Thoughts on (maybe) (possibly) (perhaps) the last GOP debate
I haven’t written recaps of each GOP presidential debate this cycle, but I do have a few thoughts about last night’s, which may have been the last one with these four candidates.
Rick Santorum had a tough night. He appeared aware that he would be attacked, but his answers didn’t always impress. While he deemed his support of the No Child Left Behind law as a mistake he made under pressure from his party because “politics is a team sport” — a sentiment seemingly at odds with his earlier one-word description for himself, “courage” — he gave a lengthy defense of congressional earmarks. There is a case to be made for earmarks: It holds that they allow Congress to preserve more power of the purse rather than yielding more decisions to the executive branch. Even Ron Paul makes this defense. But defending earmarks is a bad spot for anyone in the tea party era, and it’s especially bad for Santroum because it also serves as a reminder that he was in Congress at a time when Republicans were falling off the small-government wagon. That said, I don’t think it was so bad as to have a large effect on his chances in the Arizona or Michigan primaries next week.
Mitt Romney fared better, and it helped his appearance to the TV audience that so many people in the live audience were his supporters. But Santorum landed a good blow on him by observing that even Michael Dukakis had balanced the Massachusetts budget because the state’s constitution requires it. And his attack on Santorum for endorsing Arlen Specter over conservative stalwart Pat Toomey in a 2004 U.S. senate race (as did most of the rest of the GOP establishment at the time) had the unfortunate effect of ensuring Specter’s name was being invoked when Barack Obama’s name could have been. That’s a loss for Republicans.
What about Newt Gingrich? He was back on his game, coming off as knowledgeable, focused and ready to defend conservatism. And he did so without attacking the moderator or, for the most part, the media. But at this point, do debate performances continue to move the needle for Gingrich? Like his divorces and some of his missteps as Speaker, good performances in debates are baked into the cake for him. At this point, that cake is valued at third place by the GOP primary electorate. He wasn’t good enough Wednesday night to surpass expectations, so I have a hard time seeing how the debate spurs him very far upward.
Ron Paul was Ron Paul, maybe a little more appealingly so than at other times. But while his foreign policy stance might help push the party away from military adventurism, it’s not going to be adopted wholesale by Republicans anytime soon. And that pretty much counts him put as a potential nominee.
How did y’all see things? Those of you who watched, that is…
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
481 comments Add your comment
Linda
February 23rd, 2012
10:27 pm
Hypocritical@9:58, You would have been better served had your mother instructed you where best to relieve yourself & advised you not to hang out with skunks in the first place. I see your problem.
****Yo Decido****
February 23rd, 2012
10:30 pm
@td
February 23rd, 2012
10:14 pm
JDW
February 23rd, 2012
9:56 pm
You have seen the latest Gallop poll haven’t you? Oh I forgot that the “lame stream media” chooses only to report things that are good news for the President. I will give you a hint, One of the Republicans is within one point of the messiah and chief.
****************************************************************************************
mmmmmmmmm
Obama Job Approval
Feb 13-19, 2012
National
Adults 45%
18 to 29 51%
30 to 49 45%
50 to 64 42%
65+ 40%
White 36%
Nonwhite 66%
Black 83%
****Hispanic 52%****
Democrat 83%
-Independent 42%
Republican 11%
****Yo Decido****
February 23rd, 2012
10:32 pm
@Linda
February 23rd, 2012
10:27 pm
Hypocritical@9:58, You would have been better served had your mother instructed you where best to relieve yourself & advised you not to hang out with skunks in the first place. I see your problem.
*************************************************
My father use to say….”hit dog will holer.”
The Hypocritical Rethuglican Bullies
February 23rd, 2012
10:35 pm
@****Yo Decido****
February 23rd, 2012
10:32 pm
****************************************************
I concur
td
February 23rd, 2012
10:41 pm
****Yo Decido****
February 23rd, 2012
10:30 pm
You do know that no President has ever won re election with an approval rating below 47%?
Latest Gallop tracking polls:
TRIAL HEAT CHANGE
Obama 46% -2
Romney 50% +2
TRIAL HEAT CHANGE
Obama 49% -2
Santorum 48% +5
Linda
February 23rd, 2012
10:49 pm
Tiberius@10:04, So you are proud of being accurate, cold & callous?
@10:18, So, Obama is totally against bringing in a second doctor (other than the abortionist) to offer a second opinion as to whether the infant is viable & deserves the right to be cared for? So, he votes against the Ill. versions of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act 3 times by either voting present or no, & you think that is okay? Since the US Senate voted 98-0 in favor of this bill, do you think Obama was minimally outside of the mainstream thinking in the Senate?
