Newt Gingrich Wins Republican Debate

There was not even any question last night. Newt Gingrich was the winner of the Republican debate on points. He took on the questions, and won (see previous articles today). But it was not just that Gingrich was willing to take on "journalists" who ask stupid, unfair questions.




It was Gingrich who said that the super committee was an insane,stupid idea with the PURP(OSE of putting another GUN to the head of the American peole so that the "establishment" can say that another lousy, late night "deal" MUST be passed. It is an insane failure of leadership to ut our fate in the hands of some "brilliant " (Gingrich's sarcasm) group of 12 people, rather than relying on our actual Constitutional process to produce a result--in OPEN DEBATE. Gingrich was the only one to acutally SAY this, and it needed to be said. Gingrich's economic ideas seemed enuinely interesting. Everything he said wasintelligent. He won the debate. And he will never be elected President. I won't even vote for him. But I see clearly (except with my eyes). Newt won the debate.


Micele Bachmann did fine--illustrating that she does, indeed, know how to fight. Ron Paul was Ron Paul--sort of insane,but with the courage of ALL of his convictins (incuding the one that we should not interfere wtih the right of IRAN to have a nuclear weapon). Mitt Romney was solid, as usual, and correctly pointed out the Constitutional difference between state laws and Federal laws. Romney's problem is that he is solid, but uninspiring. Jon Huntsman was boring and will not be President--despite some solid economic ideas. I like Rick Santorum, and would vote for him against Obama (as I would vote for Ron Paul--more in a later article). But he did not gain much traction, and never has. Tim Pawlenty was a disaster, trying to appear as a "fighter"in a clumsly, desperate attempt to gain traction (see article earlier today). Herman Cain really did not show enough command to be a credibble candidate, when he has no previous record.


In short, Bachmann and Romney probably helped themselves most, as Gingrich has not chance (despite being the winner of the debate). But Perry stepped on the whole debate--deliberately--by virtually annnouncing for President. The governor of Texas will be formidable, because of Texas if not his own merits, and throws lthe whole reaceup in the air until people have a chance to evaluate him. It is NOT ture (MSNBC lie) that Perry is "loathed" in Texas. He has been governor for 10 years, and just won REELECTION in November of 2010. So much for MSNBC. But you knew that MSNBC is a lefitst political action committee, and not a sourc e of any kind of real informatin. In fact, Perry defeated our sitting U.S. Senator, Kay Bailley Hutchinson, in the Repubican primary in Texas. So much for being "latthed'". That is not Perry's probllem. His problem is that he is NOT really a charismatic conserv ative, or at least has not been in previous years as Texas governor. Ron Paul is righ (and he is from Texas): Perry is an extablishment guy in Texas, although the Hutchinson part of teh establishhment had a problem with him Perry has been okay as governor of Texas, although hardly a leader of conservative ideas. I don't like him much, but his record makes his case for him. If he can come across well, he has a very good chance as coming across as the alternative to Romney. Stay tuned.


The main casuatly of the debate o the unfair and unbalanced network is that network itself--exposing itself for the unfair and unbablanced TV cable network that it is. The debate itself will turn out to be pretty much irrelevant. Perry will scramble things, and what real differnce does it make if the Iowas straw poll drives out a candidate or two who were on the way out anyway.?


The debate was simly not important, although I do think it showed most of the Republican candidates (I would say everyone but Huntsman and Pawlenty, and even those two had a moment or two) as talented people who are better than Obama. The candidates need to stop letting "journalists" egg them on with these questions designed to provoke stupid "fights"--although Pawlenty was more than willnig to be egged on this time. Distinguish yourself, and even contrast yourself with the rest in terms of yur ideas and special talents, but these general attacks (Pawlenty on Bachmann and Romney) are not useful. Except for Pawlenty, I did not think the others were too bad about unfair attacks. Disagree, in other words, but don't be disagreeable or invite media unfairness. Pawlnety was the only one I would really fault here. Otherwise, and disregarding the unfair fquestins from the unfair and unbalanced network, the Republican candidates all came out pretty well.


Now we get Perry, and everything changes. And no, the Iowa "straw poll" means NOTHING.


P.S, No spell checkig or proofreading (bad eyesight)