Don't worry, some anonymous billionaire just donated $5MM to Noot's campaign so the entertainment will continue for some time now.

I have enjoyed the debate this morning, we have got to see other players instead of romney all the time.

perry is a loon but the others have really shown some stuff

"billionaire"

that would be 78-year-old Las Vegas casino/hotel billionaire and union-hater Sheldon Adelson.

Huntsman skips Iowa, and is running in 5th at 7% in NH and gets the most questions. What an effing joke.

romney is a sleeze bag, lying sob

Debating at nine in the morning is weird.

Must be some kinda plot or sumptin.
~ Ron Paul Supporters

5--Well, he is the smartest guy on the stage. I'm curious to see how he does in NH. Her certainly has been master of the campaign there. Why would a guy who's gaffe-free and scandal-free get so little coverage? Hm.

"Debating at nine in the morning is weird."

Debating at six in the morning is even weirder.

Probably good for the GOP that people on the Best Coast don't see these clowns anyway.

Yes it is weird having the debate at 6 in the morning but am finding they are sharper in the morning.

"Why would a guy who's gaffe-free and scandal-free get so little coverage?"

For openers, he doesn't appear to be a crank, liar, or loon.

The press responds to stories and, as has been famously observed: "When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news."

Think of crowd appeal: freak show v. ballet.

Re Huntsman: He's obviously smart, relatively reasonable, clearly intelligent, and would've made a hell of a candidate against Obama. That a sleazeball like Romney emerges as the most electable option for GOPers just underscores what a mess the party's in.

I like how romney in one breath says he hasn't seen his pack adds against newt but in the next breath he says in the adds he saw...

Another debate???

Jesus Horatio Christ.

Huntsman finally showed some character and enjoyed what he stood for. Perry is lost. All the candidates will get my vote over obama other than romney and perry.

The more sensible the less they listen - morons glorifying mediocrity and Romney is a racist war pig.

13--Yes, I was being ironic.

14--Bingo. And even worse, Romney isn't even a Tea Party guy, and so many conservatives (at least here) are pointing to the TP as the group/movement most closely representing their ideals, and responsible for the huge swing in the 2010 elections. If they're so powerful, why aren't they getting one of theirs up for POTUS? Also, on another thread, I wrote about the size of the clothespin conservatives will have to put on their noses to vote for Romney.

17--Money, really? You'd vote for Santorum over Obama? I am speechless.

So watched most of the debate earlier and now seeing the rerun--

lol--no red light for you..

#13 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis
Must have been why Obama got all the press coverage.

Santorum is the least of my voteable right candidates and I don't see obama being better than him.

In my opinion obama has been just a waste for this nation, lacks any real knowledge as to how america is hurting.

Wow. And Santorum would do better. I can maybe see Romney and maybe even Gingrich as a serious candidate, but Santorum? He's nuts. He might have some knowledge, but to talk about birth control and fetal personhood given the real and tangible problems facing this nation? That to you displays knowledge of how America is hurting?

Oh, well, different strokes.

I could vote for Huntsman. I could maybe vote for Paul. But not the rest of these guys.

Prag,

I think the democratic party is missing the picture here with the nation. The nation doesn't like what is going on and the democratic party is sitting back just thinking we have the presidency so all is grand.

There are millions of Americans like me who are disgusted with the party and their lack of understanding about creating jobs, stopping the big corporate finance pandering that for that a republican is just as equal and it sends a message to the party.

I agree with newt here, romney is a person who for sure puts obama back in office.

This issue of Romney being an insider doesn't make sense coming from guys who were in politics.

He started in business-CEO of Bain and then ran a spin off company of Bain doing the same stuff-guess we are going to see a 27 minute hit piece on Bain.

He stayed in MA and ran for senator and lost in 1994 against Kennedy.

He solved the Olympics in 2002.

He ran for Gov and won in 2002 (03). His term was over in 2007.

Then he was running against McCain.

He's now running.

This is not a winning argument. It makes it sound like having slices of business and gov't experience is a bad thing. And he's not from WA DC--like Paul, Santorum and Gingrich.

