CNN(Live) New Hampshire Republican Debate

[Mr Bean]

Stream link from www.cnn.com front page

First comment, Pawlenty is a fucking BITCH who's not willing to call it Oromney care (Obama+Romney) as he has been doing the past week on the talk shows, he's back to Obama-care now that Romney is in his face, he's a punk

(Surprised not to see this already)
OAN:So far high marks on John King for asking... follow up questions? Who let that madman on the stage!

[Mr Bean]

Correction it was Obamneycare not Oromney care which is a little to blunt.
Also Sanatorium prefers Leno over Conan, once again proving why he is doomed.

Coming back from the first commercial break we are about ten questions in and I counted at least two dodged questions already. Well less dodged.... as in they had a talking point they wanted to get across and got it across regardless of what the question was.

[Mr Bean]

And Romney offers his answer for why the Auto bailout was a bad idea, because I said so. It was a failure because they did not destroy the Unions in the Auto industry.

*Edit and everyone else is chiming in and it looks like Romney, Pawlenty would have voted against it. Bachmann would have also voted against it I guess... and no one else was allowed to answer.

[Mr Bean]

Looks like this is going to be Mr Bean's Liveblog of the New Hampshire Debates
Third Commerical break and Mr Romney won't do federal disaster relief but Cain will.
And hereee comes the Medicare questions

[Mr Bean]

Bachmann just called it Congrish, I am amused.
Ohshit Church and State question!

*Edit
And yes Ron Paul literally said "There should be no restrictions on expressing your CHRISTIAN Faith"
Yeah...

[Mr Bean]

No reason to stop now I'm on a roll
Debt ceiling, as expected they all said they would not raise the debt ceiling, bad John King for not mentioning what Economics normally do if asked what would happen if we don't raise the debt ceiling and instead default.

IE set their hair on fire and dive out the nearest window, because it would fuuuuuuck us hardcore, at a stroke it massively increases our debt as the price of all of that debt goes that much higher.

[Mr Bean]

Oh DAMN Bachmann just got asked the gay marriage question and she... dodged the question
And Cain is the only one who says state rights everyone else wants a constitutional amendment.

Oh shit Don't ask don't tell
And Cain, Ron Paul and other guy (Palwenty?) are the only people who says overturn it, everyone else wants to keep Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[Mr Bean]

Passed over a hundred and fifty views and still just my liveblog.
And Cain does not believe in birthright citizenship which of course contradicts the constitution, and it looks like they all agree with him.

Also Pawlenty set Minnesota national guard to the border to stop all those damn illegal Canadians from crossing!

[Simon_Jester]

Christ, this sounds pathetic.

Maybe it really is true that none of these guys could survive the general election. They're all so busy declaring how they'll cheerfully violate the Constitution and screw people over that it's the equivalent of painting a big target on themselves and parading in front of the Democrats yelling "SHOOT ME NOW FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!"

I mean, how far to the right have things shifted since McCain 2008 already?

[Mr Bean]

I mean, how far to the right have things shifted since McCain 2008 already?

Yes this is exactly how far to the right things have shifted since McCain, hear of this thing called the Teaparty? Citizens United only made things worse by accelerating the speed at which the change was occurring but the solution in Republican circles is always to go more to the right. And FYI the solution in Democratic Circles is always meet the Republicans half way.

[Liberty]

I want to say "Hooray, Obama will WIN in 2012!" But then I remember that (a) one of these crazies could well win given the craziness of America at the minute; and (b) Obama is himself so far to the right that him winning again is only a victory inasmuch as it keeps the power away from them.

[Mr Bean]

Here it comes the withdraw from Afghanistan
Romney gives a minute long answer and flubs his answer and then winds down and KEEPS ON GOING!
Paul comes out strong and says pull out now, I'm the Commander in Chief! He's notoriously anti-war
Pawlenty says more war all the time every time.
And John skips out and does not let the rest answer.

*Edit
Maybe not they are going back on the Libya question and Bachmann says no Libya, also France sucks per Bachmann because we let them lead with you know their two hundred years of history Libya.
Newt says pull out

[Mr Bean]

The running mate question except its a TWIST! The question is who picked the better running mate McCain or Obama.

Pawlenty praised Palin but SLAMMMMMED Biden.
Romeny did the same
Bachmann dodged the question
Ron Paul deflected it with a good joke

The final question was rather lame but SHUT IT Romney! Everyone else answered it in twenty seconds except him who went on for nearly two minutes.

