Another Republican Debate

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2012
Posted on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:02:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

If you're watching the Florida Republican Debate, here's a place to comment.

You can watch online here.

Unlike in SC, the crowd tonight will be allowed to hoot and holler.

Steven Tyler did a better job on the national anthem. The immigration debate is now about grandmothers. Mitt's father was born in Mexico, his mother in Wales. Mitt 1, Newt 0 on immigration, though he wasted it because at the end, they were saying the same thing. Romney looks refreshed, Newt looks worn and like he could use a few weeks at a health spa. [More...]

Mitt then gets caught in the ad denial dept. He said he was unaware of an ad that said Newt referred to English as being the language of the ghetto. Wolf then found a copy and said at the end it said "I'm MR and I approve this message." Whoops. The ad text:

Gingrich enriched himself with Freddie Mac, one of the principle companies responsible for the mortgage collapse that has caused so much damage in our community. Reagan would have never joined forces with Nancy Pelosi as Gingrich did for advancing the extreme left agenda. And Reagan would have never offended Hispanics as Gingrich did when he said Spanish is the language of the ghetto. Now, searching for votes, Gingrich wants to change history. But the facts speak for themselves. Paid for by Romney for President, Incorporate.

Boos for Mitt from the hooters and hollerers.

Santorum has a little meltdown and says Mitt & Newt should stop the petty focusing on Newt's lobbying and Mitt's wealth and get back to issues. Crowd agrees. Newt gives Santorum a little smile, he liked that.

Wolf is tone-deaf. He comes right back with a question to Newt about his attack on Mitt's taxes. He responds he agrees with Santorum, no more questions about taxes. Crowd booes Wolf. But Newt can't pass up the chance to make Mitt explain, and he agrees Mitt should answer the question. Mitt then gives a simple, good explanation.

Santorum is very outmatched. He seems very inexperienced, like he's running for class president, not U.S. President. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the 16the Amendment. (Memo to Ron Paul: The Constitution is not a rough draft. )

Is Ron Paul too old? He reminds Wolf there are laws in this country on age-discrimination. Will he release his medical records? Of course, they're about one page. He'll challenge anyone to a 25 mile bike ride. The others all attest to his healthy state. Wolf asks the others if they'll release their medical records. Newt says yes.

Now that we have prescription monitoring databases in almost every state, will any reporter ask them to release their prescription history?

That's it for me, time to watch the Winter X Games.

< Pentagon Cuts, Fewer Troops, More Drones and Secret Ops | New Report: Number of Aging Prisoners is Soaring >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Another Republican Debate | 75 comments (75 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Predictions (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Dadler on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:10:32 PM EST

Romney promises to strap himself to the roof of a car and barnstorm the country if he gets the nomination. Newt promises to divorce his wife and marry a custom hand-picked first lady, saying "I have the experience, I've been through it before, I'm the only one who will vow to bring in a new first lady specifically chosen for the position. The missionary position, that is. Thank you, I love you folks, anyone here from Tallahassee?"

Who's more embarrassing (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by loveed on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:43:00 PM EST

The candidates or the media?

Rachel Maddow is (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by brodie on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:30:58 PM EST

opening her show tonight dressed in a NASA space suit in honor of Newt.

Probably not the most politically astute proposal by the Newtster. And if we're going to be spending billions and more for a lunar colony it makes more sense to partner up with one or two other countries to help defray costs and foster int'l cooperation. But since Newt's a Repub that couldn't be done as it goes against their rigid notions of American exceptionalism.

Newt has made himself a laughingstock with this one. Smacks of either lunacy or political desperation. He looks both in fact and he also looks about done as a candidate.

: That's why it's called (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Peter G on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 11:32:45 PM EST

"lunacy"

: Well, I figure that Newt (none / 0) (#65)
by Zorba on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:09:52 AM EST

has the undying support of every 8 to 10 year old who dreams of being an astronaut someday. Oh wait, that's right.......they can't vote.

Looks like the half of the (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by brodie on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 09:09:23 PM EST

debate I saw pretty much reflected the rest, and Romney comes away having landed a few more sharp jabs than the relatively sluggish Newt.

