Romney appointed 3/4 Democrats to bench as governor, why should GOP trust him? Romney says appointments had to be approved by a Democrat council, but he picked good nominees.
8:53 -- If judge misbehaves, impeach him, but questions subpoenaing judges to "explain" themselves. Maybe not such a good idea to abolish a bunch of courts.
8:52 -- Bachmann: Real issue is whether or not courts follow Constitution. What we need to do about it is have president and Congress take authority back. Court system isn't final arbiter of law. Praises Iowa for removing judges who uphold Constitution and abolish marriage apartheid.
8:49 -- Gingrich wants to subpoena judges to explain decisions they make, and impeach them if the decisions were bad? Gingrich: "Damn straight." People who disagree with the promotional flag pledge crafted by a socialist flag salesman and modified by mossback religionists hate America.
Switching to the judiciary.
8:58 -- They're taking a break and I'm packing it in. This one is like watching paint dry.
Favorite SCOTUS justices: Santorum -- Thomas; Perry -- Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia; Gingrich -- Scalia, but the other three Santorum named as well; Paul -- All good, all bad; Bachmann -- Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito; Huntsman -- Roberts and Alito. Did they skip Romney?
8:55 -- Romney appointed 3/4 Democrats to bench as governor, why should GOP trust him? Romney says appointments had to be approved by a Democrat council, but he picked good nominees.
8:53 -- If judge misbehaves, impeach him, but questions subpoenaing judges to "explain" themselves. Maybe not such a good idea to abolish a bunch of courts.
8:52 -- Bachmann: Real issue is whether or not courts follow Constitution. What we need to do about it is have president and Congress take authority back. Court system isn't final arbiter of law. Praises Iowa for removing judges who uphold Constitution and abolish marriage apartheid.
8:49 -- Gingrich wants to subpoena judges to explain decisions they make, and impeach them if the decisions were bad? Gingrich: "Damn straight." People who disagree with the promotional flag pledge crafted by a socialist flag salesman and modified by mossback religionists hate America.
Switching to the judiciary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)