[Simon_Jester]

I mean, how far to the right have things shifted since McCain 2008 already?

Yes this is exactly how far to the right things have shifted since McCain, hear of this thing called the Teaparty? Citizens United only made things worse by accelerating the speed at which the change was occurring but the solution in Republican circles is always to go more to the right. And FYI the solution in Democratic Circles is always meet the Republicans half way.

No, that was a serious question: "how far has it shifted?"

But I don't think the Dems are going to keep trying to meet the Republicans half way. That's simply not a tenable solution any more. They may compromise on some issues, where there are still a lot of Americans who would otherwise support Democrats but who have reservations on that one issue. But they'd be fools to compromise on whether or not to destroy Medicare or Social Security- even more foolish than I'd give them credit for. Because they've got such an excellent ready-made position to occupy by pitching themselves as the defenders of Medicare, the people willing to tax millionaires, and so on.

What the Democrats do may seem to you like meeting the Republicans half way, but it's not; it's a problem of coalition-building when people who actually agree with you on all issues make up too small a share of the electorate to make decisions for everyone else.

EDIT: I don't like that a demographic shift is going to be necessary before we can get some of this disgusting political crap behind us, but it seems like it. There are too many issues where either the social agenda cannot move until the people whose minds were made up for them in the '50s die, or where we need continuing clarification of what is really at stake economically, as recent repudiations of Tea Party economic policy at the polls have shown.

[Mr Bean]

No, that was a serious question: "how far has it shifted?"

Well if you want a serious answer take Heathcare reform, the big signature issue of Obama and the thing he points to (I'll also toss out a mention about the budget)
The Progressive plan was of course Universal Heathcare, the Initial Democratic Plan was the Public option where you had some ability to go out and purchase government Heathcare. Some say Obama never gave lip service to the public option but I disagree he talked nicely about it for six solid months before ditching it to adopt what became Obama care but what had in fact been Romney care in which a Republican had compromised with Democratcs to get a Healthcare reform act in his state. Except now the Republican position was either Do nothing or kill medicare. At the end of the day Romneycare became Obamacare and there was much rejoicing (And some key differences in that drug companies made out like bandits by extending patents on drugs, which Romney never tried and they banned the government from negotiating drug prices to be lower) so the end of the day the Republican who compromised with Democratcs turned out a better bill than the nominal Democratic President did with the Democratic party plus Joe Lieberman as the only yes votes.

The current Republican position is of course total repel followed by killing Medicare.

But I don't think the Dems are going to keep trying to meet the Republicans half way.

The've done it just recently, they keep trying to do it, remember the budget debate where John Boehner came out demanding 30 billion dollars in cut, Democrats and their initial position was no cuts, then 18 billion in cuts, then 20 billion in cuts then suddenly they agreed to 30 billion in cuts so the Republicans shifted position to something like seventy billion and at the end of the day there were thirty eight billion dollars in cuts to that years budget including lots of VERY nasty cuts to important programs like slashing Home Heating Assistance in the middle of one of the worst winters in the last decade with prices much higher than the year before as Energy Secretary tried to famous defend to John Stewart but was shut down when John pointed out those very simple facts.

That's simply not a tenable solution any more. They may compromise on some issues, where there are still a lot of Americans who would otherwise support Democrats but who have reservations on that one issue. But they'd be fools to compromise on whether or not to destroy Medicare or Social Security- even more foolish than I'd give them credit for. Because they've got such an excellent ready-made position to occupy by pitching themselves as the defenders of Medicare, the people willing to tax millionaires, and so on.

Joe Biden's little group is talking about one trillion in cuts over the next ten years, the Republicans are demanding three trillion in cuts over the next ten years. You can't get to one trillion let alone three trillion with hitting either Medicare or Social Security. You don't believe they can't do it, I sure as hell believe they will do it and the question is it going to be two and a half trillion in cuts? Or is it going to be three trillion. Let me tell you it's not going to be less than a trillion which means Medicare or Social Security is going a major axe.

[Simon_Jester]

Suffice to say that I really wonder about this. Because it's so obvious that the Republican strategy revolves around appealing to a small core of voters and relying on high turnout among a minority demographic to win, while large majorities of Americans oppose the radical remaking of society the Tea Party seems to be advocating.

