Michelle Bachmann hitting it out of the park responding to Ron Paul’s bizarre rambling about Iran, and Newt Gingrich at his best explaining why the judiciary needs to be smacked. Thanks to Bret Baier for making it clear that Paul’s position is to the left of the Dumb Bastard. In this first clip you’ll also see Ann Romney sitting behind Bret clearly speaking/mouthing something to someone in front of her. It must be her husband. Romney did well tonight, and she clearly was encouraging him.
When it comes to Paul, after his inexplicable and yes dangerous views on Iran I think you’ll see that little surge he had in Iowa go away. Quickly.
Bachmann SCORE! A window here into the potential of the woman and her strength. It’s unfortunate this sort of approach has not dominated her campaign.
Newt was at his best in a couple of places, including his comment about the judiciary which I cover in the DTB and this segment where he takes on Obama’s blocking of the keystone oil pipeline.
RCP: Gingrich: Obama’s Decision On Keystone Pipeline Is “Utterly Irrational”
Tammy,
love your quick feed back!
Bachman still only attacks newt, not Mitt
I’m listening to the Tammy Briefing, and I hate to say this, but Nancy Pelosi is entirely correct about extending unemployment benefits, and Tammy’s criticism missed the mark. In the Pelosi audio clip that Tammy played, Pelosi did not claim that extending unemployment benefits would add or create 600,000 jobs. Her exact words were, “…economic advisors have stated [extending unemployment benefits] would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy.” And she’s right, Obama’s policy will indeed make a difference of 600,000 jobs, and maybe more. Specifically, it will probably destroy 600,000 jobs, give or take. So we must give credit where credit is due, and tip our hat to an unusual lucid moment from Nancy Pelosi. (I’m flashing back to the battle over ObamaCare, when the same Ms. Pelosi stated, “It’s about jobs. In it’s life, it [the health bill] will create 4 million jobs — 400,000 jobs almost immediately.” In that case, Pelosi did use the unfortunate word, “create”. Seems the lady learns from her mistakes.)
With respect to impeaching activist judges…I’m flashing back to Sotomayor’s troubling lines: “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because it is – court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t make law, I know. Okay, I know, I know, I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I know. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating, it is interpretation, it is application.” Never mind the laws; how many elections have been overturned by our courts? Our California propositions are routinely challenged and often overturned by a fool in a robe. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic: When the grand poobah in some foreign hellhole invalidates an election because the people voted wrong, we waggle our fingers at them, and maybe even sanction them. But when our own elections are set aside, it’s an act of supreme enlightenment.
I agree with niner on this… Bachmann did come off as a lightweight last night. For some reason, I kept saying to myself that she didn’t belong in that field (at least at last night’s debate). Maybe it was all the attacking she was doing, and knowing in the back of my head (thanx to Tammy) that Bachmann is Mitten’s attack dog.
I also concur with niner’s great post. Last night should have revealed to the last Bachmann dead-enders (Glenn Beck, are you listening?) that her campaign is prostitution and her John is Mitt Romney. It’s not that her attacks on Newt were necessarily incorrect; it’s that they 1) served in no way to advance her own interests, only to hurt Newt’s, and 2) were never followed up with attacks on the other front runner, Mittenz, whose record on all of these issues is worse than Newt’s. Plus, her transparent attempt to look like Palin was just so, so, so, so, so, so, so, pathetic.
Was Bachmann getting boos from the Ron Paul crowd in the audience? They seem to be every where. I simply do not understand Paul and his crowd’s stance on Iran. It’s dangerously insane!
I agree ffigtree; in 2008 they congregated on our church parking lot with banners & literature, our pastor had security remove them from the property. I don’t know which one is worse; the Urkel or Ron Paul zombies, they both creep me out!
Tammy… Ron Paul’s rebuttal to Bachmann’s statement above has a lot of good points in it (and some really crazy ones too, unfortunately). He makes some good points such as: we shouldn’t have standing armies deployed around the world; we shouldn’t be in so many wars; we get involved in too many skirmishes; we go to war too flippantly; and… most importantly at least right now… we are totally broke and we can’t afford this. He goes on to say that we need a strong national defend but we should only go to war on a declaration from congress, and we should go, win, get it over with and get out. Pres. kwilder would have a policy similar to this, without the rest of the Ron Paul craziness.
