Third Debate: Mitt didn't take the Gloves off

Both sides are claiming victory in the third presidential debate. Unlike debate number one, no one will concede defeat. In debate number two, Obama's media hacks called the debate for their guy but that narrative was belied by Romney's surge in the polls afterward. The common thread that ran through both debates was that Romney was aggressive and showed the conservative base that he could fight.

That is also a trait that is contagious and even won over some independents.

The stars seemed to align for a Romney three-peat. The final showdown was on foreign policy as the Obama administration was on the ropes over its handling of Benghazi-gate.

Those expecting Romney to go for the knockout would be quite disappointed. The aggressive Mitt didn't show up. After the opening question, which was about Benghazi, the subject never really came up. At that, Romney's response to that initial question was quite vanilla. Some might argue that the opportunity never presented itself; that doesn't wash. Candidates are given quite a bit of latitude when it comes to answering questions how they see fit.

Just three days before the debate, House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa sent a damning letter to Obama that singled out the National Security Council as the likely source of a policy of "normalization" in Libya over security. The evidence is mounting that a political decision to portray Libya as secure trumped the decision to protect our diplomats. Romney could have asked Obama about this but he didn't.

He took a pass.

As we approach the third anniversary of the Fort Hood Jihadist attack that killed 14 people, survivors have made it quite clear - in a video - that they are outraged that what Nidal Malik Hasan did on November 5, 2009 continues to be identified as workplace violence instead of what it was. As a consequence, those survivors are not eligible for purple hearts and are being told to accept a lie about the motives of a murderer they will never forget.

Asking Obama why Hasan's attack hasn't been identified as an act of war that involved correspondence between the shooter and Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, instead of workplace violence, would have been quite appropriate in a foreign policy debate.

It never came up.

Operation Fast and Furious is a foreign policy matter as well. A U.S. Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexicans have lost their lives because someone thought it was a good idea to put assault weapons into the hands of drug cartels there. Obama injected himself into the scandal when he asserted Executive Privilege to prevent congressionally subpoenaed documents from being produced. He did so on the day his Attorney General would be found in both criminal and civil contempt for not producing those documents.

Romney avoided that subject as well.

It's clear that Mitt Romney made a strategic decision to look presidential instead of looking to win. Did he win over some independents? Perhaps. Did he disappoint those in the conservative base who had finally started to warm up to him.

Absolutely.

When your opponent is on the ropes, it's never a good strategy to stop swinging.

Then again, what do I know?

I'm not a politician.

How much does the Republican establishment hate Todd Akin?

The three most prominent faces of resistance to Rep. Todd Akin in his Senate race with Claire McCaskill (D-MO) are Karl Rove, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. We already know that Rove's feelings of disgust for Akin reach the level of joking about the congressman's murder to a bunch of wealthy donors. Since Priebus and Cornyn appear to be following Rove's lead when it comes to withholding financial support for Akin, is it worth asking how much influence the former Bush senior adviser has over them?

When Akin made a bizarre comment during an interview in August about 'legitimate rape', the establishment suddenly had an excuse to withdraw its support while also calling for Akin to step down.

Earlier this year, Cliff Kincaid produced a source who charged that one of the reasons Rove so detests Akin is that the latter simply would not vote the establishment line during the Bush administration, to include "No Child left Behind". Which is the bigger mistake, Akin's comment this past August or that woeful piece of legislation? Akin's comment or Rove's joke about murdering him for staying in the race despite pressure to drop out?

Rove, et. al. also had a plausible excuse for denying financial support because Akin fell so far back in the polls, it would have been money wasted.

There's a problem. Akin has been scratching back into the race and still is getting no support from the establishment.

Now, the Akin campaign is outright claiming that Rove, et. al. would rather have McCaskill win than see Todd Akin take her seat.

Via Daily Caller:

Republican Rep. Todd Akin’s campaign is accusing influential GOP-affiliated organizations that refuse to spend money to help the Republican senate candidate of genuinely wanting Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill to win the hotly contested senate contest in Missouri.

Rick Tyler, a senior adviser to Akin, told The Daily Caller this week that Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s National Republican Senatorial Committee are trying to undermine Akin.

“I believed at one time they did want Akin to win, even though they didn’t want to admit it,” Tyler told TheDC. “I’m convinced now they don’t want Akin to win.”

In August, Akin told a news station that “the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down” if a “legitimate rape” occurs, prompting outrage and condemnation from both sides of the political aisle.

The race might even determine which party will control the U.S. Senate next year. But both Crossroads GPS and the NRSC, which are spending millions to help Republican Senate candidates across the country, vowed not to support Akin in any way after they determined his rape comment threatened to hurt other Republican candidates across the country, according to Tyler.

