"This Is News from WORLD Magazine": Afghan war end date set, NAACP comes out for gay marriage - black pastors push back 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Romney the aggressor, Gingrich the defender in Tampa
TAMPA, Fla.—Mitt Romney took the stage for Monday night’s Republican presidential debate determined to shake what had been a terrible last seven days. In one week he’d lost not one but two states: His previous Iowa win wiped away and his hopes in South Carolina dashed.
So the former frontrunner came out fighting in the first of two Florida debates ahead of that state’s Jan. 31 primary, unleashing an offensive of negative talking points in the debate’s opening moments. He directed all of them at his top nemesis, Newt Gingrich.
A role reversal has occurred in this GOP presidential fight: Romney as the aggressor and Gingrich as the defender of his own record. Romney, criticized during this marathon debate season for being too laid back and friendly with his competitors on stage, said he learned something from the South Carolina beating he took at the hands of Gingrich.
“I’m not going to sit back and get attacked day in and day out without returning fire,” said the former Massachusetts governor, who tagged Gingrich as “an influence peddler in Washington” who had to “resign in disgrace” as House speaker. … MORE >>
back to top57 Comments to “Romney the aggressor, Gingrich the defender in Tampa”
*Yawn*
Report comment to moderator
I checked out the live blogging for a little bit after the debate. This was the consensus. Yawn. I don’t think Paul and Santorum had their oxygen taken away; I think they just let the two go at it because it wasn’t doing much good for either of them (Romney or Gingrich).
Report comment to moderator
Alas, poor Mitt. He had a bad week, losing two primaries and getting thrashed by a trash-talking country boy. But I will shed no tears for the Mittster. Even though he spent the week busily campaigning, he still made around $400,000 for the week. Not a bad week at all.
But I will shed a tear for the decent hardworking Americans whom Mitt was campaigning to short-change on their unemployment benefits, their social security and their childrens’ food supply and education.
You see, Mitt explains, America is bankrupt and there is nobody to pay for those all those freeloaders.And after all, says Mitt, he too knows what it’s like to be on the streets of America, worrying about getting a pink slip. Yes indeed, he may be the son of a titan of industry, but he knows the pain of watching his children go to bed hungry…in any one of his seven mansions. “No, he says, not a penny more for you folks. Get off of my back. Taxes are for the little people. Both $3M Newt and $22M I will do just fine investing in and taking bribes from Fannie and Freddie. After all, we’re worth it.”
Alas poor Mitt. Alas poor Republic.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia cares for the little people.
When will the debates ever get to the real issues? While Republicans bash each other, Obama is putting more people on food stamps, increasing the debt and leading us into economic ruin.
Report comment to moderator
Warren G. Harding. That’s who we need.
Report comment to moderator
Romney did well to attack Newt. I don’t see how people can overlook Gingrich’s insider past. Whether Newt likes it or not, his consulting job in my definition is lobbying. The liberals are getting excited with Newt gaining momentum. Has anyone noticed that congress is not excited with him? I could go on, but simply pray that South Carolina was a fluke.
Report comment to moderator
Romney did well to attack Newt. I don’t see how people can overlook Gingrich’s insider past. Whether Newt likes it or not, his consulting job in my definition is lobbying. The liberals are getting excited with Newt gaining momentum. Has anyone noticed that congress is not excited with him? I could go on, but simply pray that South Carolina was a fluke.
Report comment to moderator
400K per week. And Xion is desperately worried about more people having enough to eat. Because they are all shiftless and lazy and not Smart Like Mitt with his offshore tax evading Trusts and all.
Report comment to moderator
Off to “work” today for this child of privilege…
Does anybody here really think it would be unfair for Mitt to have to pay just maybe 5% more in taxes? Does he really NEED that 2,000 of pocket change.
But at least now I really do understand why the other day he told he made “not much” from speaking fees. Why that measly 300K was less than a week’s salary.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia is not only for the virtuous little people but against the evil rich people, whining incessantly about the injustice of it all, based largely on envy and resentment.
She and St, Obama want to change all this by making America an uber welfare state modeled on those marvels of European prosperity that just now are edging into bankruptcy.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, he gave $3 million to charity and paid $3 million in taxes last year. That’s not enough?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, how about you share the line items of your tax return so we can more accurately asses the genuineness of your concerns. For all we know you make millions and give half to the poor.