Apparently Mitt got a new debate coach . It showed.

Mitt hired (none / 0) (#37)
by CoralGables on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 09:34:27 PM EST

Bachman's debate coach after South Carolina.


Oh, that's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by ZtoA on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 10:00:52 PM EST

It was the first debate I watched. Just couldn't do it before. Mitt's strategy of looking directly at whoever is responding and smiling a weird little lips up smile was actually much better than Newt's of scowling constantly.

This is just a purely personal observation, but with the sound off Santorum completely creeped me out. Revulsion is a better word. He had the best makeup tho. And the glare of the lights seemed to bother the two in the middle more than the flanks. The crowd seemed a bit less mad at CNN. I am NOT a fan of Wolf, but he did better than -that other guy (can't remember at the moment, that's telling). Maybe Jon Stewart's wonderful take on that 'wife' exchange got to CNN.

Ron Paul is cute, but a real nut. He is endearing in ways tho. I just do not think we can actually go back to living in the 1940s.


: Well (none / 0) (#44)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 10:19:28 PM EST

Ron Paul might be a nut but he's a more advanced species that the Newt because the Newt thinks that Charles Dickens version of Great Britain is an ideal to shoot for. I think Santorum is in that same era but he's more for returning to Victorian America instead of Great Britain.
Who in their right mind wants to go back to the 1890's?

In retrospect, with the rise of Noot (none / 0) (#38)
by Towanda on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 09:50:28 PM EST

Bachman, by the day, is looking less loopy.

That's how bad, how nutty, the GOP looked tonight.


You have (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 09:53:40 PM EST

to wonder if she regrets quitting. I mean could it be any worse with her in there?


The recent "bump-up" (none / 0) (#48)
by NYShooter on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 10:53:16 PM EST

Gingrich enjoyed from S.C. was obviously an outlier for several reasons:

One..It's no secret that the four candidates got the same input from their advisors as to how to win in that State...the louder the racial dog whistle blew, the better chance of success. This played to Newt's strength, and from the crowd's reaction, no one could blow like Newt could blow.

Two..generally speaking, the American public doesn't like dour, sourpuss, angry personalities from their leaders. The best example I can think of to illustrate this axiom is the Reagan/Carter contest. S.C, being one of the reddest of red states, is so far down on the socio-economic scale, anger towards the Libruls, Ni_ _ers, and intellectuals is all they have to rail against. They would rather deny their own families real cash that extending unemployment benefits would provide if it meant some A A's would get them too.

It now seems quite obvious that President Obama miscalculated terribly. He didn't need to raise a Billion dollars. He didn't need to raise any dollars. He could simply sit back, watch the Republicans expose themselves, and in the process, destroy themselves, while sailing on to victory with nary a bead of perspiration on his forehead.


How did Nixon do in SC? (none / 0) (#50)
by oculus on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 11:30:50 PM EST

Nixon? (none / 0) (#69)
by NYShooter on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 08:17:38 PM EST

Didn't he die a few years ago?


Reagan lives? (none / 0) (#71)
by oculus on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 12:57:57 AM EST

I'll bite (none / 0) (#72)
by NYShooter on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 01:49:00 AM EST

I know there's a point here somewhere.


I started from this: (none / 0) (#73)
by oculus on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 02:16:50 AM EST

would someone help me out here please (none / 0) (#74)
by NYShooter on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 03:27:13 AM EST

Oculus, I don't know if you're purposely being obtuse, or if I'm too dense to decipher your "debate by clue" style, so I'm trying a "call out."


: It matters not a whit. Let's move on. (none / 0) (#75)
by oculus on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 01:31:57 PM EST

How is the Mars program going, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by observed on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 10:44:56 PM EST

anyway? By my recollection, we should be 9 years into Bush's 25 year program to get to Mars.
Why not just drop off some IKEA moon modules on the way to Mars?

Actually, as a reader of probably more than 1500 science fiction novels, lifetime, I feel very qualified to speak on the merits of the Republican proposal. Newt, with his record of serial fidelity, with some overlap, can understand that the moon is a harsh mistress.
Not to mention that this space cadet picked for his most recent spouse a woman who sounds like a Jovian moon! Don't put it past Newt to be thinking about a farm in the sky around Jupiter!