There is NO doubt that Obama supported infanticide & that the corrupt media, including the AJC tried to cover it up.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 23rd, 2012
10:49 pm
The Hypocritical Rethuglican Bullies
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
——————-
Hmm…must have struck a nerve with these two…
What would Jesus say about abortion, Christians?
Linda
February 23rd, 2012
10:54 pm
td@10:24, I’ve been called every name in the liberals’ book. What the liberals don’t understand is that it does not intimidate us. Rather, it motivates us to go out & Tea Party! I’m ready!
OYEZ, OYEZ, OYEZ Be Afraid
February 23rd, 2012
10:54 pm
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision on July 3, 1989 upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions. The Supreme Court in Webster allowed for states to legislate in an area that had previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe.
The Supreme Court’s decision
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court, stating that:
The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law’s preamble, as it is not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade.
The prohibitions on the use of public employees, facilities, and funds did not violate any of the Court’s abortion decisions, as no affirmative right to the use of state aid for nontherapeutic abortions existed. The state could allocate resources in favor of childbirth over abortion if it so chose.
Provisions requiring testing for viability after 20 weeks of pregnancy were constitutional, but those limiting abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy were unconstitutional.
The opinions
Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion was joined in its entirety only by Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. In discussing the fetal viability section, the plurality asserted that the right to abortion was a “liberty interest protected by the Due Process clause” subject to restriction by any laws which would permissibly further a rational state interest such as protecting potential life. This, said the plurality, would require the court to “modify and narrow Roe and succeeding cases.”
Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Antonin Scalia joined Rehnquist’s opinion except for the section on viability testing. Each wrote a separate concurring opinion. O’Connor claimed that narrowing Roe v. Wade in the context of the Webster litigation, where upholding Missouri’s law could arguably be squared with Roe, would violate an important principle of judicial restraint. She then explained that she voted to uphold Missouri’s law because she did not feel that it would place an undue burden on the right to abortion.
Scalia, who was angered by the refusal of the plurality, especially O’Connor, to overturn Roe v. Wade, wrote a sharp opinion concurring in the judgment. In his concurrence, he argued that the Court should have overturned Roe, rather than attempting to uphold both Roe and the laws at issue, and he attacked O’Connor’s justification for declining to overturn Roe. He also agreed with Blackmun’s assertion that the approach of the plurality would make Roe a dead letter.
Blackmun wrote a dissenting opinion which focused on the plurality’s desired narrowing of Roe as described in the section on the viability testing requirement. In effect, Blackmun wrote, the plurality’s approach would overturn Roe, since it would allow a state to put virtually any restriction on abortion so long as it was rationally related to promoting potential life. Noting that the plurality and Scalia together were only a single vote away from effectively overruling Roe, he wrote “I fear for the future” and “a chill wind blows.”
Noting that the plurality and Scalia together were only a single vote away from effectively overruling Roe, he wrote “I fear for the future” and “a chill wind blows.”
Michael H. Smith
February 23rd, 2012
11:08 pm
Do YOU know the percentages against overturned cases of the settled law?
Yeah, guess I do… As Justice Blackmun had it, the percentage in this case stands only a single vote away and “a chill wind blows”.
I’m liking mine and my side’s odds more and more everyday.
Now I bid a goodnight to all others.
Linda
February 23rd, 2012
11:09 pm
Mr. Yo@10:32, If your father used to say, “Hit dog will holer,” either he was referring to an animal being holy or he was or you are misspelling the word “holler.”
Hypocritical@10:35, Since you “concur,” you are equally guilty of worshiping animals or are condoning a statement that you have not checked out, typical of liberals.
ld
February 24th, 2012
12:41 am
let the circus continue; everyone should have a right to know which clown they’re voting for this March
md
February 24th, 2012
7:35 am
“Are rights afforded to citizens, and can something be a citizen if it hasn’t been born yet?”
We went from human to citizen……nice end around.
And the law is not consistent, just ask Scott Peterson…….in jail waiting appeal for 2 murders. Which means the law has recognized that individuals inside the womb are also humans.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
7:35 am
“Do YOU know the percentages against overturned cases of the settled law?
Yeah, guess I do… As Justice Blackmun had it, the percentage in this case stands only a single vote away and “a chill wind blows”. ”
Obviously, Michael H. Smith doesn’t know the meaning of the word “percentages”, just as he didn’t know the meaning of the word “racist”.
