GOP Debate: Santorum, Gingrich, Paul and Romney--In That Order

Rick Santorum was even mroe solid tonight than usual, with a somewhat toughter edge (on the verge of being a little TOO "tougH' on the other GOP candidatges). On substance, Santorum was the dlear winner, as he got across a message of consistent, EFFECTIVE conservative representation over two decades. Plus, he was RIGHT on how the "law " works as leftists USE the courts to FORCE things to be done their way. Unless you PROHIBIT public money from being used for abortion, it WILL be used for abortion. In fact, Ron Paul was also right, and partially explained the DISHONESTY of Planned Parenthood and its suppporters. If Planned Parenthood is the PRIMARY entity behind abortion int his country, it is NO DIFFERENT giving Palnnned Parenthood money for ABORTIOIN and giving Planned Parenthood PUBLIC MONEY for "other wervices". Money is money. It can be moved around. It makes NO economic difference to Planned Parenthood whether Planned Parenthood gets 250 millioin dollars for abortion or 250 million dollars for those other servicess. Why not? Becakuse all lPlanned Parenthood does is use the omney it gets from OTHER SOURCES to make up the lack of fudning for, say, abortion. Thus, Planned Parenthood might ordinarily use 250 million dollars from PRIVATE DONATIONS to fund "other services" besides abortion. But, instead, Panned Parenthood ALLOCATES taht money to ABORTIONS, and allocates teh FEDREAL TAXPAAYER MONEY to "other services" besides abortions. The TOTAL Planned Parenthood budget is the SAME. It does not matter from which pocket the money comes. Money is fungible (to use an accountant word my accountat brother likes). I digress, other than to say that Mitt Romney was somewhat unconvincing, as usual, on RomneyCare, aalthough fairly good on being an overall "pro-life" governor.


Newt Gingrich probably "won" the debate POLITICALLY, even ahead of Santorum. As stated in the previous aarticle, Santorum HAS to come close in South Carolina (lathough not necessariy w"win"). It does nto matter whether Santorum is "third", even. Waht mattrs is that he be within 5% of the TOP spot. Gingrich got what John King, the dishonest CNN political hack who moderated) considered a "hardball" (dishoenst, ridculous--see next articlel) question. For Gingrich, however, it was a SOFTBALL questoion, because it gave Gingrich an opportunity to ATTACK the media, whihc Gingrich does BETTER than any GOP politican out there (when Gingrich chooses to do it, or gets this kind of opportunity). Gingrich knocked the question out of the partk, and it was the FIRST question (showing just how EVIL John King really is, to ssuppose that this is the Most improtant" "issue' the country faces). Nope, it is not even a legitimate "issue" at all. Again, see the next article., I will remind you that I OPPOSE Gingrich for the nomination strongly, but I tell you the truth (unlike Johnn King and CNN--The Liar Network). Even CNN, afterward, was amost unanimous after the debate that John King may well have WON the South Carolina primary for Newt Gingrich.


Why do I say Gingrich was not as ood as Santorum on SUBSTANCE (deifferent from counterpunching the media, valuable as that skill is)? Well, Gingrich sounds no better on illegal immigration than he ever has. He never really expalined, when challenged by Santorum, how he (Gingrich) could have STILL been for an "individual mandate" YEARS after most GOP politicians and conservatives had ababandoned the idea. Santorum was convincing that he, Santorum, had NEVER been for such a thing. Gingrich's answer? Basically: "Better late than never". You get the felling, or at least I do, that this is Gingrich's attitude toward EVERY idea. He is always ready to try out a new own, and PASSIONATELY defend it with wit and skill, even if he argued the other side the day before. Gingrich got another standing ovation on that first question and answer on "open marriage", but afterward he really did not have that many oppportunites for crackerjack answers. He AVOIDED Santorum's point that Gingrich had put abortion, and other "social issues', on the "back burner" as recently as the 2010 election. Gingrich did not disute that. He only cited his pro-life voting record and the alleged pro-life record of new freshmanen elected to Congreess (which does not explain how Planned Parenthood--so far as I know--STILL is getting funds from the Federal taxpayers, along with the Corporation for Pubic Broadcasting). You can attribute it to my "bias" in favor of Santorum, if you like, but Gingrich ws not really that impressive AFTER that first softball question. Still, he was good enough that CNN may be right: Gingrich might WIN South Carolina on his answer to that first question CNN, of course, spent a good part of their post-debate "analysis" DEFENDING John King, just like the unfair and unbalanced network has spent DAYS "defending" the INSULTING question from Juan Williams. For these people, it is all about THEM, and NOT about providing USEFUL INFORMATIN . That was, by the way, John king's "defense": that this Open marriage" SMEAR is what people are "talking aobut", and therefore it was a questin that "had" to be asked. Uh-huh. That is the SAME "defense" given by Bret Baire to indensible questions from the unfair and unbalanced network in other debates. It is an EvIL Ldefense, based onm RATINGS and "reputation" for asking the "tough", "current" SMEAR questoin. Yep. The NAZIS failed with this "defense" at Nuremburg (sp? not quite sure), So John King was 'under orders", or just doing that his fellow, EVIL"journalists" expected him to do . To be fairer to Kng than he is to other people, he did say it was ENTIRELY his decision to ask this question. This, of course, is DISHONEST, even if technically "true'. Att he very least, King did what he thought his CNN colleagues EXPECTED him to do. King, you will remember, is the person who suggested that threre was NO PROOF of "wrongdoing" in connection with Solyndra and the Obama Aministration Any perso who will say THAT wil say ANYTHNG, and John King WILL Again, he is an EVIL PERSON SPREADING FEVIL EVERY DAY. He is also the reason Newt MAY win South Carolina.