Interesting summary (5.00 / 4) (#53)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 05:35:39 AM EST

here for those of us that did not watch.

What I love most is someone, Romney in this case, telling Gingrich what a sleazebag he is right to his face. No one does that on any of the talking head shows Gingrich thrives on - they all treat him like some kind of statesman/sage, which is exactly why he had the hubris to run for POTUS. What an awesome use of the debate stage.

Correction (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by BTAL on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 07:34:58 AM EST

Romney's mother was born in Utah, not Wales. His wife's father immigrated from Wales.

Awaiting (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:17:25 AM EST

Our resident Newt cheerleaders to chime in with their insightful analysis.

Have you completely lost your mind this morning? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:24:50 AM EST

Heh! I just wanted to be left alone to think outside the Noot, and I was accused of hitting the bottle because I could not grasp the awesomeness and the infallibility and inevitability of the Noot. Nor could I gasp the "Southern" Conservativeness of Florida :)


: I'm unpredictable that way :) (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:28:02 AM EST

: I mean grasp...I couldn't grasp certain realities (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:28:15 AM EST

I was all jacked up. But ftr, I was not drunk or drinking. I was just thinking.

on behalf (3.00 / 2) (#61)
by CST on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:44:30 AM EST

of the anti-Romney side (not really pro-Newt, I
stayed out of those horse race comments)

I will say that in regards to you, rather than other posters, I have a hard time buying the fact that you aren't pro-Romney. It's not that you comment on polls and try to put his chances in the best light, or that you're critical of Obama even, as many here are. It's that you have a history of defending conservative positions and policy on this blog, and in that vein, all the comments you make about Romney, such as your post in another thread about how you think Obama losing (and Romney win) will make a Hillary president more likely - and your comments about how a McCain wouldn't be that bad - it's all that combined that make you in particular come off as pro-Romney. I haven't seen you write a single negative comment on the man. I think you kind of want Romney to win. Which is fine, I'm sure there are others here with that opinion too, I just find the facade kind of old.

For what it's worth, I don't lump any of the other commenters who are regularly criticizing Obama in that group, not Edgar, not Anne, not any of them. Because they don't have a history of supporting conservative policy, and they don't constantly comment in defense of a particular Republican candidate (I'm not talking about polling either).

Speaking for me only.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:04:09 AM EST

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, even though it is completely wrong and harebrained.

And apparently you didn't read my comments in the post about Hillary in 2016 when I said I didn't think it was going to happen (oh wait, you DID read them because you actually directly responded to me). In fact YOU were the one who said you'd love to see her run. Hmmmm.....

No, I'm not pining for Hillary, although that is at least different spin than I'm pro- Romney, although you say that too. Because I haven't said anything negative about him, that's your evidence that I support him? Gee.... I don't recall saying anything POSITIVE about him either - like how I love his policies or agree with his positions on issues. Guess by your
convoluted logic that means I DON'T support him.

So, which is it? Am I pining for Hillary or do I want Romney?
And what if I was? I'm not allowed to have opinions nor participate in discussions (especially where the groupthink borders on creepy?)

It's so difficult and tedious to keep up with the ridiculous
labels that I am being plastered with. It's kind of a shame that they are coming from people who I actually think are reasonably intelligent people, yet when they say stuff like this, it really makes me question that impression.

For shame. This by far, is about the silliest comment you have ever made here.


I didn't mean you (none / 0) (#64)
by CST on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:08:56 AM EST

were pining for Hillary. And you do defend him on the "zeitgeist" issues, like his role at Bain, or his economics. It's more about my perception of your posts here over time as being to the right of many other people here - by your own admission on a lot of issues. I think based on your stated position issues it makes sense that you would support someone like Romney, and you sure post a lot about him in a somewhat positive light.

You talk all the time about how elections are won by independents, and seem to lump yourself in that group. Why is it unreasonable to think that you might consider voting for someone perceived as a moderate Republican? Isn't that the entire meaning of independent? Someone who would vote support a person of either party?


