Santorum talked as to how Iran threats the gays badly, but at the same time he compared gays to polygamist. That i think, destroyed his campaign, since in one of his lectures someone yelled bs.
Forgive me, but I'm about to go on a post debate rant.
He got mad at Paul for saying "so what if Iran gets a nuke, how's it our problem?" Santorum hates Iran sooo much that he would save the gays to destroy them. The only moment from him that seemed realistic was his argument over the fundamentals of the 10th amendment arguement. Though that argument was over the individual mandate when it began. And the fact he complained where he was and how he recieved less time is well to be argued. But he's equivalent to Thad Mccotter at this point, who wasn't invited.
But the debate was mostly BS. I hate the modern debate setting, especially this FOX one that was a game show. The bell was annoying, and so was Bret Baier's Lightning Round: Take a Swipe at Perry for Extra credit.
Newt Gingrich has caused a Fox News Schism between the pundits and Chris Wallace who was trying to do his job for asking questions that Ginrich pulled a Palin, "Stop these Gotcha Questions!"
This all started when Wallace pointed out when Newt said we should intervene in Libya with a no-fly zone then two days later when we had a no-fly zone, changed his opinion. How dare Chris Wallace have the gaul to ask him what his opinion on Libya is currently. Such a gotcha question!
Romney didn't self-destruct or win, therefore he did not lose. Rick Perry's candacy right now is the largest threat.
Pawlenty Campaign 2010-2011, though he pulled a Chris Dodd 2008 and gave his opponents a battle plan against Bachman. But he is proven to be such a wimp for failing to attack and stand up for his comments in debate setting he did the standard operating procedure, if all is failing, blame Barack Obama. He didn't make any move to show how effective he could've been.
Huntsman has the same problem with effectiveness but cast this aura as if "what the hell am I doing up here with these people?" He obviously has the ability and he used his credentials on China.
How can I miss Michelle Bachman. Starts off by saying we should've defaulted instead of pass the bill (Which I hated) gets applause, then goes on to say one of her best achievements in politics was the Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act. She was clearly show her tea party chops but what brought her back was when the moderator asked if she was "submissive" to her husband. You don't ask the question like that, in fact it's probably best you don't asked that at all in that context. That rallied Bachman support and she got out of the debate alive. She has the ability to win Iowa, but New Hampshire will think differently politically then Iowa and with Perry in the fun will be short.
Ron Paul is Ron Paul he has his very supportive base, his message is well recieved in Primary circles.
I don't even know why Herman Cain is even there, he said in the debate Americans need to learn to take a joke (which no, it's the press) but then why is he even there?
Then there was the Mormon thing. Look it up you'll know.
The Point is that it's 2011 in August not earily 2012. We're in the stage which we haven't weeded out the serious candidates and the whacks.
People pay more attention to Preseason football then the Ames Strawpoll. Which a vote costs thirty dollars you basically have to woo people with parties and tents and whoever wins doesn't really account for much after 2007. Bachman won, but Ron Paul came in second by 150 votes.
Romney was smart after 2008 when he spent valuable resources only to lose the state to Mike Huckabee in the caucas. That's the other thing, Iowa's a caucas state, they have no primaries!
And the changes the Republicans made in the Primary system is designed to be a prolonged fight from state to state. Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina no longer hold the value they used to since the complete Winner Take All System is no longer in place. Republicans do not vote Democrats, massive pandering is still there but the type is different. While we watched in 2008 how Barack and Hilary duke it out in an ugly battle that the GOP hoped they would destroy each other Republicans do not have the same luxury. In 08 it was a pander towards the center in 12 they're trying to pander to the right. 2008 was a wave election that whoever was in power after 8 years of a Republican it wasn't going to work because the R was next to their name. In 2012 the Republicans won't have that because they are still more unpopular then Obama slightly. If we have an economic miracle (highly unlikely) then I doubt it.
The election if Obama can dodge the seething rage about the current state, is about partisianship and the economy. But Obama can be rebuffed if the situation continus to decay in Congress and bleeds into the Economy even more, if positioned correctly then he'll be fine, but reports of a massive Anti-Romney Campaign won't give him the same edge he had in 2008. Plus we've never seen a prolonged Primary campaign on the Republican side be interpretted by the 24 newspunditblogopinion cycle of the 21st century. However the way it's shaping up Bloomberg and Trump might be in this thing by next February, Obama might have Far Left Progressives openly revolt and then the circus really begins.
But Both Parties are set up to fail for another reason. How many of us think the Supercommittee in Thanksgiving will get a deal done instead of causing immediate cuts in entitlements and military spending? Which would tick of Defense department, contractors, the Poor and Old People. Not a fantastic combination.
*sigh* Massively Flawed Rant over.
Edited by Insurrection, 14 August 2011 - 07:38 PM.