If you want to attack him--do it on Romneycare.

#24 | Posted by pragmatist

Santorum has talked about social issues--and then the media keeps beating him over the head.

He has been talking about manufacturing and tax cuts far more--just not getting the press. Look here on the DR--there are 3 threads and they all are about abortion, contraception or gays regarding Santorum.

Now they got into a tif --Romney and Huntsman --over Huntsman serving Obama in China--Romney brought up that Huntsman praised Obama and his policies--then Huntsman says Romney's remark was part of the problem in DC.

lol

So I was leary of Hunstman--ask Prag--I referred to him as a plant for Obama--right?

Then I did some reading and found the guy is really quite smart and accomplished and thought the thing in China was just a continuation of what the guy loved doing. Serving country and being overseas--he did it for Bush 1 and Bush 2--even worked under Reagan.

I've changed my view on Huntsman--I don't agree with everything--but he's a moderate--right of center guy--served as Gov--which I like.

Must have been why Obama got all the press coverage.
#22 | Posted by patron

I think he received coverage for a number of reasons. His speech at the Dems nat'l convention got him a hell of a lot of attention. Being black did, too - and that, of course, cut more than one way.

If you contrast the Clinton-Obama primary races of the last go-around with the sad clown-car offerings from which GOPers are going to select their nomineee, you'll probably get a better idea of my freak-show reference.

So what is Romney talking about Huntsman--and Sunuunu afterwards--and these 'letters' about Huntsman fawning over Obama and his policies?

Here is one with links on the page

A Republican Praising Obama? Here’s Hand-Written Proof
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
Washington is a town famous for false praise. Lawmakers are often graciously thanking their “good friend” from across the aisle â€" right before skewering that person as unpatriotic or ill-suited for governing.

So imagine the surprise to find a Republican offering what appears to be truly genuine admiration for a Democrat. And then to find out that the Republican might be thinking about running against that Democrat in 2012.

In a handwritten letter to President Obama obtained by The Daily Caller, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former governor of Utah, calls the president a “remarkable leader” â€" and underlines “remarkable” for emphasis.
The letter was written two years ago, just after Mr. Obama selected Mr. Huntsman as his ambassador to China.

“I am most grateful for the graciousness and kindness you have shown me and my family â€" particularly your confidence in my ability to represent you in China,” Mr. Huntsman writes. “Mary Kaye and I will begin our journey tomorrow â€" leaving behind a state we love â€" but also anticipating an extraordinary experience in Beijing. You are a remarkable leader â€" and it has been a great honor getting to know you.”

And another letter to Clinton--

""The problem with Congressman Paul is that all the things Republicans like about him, he can't accomplish, and all the things they're worried about, he'll do day one," Santorum said. "

That's a good case for Ron Paul. Especially a Paul presidency accompanied by a Democratic congress.

Null,

I agree, santorum made a great case for Paul in helping his run.

Paul will have much stronger ability to get things done as the president and most of those things the people of the nation will like.

You folks talking about Ron Paul as president, what, exactly, is it you're smoking?

I take it that NH like Jersey has oil to heat homes?

Who hooked up homes to oil? How many years ago? Who backed this ridiculous plan instead of hooking up people to natural gas?

My only problem with huntsman is he will be the overly compromising person like obama and the democratic party is right now.

We need a firm strong leader, and as of yet I haven't seen anyone but Paul be that guy.

Doc--WE have the king of clowns right now in the Oval Office.

His name is Obama.

You claim that the Dems in 2008 were not clowns--Biden--Edwards--Dodd--
Mike Gravel--Kukucinich--really? No clowns there. Richardson was the only one with experience and he was as exciting as watching paint dry.

The gay rights comments by Romney and Santroum were spot on.

#38 | Posted by MURPHY

I understand your dilemma, Murphy, and sympathize with your sense of panic - but, really, seriously, you think any of the clowns most GOPers support actually have a prayer running against Obama?

The best chance is Romney, and that says a lot about the state of your party these days.