Romney had another BAD debate. Rn Paul should really be in a different category, because Rn Paul is ALWAYS Ron Paul. That is why pepe like myself, and even my 89 year old mother, LIKE Ron Paull. But it is virtualy impossible for Paul to do 'better" or "wrose". If you hear him a few times, you know exactly what he is all about, and you either like him or think he is an extremely dangerous man (or both, as the case is with me) .


Back to Romney. Again, Romney was UNABLE TO HANDLE the question on his tax returns. He TRIED to give a Gingrich answer, blaming the media and the Democrats, but FAILED. He even said "maybe' as to whether he would follow the example of his father. He really seemed somewhat disconnected, and unable to deal with his "ealth" and personal taxes. Now the GOP, and conservatives, have no problem with wealth. And we have no problem with REFUSING to disclose your tax returns. But Romney has played this as BADLY as you can possibly play it. See last night's article suggesting that Romney's REAL problem is coming across as an out-of-touch "rich guy" wo is tiotally unable to relate to ordinary Americans. NO. This is NOT the same as "class warfare". It is NOT that Romney is far richer than the rest of us. Rather, it is that he cannot convince us, or anyone else, that he UNDERSTANDS ordinary people, and can relate to them. Now, as a person who has trouble relating to peopole myself, I don't discount the idea that Romney is jjsut a little bit of a "cold sigh" in public, who is just naturally a little stiff and uncomfortable talking about PERSONAL things. But remember my older daughter's example of Romney trying to ride the "T" (Boston subway) as an "example" to peoplle, but showng he had NO IDEA of what the "T" was all about, giving every indicatin that he had never ridden on it before. Unfari attack by those LIBERALS in Massachusetts? Entirely possible. But it is Roomney's major problem, along with thi stotal inability to really exlain DETAILS of CONSERVATIVE ideas (although he has taught himself how to exzpress the "vision thing"). Can Rmney really win by saying that he is a "businessman" unconnected with Washington, when he is so obviously an ESTABLISHEMTN WALL STREET GUY? I wonder.


Anwaqy, Romney lost another debate. Gingrich came close to wining another debate. Santorum did really well. Ron Paul was Ron Paul Romney, for example, went off on a tangent about how her refused to apoliogize for being "successful", and that he was proud of being successful, when he was not even being ATTACKED on that gound. Thais wsa an explanation as t why he was gong to DELAY disclosing his tax returns, and refuses to disclose them piecmeal. Really sort of embarrassing, and overly defensive.


No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). You are going to think I am becoming a POLITICIAN on promies, but I still paln to get to that issue of our marines and the URINATION FETISH of our mainstream media. Will probably be tomorrrow, although it will surely be by Saturday. Then there is tehe palnned article on th eRELIGIOUS BIOGRY of CNN, as it tries to make the DETAILS of religiuos doctrine an ISSUE in this campaign. Did I tell you that CNN, including John King, is composed of EVIL PEOPLE? I know I did. Who knows when I will get to this one. No time. New thngs every day, like this "open marriage" SMEAR.