Category: Politics

GOP New Hampshire Debate

Live blogging the event….

Ron Paul notes that Santorum is a “big government conservative”. He is. (click for a long list of evidence).

Santorum is doing well. He is making me doubt the things i’ve bashed him for:

Lobbyist? He says he approached a local coal company to lobby for them specifically to defeat Cap & Trade.

Voted Most Corrupt? He says that’s a charge sent by a liberal organization every election cycle just to smear conservatives.

hmm… there could be truth to both of those. Got me wondering…

Yahoo! has this question:

UPDATE: they fixed it…

Moderator asks okay question that rests on stupid premise: “only 2 of you have served [in the military] – do you think that makes you better suited to be President?”. This is so stupid. Didn’t work for George Bush Sr – didn’t work for Bob Dole – didn’t work for John Kerry – didn’t work for John McCain and although G. Dubya won twice, it wasnt at all thanks to his Air Force Texas and Alabama Air National Guard service. this issue is a dud.

Ron Paul refines his “chickenhawk” argument against Gingrich so it sounds more sane: says that if you got multiple deferments when you had the chance to serve then you shouldn’t order anyone into war. that makes total sense but is a big difference from the chickenhawk argument which smears everyone who did not elect to join the military as having actively hid from it. That is stupid. Paul is doing really well tonight. I wish he ran this good a campaign in 2008 and/or performed this well in the 08 debates.

Newt says it is “inaccurate and false” that he asked for deferments. I don’t care cuz I’m more annoyed that he said “inaccurate AND false”. They mean the same thing, dude…

[commercial break]

Do states have the right to ban contraception? what in the what? — oh shit – Romney is voicing my exact reaction and chiding Stephonopolous for asking it. The question was based on a court case but still asked oddly. — NOW Stepho cuts to the chase and asks whether the Constitution has a “right to privacy”.

Ron Paul on the right of privacy in the Constitution: it pertains to your personal belongings and the state meddling with them with warrentless searches and whatnot.

Question from Yahoo asker: Since you’re against same sex marriage, what do you want gay people to do with their partners?

Gingrich: Favors hospital visitation rights, will and similar sensible laws. just quibbles over the word “marriage”

Huntsman: “Civil Unions are fair and I support them”. Doing well until he uses the old trope by saying he doesnt believe his marriage is affected by gay couples or same sex marriage or civil unions or idk what he;s referring to there but either way its stupid because no one has ever said gay relations of any kind affect their marriage. dumb thing to say.

Santorum: Let the states decide – but then stops himself and says there should be a singular Federal law so people arent married in one state and not married in another. derp? Then says “this is a state issue not a federal issue” – double-derp? Moderator asks what happens to same sex marriages if Santorum passes a law saying marriage is one man one woman – Santorum doesnt answer. just repeats that if the law passes it passes.

Romney: says its a “wonderful thing” for people to commit to each other long term but they don’t need to call it “marriage” and receive approval from the state that way and I bite my nails because I like Mitt and that is almost the right answer but only if he follows it up with “BUT, lets give le gayz more legal rights” like what Newt said. Thankfully he did go on and is talking about those rights right now as I type this: basically favors civil unions, legal partnerships, etc and just wants to preserve the word marriage. I don’t care about the word marriage but I dont have a problem with this traditionalist-but-non-hater position. whew! glad he got it right and remained the only candidate to avoid saying things that I would be embarrassed by if I were to publicly support.

Gingrich comes back and asks (openly, not to any individual) whether the Catholic church (he is a convert to Catholicism) should be forced out of the adoption business because they dont adopt out to same sex couples. gets applause.

Romney agree’s and notes that that is exactly what happened in Massachusetts by a court order he disagrees with.

Stepho beats the dead horse of Ron Paul running as a 3rd party candidate even though he says he doesnt want to and has never expressed interest in doing so. Paul gives the same answer as always: he’s not doing it and has no plans to do it but won’t promise not to do it.

Ron Paul says he’s doing well in the polls and says with a warm smile that he’s getting “closer to Mitt every day”. People laugh. its a nice/friendly moment.

Perry is asked if everyone on the stage should rule out a 3rd party bid. Perry doesnt answer and instead says anyone on the stage is better than Obama and then goes back to same sex marriage and says he wants a Constitutional amendment to define marriage.

Romney and Huntsman on when to leave Afghanistan: Huntsman says leave right away and dont invest another penny in that boondoggle. Romney says get em out soon but no hard date cuz you’ve got to asses the details as President first.