Which just shows that Michael H. Smith doesn’t really know a great deal about a lot of things.
@@
February 24th, 2012
7:41 am
Tiberius:
Nothing was said where Obama supported infanticide. NOTHING.
Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
I’m fairly certain that both you and Obama are good men….just lazy. Don’t wanna put yourself out on behalf of unborn children. If I can do nothing else, I will, at least, lend them my voice.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
8:01 am
“So, he votes against the Ill. versions of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act 3 times by either voting present or no, & you think that is okay?”
How many times do I have to admit that Obama is incompetent, Linda? Not knowing what was going through his head (if anything) during that time, I can only comment on what I see, not what YOU believe. Your emotions are blinding you to alternatives (once again).
“Since the US Senate voted 98-0 in favor of this bill, do you think Obama was minimally outside of the mainstream thinking in the Senate?”
Different bills, Linda. Do YOU think he would have voted for it if he had been in the U.S. Senate? Don’t bother. Your preconceived notions already tell me what you think. You’re as easy to read as a cheap novel in that regard.
“There is NO doubt that Obama supported infanticide & that the corrupt media, including the AJC tried to cover it up.”
Actually, there is EVERY doubt that he “supported” infanticide, as was stated as nauseum before. Opposition for ONE part of a bill does not equal support for another. Get over yourself.
Oh, and one other thing, Linda. Don’t ever consider running for elected office. People who serve are bombarded with contradicting votes on a daily basis, and you’re not up to handling more than one concept at a time. Trust me. I’ve served and I know how this works. Look at Santorum the other night, trying to defend his support for NCLB or his support for Arlen Specter. In the case of NCLB, he was given a choice between a bad bill and support for his President. He chose poorly. In the case of Specter he determined that supporting him over Toomey was better for future judicial nominees if Specter had won. Again, he chose poorly, but elected officials are given these choices all the time – vote for one part of a bill to get something good, even if the other parts are bad. Some people vote against bills if they aren’t perfect, as in the case of Obama in Illinois. He thought it would look great on his future resume if he was championing the causes that would get him elected, not realizing that in the future really dumb people would turn around his opposition to one part of the bill into support for killing babies, but then, that’s the political neophyte in him.
Case in point: While serving in office, I voted against the annual budget, stating my opposition to the increase in our sheriff’s budget. Now, understand, the sheriff was getting about a 5% increase at a time when other departments were being asked to take less, and he has a nasty way of spending money for certain things he didn’t originally ask for, and I wanted his money to be a bit more controlled. In addition, I had already found a way for him to get a couple of new (expensive) pieces of equipment he had been crying for for years. Guess what? (even you might be able to see this coming) I was immediately painted as being “against public safety”, even though I was willing to approve a 3% increase and after finding ways to get him his new equipment (and bolstering the fire department budget too boot). But I was accused of being against public safety.
Sound familiar, Linda?
Take off your blinders and look at the big picture. Obama is a lousy President and was a fairly incompetent state senator, but he has never, and likely will never, supported infanticide.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
8:08 am
“I’m fairly certain that both you and Obama are good men….just lazy.”
You know, @@, we’ve had a fairly good relationship on these blogs, but you’re beginning to take liberties in your opinion of me that have no basis in reality. To your point, I worked my a$$ off when I served as an elected official, as I do in my daily life. That I don’t focus on that which I have ZERO power to change is not laziness – it is practicality. So I take exception to your uninformed opinion of me and my work ethic.
“Don’t wanna put yourself out on behalf of unborn children.”
Tell me, what can the average citizen do to “put myself out on behalf of unborn children”. What do YOU do on a daily basis? More importantly, why do you think it is your job in life (if you actually do anything, that is) to put yourself out on behalf of unborn children and interfere in the lives of people you don’t know and who can never affect you?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
8:13 am
“And the law is not consistent, just ask Scott Peterson…….in jail waiting appeal for 2 murders. Which means the law has recognized that individuals inside the womb are also humans.”
md, you really need to up your reading comprehension skills, son.
I was the one who originally said that the law wasn’t consistent, which has been my argument all along. The law treats a life differently in the womb that out of the womb when it comes to abortion, which is why (while I disagree with the stupidity of charging someone with more than one murder in the case of a pregnant woman), one is legal and one is not. On that, there is NO argument. If you don’t like it, change the law. Have at it. Good luck to you.
