GOP debate: Winners and losers

Perry's answer last night when asked about illegals.

PERRY: In the state of Texas, if you've been in the state of Texas for three years, if you're working towards your college degree, and if you are working and pursuing citizenship in the state of Texas, you pay in-state tuition there.

And the bottom line is it doesn't make any difference what the sound of your last name is. That is the American way. No matter how you got into that state, from the standpoint of your parents brought you there or what have you. And that's what we've done in the state of Texas. And I'm proud that we are having those individuals be contributing members of our society rather than telling them, you go be on the government dole.

Two issues I have with this statement:

1. "No matter how you got into that state, from the standpoint of your parents brought you there or what have you."

He means we'll give you say, $100,000 to go to college paid for by the taxpayers even though you are here illegally. This is total bullshit!!!!

This will never sit well with anyone with half a brain; a "Judas kiss" to the Tea Party.

2. He goes on to say the reason behind it is to get them off the government dole. WHAT? I thought that's why he was running for president. To get them off the government dole. I guess it hasn't occured to him these felons shouldn't be on the government dole to begin with. This is why conservatives are pissed off. Taxpayer money used to accommodate and support illegals. What conservative in their right mind could endorse that! Is Perry McCain in sheep's clothing? We already went that route. This time around we want a candidate who says enough is enough, and apparently that ain't Perry.

Maybe this photo can help put things in proper perspective.

Special thanks to Ed Kilbane

The six Republican presidential debate this year, which took place Thursday night in Orlando, Florida, left some candidates more prepared than others and gave some candidates some key standout moments. Here's the breakdown of the winners and losers:

Winners:

Mitt Romney: The former governor of Massachusetts was the clear winner of the Orlando debate hosted by Fox News and Google. He's run a presidential campaign before and it shows. His answers were polished and on message. When he didn't have an answer, he quickly went on to the main talking point of his campaign -- attacking President Obama. And he held his ground in a back and forth with front-runner Rick Perry over what each said in their respective books, telling the Texas governor "words have meaning."

Rick Santorum: While still relegated to the lower tier in the race, the former Pennsylvania senator shone through with forceful answers highlighting his positions which are popular with the conservative base. He notably went on the attack against Perry on immigration and against Huntsman's call to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.

Herman Cain: The former CEO of Godfather's Pizza continues to poll in the single digits, but he always seems to win over a crowd. The audience at the Fox News/ Google debate responded positively to his "999" economic plan, which calls for a 9 percent corporate tax, 9 percent flat income tax, and a new 9 percent national sales tax.

Cain also proved to be charismatic when playing along with the last, light-hearted question about which of his opponents he'd choose for vice president. Cain said he may choose Romney -- as long as Romney adopts the 999 plan.

Newt Gingrich: The debate audience responded well to the former House speaker's remarks in the debate, and he received plenty of praise from his opponents. Multiple candidates were quick to name Gingrich when asked which of their opponents they'd choose for VP -- they cited Gingrich's policy expertise and leadership (although they could have been thinking Gingrich's low standing in the polls made him a safe answer).

Fido, the New Mexican pooch: Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson finally got a ticket to the dance. And he came prepared. When he delivered an obviously planned remark about his neighbor's dog having more shovel-ready jobs than Mr. Obama, the audience roared. The other candidates offered praise for the four-legged friend. Even debate host Bret Baier remarked, 'your dog is famous now!"

Losers:

Rick Perry: The Texas governor was caught flat footed from the very beginning when asked about the specific policies he would implement to revive the economy. Perry didn't seem to have a response and resorted to speaking in generalities.

The governor was more prepared for the anticipated repeat-attack on the controversial HPV vaccine mandate he implemented in Texas, but his solid answer may not satisfy conservatives uncomfortable with that 2007 policy. Furthermore, Perry's opposition to a border fence and support for giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition put him on the defense again, and his answers may not have seemed conservative enough to primary voters.

Michele Bachmann: The darling of the Tea Party was virtually non-existent in Thursday's debate. And when she did get her time in the limelight, she notably gave a non-sensical answer and a whopper. Asked what the ideal tax rate should be, she said Americans should not have to pay any taxes. But then she added that the government had to collect something, without saying how much. Asked about her claim that HPV causes retardation among young women, Bachmann incredulously claimed she never made the charge. "I didn't make that claim nor did I make that statement," she said when moderator Chris Wallace asked if she stood by a quotation he read verbatim to her.