“It is incomprehensible to me how Rove and Crossroads GPS and the NRSC could possibly stay out of this race” unless they want Akin to lose in November, Tyler told TheDC in a phone interview.

The establishment is choosing to put itself into a box here. If Akin wins, the fire within the conservative wing of the Republican party will be given a huge dose of oxygen because a conservative candidate will have triumphed over prominent liberal incumbent without the help of the establishment. If Akin loses, especially if by a narrow margin, it will have meant establishment pride triumphed over conservatism at best, and that extreme liberals are preferred over conservative Republicans at worst.

Another dynamic is at work here is the establishment's double standard. Mitt Romney was their guy; he won. Conservative voters were not happy with the selection. The establishment asked conservative voters to get behind their guy whether they liked him or not. Conservative voters did just that. In fact, in the wake of Romney's first two debate performances, conservative support for him has reached an energized high.

The natural inverse would be that if a conservative candidate is going against a liberal incumbent, the establishment should do the same.

In the case of Rove, Priebus, and Cornyn, hypocrisy appears to be on full display.

St. Louis Fox Television affiliate KTVI has a news report on tonight's debate between Akin and McCaskill:



Read entire DC piece.

CNN's Crowley comes to Obama's rescue on Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate

There are two scandals that Barack Obama desperately wants to avoid talking about. One is Fast and Furious. The other is Benghazi-gate. Both came up in last night's debate and both times, CNN's Candy Crowley came to the president's rescue.

First, on Fast and Furious. Mitt Romney took the opportunity to segue from a question about an assault weapons ban and discuss the failed gun-walking operation, which was quite relevant. ATF, with the knowledge of Department of Justice leadership, allowed assault weapons to walk into Mexico and be placed into the hands of drug cartels. Hundreds of Mexicans were killed as well as Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The most credible argument for why the operation was implemented was to make the case that an assault weapons ban was necessary.

Evidence points to the administration creating a crisis it could exploit, to push its assault weapons ban treaty. That said, Romney was very much on point but Crowley didn't think so. In fact, watch as Obama makes eye contact with Crowley in this clip as soon as Romney starts talking about Fast and Furious. Finally, Crowley cut Romney off and essentially told him he was off-topic.

h/t Midnight Rider:



The next - and most blatant - effort to protect Obama by Crowley came on the matter of Benghazi-gate. Barack Obama asserted that on the day after the attack on the U.S. consulate there, he called it an 'act of terror'. Romney called him on it and when Obama told his opponent to look at the transcript, Crowley agreed with Obama, so much so, that Obama asked her to repeat herself in order to underscore the point.

The problem is that Obama never referred to the attack in Benghazi as an act of terror. In fact, for fourteen days, his administration - to include himself at the United Nations - repeated the lie that the attack was spontaneous and the result of a video.

Here is the exchange (h/t GWP):



In reality, this is what Barack Obama said in the Rose Garden on 9/12/12:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

While this may seem an exercise in semantics, it's really not. The difference between a terror attack and a spontaneous eruption is very simple; it's called premeditation vs. spontaneity. Not only did that statement in the Rose Garden not refer to Libya specifically but fourteen days later, at the United Nations, Obama was still pushing the lie that the Benghazi attack was the spontaneous result of a video.

For some reason, the way Crowley came to Obama's defense reminded me of this:

Video: Joe Biden appears mentally unstable (no, seriously)

This RNC ad highlighting Joe Biden's debate performance is not taken out of context. If you saw the debate, this is only a small sampling of his behavior. Biden appeared to be either mentally or emotionally stable, laughing and smirking throughout. On top of that, the state of both the world and our country doesn't warrant much laughing at all, especially from the vice president.

Perhaps the reason for so many gaffes might have something to do with his mental stability.

This ad from the RNC is spot-on:

Video: GOP ad sums up the debate

Just watch...

Video: Mitt loves Big Bird and only likes Jim Lehrer

At the debate, Mitt laid out his test for whether the government should fund any particular program. That test? If money has to be borrowed from China to pay for it, the program is shut down. Yeah, that's rhetoric he will have to do a lot to live up to but when he spoke about ending the PBS subsidy, he realized moderator Jim Lehrer worked at PBS. At that point, he delivered one of the best lines of the night:

"I like PBS, I love Big Bird. I actually like you too."

The look on Lehrer's face after that adds to the humor.



h/t GWP

Newt Pledge: Overthrow Castro Regime

Gotta admit, after three years of watching an administration cater to South and Central American thugs, it was a bit refreshing to at least hear someone at this level offer some counterbalance.