I promise (none / 0) (#66)
by CST on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:25:29 AM EST

I've written stupider things. And I will again. But one more thing.

Of course you are allowed to have opinions, I would never tell you to stop commenting and I hope you didn't perceive that last post that way. I just happen to think that those opinions are to the right of many other opinions here. Again, by your own admission going against what you perceive as "groupthink" on a left-wing blog.


I am a bit more in the center (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 12:34:53 PM EST

I am more socially liberal, but not all the way, mainly because some of the things I think the "left" as a group allegedly stands for are unrealistic and unworkable and are based mainly on what I call an "east coast / coastal attitude".

Examples:

- the whole discussion about getting rid of cars, restricting cars, or things like a $10 / gallon gas tax - all because it's easier in NY, Boston, or DC to get around without one than it is in say, the rest of the country.

- I am a bit more about law & order than most folks here. That's no surprise around here, but it's hard to have a discussion with people who have, as I've said, developed a "groupthink" that in every instance in the criminal justice system, an accused defendant (or even convicted felon) was wrongly set up by "the man", the cops and prosecutors are all falsifying evidence and just out to make a name for themselves (or, all cops are violent jack booted thugs), and all criminal defense attorneys are noble and pure in their quest for the truth. Absolutely NONE of those statements is completely true.

I also don't feel passionately about drugs. Some here want to show every "scientific" study from NORML that shows that no harm comes to you from taking drugs. I don't buy it. Some here do. But I feel there's a HUGE emphasis on drug discussion, which is fine, but there really are more pressing issues out there than whether Wayne and Garth can smoke a doobie in the basement.

Do I feel we have some stupid laws? Yes, but I have little sympathy for those who know the law, make a decision to break it anyway, and then complain when they get caught and try to blame it on any number of other things besides their own actions. Yes, I believe in taking personal responsibility. That doesn't seem to be of great importance around here, unless it refers to Bush, Cheney, or the banksters. Everyone else is given a free pass, and I can't stand the hypocrisy.

I actually understand the frustration that some conservatives and even Tea Partiers feel with regards to the fact that I truly feel that there is an elitist and "we know better" attitude with regards to some issues that far left liberals push. I wish those people wouldtry and bring people over to their way of thinking by persuasion and good argument as opposed to looking down on them for living in "flyover country", are religious, or don't think the same way. goodness knows, I get pounded on it enough around here.

I don't mind discussing these ideas, which is why I come here - there are intelligent people who are well informed and I learn a great deal while I'm here. But seriously, there are many times, the comments around here could be whittled down to "Ditto". That's not having a discussion - that's an echo chamber (or Rush Limbaugh show).


: believe me, i get this (none / 0) (#68)
by CST on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:42:40 PM EST

"there are many times, the comments around here could be whittled down to "Ditto"."
Imagine how ABG feels and now you might understand more where he's coming from. Shoot, I'm that way too, it's why I commented so much on healthcare here (not because I'm secretly in love with individual mandates).
I'm not talking about the pot smoking, I'm talking more about your comments on taxes and economic issues, and how you envision that playing out. I find it a bit odd that you defend Romney from any comment that aligns him with the "coastal elite" you are referring to. Which strikes me as particularly odd since I find him to be the worst representation of that, because he does the condescending elitist thing without the good policy. I will admit that I am guilty of trying to impose leftist policy, but it comes from a place of - we're doing this here and it's working and I want to share that. Not because I think I'm better than you because I'm rich and made a ton of money and anyone who hasn't done that - it's their own d@mn fault. I guess it's the constant defense against the Mr. 1% charge that confuses me. Because I find that to be a pretty stark left/right argument.
Also, the way you feel about gas tax is how I feel whenever people beat the 2nd amendment drum. That's nice that you guys in the middle like to hunt and all but it's killing kids in my neighborhood. A lot of this country's policies have been governed by regionalism, and frankly, I find the idea that the coastal left is dictating that to be a little crazy, since from where I sit we almost always lose those fights in the short term. Maybe you're right, maybe it is our fault because we aren't good at convincing people. It just feels like a lose-lose proposition for me, because when we do try to convince we are dismmissed as out of touch or elitist for thinking we know better. If we sit down and $hut up than nothing changes.
Finally, yes, I consider climate change to be a real issue and I don't know how to fix it without getting agressive on energy. If we can't promote energy policy because of too many cars, and we can't promote the planning changes that reduce the need for cars, what can we do? If the alternative is to throw up my hands and say the environment has to be the sacrificial lamb, I can't do that. I'm willing to hear other solutions to the problem but so far all I'm hearing out of the middle is crickets and that we can't even think about changing the car/oil gravy-train because climate change is a myth and all the scientists are wrong. If you have another suggestion for how to address that issue I'm all ears. Ignoring it is not an option for me - transportation policy is my life.