Perry says to send troops back into Iraq… when pressed: Perry says we need to because Iran will move in “literally at the speed of light”. Holy shit, those are fast Iranians…

[commercial]

Romney says that there are things Government can do to help the job market – like fix bridges n shit, but fundamentally government does not create jobs, it can only encourage the private sector.

I miss these two:

Romney: bring down taxes to be competitive with other nations and give relief to people who need it most and mostly hurt by the Obama economy, the middle class. Reduce rates. Reduce the amount of exemptions. Simplify the tax code and broaden the base — God damn you Republicans who don’t love this guy are stupid. He’s SO your best candidate in decades…

blah blah boring stuff – im checking twitter for a few minutes…

Huntsman vs Romney on China: Huntsman pulls the “i know Chinese” card and says a sentence to Romney in Mandarin and doesn’t explain what it means. SO. fucking. Douchey….

Huntsman says Romney wants a trade war with China. Romney says “nigga, the fuck you talkin bout?” (paraphrase) and does a thing with his hands saying he doesnt want a trade war but “we sell China *this much* [higher raised hand] – they sell us *this* much [much lower hand gesture] – who do you think doesnt want the trade war?” – bam.

[commercial break]

oh. that’s the end.

Well that was one of the best ones they’ve had. Everyone did very well.

Post debate commentary by ABC panel: Donna Brazil, former Gore campaign manager said that it was a good night for Democrats because no one attacked Mitt Romney. When everyone on the panel gave a hearty “wtf?” to that comment she explained that the weakest candidate is the one that no one attacks and that was Mitt Romney so Democrats are happy. Everyone reacted in unison with a “nooo. you don’t mean that” in the tone of when you say “aawww, c’mon” when an elderly great aunt says something controversial but you want to brush it off and ignore it instead of deal with it.

UPDATE: here’s an out-of-context recap, but the clips are not at all in chronological order.

2012 Predictions

The world will not end in 2012 but I do have some predictions:

TECHNOLOGY:

Congress does not pass SOPA but there is little victory over it because similar legislation lurks elsewhere, including the horizon. Representatives also fail to feel a noticeable sting in their re-elections due to SOPA support and major corporations only learn to be more stealthy about support of such laws and power expansion policies in the future. Re-name and re-introduce will be their strategy and with no one losing an election over their SOPA sponsorship – it will work.

Apple continues to disappoint us with software and lackluster hardware releases and suffers from bad press about whether the company can keep its magic without Steve Jobs. As much as I want an AppleTV television right now, I predict it doesnt come out in 2012 (unless it makes a last minute appearance in October) and we continue being teased until 2013.

Facebook, despite not wanting to, finally goes public and i’m forced to learn what IPO actually means/is. It will not do well either right away or soon after having a gangbusters opening.

Netflix recovers from its series of terrible mishandlings in 2011 and no one even remembers the fiasco anymore, so much to the point that when this prediction list is later recalled, people will need their memory jogged over why this was even in here.

CELEBRITY:

Reverend Billy Grahm passes away. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez go on to live.

Bill Clinton has a health scare but lives. Betty White lives. Lindsay Lohan lives but theres a close call.

Charlie Sheen stars in a new show. It doesn’t last long but doesn’t ruin his career. He mellows out and is all but entirely out of the headlines.

Megyn Kelly gets a new show on Fox and Jake Tapper hosts the sunday show on ABC (finally), like he deserves. Mike Huckabee also expands his career outside of his current weekend talk show but does not re-enter politics in any form, ever.

POLITICS:

Ron Paul does not win the Iowa caucus in the Republican primary. or any other state in the entire primary process. His fans cry fowl and then go on to either not vote or vote for Obama.

Donald Trump will not run for president and will endorse the Republican nominee (see below).

Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee, will choose a hispanic vice president (i’m hoping for either Rubio or Fortuno) and will ultimately defeat Barack Obama in the November election.

As is often talked about, Hillary Clinton will NOT switch places with Joe Biden in their respective roles as Vice President and Secretary of State. Clinton will in fact plot a comeback. Barack Obama, constitutionally allowed to serve 1 additional term as president, plots his own comeback in another run for president but waits out the following cycle to avoid a rematch with Romney. See 2013’s predictions for how and when Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey will run for political office.

Liberals who have been vocal about how disappointed they are in Obama all year change their mind and come out with vocal support for Obama again, making the election much closer than previously thought by popular wisdom.

Republicans will keep the House and just barely capture the senate – possibly causing a 50/50 split.