Via Newsmax:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich vowed Monday night that as president he will "overthrow the regime" of Fidel Castro.

Responding to a question by Brian Williams during the NBC debate in Tampa about U.S. policy toward Cuba, Gingrich said he would press for a "Cuban spring," much like the Arab spring sweeping the Middle East.

"We will not tolerate four more years of this [Castro] regime," Gingrich said.

There is a reason Gingrich would say such things in Florida. The overwhelming majority of Cubans who fled Castro, along with their descendants, passionately agree with the sentiment.

Audio: Geraldo says Newt a Racist for saying the word, 'Juan'

If race baiter = racist, Geraldo Rivera is now a premium club member. On his radio show, Geraldo actually said that the way in which Gingrich addressed Juan Williams at the Fox News debate last week was a 'racial epithet.' Forget the fact that Williams was implying that Newt was racist (race card). Apparently, that was no problem. Forget the fact that the crowd collectively rejected Williams race-baiting attempt. This was all about painting Newt as the racist because of the way he said, 'Juan.'

Listen to the whole thing because Geraldo actually says that Jimmy Carter was 'very underrated.'

The liberal media is continuing to double down with Newt like it did with Sarah Palin but they don't seem to realize that every time they do, Newt gives better than he gets.



h/t Weasel Zippers

Newtralizing Rule Number Five

When Newt Gingrich scolded CNN's John King at the South Carolina debate, he didn't just stand up to the media; he smacked down Saul Alinsky. When a candidate does that, he can deliver a knockout blow to Barack Obama, Alinsky's prized ideological protege.

Take a look at Rule number five in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which states:

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

This is exactly what King attempted to do by bringing up the charges made by Newt's ex-wife in an interview with ABC's Brian Ross. Did King infuriate Gingrich by asking the question right out of the gate? Yes. Did Gingrich react to King's advantage? Absolutely not. He channeled the fury of conservatives and delivered a counterattack squarely on the jaw of a liberal media bully; King had been stunned in epic fashion.

Conservatives know that the mainstream media is running interference for Barack Obama while attempting to portray objectivity. Gingrich exposed this dynamic thoroughly and with perfect timing, by making the charge as that reality was on full display for all to see. He connected the dots as the offense was being committed. The more King attempted to hit Gingrich, the more forcefully the former was beaten back by the latter.

One day after the debate, another CNN reporter – Erin Burnett – attempted to wound Gingrich with Rule number five. She asked him to respond to charges that he was hypocritical by going after president Bill Clinton in the 1990's during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, while he was committing similar indescretions. The question was intended to trap Gingrich but it did the opposite; his response made Burnett look foolish for not seeing the clear line of distinction. Clinton committed a felony by perjuring himself; Gingrich did no such thing. Burnett wilted and reacted to Gingrich's advantage.

Rule number five includes a premise that says the target will be placed on defense whenever it's used. When that happens, the rule works. However, when the target effectively goes on offense, the rule backfires. No other candidate has demonstrated this ability. Sarah Palin seemed to have some of it in 2008 but she was muzzled by her running mate, who was clueless and instructed his campaign not to go after Obama over Jeremiah Wright, which was exactly the wrong thing to do.

There is a narrative afoot that says Mitt Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama. The media seems to be perfectly willing to echo it. Why would it do so if it is interested in getting Obama reelected? The answer is simple; the Obama camp wants to face Romney. Once Romney gets the nomination, he will be the target of rule number five and he has shown no indication that he is capable of overcoming its intended effect. He's already said he won't call Obama a socialist. By not telling the truth about Obama, Romney will be an ideal target for ridicule; he will succumb to rule number five and he will react to Obama's advantage.

Barack Obama will have untold amounts of money at his disposal when he faces the eventual nominee. He will spend a great deal of that money implementing rule number five; it's part of his wiring. It's simply not enough for the Republican Party to nominate a person who can neutralize rule number five; it needs someone who can reverse its intended effect.

It must nominate someone who can Newtralize rule number five.

Picked up over at Red County

Video: Republican Debate opens with Newt Ripping CNN Moderator

The CNN debate opened up with John King asking Newt Gingrich to respond to the ABC story that included an interview with the former Speaker's ex-wife and about Newt wanting an 'open marriage.' King's question was obviously intended to embarrass Gingrich but it was King who was shamed by Newt and it was quite obvious.

Toward the end of this clip, Gingrich put his finger on the pulse of what's really going on. The liberal media is protecting Obama by levying vicious attacks against all Republican candidates. That is a theme that needs to continue because the more that fact is revealed, the more exposed Obama becomes.