I'm a Newt cheerleader... (none / 0) (#62)
by CoralGables on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:02:47 AM EST

in Florida, as long as it forces more spending. A candidate in Florida is always campaigning in what feels like 4 different states at once: the panhandle southern state, the northeast transplants in the southeast, the I-75 corridor states in the southwest, and god help them all trying to figure the Latin market which is multiple countries. And to do that right costs a large chunk of change and Romney happily dropped it here.

I'll miss their money when they're gone.

For the financial benefit of wherever they head next, I hope Newt finds his footing. After Tuesday though, for me, they'll all be forgotten. No matter how it shakes out, I'm voting Obama.


: I do too. (none / 0) (#70)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:29:59 PM EST

That $ headed this way soon and Newt is 8th (8th!) in non-Super PAC contributions here. Hope he stays around long enough/doesn't concede the state to Mittens to get another one of those $5 million shot in the arms to spend out here.

I'm doing my best to watch (none / 0) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:07:12 PM EST

But when Newt walked out the peanut gallery here started screeching, "It's a Gingster, it's fat b*st*rd". And because Newt isn't singing the words to the national anthem and Santorum and Mitt are, the peanut gallery assumes that Newt doesn't really know the words.

MT, you have more (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Zorba on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:11:16 PM EST

fortitude than I have. I won't even attempt to watch these debates. My blood pressure is high enough as it is.


This is my first dedicated popcorn in hand (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:15:43 PM EST

Republican debate this cycle.


I watched (none / 0) (#10)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:27:10 PM EST

one and if you look at it as a comedy show it's really great to watch.


: That's Entertainment... (none / 0) (#28)
by dutchfox on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:11:56 PM EST

And I don't mean the song from the documentary about Hollywood many years ago.
A friend is in the other room watching it and told me to put it on for the comic relief. Ha.

Santorum had to cue the audience to clap (none / 0) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:10:08 PM EST

Ron Paul has clappers that need no cue

And we're off and running on immigration (none / 0) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:15:02 PM EST

and controlling the border. Mitt is staring at Gingrich like he's the biggest idiot that ever hit the planet. Newt's immigration policy is? I dunno, he's all over the place, it sounds like Palin word salad. What is e-verify?

Newt thinks that Visa, Mastercard, or AmEx should run the verify system? Santorum and Mitt are talking about e-verify. I'm lost lost lost, what in the hell are these guys talking about?

E-verify (none / 0) (#9)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:25:56 PM EST

is where employers can put in a ssn and immediately get back whether it's valid or it actually belongs to the person who is using the number.


Is it currently up and running (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:28:47 PM EST

or is it just hot air at this time?


: E-verify is up and running, but it is fraught (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by caseyOR on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:03:29 PM EST

with bugs. As a result, the info is not reliable. It is not a rare occurrence that E-verify spits out the name of a worker whose papers are all in order and insists that worker is illegal.
Employers here, especially in agriculture which between food and nursery stock and Christmas trees is a huge industry in Oregon, hate it because it is so unreliable.

: I believe it (none / 0) (#14)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:30:16 PM EST

is up and running. They passed a bill here in GA and employers are supposed to be using it.

And mister world peace (none / 0) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:16:58 PM EST

Thinks that the resources on the Af/Pak border should be on our own borders.....whew....special ops and drones?

Mitt apologizes for Rubio attacking (none / 0) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:20:51 PM EST

Newt on the self-deportation thing, the crowd goes wild. Do super PACS pay for wildly clapping audiences now since Newt got so much mileage out of it? Mitt is eating Newts lunch on Immigration right now.

