Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
What were the moments you remember from tonight's debate? For me, it was when Mitt Romney responded to Rick Santorum's rather effective breakdown of some of the flaws in Romneycare. Among other problems that he cited with what became the blueprint for Obamacare was the individual mandate:
“In Massachusetts, everybody is mandated as a condition of breathing to buy health insurance,” Mr. Santorum said. “And if you don’t, you have to pay a fine.”
Mr. Romney sought to brush back his opponent, saying, “It’s not worth getting angry about.”
Up to that point, Romney was having an amazing debate. He recently hired Michele Bachmann's old debate coach and boy did it show. He was passionate and knowledgeable. He was pummeling Newt Gingrich to a bloody pulp. He did say a few things that were incorrect (he said he hadn't put out a particular ad, he said he never voted for a Democrat when he could have voted for a Republican and he said his Fannie and Freddie investments were in a blind trust), but overall he was doing great.
But not only do I know that issues of liberty are worth getting angry about, I want my presidential candidates to know that, too. That Romney doesn't is a huge flaw, even if destroying Obamacare weren't the one issue that unites much of the country.
What were the moments that stuck out for you?
- Comment (80)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
You're claiming it's from the left. There's a difference between referencing and endorsing leftists, though. The ad is not intended to appeal to Pelosi fans, but to people who believe Pelosi to be a terrible scheming, blackmailing, witch. Unlike Gingrich's ads, which are actually from the left, no Democrat can use the Pelosi ad to attack a Republican opponent, the ad does not make any democrats look appealing, particularly not Pelosi, and it does not argue a leftist principle. Republicans believe in ethics, too.
You might think that Pelosi is lying and doesn't have anything, or that Pelosi is too honorable to use it. Maybe, and maybe it's an ineffective ad. Neither of us have data to contest the claim.
Why do you care if it is ineffective?
Oct '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
ParisParamus: That is what spoiled, for me, what was shaping up to be the best debate Romney has had so far. It's pretty clear that he has no idea why he hasn't managed to win over the Anybody But Mitt Brigade.
Maybe he is playing 3D chess, and understands that winning = winning the GOP primary while stylistically, turning off as few non-GOP voters as possible? It's kind of like heading for a planet at high speed not to reach it or crash into it, but use its gravity to slingshot beyond it. The less like Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh Mitt sounds, the better a chance he has at winning in November. · 53 minutes ago
My lord, no one can do the Limbaugh, I don't even want anyone to do Rush.. he does himself brillantly. What is wrong about sounding non "mitt"? ( if there is such a particular thing as a "mitt" sound).
Aug '10
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
I though it was a strong night for Mitt overall despite a couple of turnovers. Sounded like Mitt stacked the audience with his posse.
Newt, by his admittedly high standards, did not have a good night, at least the kind of night he needed to stop his slide in the polls.
Santorum had a very good debate. He only rambled a couple of times. The key for him is to get away from the "I did this, I did that" mode and just talk policy. I'd feel much better if this race was between Mitt and Rick rather than Newt and Mitt.
Ron Paul was the funny uncle tonight but still had a little of the crazy uncle action going on.
I wish I could've participated in the live chat on this one. Instead I made my wife listen to my lame comments while we watched the replay.
May '10
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
I've been leaning toward the Gingrich, but think Santorum won the night. Rick grabbed my attention by saying just what I wanted to shout at the screen when Wolf let the Mitt/Newt ad fight drone on and on. Then he seemed to be the only adult in the room when it came to entitlements and debt. Yes, he should have shortened many of his answers, but he was always making the right point. And, he showed a depth of knowledge I didn't realize he had before tonight. He was great on the individual mandate, we need a bright line between our candidate and Obama on this. Mitt's "it's not worth getting angry about" statement will stick with me. Isn't getting angry about it what gave the GOP 2010?! I also liked that Santorum stressed the importance of our rights being God given not government given.
Oct '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
HURRAH!!
May '10
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
Katies unite!
Nov '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
James Of England
You're claiming it's from the left. There's a difference between referencing and endorsing leftists, though. The ad is not intended to appeal to Pelosi fans, but to people who believe Pelosi to be a terrible scheming, blackmailing, witch. Unlike Gingrich's ads, which are actually from the left, no Democrat can use the Pelosi ad to attack a Republican opponent, the ad does not make any democrats look appealing, particularly not Pelosi, and it does not argue a leftist principle. Republicans believe in ethics, too.
You might think that Pelosi is lying and doesn't have anything, or that Pelosi is too honorable to use it. Maybe, and maybe it's an ineffective ad. Neither of us have data to contest the claim.
Why do you care if it is ineffective? · 2 minutes ago
I care that it's ineffective because if Romney is going to be our nominee, his campaign needs to not run dumb commercials like this one. The Dems couldn't use it in the general, because presumably Pelosi would tell us her secret info upon Gingrich becoming the nominee, and use that instead.
Nov '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
Pelosi doesn't have anything, anyway. Unless you believe she was lying the second time, and not the first time. She's an execrable individual, and she doesn't belong in Republican primaries, except as an illustration of everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party. As to it being from the left... I'll have to think about that. It seems like gutter/gossipy politics, which I usually associate with Leftists, but I'll sleep on that.
Mar '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
Wrong. I DO want an angry President. I want a President that's fed up, and will do something about it. I'm tired of go-along-to-get along candidates like Mitt Romney. I feel dirty for admitting this, but I think George Soros is right: there's not much difference between how Obama does things and how Romney would.