Via Daily Caller:


After the debate, Greta Van Susteren interviewed Gingrich and asked him about the exchange:

Video: Newt says Sarah Palin will 'Play a Major Role' in Administration

Check out this chain of events. On Monday, January 16th, Newt knocks the ball out of the park at the Fox News debate. On Tuesday, January 17th, Sarah Palin makes news by telling South Carolina voters to pull the lever for Newt Gingrich on Saturday, January 21st. On Wednesday, January 18th (video below), Gingrich tells Wolf Blitzer that Sarah Palin will 'play a major role' in his administration. On Thursday morning, January 19th, Drudge reports that ABC will be airing an interview with the ex-wife of Gingrich that will make him look extremely bad. The CNN debate will take place hours after the announcement of ABC's hit piece.

Via TPM:



h/t Daily Caller

Will ABC 'Hit Piece' on Newt Backfire?

The ABC hit piece on Newt that features his scorned ex-wife is clearly an attempt by the MSM outlet to give Romney a boost. The timing of the piece couldn't make the intent more obvious. The AP is reporting that ABC will be airing the interview with Marianne Gingrich after the debate, sandwiched between the debate and Saturday's primary. Newt's indiscretions are not new, which is another indicator that this is nothing more than an attempt to end his surge in South Carolina in order to help Romney.

The Hill has Newt's reaction:

GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich said a decision by ABC News to air an interview with one of his ex-wives would be “wrong” and blamed the “liberal media” for attempting to distract voters from the failures of the Obama administration.

"I’m not going to say anything negative about Marianne,” Gingrich said in an interview Thursday on NBC’s Today show in response to reports that his second ex-wife Marianne Gingrich would conduct an interview with ABC News.

The Drudge Report first reported on Wednesday that Marianne Gingrich intended to share "explosive revelations" about her marriage to the former House speaker.

Gingrich said that his daughters had sent a letter to ABC News criticizing the decision to air the interview "as wrong" and referred any media questions about the matter to them.

"My two daughters Kathy and Jackie have sent a letter to the president of ABC News, saying from a family perspective they think this is totally wrong," he said. "They think ABC should not air anything like this and that intruding into family things that are more, that are more than a decade old are simply wrong."

It's quite possible that this attempt by ABC to torpedo Newt's chances in South Carolina could actually backfire. Newt already has a penchant for slamming the media in the debates. Look for him to come out with all guns blazing tonight. The only thing that might make watching it more palatable would be if ABC was the entity putting it on. It will be CNN.

Here is Newt's appearance on the Today show. He makes very valid points here and could generate sympathetic audiences as a result of this very overt attempt by the MSM to smear him. Rick Perry has dropped out of the race and will reportedly throw his support behind Gingrich.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Newt's Best Line came BEFORE the Debate

Make no mistake. Barack Obama does NOT want to face Newt Gingrich in the fall. He wants Romney. The actions of the 'in-the-tank-for-Obama-media' will tell you that. Anyone with a modicum of logic can see that the liberal media is doing all it can to help Romney become the nominee. Why would they do that? For the same reason they wanted McCain in 2008; he is the least viable.

While at a Tea Party Convention hours before the South Carolina debate, Newt delivered perhaps the line of the campaign by encapsulating exactly why nominating Romney is a very dumb idea.

Via National Journal:

“Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?” Gingrich asked a lively crowd at the Rioz Brazilian Steakhouse, referring to Romney’s loss to eventual nominee John McCain in the 2008 primaries. He said the GOP establishment “can't argue his record in Massachusetts because he's too liberal,” so they are making the electability case.

A better question cannot be asked and it can only be honestly answered by looking at the agenda of a liberal media that wants to be portrayed as objective.

Obama wants Romney. Period.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Video: Ron Paul Once Again Defending Islamists

More South Carolina debate video. This time, Bret Baier asks Paul about killing bin Laden in Pakistan. In an attempt to make his point about why it wasn't necessary, Paul makes reference to the capture of Saddam Hussein as something that could have been a viable alternative. Baier quickly reminds Paul that the congressman was against going into Iraq (Paul ignored that part).

Then Newt comes in at the end of this and once again skewers Paul's foreign policy views, which are convoluted, at best.

Via Breitbart:

SC Debate Video: Santorum Traps Romney

Romney has already become the presumptive nominee in the eyes of many. Even those looking for the anti-Romney candidate are conceding that a win in South Carolina would be game over. That's why his opponents in last night's debate needed to land knockout punches, in addition to bolstering themselves with good performances.