I’m taking a strong stand against Bachmann. Working as an agent of Romney to take out Newt smacks of hypocrisy. She clearly is willing to sacrifice principle over self-interest. Let’s give her a second look — for the purpose of rummaging through her skeletons. I think it’s time for another deep dive into that clinic she owns with Marcus!
Right on, she stabbed Sarah Palin in the back after Palin helped her raise loads of money and get her over the finish line for Congress. This woman will step on anybody to get to where she wants to go. She hasnt accomplished anything in Congress other than Hot Air, and trying to co-opt the Tea Party.
Bachmann had some of her facts wrong last night according to Politifact, Newt was right to call her on that, Bachmann reports things without looking into it. Also there is a C-SPAN video from three years ago where Bachmann is on stage with Newt praising him to the hilt, it is worth checking out, busted!
I thought Romney did very well.
There is no palatable choice for conservatives. The most conservative candidates in the field didn’t pass muster as credible national candidates. It strains credulity that grassroot conservatives are rallying behind Gingrich. If they are willing to sellout for Newt then no reason they wouldn’t do the same for Mitt if he stopped being a coward and owned up to being a moderate.
Conservatives have to settle for a moderate again. By rallying behind Newt, they have shown they are ready to concede. It isn’t Romney’s political inclinations that conservatives find so repulsive, it is his sneaky nature and cowardly risk aversion. I think all things considered, Newt is as much a moderate as Mitt, but Newt is bold and unafraid. This seems to be the difference that matters to conservatives.
If this is it, Newt or Mitt or Obama, there is only one sure thing—the American people will be stuck with a president they don’t like or want.
Never mind moderate versus conservative; I’ll settle for sane. I feel like we’re living in a world gone mad, where our government beats down the heartland for the pleasure of the angry and the delusional. Newt certainly articulated this well; Tammy played his comments on the oil pipeline and the oligarchy of activist judges. A lot of us resonate to his words. We get a sense that maybe he’s not just another mealy-mouthed equivocator, telling us whatever we want to hear. Of course, whether he can get elected, and what he’d actually do having gotten elected — those are the key questions.
As a Palinista, I’ve come to the conclusion that Palin raised our hopes of what *could be* but now we are having to settle for what *is* and that is rather disappointing. I think that if we had never known Palin, we would’ve been much more willing to accept Romney or Gingrich, much like if digital electronics had not been invented, we would still be content to use our landline phones and cassette players. However, with Palin having inspired our vision of dynamic conservative leadership, it is up to us to become what we hoped she would be and/or to nurture and support others who have that potential.
Can the addition of the “right’ VP pick with the eventual nominee be a rally for industrial strength conservatism? There may be some precedent to believe this is possible. Time will tell. Thanks to “sages” Pat and Maynard for weighing in.
In the first clip at 1:55, did Ron Paul call Barack an A-Hole?
Well, we know Ron Paul had his supporters there…I cannot believe that they actually booed Bachmann when she called him out on his rank stupidity. Now, that’s not to say that I’d ever back Bachmann, but she was 100% right on that one.
Really? Do we have to have this conversation, Paulians? Let’s sit down for a minute and breathe. Do any of you really believe that we are going to be able to successfully achieve isolationism? Do you think it would have worked during WWII? Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito would never have been taken out if we hadn’t gotten involved. The Soviets couldn’t have done it by themselves, and the Allies had been begging for our help for years before Pearl Harbor finally dragged us kicking and screaming into that war. There are some evils in this world that you cannot simply hide from and hope that they don’t come after you, and if you DO let that evil take someone else out, then you are, by your silence, supporting that evil.
I am sick to death of Paul’s supporters blathering on about how we had no business getting into these wars, we’re in debt because of them (nevermind the economic collapse brought on by the housing market – that had NOTHING to do with it!), we need to be more peaceful, blah, blah, blah. Shut up. You people are idiots. If you wanna stick your head in the sand, move to Canada.
Have any of the candidates talked about repealing Obama Care or are they waiting for the Supreme Court to decide?