Report comment to moderator
I thought it was a good debate, interesting and substantive. The most important part was Santorum’s telling summary of how and why Iran is a threat to decent nations. He listed reasons specifically and responsibly like a serious and excellent candidate should.
Report comment to moderator
I too liked Rick Santorum’s responses to questions on foreign policy as opposed to Ron Paul’s “let’s just leave them alone.” But I would like to see Santorum take a stronger role in claiming his part of the triumvirate. He needs to be more aggressive in substantiating how he would address the economy, immigration, and foreign policy which he seems to have a handle on.
Report comment to moderator
Keep in mind: If Obama gets 4 more years, we will become more like another Europe between Canada up north and Mexico down south. And Europe itself is not surviving as Europe either (I am paraphrasing a point made by Dennis Prager).
The prospect of this left-wing radical in the White House appointing one more Supreme Court justice is unthinkable for Americans who care about the Constitution and about our nation as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
And thus Joel makes the point about divisiveness. If you don’t elect a Republican you’ll get someone who is unAmerican and doesn’t care about the Constitution.
For me, I believe many of the more conservative proposals would harm this country. Does this make me unAmerican? I believe the Patriot Act, championed by the Bush Presidency and agreed to by a Democratic Congress limits individual freedom — does this make me unAmerican? I believe the government does have a role to play in regulating capitalism’s excesses (yes, that’s right, I think Teddy Roosevelt had a point when he decided to champion things like the 40 hour work week and inspection of food … how radical of me — I could be gosh darn progressive if it were 1890.)
When conservatives can be elected without resort to the politics of fear, then the Republican party will be on its way back. I miss the Republican party.
Report comment to moderator
This debate was interesting and poignant in that the two Moderate Conservative Republican nominees were slugging it out over who would carry the mantle of Conservative Republican mantle, while the only “True Conservative(IMHO, Rick Santorum)wisely chose to let the two Mods (Conservative Liberals)slap each other silly. It was, in my mind, the best part of the debate “as the dust settled and Williams ask Santorum what he thought… Here’s the video, let it speak for itself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4avQbFAbmo&feature=uploademail
Report comment to moderator
Coyoteblue, both parties are guilty of “the politics of fear”. Listen to the SOTU address tonight. I predict fear mongering at its worst tonight.
Report comment to moderator
Santorum will most likly not win this time, but he will be in a very strong position for 2016.
Report comment to moderator
arcadia – why is it ok for Dem, to not go to jail for avoiding paying tax’s.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t notice Romney “attacking” exactly. If he was, his attacking looks pretty much exactly like his praising, stating, exclaiming and declaring. Reminds me of that cartoon of the many faces of Michael Dukakis. There were a couple dozen panels with labels like “joy” and “anger” and “sadness” and in each of them his face was exactly the same. Romney attacking is like that mosquito in the dark, very annoying but not enough to keep you awake when you’re sleepy.
Gingrich on the other hand, now that guy can throw down an attack. He may not have the prettiest face but it speaks volumes, at least as many as his mouth, and there is no doubt the man can use his words. When Gingrich turns his rhetorical crosshairs your way, you don’t just feel attacked, you feel verbally excoriated and that’s before he even begins.
Report comment to moderator
Coyoteblue wrote; “If you don’t elect a Republican you’ll get someone who is unAmerican and doesn’t care about the Constitution.”
That’s because if we don’t elect a Republican, the only other possibility is Obama who indeed does not care about the Constitution, or about enforcing duly enacted laws (like the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ for one) or about justice itself. And Obama is so extremely unAmerican that he promised to “fundamentally change” America. FUHNDAMENTALLY!!! That means he wanted no part of America as it was. No part whatsoever!
In an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News (March 17, 2010) in response to a question about the “Slaughter rule” which would allow Democrats to avoid an up or down vote on a health care bill, Barack Obama actually said; “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.”
This is like saying he does not worry about the Constitution of the United States, which is all about process and procedure, checks and balances, and equal justice in governing.
Report comment to moderator
BrotherDan, you have a real point. My issue here is that one side is so unhinged — completely so. Witness Joel’s response. See birther movement.
Joel,
DOMA is not the Constitution. You know that. And what the Administration said is that it would not defend DOMA in court. It is still enforcing DOMA.
Do you believe Franklin Roosevelt loved America? Abraham Lincoln? Both men fundamentally changed governance in America. So did Theodore Roosevelt. Did those men want no part of America either? What about Martin Luther King? Susan Anthony? They also sought fundamental change. Were they too haters of America? How do you define hating America?