Though no one landed any haymakers on Romney, this was a good moment for Santorum, who challenged the frontrunner on a Super PAC ad that identified the former Pennsylvania Senator as someone who wants felons to vote. Santorum proceeded to expose Romney as having been more liberal on the issue when he was governor.

Not a knockout but Santorum did lay a glove on Romney here.

Via Breitbart:

MSNBC / Meet the Press Debate Highlights (Debate #2)

So the Republican candidates went to bed after their ABC debate in which Mitt Romney inexplicably escaped unscathed and woke up to address that problem. If Romney skated during debate #1, he was checked multiple times in debate #2.

In this exchange, Mitt Romney is seeking to take the high ground by saying that he left public office to pursue private sector experience. Both Santorum and Gingrich call him on it.



Santorum then goes after Romney for not running for reelection in Massachusetts as Governor:



In this exchange, Newt again rips Romney, this time for the negative ads. David Gregory asks Newt if the latter is willing to stand by his claim that Mitt is a liar. Romney was place squarely on his heels here:

Via Huffpo:

This video includes a portion of the above exchange but with more fireworks from Newt:




This happened after the debate. It was an exchange between Chris Matthews and former New Hampshire Governor, John Sununu, who appeared more than just a little agitated. It's possible that Sununu, a Romney supporter, didn't like the attacks other candidates levied against his choice. The Meet the Press debate was not a good one for Romney and Sununu seems to reflect that.

ABC Debate Highlights (Debate #1)

Two debates within twelve hours. The first one came courtesy of ABC on Saturday night, moderated by George Stephanopolous and Dianne Sawyer. Though there were some good exchanges, Mitt Romney came out of this one virtually unscathed as the other candidates decided to go after each other instead of bringing the frontrunner (Romney) back down into the fray.

First up, the issue of contraception got far too much time. This was actually one of Romney's better moments; he took a shot at Paul and had some funny lines as Stephanopolous wouldn't stop pressing:



As always, Newt always seems to be at his best when going after the media for its hypocrisy. He does that here after the issue of whether gay marriage should be permitted:



Here is a heated exchange between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich over the former's charge that the latter is a 'chicken hawk'



In perhaps the most ill-advised comment of the night, Texas Governor Rick Perry said he would send troops back to Iraq:



Here, Ron Paul is asked why he won't rule out a 3rd party run. His response is that he doesn't like absolutes. Santorum nails him by chiming in that Paul has asserted he would absolutely not raise the debt ceiling:



This is where Santorum gets Paul again. Paul was asked if he wanted to stand by one of his ads in which he called Santorum corrupt. During his response, there was some audio feedback and Santorum hits Paul with a quick-witted one-liner:



h/t MRC and Right Video

Video: Ron Paul vs. Michele Bachmann on Iran

The only cogent aspect to Ron Paul's argument here is that America is broke. Other than that, he's clueless. For example, one of the arguments he uses to make his case that Islamists hate us because of what we do, not because of who we are, is that Islamists come to the United States, not Switzerland or Sweden. Uh, Ron, in case you haven't noticed, those countries are dealing with an enormous influx of Muslims.

Bachmann comes back by citing an IAEA report that says Iran is within months of obtaining a nuclear weapon. Paul responds by saying there is no such report and then contradicts himself by saying, 'they produced the information that led you to believe that.'

This man is causing me to diminish the impact of the word 'insane.'



Here's more from Bachmann in response to Paul's lunacy. She's absolutely right about Islam's desire to reestablish a caliphate:



Via Stage Right

Debate Video: Rick Perry compares himself to Tim Tebow

This was a big eye-roller, from both the standpoint of the comparison as well as the delivery. Rick Perry was asked to allay concerns that he wouldn't do well in debates with Obama because of his debate performances as a nominee candidate. He started out ok but then took a leap he shouldn't have. He invoked the name Tim Tebow and stumbled through his analogy before delivering what he obviously thought was a strong punchline; the audience reacted like a crowd at a football game would, to an incomplete pass.



h/t Stage Right Show

Debate Video: Santorum Filets Ron Paul on Iran

Don't play this inside the Ron Paul echo chamber; they don't want to hear it. That doesn't make it any less true. Paul's view on Iran begins with an egregiously false premise that includes Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which proved useful during the cold war with the Soviet Union. That premise necessarily involves a belief that Iran's leaders aren't guided by a Jihadist mentality that actually yearns for nuclear destruction. Paul increasingly appears incapable of grasping that reality; the look on his face at the :56 seems to demonstrate it.

Rick Santorum enunciates quite well, why Paul is intellectually vacant on the issue.



h/t H4A