Apr '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
Mothership_Greg
James Of England
I care that it's ineffective because if Romney is going to be our nominee, his campaign needs to not run dumb commercials like this one. The Dems couldn't use it in the general, because presumably Pelosi would tell us her secret info upon Gingrich becoming the nominee, and use that instead. · 1 hour ago
Someone was saying on CNN that Mitt had run 86 different ads so far. It's fine if a couple of them don't connect. I don't see why you're as excited about it as you appear to be.
Apr '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
It was a very good night for Santorum, and I agree with almost everything here. Even my disagreement is only partial; 2010 saw some angry victories, but a lot of quiet, measured ones. Senator Portman, for instance, won Ohio while being terribly polite. Ohio is kinda key.
Jun '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
“It’s not worth getting angry about.”
The line that will energize more than one independent run for the presidency.
Jun '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
"People say, “What if Ron Paul goes third-party, or independent? Won’t that hurt the Republicans terribly?” I give you a related question: What if Newt fails to get the nomination and is so offended, so affronted, so aggrieved, that he goes third-party or independent? Yikes." - Jay Nordlinger while watching the 1/26/2012 debate on CNN
Now, what if the Newt Gingrich that Jay describes meets with Donald Trump and together they launch a 3rd party run in response to Romney & Obama being the two choices?
Double yikes?
Nov '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
James Of England
Mothership_Greg
James Of England
I care that it's ineffective because if Romney is going to be our nominee, his campaign needs to not run dumb commercials like this one. The Dems couldn't use it in the general, because presumably Pelosi would tell us her secret info upon Gingrich becoming the nominee, and use that instead. · 1 hour ago
Someone was saying on CNN that Mitt had run 86 different ads so far. It's fine if a couple of them don't connect. I don't see why you're as excited about it as you appear to be. · 8 hours ago
Nancy Pelosi. Is it that hard to comprehend?
Apr '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
Mothership_Greg
James Of England
Mothership_Greg
James Of England
I care that it's ineffective because if Romney is going to be our nominee, his campaign needs to not run dumb commercials like this one. The Dems couldn't use it in the general, because presumably Pelosi would tell us her secret info upon Gingrich becoming the nominee, and use that instead. · 1 hour ago
Someone was saying on CNN that Mitt had run 86 different ads so far. It's fine if a couple of them don't connect. I don't see why you're as excited about it as you appear to be. · 8 hours ago
Nancy Pelosi. Is it that hard to comprehend? · 4 hours ago
Nancy Pelosi as a villain/ bugbear doesn't seem noteworthy or unusual.
Feb '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
wmartin: The Washington Examiner has apparently dug up an old article on Rick Santorum's 1994 Senate run, in which Santorum supported the individual mandate:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/1994-report-santorum-supported-individual-mandate/343086 · 14 hours ago
That appears to be the author's impression, but there aren't any quotes from Santorum. I'd like to see some direct quote or evidence before concluding that the paper had it right.
Feb '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
BThompson: Good Lord, what a bunch of nitpickers. Romney was obviously pointing out that getting hotheaded doesn't win arguments. It happens to be a smart point. They say in politics you shouldn't get mad, unless its on purpose. Newt used this rule to great effect to open the second South Carolina debate. Its a rule Santorum can't grasp. The reason he isn't a major contender is because he constantly seems outraged and looks like someone just peed in his cheerios. The ABR crowd can spin that weakness of Santorum as a positive all you want, it won't make it true. Rick Santorum's anger isn't a boon for the cause of liberty, it just a plain liability. I realize that the anti-Romnet crowd just can't stand that he had a brilliant night and likely just sewed the Florida primary up, but making a big deal of this one line in a strained effort to blunt the fact that Mitt was great tonight is really lame. · 14 hours ago
Edited 14 hours ago
I didn't think that Santorum sounded particularly angry in the exchange. I thought he sounded incredulous - and rightly so.
Feb '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
ParisParamus: .....
Given that Romney has VOWED to repeal Obamacare, it will be a net asset to him in the general election. Why? Because it will makes it harder for the Democrats to demonize him as an uncaring Republican and businessman. Because "he cares about the healthcare issue.".....
Romneycare would have been an asset to him only if he had repudiated it - even tepidly - from the start. As it stands, people will rightly wonder how he can so vehemently support Romneycare yet vow to repeal Obamacare. His explanations thus far haven't cut it.
Mar '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
EJHill: Is it me or is CNN jumping the Pander Shark? · 17 hours ago
Hispandering. It's all the rage. And none of the candidates had the correct answer last night to the "which Hispanic would you consider" question: Sorry, I won't have racial quotas for my cabinet. I'll get the best guy I can. If you don't believe in that philosophy... why are you even here?
Nov '11
Re: Actually, Some Things Are Worth Getting Angry About
James Of England
Mothership_Greg
James Of England
Mothership_Greg
James Of England
I care that it's ineffective because if Romney is going to be our nominee, his campaign needs to not run dumb commercials like this one. The Dems couldn't use it in the general, because presumably Pelosi would tell us her secret info upon Gingrich becoming the nominee, and use that instead. · 1 hour ago
Someone was saying on CNN that Mitt had run 86 different ads so far. It's fine if a couple of them don't connect. I don't see why you're as excited about it as you appear to be. · 8 hours ago
Nancy Pelosi. Is it that hard to comprehend? · 4 hours ago
Nancy Pelosi as a villain/ bugbear doesn't seem noteworthy or unusual. · 6 hours ago
The commercial suggests that Nancy Pelosi is more credible than Newt Gingrich. Whether you agree with that or not - it. is. unacceptable. for. a. Republican. to. suggest. that. in. a. campaign. commercial. It doesn't demonize Pelosi, either.