At the same time I'm seeing appeals from progressives, and things like the outcome of the recent special election in 26th District in New York, plus the issue of unions in Wisconsin and so on... I just get the feeling that if the Democratic leadership keeps trying to follow the Republicans over this cliff, they're in real danger of getting repudiated by a voter base that isn't willing to put up with it, that isn't willing to let Grandma starve for the sake of tax cuts for millionaires any more.

So I don't think the Republican shift towards the far right in the past three years constitutes a move of the American Overton window. It constitutes the Republicans trying to bluff the country into obeying their voter base, and I'm really skeptical of the idea that it will work for long. We may not have seen the high water mark yet, but I'm pretty sure it's coming in the next few years.

[Eframepilot]

Suffice to say that I really wonder about this. Because it's so obvious that the Republican strategy revolves around appealing to a small core of voters and relying on high turnout among a minority demographic to win, while large majorities of Americans oppose the radical remaking of society the Tea Party seems to be advocating.

At the same time I'm seeing appeals from progressives, and things like the outcome of the recent special election in 26th District in New York, plus the issue of unions in Wisconsin and so on... I just get the feeling that if the Democratic leadership keeps trying to follow the Republicans over this cliff, they're in real danger of getting repudiated by a voter base that isn't willing to put up with it, that isn't willing to let Grandma starve for the sake of tax cuts for millionaires any more.

So I don't think the Republican shift towards the far right in the past three years constitutes a move of the American Overton window. It constitutes the Republicans trying to bluff the country into obeying their voter base, and I'm really skeptical of the idea that it will work for long. We may not have seen the high water mark yet, but I'm pretty sure it's coming in the next few years.

The Democrats will not follow the Republicans willingly over the cliff and cut Medicare and Social Security. Not willingly. But if the Republicans successfully bluff them by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, who knows what will happen...

[Simon_Jester]

Bear in mind that things the Republicans accomplish by extremely risky confrontational tactics may not be as permanent as those accomplished by the normal process of negotiation and law-making. People resent being held at gunpoint, and any attempt by the Republicans to shut down the government and/or freeze the debt ceiling is likely to backfire on them politically in the medium term.

In 1994 they barely got away with it, and it greatly weakened the "Republican Revolution" of that time... and that was when their demands were less extreme.

We could well see massive budgetary cuts that will be reversed in a few years by a relatively progressive Democratic Party riding in on the coattails of total popular disgust with the "kill Grandma" platform of the Republicans on entitlements, though I wouldn't bet heavily on that.

[Mr Bean]

Suffice to say that I really wonder about this. Because it's so obvious that the Republican strategy revolves around appealing to a small core of voters and relying on high turnout among a minority demographic to win, while large majorities of Americans oppose the radical remaking of society the Tea Party seems to be advocating.

At the same time I'm seeing appeals from progressives, and things like the outcome of the recent special election in 26th District in New York, plus the issue of unions in Wisconsin and so on... I just get the feeling that if the Democratic leadership keeps trying to follow the Republicans over this cliff, they're in real danger of getting repudiated by a voter base that isn't willing to put up with it, that isn't willing to let Grandma starve for the sake of tax cuts for millionaires any more.

So I don't think the Republican shift towards the far right in the past three years constitutes a move of the American Overton window. It constitutes the Republicans trying to bluff the country into obeying their voter base, and I'm really skeptical of the idea that it will work for long. We may not have seen the high water mark yet, but I'm pretty sure it's coming in the next few years.

The Democrats will not follow the Republicans willingly over the cliff and cut Medicare and Social Security. Not willingly. But if the Republicans successfully bluff them by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, who knows what will happen...

That's still willingly, because if there one thing the Republicans can't do is not raise the debt ceiling, the moneyed interests that have large stakes in both parties will lose billions from the resulting economic collapse. And the closer we get to that August deadline the more edgy the markets are going to get because the Tea Party Republicans who are ignorant of basic economics are willing to make this happen.

It's very rare that a single action could damage America forever, but the fact is America is part of the incredibly rare club of having never defaulted on it's debt ever defaulted on it's debt
Some of our states have to be sure but never the US Federal Government
Perfect credit ratings are prefect for a reason, by defaulting you break that and subsequently make all future borrowing that much harder, that much more expensive. It's literally an act you can't recover from. Is it going to be a end of the world dogs and cats living together? Probably not, but what it will be is a loss of the perfect record, no matter how good we are we can never get back to perfect.