Romney will likely be the nominee.

Obama is toast and Romney will take it to him.

Heck he's the one on the stage who beats up Obama the most--than any of the others.

Romney has the experience, the background in both sectors, and the money. By the time August rolls around--Heck by early summer--again--likely Romney--the GOP party will be right there with him.

Gay rights?

Not won't even be an issue running against obama so it shouldn't even be addressed.

Republicans are stupid even addressing this as a viable subject in the debate. Obama is already there and won't address the gay rights what's so ever.

Romney take the republican nominee and my vote goes to obama. And that will be a fact across the country.

Romney is unelectable.

Doc--you should be worried.

What does Obama want to do if elected to a second term?

His first term was incompetence and run by ideology that Americans do not like.

He wants to run against congress--yeah--now there's a plan.

He wants to play for the middle class.

But everything he does is counter to the middle class and getting jobs.

Obama plays identity politics, class warfare, and to groups he needs to shore up for his re-election.

All to the detriment of the middle class and jobs.

He ignores Simpson/Bowles, and the super committee was a joke. He can't get a budget through --his own Senate btw who voted 97-0 against it.

Republicans are stupid even addressing this as a viable subject in the debate. Obama is already there and won't address the gay rights what's so ever.

#42 | Posted by moneywar

It's pretty hard to dodge a question when the media or moderators are asking the damn quesitons.

Perry--calling Obama a socialist is only red meat for the base.

Huntsman says they were talking about nasty things relating to unions and gays?

He didn't hear their answers--weird.

Interesting debate.

As a west coast Retorter Spud was still abed when David Gregory and the MTP team did their thing this am.

Luckily for Spud the transcript guys over at MTP are pretty farking quick about their task.

Then they bicker over campaign ads--

Well they are smiling--I guess they are okey-dokey now..

Gingrich: Reagan! Reagan! Reagan!

S'rsly, guy said "Reagan" three times in his first 3 sentences.

Reagan sells.

Hating Reagan doesn't, BTW

communist, is anti god.... non believers...

Religions, on the other hand is a manmade business for profit!

Socialism, is about equality

Fascism, is about a few people controling wealth " the 1 percenters"

Redistribution of wealth, is what the government employees are taking today from private sector jobs.

He can't get a budget through --his own Senate btw who voted 97-0 against it.

That really is the sound byte that will not die.

Here's the deal.

Ryan's original whack-job Budget proposal is going up for a vote in the Senate.

4 Republican Senators felt it was loonie toons and broke ranks in order to vote against it. Moderates Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Brown in MA, and Murkowski in AK are the furious 4.

Headline the next day shoulda read "Ryan Budget Rejected in Senate"

But the GOP had a cunning plan you see.

Obama had a budget proposal that had passed the house.

But the GOP had made it clear that they were gonna shoot it down in the Senate.

Obama is working on second budget proposal when GOP demand an up or down vote on first one despite the fact that it has already been superceded.

Senate Dems are instructed to vote against it quickly and unanimously without debate in order to get back to business.

So now instead of the expected headline about GOP defections leading to a loss for the Ryan Budget plan we end up with the GOP spending the rest of eternity crowing about a 97-0 "loss" for Obama.

And low-info voters with a confirmation bias the size of a small planetoid eat this shit up like it's strawberries and cream.

And Spud just laughs.

Really what else ya gonna do?

Be Well.

/K, now Spud's gonna go back and read some more debate.
//That ridiculous sound byte just pissed Spud off because it illustrates so clearly what is wrong with political discourse in the US at present.
///Kinda like the GOP fucking Warren outta the consumer protection gig and then using cheap tricks to keep the position from being filled for close to 2 fucking years and then acting like Obama is the one who's done something wrong by using a technicality to make a recess appointment to finally fill the damn thing.

After watching the debates its clear to me what the republicans are all about.
There version of freedom is, the freedom for them to control someone else personal lives. I never seem such a bunch of religious control freaks together at any one time...

Now they want means testing for social security,after people like my self paid into it over 40 years..

