By Douglas V. Gibbs
Fox News hosted the debate in Ames, Iowa last night. The liberals call Fox News, "conservative." Conservatives know better. Fox isn't necessarily conservative - it's just not as liberal as the rest of the networks. This is why the questions posed by the Fox News personnel during the Iowa debate last night was no surprise. Those Fox journalists want to look good in the eyes of their liberal counterparts, so they asked questions designed to be provocative, and questions designed to create angry debate between the candidates.
In the end, it's hard to say who won the debate. Mitt Romney is the winner according to the liberal harpies, and Ron Paul was the winner as far as the stacked audience was concerned. I thought each candidate had high and low points. Santorum was the most aggressive, and Bachmann seemed the one most able to handle attacks gracefully. She handled the question about being a submissive wife (a question that took that biblical verse so out of context it wasn't funny - but then again, The World tends to do that) quite well. Pawlenty's experience definitely made him look good, though like the rest of the candidates he showed how little he knows about the Constitution. Newt Gingrich, though intelligent, he isn't trusted by conservatives because he has proven time and time again that he will put party before principles, shot back at Chris Wallace when he felt the questions were below the belt - and Newt handled it perfectly.
Regardless of who won the debate, the loser was obvious. Fox News, in their attempt to throw questions one would expect more from MSNBC or CNN, lost big, by simply tossing out questions that were meaningless when it came to the issues, and seemed determined to bait the candidates into saying something that could be used against them. In return, much of their "conservative" audience will recognize the very unconservative manner in which they acted, and search for their news elsewhere.
For the candidates, the debate meant a lot. They needed to position themselves as Rick Perry, who I am not a huge fan of - but a person that will definitely change the conversation for the good, makes ready to join the group.
It is already assumed that Perry will leap-frog most of the candidates to the top of the polls, plus the man knows how to raise funds, and he is a fireballer in debates.
For Fox News, however, the debate meant something totally different. Fox has been attacked so much by the Left, and even by President Obama, watching them it occurred to me that they seriously looked like they were trying to act acceptable to the liberals.
We know liberals are idiots - so why in the hell does anyone care what they think?
Though the candidates did not totally tank, they did not drag Obama into the conversation enough. Our economy is floundering because of the policies of Obama, and his liberal congressional posse. The one success Obama tries to boast about, the death of Osama Bin Laden, was the result of decisions made by George W, Bush and Dick Cheney while they were still in office, and Obama carrying on those same strategies once the Republicans were gone.
The issue the liberal media is bouncing all over, since the debate in Ames, however, is the pledge by all of the candidates not to raise taxes.
Before I go on, remember that the Democrats, using their age-old tactic of shifting definitions and substituting words where they don't belong, have changed the term "tax increase" to "revenue." It doesn't sound so bad when you say you are against tax increases. . . but if you're against more revenue, especially at a time of economic crisis and the threat of a bill default. . . well, you can figure out the deception from there.
I am half expecting them to start calling spending cuts "negative revenue."
In the Iowa Presidential debate the panel was asked that if they were to get a ten-to-one deal, where basically there would be ten dollars of spending cuts for only one dollar of tax increase, would they take it, and all raised their hand that they would walk away from the deal.
The liberals see this as uncompromising, suicidal to the economy, and fringe.
The conservatives see this as recognizing that tax increases are detrimental to the economy and the growth of the private sector, necessary not to raise taxes for the sake of the economy, and a mainstream Republican (and American) viewpoint.
Getting back to the liberals, I must ask them, "Since when is the Republican Party vowing not to raise taxes a fringe position? Not raising taxes is a longtime position of the GOP platform. Besides, the question was a trick. If any of the candidates had agreed that they'd raise taxes under any circumstance, they'd be gone. Their presidential campaign would be over, and the liberals and the media knows it.
Tax increases do not win GOP Primaries. And for God's Sake, doesn't the media remember Bush 41's no new taxes disaster?
Yes, they do - hence, the reason the question was asked.
It's an old liberal tactic, too. They demand tax increases, corner the Republicans calling them every name in the book over refusing to raise taxes, then promise spending cuts that they never intend to do, and then demonize the Republican for agreeing to the tax hike (See Reagan 1982 & 1986, Bush 41 1990).
Even more amazing over the current liberal demand for tax hikes, and the criticism against the GOP for refusing to raise taxes, is the fact that Obama ran on no tax increases (and in fact promised to cut taxes) during his presidential campaign. Barry swore he wouldn't raise taxes and it was considered brilliant, at the time. But now that the GOP candidates are saying the same, and what they are saying agrees historically with the Republican Party's traditional platform, suddenly they are being considered by the Left to be just a bunch of crazy, fringe kooks.
What is even more amazing is that there are tons of sheep out there that buy this crap hook, line, and sinker.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
0 comments:
Post a Comment