The Tea Party will fuck up chances for bigger Republican victories and something will be done about that shit.

The Occupy Wall Street bullshit fizzles even faster than the nuts int he Tea Party get netted under control and more former supporters start to be more open about their embarrassment about what a masturbatory joke that whole thing was. Romney as the GOP nominee causes more anti-Wall Street activism press but not due to Occupy. The Occupy protests are forgotten as the non-consequential-to-history annoyances they were.

 

Bieber, Obama and Losers

I don’t even understand what this image is supposed to mean, but its funny and i like it. Who IS the loser now, motherfkkers????

…okay but seriously tho… who *is* the loser now? Biebz was a loser because he was wearing a sweatshirt while the President watched and then 2 years later he got a nice suit, kept his shooshy lesbian bowl cut like a boss and brought the Prez up on stage for a handshake? I literally don’t understand what the point is here but I find it empowering and majestic.

Who’s the loser NOW you dirty dummies?? I may not know myself but I know that you suck and Biebz4Life and derpa dew!

*drops mic*

Obama wants to spend more money we don’t have

America spends more money than it takes in. Leftists propose that we fix this by just taking more money from people who have the most, ignoring the fact that if we confiscated 100% of every billionaires income, it would only last us a short time. In fact if we confiscated all the wealth of ALL the rich people in the country (not just their income but everything), we still wouldn’t be able to last for more than a year. See the video below for the breakdown of the math or skip ahead for more explanation.

As the video explains: Wars are not the problem. Don’t believe the Ron Paul and hippie hype on that. The Iraq war counts for less than 8% of the federal debt. The problem is entitlement spending.

President Obama uses our tax money the way I use my parents credit card in the Justin Bieber aisle of Toys R Us: spending someone elses money on shit you don’t need to extents that those other people can’t afford…

Here is an easy way to understand what is going on with the nations debt problem:

When it’s put that frankly, it’s kinda hard to see how anyone thinks this is okay, let alone the people leading the nation and making these decisions…

Mitt Romney gets it:


Our country cannot continue on the same borrowing and spending approach to government. I believe that we have a moral responsibility to be fiscally responsible so that we do not leave future generations with massive debt.

Barack Obama unfortunately does not: Obama administration to seek $1.2 trillion debt ceiling increase.

Oh, good idea – spend even MORE to get out of debt. Ludicrous…

It’s not that Obama is a “socialist” in the popular mindset sense of the word, and that is why it is wrong for you Tea Party people to go throwing around the term. He’s not a socialist in the way Americans think of socialism (where Government owns all commerce), he’s just a “real life” socialist in that his policies don’t differ from existing socialist parties found elsewhere in the world.

Good News!: Obama to Approve Anti-Small Business Policies, Cheat Middle Class out of Billions

Via the Huffington Post: Obama to Approve a Series of Anti-Small Business Policies That Will Cheat the Middle Class out of Billions.

In the midst of the worst economic downturn in U.S. history, President Obama is abolishing the nation’s oldest and most successful program to direct infrastructure spending to minority-owned small businesses, which could cost them between $25 and $50 billion a year. The President has continued to allow billions of dollars a month in federal small business contracts to be diverted into the hands of big businesses. His administration tried to cover up the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants by destroying data in the Federal Procurement Data System such as the “small business flag” and the “parent DUNS number,” that allowed watchdogs like myself, and the media, to monitor the actual recipients of federal small business contracts.

And now, President Obama will reauthorize a Department of Defense program known as the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program (CSPTP) that makes it easier for prime contractors to cheat small businesses out of billions. Under the CSPTP, large defense contractors are exempt from reporting their subcontracting actions and also exempt from any penalty of non-compliance with congressionally mandated small business procurement goals.

The idea of the CSPTP is ludicrous.

Small business you say? Why… I have one of those…

But thats not a requirement to see that this is bullshit of the highest order. read the article and weep.

The bottom line here is that in the U.S., small businesses equal jobs. Taxes, on the other hand do not create jobs. But for some reason, the mainstream media seems more concerned with the handful of pennies that the President and Congress are bickering over in payroll tax cuts than the billions of dollars that are diverted away from small businesses by the federal government every month.