I guess they need to do this,so they can start more wars...

Obama .... 4 more years....

RICK PERRY: 09:21:43:00 Well, let me answer the question that you asked earlier. What are the three-- areas that you would make some reductions that people would feel some pain and I would tell you (LAUGHTER) it would be those-- bureaucrats at Department of Commerce and-- and Energy and-- Education-- (LAUGHTER) that we're gonna do away with. (APPLAUSE) So that's--

DAVID GREGORY: 09:22:07:00 And that's your final answer? (LAUGHTER)

Hey, Perry finally remembered that third thing to everyone's delight.

Bless his heart.

Soon he'll be able to count to potato.

Be Well.

Reagan sells.

The myth of Reagan sells.

The real Reagan who started America down the path to neo-feudalism with his voodoo supply side economics, raised taxed 12 times, gave amnesty to illegals, traded drugs, illegally supplied terrorists and enabled them to knife rape nuns without repercussions?

That guy, not so much.

In many ways the real Reagan would be considered a RINO by the far right neo-fascist party the GOP have devolved into.

Be Well.

-The myth of Reagan sells

well yeah....that.

actually he was a hollywood porn star in his early years...

As was most hollywood actors... no big deal...

GREGORY: 09:28:30:00 Warren Buffett says, "Hey, the wealthier in this country can pay more and they should pay more. Indeed-- balancing the budget is a way for more economic growth down the line." Who knows more about the American economy, Grover "No tax increases under any circumstances" Norquist or Warren Buffet?

MITT ROMNEY: 09:28:42:00 Well, who knows more about tax policy? I'm not sure that we're gonna choose from the two of them, but I can tell you this. The right course for America is not to raise taxes on Americans. I understand that President Obama and people of his political persuasion would like to take more money from the American people. And they want to do that so they can continue to grow government.

Actually, government is downsizing under Obama.

Not a new phenom, btw, Dems tend to shrink the size of government and "small government" Republicans tend to grow it despite all the rhetoric to the contrary.

Since Reagan anyways.

Here are the figures for average contribution of the federal government to growth in G.D.P., by four-year terms. A positive sign means the government grew in real terms. A negative one means it got smaller. The figures are compound annual changes for each term. To make the lists easier to read, Democratic terms are italicized and those that saw government shrink are in bold.

1949-52 (Truman, D) +8.7%
1953-57 (Eisenhower, R) -1.3%
1957-60 (Eisenhower, R) -0.2%
1961-64 (Kennedy-Johnson, D) +2.1%
1965-68 (Johnson-D) +4.3%
1969-72 (Nixon, R) -2.8%
1973-76 (Nixon-Ford, R) -0.7%
1977-80 (Carter, D) +1.0%
1981-84 (Reagan, R) +1.1%
1985-88 (Reagan, R) +1.7%
1989-92 (GHW Bush, R) +0.7%
1993-96 (Clinton, D) -2.6%
1997-2000 (Clinton, D) -0.1%
2001-04 (GW Bush, R) +0.9%
2005-08 (GW Bush, R) +0.9%

Oh, this *is* rich.

Richie Rich and his butler kinda rich.

Rmoney, the "godfather of Obamacare", on balancing the books and Obamacare:

We have got to stop the extraordinary spending in this country. That's why I put-- a plan that (APPLAUSE) reduces government spending. I'd cut-- I'd cut programs, a whole series of programs. By-- by the way, the number one to cut is Obamacare. That saves $95 billion a year. (APPLAUSE)

Trillion dollar bailouts to criminals on Wall Street are all fine and dandy but health care for American people?

Fuck that!

And the seals claps their fins together on cue and bark.

*head desk*

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Heard that one?

There's a reason "Life" is put first there.

Be Well.

they're all insane; each seriously deluded.

Republican plan, if your poor...piss on you!

Now what could be more simple then that?

In the mean time he will..
1. end a women right to choose.
2.stop the gays in the military from getting married.
3.end stemcell research.

An that healthcare little billy just got under Obama care...Oh no, its gone...little billy don't deserve healthcare insurance..