: I heard one small cheer for (none / 0) (#12)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:28:23 PM EST

Newt and quite a few for Mitt when he blasted Newt for labeling him anti-immigrant.

Santorum playing very hard to Cuban (none / 0) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:27:46 PM EST

Republicans talking about Obama's support of Leftist regimes. My peanut gallery had idea who Santorum was playing to or where this conversation was coming from :)

A conservative (none / 0) (#15)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:31:19 PM EST

friend of mine says that if Newt fades then Santorum is going to start to rise. I really just can't see that. I guess he would win the PA primary.


: He lost his own Senate seat (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:46:20 PM EST

By 16 points, don't forget.

: Santorum (none / 0) (#17)
by CoralGables on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:41:25 PM EST

is already saying he'd like to be considered for the VP.

: The peanut gallery here says Santorum is winning (none / 0) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:44:49 PM EST

So far.

Two newest National Polls (none / 0) (#16)
by CoralGables on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:36:43 PM EST

Gallup Tracking
Gingrich 31
Romney 25

NBC/Wall St Journal
Gimgrich 37
Romney 28

Newt is petty and pouty tonight (none / 0) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:46:50 PM EST

He's getting whipped on tonight too because of it.

: It was only a matter of time (none / 0) (#23)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:51:40 PM EST

Jeralyn (none / 0) (#22)
by DFLer on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:51:03 PM EST

That works (for free) only if you get it (CNN) on your cable service. .....is there somewhere else to view live?

: sorry, I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:14:02 PM EST

Santorums administration would spend (none / 0) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:57:48 PM EST

Less money each year it existed. Wow, no sense at all there. Just application of magical thinking.

Ponies and Fairies too! (none / 0) (#30)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:15:34 PM EST

: No Fairies! (none / 0) (#55)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:16:23 AM EST

newt is getting buried on the moon colony (none / 0) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 07:59:28 PM EST

Of course he had to bring up JFK......as if

Ron Paul insinuates Newt will (none / 0) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:02:59 PM EST

Be robbing SS to buy a moon colony. Newt really looks like sn idiot with this loon colony....erm moon colony thing. And whoopers don't like it.

: Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#39)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 09:52:46 PM EST

This is hysterical.

Hahahahahah (none / 0) (#31)
by ZtoA on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:22:30 PM EST

Which wife would be the best first lady???

Also, it looks like the space industry has been busy designing the podiums.

Newt looks terrible. Does he always look that way?

Newt is shockingly obese (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:31:14 PM EST

: Newt's obesity is deceiving, (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by KeysDan on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 10:17:10 AM EST

its not all him in that suit, he is also carrying Reagan in there.

: and the energy coming out of his (none / 0) (#35)
by ZtoA on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:44:50 PM EST

sneers. Santorum too during health care. I'm going to turn the sound off for a bit so I can just use my eyes.

ZOMBIE REAGAN (none / 0) (#32)
by TeresaInPa on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 08:30:16 PM EST

I knew the zombie Reagan question would come up. Who is ZOMBIE REAGAN????

This should NOT be funny but.... (none / 0) (#42)
by ZtoA on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 10:02:54 PM EST

Noot's loony colony. On the moon.

Newt's Sugar Daddy, (none / 0) (#43)
by NYShooter on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 10:09:11 PM EST

$10,000,000 down the toilet.

: There's more fanny wipe where that came from (none / 0) (#52)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 11:40:43 PM EST

I bet :)

Re Sixteenth Amendment: (none / 0) (#45)
by oculus on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 10:21:25 PM EST

history

I'd like to see their prescription history (none / 0) (#46)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 10:30:04 PM EST

I purchased a new handbag awhile back. Someone else must have purchased it before I did and kept it for a day before returning it. They left their whole medical history in it in an inside zipper pocket though and they were getting unbelievable "good" drugs. I mean, just everything under the sun that is supposed to make you "happy". I thought to myself, "Wow, I really should complain more to my doctor :)"

Oh my god... (none / 0) (#49)
by lilburro on Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 11:30:22 PM EST

it's like every night with these people...