Ron Paul: The staunch libertarian has been trying expand his reach beyond his small, but devoted, fan base and catapult himself into the top tier of candidates, and even announced a new $1 million ad buy today. But Paul didn't seem to get much airtime in this debate and didn't break through to the crowd. He will need to produce some more memorable moments to prove he's a serious contender.

Jon Huntsman: The former Utah governor has failed to gain traction in the race and he once again fell into the background. He capped off the night with an awkward answer to the question of who he would choose as vice president, suggesting the frontrunners, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, will eventually fade into obscurity like Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in the 2008 race.

GOP debate: Winners and losers

The Book of Exodus...

This time Mayor Koch played the part of Moses.

The Obama administration continues downplaying the New York Ninth District disaster. They shrug it off again and again as an isolated election of no consequence to the bigger picture. 

Nevertheless, they did feel the "necessity" to create another website targeted squarely at the Jewish vote.

http://www.barackobama.com/people/jewish-americans 

Jewish Americans for Obama

BTW speaking of another web site.

Have you ever clicked on AttackWatch.com?

It looks like it was designed by Joseph Goebbels.
Please click on it and report me. I would consider it an honor.

Jews Defect from Obama in Droves

September 21, 2011 by Isi Leibler 

In a column published two months ago, I commented on the findings of an opinion poll by Dick Morris which indicated that, contrary to the predictions of most political commentators, the Jewish community's century-long nexus with the Democratic Party was dramatically eroding as Jews increasingly began to absorb Obama's negative approach to Israel…writes Isi Leibler.

Isi Leibler

The stunning electoral upset in New York's Ninth District – the most Jewish populated congressional district in the United States which had not elected a Republican candidate since 1922 – indisputably confirmed this. The defeat of the Democratic candidate 54% – 46% was a massive display of non-confidence in the Obama administration and could represent a watershed in Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party. Even if a majority of Jews continue to back Obama, the level of defections from a record support of 78% at the last election represents a massive turnabout.

Yes, the economy was undoubtedly also a major factor. Yes, there were quite a few Orthodox and Jews of Russian origin who are inclined to be more conservative than the broader Jewish community.

But the Democratic candidate was a respectable Orthodox Jew, a lifelong supporter of Israel whist his opponent a Gentile, was relatively unknown to Jewish voters. The Republican success in elevating Obama's Israel policies to a major issue in the platform was undoubtedly a significant contributing factor to their victory.

The effervescent 86-year-old former New York Mayor, Ed Koch (himself a Democrat), had called on Jews to vote Republican in order to send President Obama the message that Jews do not take kindly to their president "throwing Israel under a bus with impunity".

It is now clear that the frequent assertion that the voting patterns of American Jews are only marginally influenced by attitudes towards Israel is unfounded. Indeed, a Public Policy poll taken days before the election found a plurality of voters saying that Israel policy was "very important" in determining their votes. Among those voters, Republican candidate Robert Turner was leading by a 71-22 margin. Only 22% of Jewish voters approved President Obama's handling of Israel.

Needless to say, Obama has never "broken" with Israel. Indeed, some of his actions have been highly praiseworthy. In terms of defense support, he has behaved impeccably and the United States has made it clear that, if necessary, it will veto recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN Security Council. But, ironically, by falsely raising Palestinian expectations, nobody is more responsible for creating this diplomatic impasse than Obama himself. And his offers to induce the Palestinians to defer their request for recognition (for up to 6 months) do not bode well for Israel.

It is also clear that the disaffection over Obama's Israel policies is not based on misconception or inadequate communication. It reflects anger with the identifiable hostility towards Israel which, despite even repeated mantras to the contrary by the Israeli government, is now becoming abundantly clear. There is a feeling of betrayal that Obama failed to fulfill his promise in 2008 to be a pro-Israel president.

Manifestations of hostility in recent months include President Obama's renewal of pressure on Israel to accept the indefensible 1949 armistice lines (with swaps agreed to by the Palestinians) as the opening basis for negotiations; his renewed condemnation of construction in Jewish Jerusalem; the recent State Department challenge of West Jerusalem's legal status as being Israeli; efforts to bludgeon Israel into apologizing to the bullying ant-Semitic Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan; the disastrous outcome of simplistic US support for the Arab spring; Obama's recent 9/11 speech in which he notably omitted Israel when enumerating countries suffering terrorism; the leak from Richard Gates (retired Secretary of Defense) castigating Netanyahu for being " ungrateful" for America's largesse. These and other similar provocations created a maelstrom within the Jewish community, convincing many that their president was excessively hostile and biased against Israel.