As to Senate rules, the Executive actually shouldn’t spend much time on Senate rules as the Senate sets those rules for itself. Something about separation of powers — also in the Constitution. So, no for a logical mind, tethered to fact rather than emotion, a President not worrying about Senate rules (which by the by are not delineated in the Constitution) is not tantamount to a President who is not concerned about the Constitution. One could logical argue the opposite — that a President who lets the Senate worry about its own rules is respecting checks and balances.
Report comment to moderator
#16 CoyoteBlue “I believe the Patriot Act, championed by the Bush Presidency and agreed to by a Democratic Congress limits individual freedom — does this make me unAmerican?”
I am always amazed to hear Bush blamed for the Patriot Act, when Obama has kept it all and is trying to expand it to track every cell phone in America and read every private email. But you don’t hear so much as a whisper from the left about any of that. It’s all Bush’s fault.
That would be like Bush building a Colosseum for sports and have Obama use it to feed people to lions and then have liberals complain about Bush building it to begin with. How bizarre!
Report comment to moderator
I think of all the candidates Newt seems to excel at making statements which prompt viewers/listeners say to themselves (accurately or not): “This guy gets it! That’s right in line with how I feel. Finally a politician who gets it”. And the “it” which he gets? Well there are several:
1. Barack OBama is incompetent or else purposefully committed to weakening this nation, will not halt the erosion of limited constitutional federalism, will not say ENOUGH! when presented with even more runaway non-defense entitlement spending
2. Elites who are insulated from the downside of unrestricted tariff-free “free trade” do not care or else or completely supportive the disappearance of good-paying low skill manufacturing assembly jobs.
Please note my own view: I would not steer any of my kids into any good-paying low skill job even if they were plentiful. Moreover, our gummint education system is totally broke. If kids come out of high school or baccalaureate college with any type of capabilities which then prepare them for civilian nongovt jobs it is ENTIRELY COINCIDENTAL.
Report comment to moderator
#24, #16
Can someone explain how their or my freedoms have been infringed upon or destroyed by the PATRIOT Act? As far as I know this law mandates that CIA agents must inform FBI men in the states if any bad guys are heading to the USA. They were not allowed to talk prior to 9/11.
Report comment to moderator
As for 2012, OBama will ramp up all the Superstar glitterati cheerleaders. Look to see way more Bill Clinton out there rallying the faithful. There are still way too many folks who have not reached OBama fatigue in the big electoral vote blue states.
I’m wondering if R men will even campaign in Cali or NY. And I bet they won’t waste too much time or money in Texas since they can count on it going for R
Report comment to moderator
#23 CoyoteBlue “Do you believe Franklin Roosevelt loved America? Abraham Lincoln? Both men fundamentally changed governance in America. So did Theodore Roosevelt. Did those men want no part of America either? What about Martin Luther King? Susan Anthony? They also sought fundamental change. Were they too haters of America? How do you define hating America?”
You’re missing the point. Whether people are on the left or right of the political spectrum we are all Americans and I presume love America. However, when Gingrich talked about “classical American values” what he means is those founding principles that made America great: liberty, rugged individualism, created equal, endowed with inalienable rights and so on.
All forms of collectivism, such as Socialism and Communism and Fascism, run counter to individualism and liberty that has made America so prosperous. They run counter to what America stands for. And so in that sense, they are unAmerican. Obama is an American, but his ideas run counter to classical American ideas.
Report comment to moderator
Abraham Lindoln did not “fundamentally change” America but preserved it. He preserved the union and PREVENTED a fundamental change of America. Eradicating slavery was consistent with America’s founding principles and was a necessary change that did not bring America to a fundamental end.
Report comment to moderator
Coyoteblue said, “DOMA is not the Constitution.”
Who said it was? But it was passed and enacted constitutionally. But you knew that.
Coyoteblue said, “And what the Administration said is that it would not defend DOMA in court.”
You made my point for me.
Coyoteblue, we disagree on what “fundamental change” means. Martin Luther King, Susan Anthony and others did NOT pursue what Obama meant by a “fundamental change” of America herself.
Report comment to moderator
What admin said it wouldn’t defend DOMA? What planet are we on?
Seriously, now, I was speaking with my black muslim co-worker today about Newtie and he instantly said: “you mean the white Al Sharpton? The guy who sounds like he’s on your side, but really isn’t?”