Sen Lugar notes that the Tea Party screwed the GOP in the Senate races

Senator Dick Lugar accurately notes that the Tea Party killed GOP chances of getting a majority in the senate and conservatives and Tea Partiers are mad about it or something. If youre annoyed at what he says here then explain how it isn’t 100% true. You guys could have taken the senate seats of the Harry Reid (Nevada) as well as Barack Obama (illinois) and Joe Biden (Delaware) but you effed it up with crazy candidates who weren’t ready for primetime and only got the illinois seat out of those 3. Think of the PR headlines you COULD have had but missed out on – not to mention the legislative control to get your agenda going – “GOP takes control of senate by ousting the Majority leader and taking the President and Vice Presidents vacated senate seats!”. You coulda been somebody, kid. but you screwed it up. Lugar is right to say what he said and I have no idea why anyone is complaining about it.

Rice for Vice?

I thought Condoleezza Rice would have and should have been the VP nominee last election when I thought the two tickets were going to be Clinton/Obama vs Romney/Rice. This column says she should be the GOP nominee’s (Romney, this time. unless Republicans are stupid enough to fuck it up a 2nd time) VP pick but chooses to pun-up the article to crazy degrees. First of all, the title is One president, please, with a side of Rice. Ug… but tolerable. But then read this introduction:

Republican diners haven’t yet picked their entree, but they’ve narrowed it down to the steak or the fish. Still, just as interesting as their main course will be their side selection: Will they go for a drab salad, or something more exciting? Maybe a spicy Rice dish?

Yes, that Rice: Condi. She’s rested and ready – and buff.

……

The rest of the article argues it’s case fine and all, its just… how do you take it seriously after that groan-worthy opening paragraph? oy…

America’s first black female secretary of state is quietly positioning herself to be the top choice of the eventual Republican presidential nominee, ready to deliver bona fide foreign-policy credentials lacking among the candidates. The 56-year-old has recently raised her profile, releasing her memoir in November and embarking on a monthlong book tour.

After 2 1/2 years as a professor at Stanford, Miss Rice is reportedly getting “antsy” to get back into the political game. “She’s ready to go,” said one top source.

Republicans must choose a hispanic for Vice President

In 2007 I thought Romney/Rice was going to be the ticket that faced off against Clinton/Obama and I was thrilled and excited to see it play out. The first female president and first black vice president vs the first Mormon president and the first female AND black vice president. Woulda been awesome. didn’t happen.

This year, when Republicans finally get their shit together and realize that they have no hope with Governor Perry or former Speaker Gingrich and correct their mistake they made in 07 and nominating Romney to the position he deserves this time – their only choice is for a hispanic VP.

You’ve got to have SOMEthing to counter the history of the first black president (yes, I know he’s only half black so he’s just as white as he is black but he’s the first with dark skin so dont send me dumb messages or comments on that) and “first Mormon” isn’t a landmark. no one outside of the LDS faith cares if we have a Mormon president or not and no one should. who cares?

To counter the affirmative action that took place in skyrocketing a state senator to the Washington Senate for only 2 years of accomplishing nothing but making good speeches and being charismatic and putting him in the Presidency – the Republicans need to counter with a minority pick that ISN’T an affirmative action choice.

That rules out Herman Cain, who has never been elected to any public office, and it’s not good for the parties optics to choose a black VP this cycle anyway. Answering the first black president with the first black Vice President is a lame move, won’t gain votes and should be avoided unless the possible candidates for VP who happen to be black are just so good that it can’t be avoided and that doesn’t apply this year, as congressmen Allen West (FL) and Tim Scott (SC) were only just elected in 2010.

So where to next? Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana just won reelection in November by a landslide and remains super popular. He does well in interviews that could excuse his terrible performance in the Republican response to Obama’s state of the union speech a few years ago but it’s still a stretch. The dude may be president some day but he’s super young (just turned 40 a few months ago) and has time. He’s not THAT good of a speaker to completely erase the poor teleprompter read delivery of that infamous GOP response.

That leaves Republicans with asians in the sense of what people think of when they hear asian and hispanics. Republicans have no prominent asian elected officials from which to choose so that leaves the latter and there are excellent people to choose from. Here are the top 5 with their pros and cons, ranked in order of their net-gains in my estimation from least to most:

  1. Jaime Herrera Beutler: Congresswoman from Washington’s 3rd District.
    PRO: Womanandhispanic. ha cha chaaa.
    CON: House members are usually not tapped for the VP slot and she’s too unknown/unremarkable for this to not be seen as a ploy. That could be overcome but with the “unknown” part of the equation, we just don’t know if the dame is up for it. too risky with not enough reward.
    …
  2. Brian Sandoval: Governor of Nevada.
    PRO    : Nevada went for Bush 2004 but Obama in 2008. A Sandoval nomination could secure the state back into the Republican column and help out in neighboring New Mexico and Colorado which also changed their 04 Republican votes to 08 Democrat ones.
    CON: Short term as Governor. Endorsed Rick Perry. Is pro-choice, which won’t sit well with Republican base. in fact, it won’t be possible with Romney as the nominee because of all the smears against his abortion postion which evolved over the years from “I’m against it but it should be legal” to “I’m against it and it shouldn’t be”. Romney won’t need Sandoval on the ticket to win Nevada, either. So Sandoval’s out.
    …
  3. Susana Martinez: Governor of New Mexico.
    PRO    : Border state that voted for Obama in 08? Useful. Her last name? REALLY useful. A Romney/Martinez ticket, sharing the values of hard work capitalism and socially conservative values hispanics are polled to favor by a majority would switch over vast numbers of mexican-americans who had only been voting Democrat because they’ve been told that Republicans hate them and want them to fail. Argument becomes invalid when a Mexican-American is on the ballot for Vice President of the freakin country.
    CON: Palin problem: she is being attacked in her home state and struggling to deal with the onslaught + personal life stuff will be dredged up with no guarantee that  she will be able to handle the press and constant accusations of being stupid (the “go to” attack line against Republican candidates) which are key to being an effective candidate.
    …
  4. Marco Rubio: Senator from Florida.
    PRO    : An excellent speaker. A picture perfect family. Does well in interviews and speeches. Articulates American ideals exquisitely.
    CON: Aside from him constantly saying he does not want the job and would rather get work done in the Senate to which he was only recently elected to in 2012: He’s Cuban and Cubans are already Republicans because their country was freakin destroyed by Communism and constantly has people attempting to escape it for that reason. The GOP’s problem is with Mexican hispanics, so Rubio’s hispanicanism isn’t a guaranteed help there. Plus, the last name Rubio is not immediately identifiable as hispanic like the other contenders’ names are and Rubio is very fair skinned so his Cubanism may be more of a sidenote fun-fact than the major selling point the GOP needs. Might be better to keep him in the senate where he wants to be until he runs for President in the future.
    …
  5. Luis Fortuño: Governor of Puerto Rico.
    PRO    : Unless he killed a hooker and paid off someone who saw it go down? Everything. From the accent mark over the “N” in his name to his record as Governor – dudes a winner. He does well in interviews and like Rubio, articulates small-government, pro-freedom ideals articulately and effectively.
    CON: Although also not a Central or South American hispanic, he has the last name, skin tone and Spanish speaking cred that makes for such great optics and Rubio lacks, which could make up for it.

More:

UPDATE: Fortuño has endorsed Romney for president. As you can imagine, I received the news while in an office that was lit only by the light shining through descended but angled Venetian Blinds to which I responded by tenting my fingers and saying “excellent…” in a soft but sinister tone.

UPDATE: Romney wins the Puerto Rico primary by a whopping 75%

UPDATE: Okay.. brief flirtation with confidence that Fortuno would be a top tier pick is dwindling… going back to being confident that it will be Rubio…

Gingrich Headline Fail not good for campaign optics

CBN News (The Christian Broadcasting Network) recently did a story about three different wives of three different GOP presidential candidates on the campaign trail and Newt Gingrich publicized the story on his campaign website Newt.org.

The title however…lol. Eh.. well.. Considering Newt has been divorced twice and is on his third marriage, a better headline perhaps could have been posted…

Wanna Bet? Romney Puts His Money Where His Mouth Is While Perry Wimps Out.

Texas Governor makes a false claim and is called on it, but somehow the person who called him on it is the one whom pundits are saying made a “gaffe”.

In the 94q3542p59876394867th debate last night in Iowa, Texas Governor Rick Perry repeated a false attack against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney that conservatives who dislike Romney for being too sensible just can’t stop lying about. Here is FactCheck.org‘s summary of it:

Perry once again falsely accused Romney of writing in his book “No Apology” that he wanted to impose his state’s health care plan at the federal level.

Perry: I read your first book, and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts, which should be the model for the country — and I know it came out of the reprint of the book, but, you know, I’m just saying, you were for individual mandates, my friend.

Romney: You know what, you’ve raised that before, Rick. And you’re simply wrong.

Perry refused an offer from Romney to bet $10,000 as to who was right. In fact, Perry is wrong and Romney is correct. As we have written a couple of times before, the book was revised and this line was removed: “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.” But the phrase “the same thing” refers to the goals of the state law: “portable, affordable health insurance,” not the controversial individual mandate or the entire law. Romney saw the Massachusetts plan as a potential model for other states, if they so choose, but not as a federal mandate.