Yes all this because they talk to the invisible man and he told them to make it so!

25--Really, you think the Republicans (those in Congress and running for president) have a good handle on what common Americans face? Mitt "Silver Spoon" Romney? Newt "establishment politician" Gingrich? And Santorum? SANTORUM? You think he connects in any way with the typical American, with his bizarro faith and comments on social issues when the big issue is supposed to be jobs jobs jobs? I can accept that he's being underreported on serious issues, media loving crazy stuff and all that, but why even MAKE those comments at this time? If you're supposed to be serious about getting America back on track? The majority of Americans are interested in their financial well-being. Shit like birth control and even abortion are pure wedge issues that have nothing to do with running the country.
+++++

28--See above.
+++++

29--Bingo! He's the real deal. He has served numerous presidents because he believes that foreign policy/interaction matters. And it would seem he's good at it, given that he keeps getting the appointments. Hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nom, but hey, there's always 2016.
+++++

31--And in recent campaigning, he has made quite specific criticisms of this president (cf. Iran). I suppose it should no longer surprise me that vast swathes of Americans think that any positive commentary on someone else means you think that person is marvelous in all ways. (Murph, I realize you weren't doing that.)
+++++

41--I don't think it's as drastic as "toast." I believe Romney will give Obama a serious run. But if any of you serious conservatives vote for Romney, you'll have to admit that it is simply because he's slightly better than Obama. : )
+++++

"Soon he'll be able to count to potato."

Okay, that was funny.

super disappointed in Moneywar. thought you were reasonable, not. you also aren't very well read regarding the administration successes (however few or bare) and efforts as per current domestic events.

we are on the right track, however slow or in need or repair.

I take it that NH like Jersey has oil to heat homes?
Yes.

Who hooked up homes to oil?
Most everybody who needed heat. It's much more prevalent in the northeast, but I live on the west coast in an oil burning home.

How many years ago?
Probably around 1890 is my guess.

Who backed this ridiculous plan instead of hooking up people to natural gas?
People who foolishly opted not to freeze to death instead of waiting a century for the rest of the energy infrastructure (natural gas, electricity) to be built.

65--FF for Snoof!

NYC has good access to natural gas. In much of New England, people still heat with wood, either in full or in part (buttressed by oil usually, electric sometimes, and blankets and more blankets). We have a forced-air system with the warmth provided by an oil-burning furnace, a setup which seems remarkably common up here.

That fat woman behind Gregory is sound asleep.

#53 | Posted by dethspud

Spud--you have the budgets mixed up--Obama DID send HIS budget to the Senate and it was voted by the Senate 97-0 to take a hike. OBAMA'S Budget.

Then they voted against Ryan's plan along party lines. Their is not myth here--or talking point--except that it happened.

----------------

President's budget sinks, 97-0
By Alexander Bolton - 05/25/11 05:15 PM ET

The Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday to reject a $3.7 trillion budget plan that President Obama sent to Capitol Hill in February.

Ninety-seven senators voted against a motion to take it up.

Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.

There is no myth...

RON PAUL----The non-racist proprietor of a racist newsletter. Yeah, that makes sense to me.

"Ninety-seven senators voted against a motion to take it up."

You do realize that that's different from voting against the budget itself, right? Spud said "so they could get back to business," or something like that, which your article, or the part you pasted, would seem to support.

Sure--a distinction without a difference.

The republic debate ...they want to mean test for social security...
So now the republicans are for spreading the wealth! I paid into social security for 40 years. Just because I also have two pensions too I'm going to take a republican pay cut?

These people are nuts..

72--I don't think so. If the president said, "Let's drop this shit and move on" to the Dem leadership, and said leadership obeyed, that's fairly different from if the budget were actually presented and summarily shot down. (I'm not saying one happened and the other didn't.)

Still not a single utterance of the word "Bush" in any of the debates. How many? 12 or 13?

Romney will be the nominee. The "Bain Bomb" will blow his election chances.

Why any American would want to return to the failed policies of the GOP that got us in this mess is a complete mystery.