Report comment to moderator
Lots of things changed with Lincoln, JM, not just slavery.
Report comment to moderator
The Birther Movement isn’t on “one side” — it is a fringe element, and saying that it is on “one side” and that that side is “unhinged” proves that the person saying that is on the other side’s unhinged extreme. Think about it before you type something like that.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, I love you…
…I wish you would quit calling him “Newtie”. He is a legit canditate. I’m wondering if you would rather he just fall on his sword and bow out?
If Romnie or Santorum can’t beat Newt, they don’t deserve the nomination.
Either of the top three would be better than Obama. Paul can’t be taken serious, though. I am not alone is believing Paul is NOT legit. But I understand that his supporters believe he is.
Funny, Paul’s supporters almost always use the qualifer “only Paul is…”.
Report comment to moderator
DOMA is not the Constitution.
—
Why CoyoteBlue because it protect marriage being between one man and one woman?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know about the partisanship of the “Birthers,” but earlier on the conspiracy nuts believing 9/11 was done by our government were proud and loud fans of Ron Paul. Paul’s supporters are his worst enemies, obnoxiously continuing to blame America first for Muslim acts of violence. And he encourages such attitudes with his misleading comments on Iraqi deaths and Iranian nuclear efforts. A scary attitude for a Commander in Chief.
Report comment to moderator
” Paul’s supporters are his worst enemies, obnoxiously continuing to blame America first for Muslim acts of violence.”
So when did Iran put up a puppet regime in our country? Never? Oh…
So that would be the USA government doing that to Iran in the 50s right?
That’s an act of war frankly…this is the repercussion of such actions.
Time to admit fault, ask for peace, and end the conflict.
Report comment to moderator
Louise -RP in one of the debated hinted that he also believes our government was involved in it.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, at 37, Making “peace” with Iran is a delusion. St. Obama tried it only to have been spurned. Even he is now involved in sanctions, though eventually he and Israel shall likely have to use overwhelming force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Report comment to moderator
But Brother Dan, I’ve always called him Newtie.
(Just so you know, I’d vote for any one of us on the right here if it meant defeating Obama.)
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t a “newt” a little lizard?
Report comment to moderator
31 NJL — funny and bang on true. Both Newt and Romney don’t represent the common man — only Santorum comes close.
Joel — seriously you think Lincoln didn’t fundamentally change American governance??? Here’s a change in grammar which is symbolic of Lincoln’s influence. Pre-civil war, it was “these United States”; post-civil war it became “the United States”
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I shall pass along the “bang on.”
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I shall pass along the “bang on.”
Report comment to moderator
HRW, what i said about Lincoln and his legacy was clear enough. No, instead of trying to fundamentally change America, Lincoln sought the opposite , at it were, to effectively preserve her and the gov’t of the people that was handed down to us by the Founders. Change is inevitable, however, and we saw it in huge proportions, but Lincoln’s agenda was not comparible to that of Obama who just did not like the America that we had when he came into power. He wanted to re-create it more in a more socialist, European mold.
Obama has sught a far deeper “fundamental’ change than just grammar.
Report comment to moderator
BrotherDan (34),
I wouldn’t bet a week’s pay on it, but I think I introduced NJL to the diminutive “Newtie” on this thread a coupla years ago.
And I don’t blame her for taking it up.
Not one little bit.
Report comment to moderator
Looking at Obama’s record I don’t see him as seeking or attempting to create a deep fundamental change. In fact, he’s not much different than Clinton. His health care plan resembled Romney’s and Bush’s pharma-care. His foreign policy has been as aggressive as Bush (and more successful). Nope, he’s part of the narrow specter of American presidents, democratic and republican.
Report comment to moderator
Glad I found that two-year-old thread. Almost all of Mickey’ starter was an extended, five-paragraph quote from the Big Giant Head.
My favorite line, looking back at it? “Obama represents the greatest transfer of wealth from the young to the old in American history. It’s grotesque.”
Says the oligarch who enriched himself at the federal Freddie/Fannie trough to the tune of $1.6 million.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and here’s what wrote about Newtie back then:
After which, the suggestion was made by somebody on this very thread that I “may be a leftist plant with a singular aim of dividing the right and Republicans.” (You know who you are.)
