Now we got us some arm grabbin’!
Oh, why don’t they just arm wrestle? Or kiss with tongue? When will these guys look up the word “debate” and actually have one? Nah, grab the mud, sling it, it’s easier. 
My question is how do you get a ticket for the debate?
The audience didn’t seem to like Santorum very much. It seemed like they were booing before he could even finish a thought, and you could tell it unnerved him. Now, even though I hate Santorum, I think the rah-rah-booh behavior is poor form for a serious political forum. It does affect the performance of the candidates, IMHO. And like a laugh track on a dumb sitcom, it can also affect perception. I don’t think these are good things. If a rich guy can buy seats for all his fans, he can turn the whole damn thing into his own pep rally. That ain’t right.
If both survive the lirpa, the debate will continue with the ahn woon…
I’m glad to see that I’;m not the only one that thought the crowd was a bit hostile to Santorum and a bit friendly to Romney from the beginning.
Oh, there’s no doubt that Romney packed the hall. He’s done it at other debates as well.
It certainly makes him seem to at least be not losing, when on the points he should be.
As to the debate itself… I think the part that struck me is as that if either Santorum or Romney is elected we will go to war with Iran. They have left almost no doubt.
Is Paul the only one who (if you believe him) wouldn’t?!
They kept teasing that the 2/22 debate “might be the last Republican debate.” Does anyone actually believe that?
Certainly, if the nomination isn’t all but decided by Memorial Day, there will be a debate in California (especially as it’s not so much one primary as 53 of them, each winner-take-all for 3 delegates (plus 10 for winning statewide), and some districts definitely lean one way or the other - I don’t think the winner in Loretta Sanchez’s district is going to be the winner in Barbara Lee’s district).
CNN releases some, some supporters from each of the candidates gets seats, and the party faithful/operatives might get some.
Not only do I have no problem with it, I think that heckling should be allowed, or even encouraged, at all political events that are open to the public.
Neither Romney nor Santorum does particularly well in debates, so if the race goes down to those two, as it appears it might, then it doesn’t seem unlikely they’ll both just decide not to do anymore. This is already happening, both men pulled out of the next debate and the organizers decided to cancel it, rather then have just Paul v. Gingrich.
The New York Times is reporting that a Detroit Free Press poll showed Santorum tied with Romney in Michigan. NYT also reporting that Romney will be in Detroit this Friday. Of course, last night’s debate was in Arizona. So that’s Michigan and Arizona, and those states hold the next primaries on what would have been the end of the month.
What’s after Super Tuesday besides the Conventions?
Well, the swimsuit competition. I am seeking an injunction to forbid Newt from competing in a Speedo.
I thought Romney’s line “You get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want” was interesting. The Romneybot was patently not answering John King’s question (“What is the biggest misconception about you?”), but just running its campaign platitude subroutine. When King pointed that out, that was the response–and the cowed King just said “fair enough”.
It’s a telling example of Romney’s over-inflated sense of entitlement–and more evidence that our media will always defer to whatever nonsense these candidates spew. It’s a little sad that Jon Stewart is just about the only person willing to call out the bullsh!t these guys spew on a daily business.
Eye bleach!! Stat!
I didn’t watch, but had a text-verstation with my 19 yo son. He was quite upset that
Paul is pretty vocally non-interventionist - does anyone know what he said? (yes, I am too lazy to look it up myself)
Isn’t that essentially what Palin said at the start of her sole debate as a VP candidate? As I recall, the ‘answers’ she gave rarely had any relationship to the actual question asked. Of course, that was 3-odd (very odd) years ago, and my memory is fuzzy.
IIRC, he said that by having so many bases and so much military activity in that region, we threaten Iran and make them more likely to develop a nuclear program, and that we should get the hell out of the middle east. But I just had it on in the background and wasn’t paying close attention. I believe there was more to it than that.
Here is Paul on Iran:
[QUOTE=Ron Paul]
PAUL: I disagree because we don’t know if they have a weapon. As a matter of fact, there’s no evidence that they have it. There is no evidence. Israel claims they do not have it and our government doesn’t. I don’t want them to get a weapon. But I think what we’re doing is encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened. If you look at a map of – if you look at a map of Iran, we have 45 bases around their country, plus our submarines.
The Iranians can’t possibly attack anybody. And we’re worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon. Now, just think about the Cold War. The Soviets had 30,000 of them. And we talked to them. The Soviets killed 100 million people and the Chinese, and we worked our way out of it.
And if you want to worry about nuclear weapons, worry about the nuclear weapons that were left over from the Soviet Union. They’re still floating around. They don’t have them all detailed. So we’re ready to go to war. I say going to war rapidly like this is risky and it’s reckless.
Now, if they are so determined to go to war, the only thing I plead with you for, if this is the case, is do it properly. Ask the people and ask the Congress for a declaration of war. This is war and people are going to die. And you have got to get a declaration of war.
And just to go and start fighting – but the sanctions are already backfiring. And all that we do is literally doing the opposite. When we’ve been – were attacked, we all came together. When we attacked the – when we – when we put them under attack, they get together and it neutralizes that. They rally around their leaders.
So what we’re doing is literally enhancing their power. Think of the sanctions we dealt with Castro. Fifty years and Castro is still there. It doesn’t work. So I would say a different approach. We need to at least – we talked – we talked to the Soviets during the Cuban crisis. We at least can talk to somebody who does not – we do not have proof that he has a weapon. Why go to war so carelessly?
[/QUOTE]
Not only that but Romney and his aides decided on the debate format which could have worked with two or three. However, with four, it looked like a group of political panelists instead of a group of Presidential candidates.