But you’ll fail.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
8:28 am
Below is a column from Howie Carr, one of my favorite columnists (sorry, Kyle!) writing about the annual summary of taxpayers in Massachusetts. For a little history, the state legislature years ago lowered the mandatory income tax rate but kept a higher, VOLUNTARY rate in place for those who wanted to “pay their fair share”. Remember that Mass. is HEAVILY Democrat populated, yet for some reason, very few liberals want to step up and help fund the society they helped to create. Interesting to note that it is largely the poorest taxpayers who contribute the higher rate each year, rather than the trust fund limousine liberals like the Kerry’s or Kennedy’s.
Read and enjoy.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220224moonbats_money_mouths_dont_meet/srvc=home&position=2
md
February 24th, 2012
8:29 am
“I was the one who originally said that the law wasn’t consistent, which has been my argument all along.”
Well, which is it…..consistent or inconsistent?
“Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the LAW, while being inconsistent in many things, is COMPLETELY consistent in the case of abortions? What part of Rowe v. Wade do you NOT get?”
And no, abortion laws are not consistent…….they differ from State to State…..
And why throw out the insults such as “upping reading comprehension”…..it isn’t necessary.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
8:44 am
md, the law, in general is inconsistent. Abortion law at it’s very core is not. See Rowe v. Wade. As was pointed out ad nauseum regarding gun ownership, the BASIS of gun ownership is consistent; the application of gun laws regarding unfettered access to guns is not. So, too, is abortion law. The BASIS of Rowe v. Wade is that abortions are legal. The application of abortion law can be up to the states, but the basis is still there and still CONSISTENT. You may not ban gun ownership outright and you may not ban abortions outright. Do you get that, md?
As to the reading comprehension remark, if I didn’t have to explain this over and over and over again to you, you might have a point.
But the fact that I have to do this yet again shows I’m right about that as well.
@@
February 24th, 2012
8:54 am
Tiberius:
What do YOU do on a daily basis? More importantly, why do you think it is your job in life (if you actually do anything, that is) to put yourself out on behalf of unborn children and interfere in the lives of people you don’t know and who can never affect you?
Actually, I teach at a private school for special needs children. Have been for 12 years. No doubt the parents of my students were advised to abort. I know for a fact that one of our parents was told to do so…was told her child would never stand upright…never walk. WRONG!
I’m off to see an orthapaedist (shoulder problems). It can be a hazardous job but somebody’s gotta do it. I’d do it for free. I HAVE DONE IT FOR FREE!!!!
’twas my pleasure…my calling in life.
md
February 24th, 2012
8:54 am
“Do you get that, md?”
Have no problem understanding that, but THAT isn’t what you said…you said ““Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the LAW, while being inconsistent in many things, is COMPLETELY consistent in the case of abortions?”
You might want to “comprehend” what you put on the screen…..” is COMPLETELY consistent in the case of abortions?”
NOT basis, NOT Roe v Wade……but ABORTIONS.
Same ole dave……can’t seem to see when his own words are not clear.
Say what you you mean and we won’t have to go in circles.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 24th, 2012
8:59 am
Rationalize all you want–abortion is evil. All arguments to the contrary are merely attempts at assuaging guilt.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
9:00 am
“Actually, I teach at a private school for special needs children.”
Good for you, @@. However, that didn’t answer ANY of my questions. In short, it was a deflection on your part, and you’re better than that.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
9:03 am
Pardon me, md, for not repeatedly typing EVERYTHING I had typed before, hoping against hope that certain people would actually read and comprehend what was being written without my having to repeat it over and over again in their desperate hope that they could “catch” me in an inconsistency.
Nice try, but another epic fail, md.
And the moniker is Tiberius. Do you get THAT, md?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
9:04 am
“All arguments to the contrary are merely attempts at assuaging guilt.”
And yet, for some strange reason, LBB, I don’t feel one bit guilty. Go figure.
Do what??????
February 24th, 2012
9:25 am
“To your point, I worked my a$$ off when I served as an elected official, as I do in my daily life. ”
You were elected to what office?
Do what??????
February 24th, 2012
9:25 am
“And yet, for some strange reason, LBB, I don’t feel one bit guilty.”
You’d make a good Nazi appeaser.
Do what??????
February 24th, 2012
9:27 am
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
Are you Dave from Bookman’s blog? Seem to remember a scuffle with someone named Dave R and KUTGF over some hack job he did on Dave R. I also think KUTGF threatens to break into peoples bank accounts over there on a regular basis.
Like I said, Bookmans freak show is a nightmare.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
9:32 am
“You were elected to what office?”
Extrapolate from what budget I had to approve. I am not going to give out information about me voluntarily due to privacy issues.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
9:35 am
Let’s see how much skin in this game you anti-abortion people really have (and remember, I’m against abortion as well, just not to the point of making women slaves to my beliefs).