Report comment to moderator
Well, Mitt (Willard, actually, and with guys named Newt and Mitt running, what’s wrong with Obama?) had another good day today, “earning” $70,000 or so. Let’s credit him with working 14 hours, so that’s what, $5,000 an hour? After all those horrifying taxes, $4,300 an hour? I wonder, if he were actually on an hourly rate, would he lose money by stooping over to pick up a $100 bill on the floor? Hmm…at $70 a minute, I guess not, but if he had to walk into the next office to pick it up, perhaps…
Meanwhile, a lady I know just took in her unemployed and foreclosed upon brother whose unemployment benefits ended a month or so ago. And his daughter. They’d been living in a no-tell motel for a couple of weeks… But I’m sure Mitt would frown upon extending the man’s unemployment benefits…Can’t be too careful, you know.
I heard some accountant from Florida attribute Mitt’s wealth to the best of the capitalist system. I guess he forgot that with Dad as the CEO of American Motors and all, Mitt had just teensy-weensy head start. Speaking of Head Start, I wonder what Mitt’s position is on that wonderful program.
Report comment to moderator
I cannot tell you how many very very sad stories of ill and/or old people who have been forced on the streets because of the banks. But the banks put them there, not Mitt Romney. Congress aided and abetted by inaction, not Mitt Romney.
Report comment to moderator
(Thanks Frank for the defense. I can’t wrap my head around “Newt.” I mean, the guy says his other wives weren’t pretty enough to be First Lady. Seriously, has he looked in the mirror head on? Sideways? Talk about your pot, kettle, black.
Report comment to moderator
Roy
DOMA is not part of the Constitution because it is legislation drafted and passed after the Constitution. Moreover its provisions are intended to block full faith and credit (a Constitutional provision) with respect to marriages licensed in from one state to another.
Joel and Xion
Lincoln did more than preserve the Union. He established both the draft and the income tax. He forcefully ended the discussion on state’s rights. And in the end he sought to end slavery — these are all fundamental changes.
Both Roosevelts acted to reign in corporate power. In Teddy’s case this meant a welter of new regulations. In Franklin’s case, well he established social security and medicare — both forms of socialism.
Patriot act — wrong when the Bush Administration wanted it and Congress obliged. Wrong when the Obama Administration signed into law expansion of it, in my view.
What change is Obama seeking that would fundamentally change America? Affordable health care? An act that uses private sector health insurance as Romney’s plan did in Mass? Or is it DADT that has you all preoccupied? Or is it addressing income inequality — which is a problem as democracies need a healthy middle class. Personally I think HRW is right when he observes that Obama is well within a narrow spectrum of American Presidents — he isn’t a Lincoln or a Roosevelt.
Saw,
Patriot act — the main bits of the act that I find objectionable allow CIA, FBI etc, to hold an individual for an indeterminate amount of time without due process and without charge.
NJ
Birthers are a fringe element, true, but they are also self-identified conservatives and were a movement fanned by Fox with coverage and encouraged by Republican leadership (show us the birth certificate, etc.)
Report comment to moderator
DOMA illustrates GOP hypocrisy very nicely.
The Supreme Court took decisions on abortion out of the hands of the states. The moral conservatives have ever since been trying to overturn that so, they argue, the states can set their own laws.
The states are setting their own laws on same-sex marriage. The moral conservatives are trying to maintain federal control to take that power away from the states.
I am quite sure that if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way in Roe v. Wade and abortion were now illegal nationally, the moral conservatives would not be concerned about states’ rights on the issue.
It’s all about expedience. When you don’t like the federal law, you demand that the states have a constitutional right to set their own laws. When you do like the federal law, states’ rights are not an issue for you.
Report comment to moderator
(To be fair, it illustrates liberal hypocrisy just as well. Put a mirror to #54 and the argument is the same.)
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy at #20: arcadia – why is it ok for Dem, to not go to jail for avoiding paying tax’s.
Umm .. because NOBODY goes to jail for not paying taxes. (Excuse me, tax’s.)
Not paying taxes isn’t punishable by imprisonment. You have to pay the back taxes with interest. And if you refuse, the punishment is that they’ll take it out of your wages, or if you don’t have wages, they’ll take your property until the debt is satisfied.
Now, fraud is different matter. If you’ve committed fraud to avoid paying taxes, you might be in for prison time. But if it’s just a matter of owing taxes and not paying them, the penalties are financial.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, your basis for accusing your political opponents of hypocrisy amounts to nothing but a disagreement over the process and policies.
Some issues call for state and local authority and others call for federal authority. And many others call for individual responsibility. People disagree over where to draw those lines and it is not hypocrisy.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!