So Romney “bet” Perry $10 thousand dollars over the issue and Perry declined. “Bet” is in quotations because there are two types of betting: 1) a gamble on what is only a possible outcome and 2) a challenge to a claim of fact. To Romney, it is the latter and to Perry it is the former. In other words: Perry would be gambling if he took the wager because he knows he might be wrong since he didn’t read the book and is only going on what his handlers keep giving him despite multiple news sources reporting that the shit just ain’t true. To Romney, there is no gamble because he wrote the book and knows Perry is saying something false.

So the reaction after this is that Perry is being a douche by not correcting the record AND not accepting $10,000 to his failing campaign just to prove what he keeps saying at these debates, right?

Nope: the media attack line is that Romney made a blunder by offering the bet.

Kathie Obradovich says that “Romney bet was one of his worst debate moments”

But Perry really made his mark when he successfully goaded Mitt Romney into one of the worst moments he’s had in a debate so far. Perry challenged Romney on a passage in his first book, claiming an early edition said the Massachusetts health-care program should be a model for the national plan.

Romney disputed the claim and when Perry persisted, he jokingly offered a $10,000 bet. Perry didn’t take the bet, but he won the point. Romney was casually offering the equivalent of about one-fifth of the average median income for an Iowa family. Romney’s privileged background was driven home later when the candidates were asked whether they’d ever had to cut costs in their own family budget.

“I didn’t grow up poor,” Romney said, and noted that if voters are looking for someone who did, they’ll have to vote for somebody else.

That line sounds rhetorical, but evidently there are a shit-ton of morons looking for someone who “grew up poor” to be their nominee.

This is not Romneys worst debate moment, it is everyone who thinks this is an issue at all whatsoever’s worst debate moment. Whether its the casual observer at home or the educated and experienced political pundit or anyone in between – they all have no excuse for not knowing better.

Ed Morrissey on Hot Air, a conservative blog, continues the Leftist stupidity:

Romney, however, made the gaffe of the evening when he attacked Rick Perry, of all people. Until now, Romney has been very careful not to punch below his class, but Perry got under his skin and Romney ended up going after Perry on Gardasil all over again. He didn’t do it well, either, and when Perry attacked Romney over statements in his book regarding health care, Romney tried to intimidate Perry by challenging him to bet $10,000 over the issue. If Romney wanted to make himself look rich, arrogant, and clueless, he could hardly have done a better job. When was the last time someone challenged you to a ridiculous bet in order to intimidate you out of an argument? For me, I think it was junior-high school.

What the hell? There is no one running for president that does not have $10,000 of disposable funds to risk, but as I said: If Perry actually read the book (which he didn’t) and it said what he claims it says (it doesn’t) then he’s not risking anything. So why is someone calling them on it a bad thing, again? Oh ya. Because Romney has made a lot of money in his life and is more of a millionaire than the other millionaires on the stage and that’s bad because not everyone in America has made millions so they don’t want to be reminded that the person who might lead their country was more successful than them. This is stupid with stupid sauce poured all over it.

At least one guy gets it:

You may not have heard: Romney laid down a bet with fellow candidate Rick Perry for a cool $10,000 (or what Newt probably spends on lunch every week) during a recent debate. Doesn’t Mitt know that candidates, no matter how successful they may be, must always act as if they mow their lawns and eat curly fries at diners on Friday nights. If not, the electorate will be deeply insulted.

This kind of rhetoric is nothing new for Republicans. During the 2008 primaries, Mike Huckabee noted that “Mitt Romney looks like the guy that fires you.” This assessment was backed up by then-candidate John McCain, who, we soon found out, understood as much about the economy as Meghan McCain.

If you get rich working in finance, there’s a good chance you did something wrong, right? And Mitt, well, Mitt is heartless. Mitt worked for Bain Capital. Mitt was part of the private equity firm that salvaged poorly run, bloated businesses — sometimes through “painful” cuts and firings. There are honorable ways of getting rich (peddling political influence and/or writing books), and then there’s the Wall Street way. Newt, no less of a flip-flopping careerist than Romney, sold his political connections for wealth rather than create any.

The only reason to criticize this moment is if one is trying to find a way to confirm what they already don’t like about Gov Romney.

If someone lies about you in public, you can only say “nuh uh” back and forth so many times until one side is willing to put something on the line to prove their case. Romney manned up and was right. Perry pussed out and was wrong.

There was nothing wrong with this debate moment.