[Pelranius]

I watched it while running 7.5 mph on the treadmill at the gym. Literally had to look away (they mute it but leave on close captioning) to stop from laughing.

For someone who sure has a lot of controversial opinions, Bachmann certainly dodges pretty much answering any question in a meaningful way without resorting to cheap platitudes She should have been a criminal defense attorney for accused spies.

[Eframepilot]

I watched it while running 7.5 mph on the treadmill at the gym. Literally had to look away (they mute it but leave on close captioning) to stop from laughing.

For someone who sure has a lot of controversial opinions, Bachmann certainly dodges pretty much answering any question in a meaningful way without resorting to cheap platitudes She should have been a criminal defense attorney for accused spies.

Bachmann is the candidate that Sarah Palin should have been if she had the remotest shred of competency. She's going to be the Mike Huckabee of 2012.

Amusing thought: Romney gets the nomination and loses, Bachmann comes in second, and by the rule that the runner-up gets the nomination next time (and the GOP's rage at losing with a "moderate" like Romney), she actually gets the nomination in 2012. Though I doubt that she could beat Jeb Bush.

[Simon_Jester]

Perfect credit ratings are prefect for a reason, by defaulting you break that and subsequently make all future borrowing that much harder, that much more expensive. It's literally an act you can't recover from. Is it going to be a end of the world dogs and cats living together? Probably not, but what it will be is a loss of the perfect record, no matter how good we are we can never get back to perfect.

There is a silver lining to that prospect- a difficult national debt problem might do us some favors to go with the huge problems.

The unlimited credit we've been able to use to finance First World government at minimalist tax rates couldn't last forever in any case. At some point, we're forced to accept that creditors won't lend us money cheerfully on the assumption that we'll pay it back... someday... when we haven't made a serious attempt to pay down the debt in twelve years and were never any good at it even when we go back for decades. Or that even if they will, it's mostly because loaning the US money is an indefinite license to collect interest payments courtesy of the IRS, since we're never going to pay back the principal.

Sooner or later, we will have to either accept Third World levels of social services, or restructure taxes to pay for everything. Even if the taxes are accompanied by spending cuts that is fine as long as the cuts are responsible. What we cannot survive is the mindless insistence on either Third World quality of government (Tea Party platform) or endless debt expansion (non-Tea Republican platform, since they aren't really interested in cutting the budget sharply enough to make a surplus, and will never consider raising taxes).

Having the decision to stop borrowing so much money forced on us by unfavorable loan conditions might impose financial discipline on the political survivors by default, while at the same time destroying the political credibility of the lunatics who got us into the situation.

I am beginning to think that a sharp crisis is actually more to the advantage of the US's long term health, in domestic policy terms, than a gradual slump into corruption and political stupidity. A crisis galvanizes people, discredits the people most clearly responsible, and provides new opportunities for reform. A long period of content dissolution doesn't; it gives the people responsible for the collapse time to recover their damaged fortunes and rebuild even as their actions damage the country.

But maybe that's just me whistling in the dark.

[Mr Bean]

Having the decision to stop borrowing so much money forced on us by unfavorable loan conditions might impose financial discipline on the political survivors by default, while at the same time destroying the political credibility of the lunatics who got us into the situation.

I am beginning to think that a sharp crisis is actually more to the advantage of the US's long term health, in domestic policy terms, than a gradual slump into corruption and political stupidity. A crisis galvanizes people, discredits the people most clearly responsible, and provides new opportunities for reform. A long period of content dissolution doesn't; it gives the people responsible for the collapse time to recover their damaged fortunes and rebuild even as their actions damage the country.

But maybe that's just me whistling in the dark.

Simon considering the state of economic politics in America nothing is going to force them to do anything because reality is divorced from policy making, mostly because our watchdog groups care more about "access" than they do about reporting. If someone comes out and states something that's utter bullshit they will not be called on it by anyone except partisan media and even the partisans might let it slide if they can find something that sounds better to attack them on instead.

OAN:On reviewing the after footage and coverage there was at least one talking point per participant except Doctor Ron Paul (Unless you count his joke about the Fed) where they were asked a question and instead recited a talking point and never answered the question. Bachmann being the worse example of this by far, followed by Romney, Cain then Pawlenty, and finally Sanatorium.

[SirNitram]

It's always refreshing when Ron Paul's 'Libertarian' charade slips and he shows his religious right roots.

[Thanas]

Why wasn't Huntsman in the debate?