How many abortions have each of you, personally, stopped from happening? Specifically, please. No cop-outs on “Well, I voted for anti-abortion candidates” crap. C’mon, man up on this one. How many have you specifically and personally stopped when someone was considering an abortion?
UGA 1999
February 24th, 2012
9:38 am
Tiberius….How are we to know if we stopped someone from having an abortion being that their names are confidential….hmmmm I wonder why?
Do what??????
February 24th, 2012
9:39 am
“Extrapolate from what budget I had to approve. I am not going to give out information about me voluntarily due to privacy issues.”
Fair enough, but someone has already outed you. Dave R, right? Yeah, I remember you from Bookman’s blog.
Did you get banned? If so, welcome to the club.
Do what??????
February 24th, 2012
9:39 am
“How many abortions have each of you, personally, stopped from happening? ”
Kind of a crappy question, Dave R.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
9:43 am
“How are we to know if we stopped someone from having an abortion being that their names are confidential….hmmmm I wonder why?”
UGA, please. I’m sure you know of someone – anyone – who you have personally stopped from having an abortion, given your vehement objection to the practice. I’m not asking for names.
Just numbers.
How many abortions have you anti-abortion people specifically stopped from happening in your lifetimes?
md
February 24th, 2012
9:50 am
“Pardon me, md, for not repeatedly typing EVERYTHING I had typed before”
Hmmm……must have missed where you said abortion laws were INCONSISTENT…….
md
February 24th, 2012
9:51 am
“And the moniker is Tiberius. Do you get THAT, md?”
Funny….as if the moniker changes the one doing the typing……
UGA 1999
February 24th, 2012
9:52 am
Tiberius….Can personally think of one, but that is just what I know about. What is your point.
How many babies are you responsible for killing?
Do what??????
February 24th, 2012
9:53 am
“How many abortions have you anti-abortion people specifically stopped from happening in your lifetimes?
Well, I helped buy out an old clinic in another state and then we shut that clinic down. Don’t know the specific numbers but hey, no one else was getting an abortion there.
Good enough for you, Dave R?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
9:53 am
Do What???, I have already posted a number of times that I was banned from Bookman’s site.
And the moniker is Tiberius.
And sorry if you don’t like the question, but I think it is a valid one, especially given @@’s non-answers to my questions earlier. Besides voting for anti-abortion candidates, what have each of you specifically done to stop abortions from happening? What kind of skin do you really have in this game? I suspect it’s a lot of talk, talk, talk, but not a lot of walk, walk, walk.
And btw, this anti-abortion, baby-killing Nazi you keep attacking has counseled three different women in my lifetime on not having an abortion, but it was done by giving them ALL options to consider first. One family member and two close friends. In all cases, the women chose to have their babies. Did I stop them? Maybe, maybe not, but I certainly gave them my honest opinion.
Do what??????
February 24th, 2012
9:53 am
md
It’s funny how Dave R lashes out at people who are on the same side of most issues with him.
Do what??????
February 24th, 2012
9:55 am
“And the moniker is Tiberius.
And before it was DaveR.
The reason I know this is because you haven’t once responded to it any other way.
“And btw, this anti-abortion, baby-killing Nazi”
Your words, not mine. Geez dude, you need to take some meds.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 24th, 2012
9:59 am
How many have you specifically and personally stopped when someone was considering an abortion?
———-
I guess I just don’t know that many loose-morals folks. Apparently my circle of friends know how to use birth control.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
10:01 am
Do What??, great start on closing the clinic, but what did you do with the doctors?
You may have made it more difficult, but did you really stop any?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
10:03 am
Do What???, what part of “my moniker is Tiberius” do you NOT understand?
I suggest you mature a bit before responding back to me in this regard. Got it?
Do what??????
February 24th, 2012
10:03 am
“but what did you do with the doctors?
Sold them for scrap.
Do what??????
February 24th, 2012
10:04 am
“I suggest you mature a bit before responding back to me in this regard. Got it?
Sure, Dave R.
Do what??????
February 24th, 2012
10:05 am
“I suggest you mature a bit before responding back to me in this regard. Got it?”
Sure thing, Dave R.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 24th, 2012
10:09 am
LBB, why limit your involvement to just those women of your acquaintance? Aren’t you the one who wants to inject yourself into the personal activities of people you don’t know with your stance on abortion?
Man up, son.
Lots of talk, but not a lot of walk with any of you people.