It is unclear whether these trends will be duplicated, or as pronounced, in the forthcoming 2012 election. But if they are, it could crucially impact on the outcome in the key states of Florida and Pennsylvania. It has already also resulted in a dramatic decline in the level of Jewish contributions towards Obama's reelection campaign.

In the wake of the result of the New York Ninth District election, panic has set in and the Democratic National Committee has been desperately seeking to minimize the defeat or describe it as an aberration.

The Democratic machine has been drumming up Obama's support for Israel with an outreach program, sending emails to influential Jewish donors and supporters. Ira Forman, recently appointed Democratic Jewish point man for the elections, has been working overtime, repeatedly highlighting the gratitude and appreciation conveyed to the president by Netanyahu for Obama's intervention with Egyptians to prevent a lynch of Israelis in the Cairo Israeli embassy when the Egyptian police stood by and enabled rioters to storm the building. Needless to say, Israel had every reason to express its appreciation and applaud Obama's intervention. On the other hand, one can just imagine the impact on Obama – not merely from Jews but from all Americans – if after having unceremoniously abandoned his long standing ally Mubarak, such a lynching would have occurred.

The New York Times last week quoted Ed Koch, stating "I'm hopeful the president will read the tea leaves, will get the message – he has to be deaf not to", adding "I'm hopeful that he will change his position". He warned that if he did not do so, he would campaign against him at a national level.

If Jews are no longer to be taken for granted by any political party, it will have major long term repercussions.

Most important of all, it will represent a healthy sign of normalcy and maturity on the part of the Jewish community not to be considered an automatic supporter of any political party. Even though the Jewish community is not monolithic and incorporates a wide variety of different, even opposing viewpoints, the influence of Jews in relation to issues most of its adherents regard as vital to their interests would be strengthened. It would certainly encourage a more even-handed US policy towards Israel if no party could rely on the automatic support of the Jews. Ironically, in the long term, it would also strengthen bi-partisanship towards Israel which for the first time, is now being questioned.

The Book of Exodus...

Update: When an apology is not a apology

Tony Bennett "apologizes" for 9/11 remark

Tony Bennett has apologized for remarks he made during an interview with Howard Stern Monday.

Talking about 9/11, Bennett said the U.S. caused the attacks.

In a statement issued late Tuesday, according to Newsday.com, Bennett said, "There is simply no excuse for terrorism and the murder of the nearly 3,000 innocent victims of the 9/11 attacks on our country. My life experiences -- ranging from the Battle of the Bulge (in World War II) to marching with Martin Luther King -- made me a lifelong humanist and pacifist, and reinforced my belief that violence begets violence and that war is the lowest form of human behavior.

"I am sorry if my statements suggested anything other than an expression of my love for my country, my hope for humanity and my desire for peace throughout the world."

While promoting his new album of duets, "Duets II," on Stern's radio show, Bennett asserted that the U.S. was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

"They flew the plane in, but we caused it," Bennett told Stern, according to the New York Daily News. The "they" in his statement is presumably terrorists.

(This is particularly disturbing) 

Bennett also says former president George W. Bush admitted to him that the war in Iraq was a mistake. At an event at the Kennedy Center to honor Bennett, the singer says Mr. Bush told him, "I think I made a mistake," according to the Daily News.

A spokesman for Mr. Bush denied that to the Daily News, telling the newspaper, calling the account "flatly wrong."

"President Bush has always felt, and consistently expressed, that America is safer without Saddam Hussein in power," spokesman Freddy Ford said to the Daily News. "He has never said the decision to liberate Iraq was a mistake to Mr. Bennett or to anyone."

Update: When an apology is not a apology

Author Provides Evidence Of 'Hostile' Workplace Claim In White House

The author of an explosive new book offering an inside account of the Obama presidency is fighting back against charges that he plagiarized material and falsely accused the White House of creating a "hostile" work environment for women. 

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind's book, "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and The Education of A President," was released Tuesday amid a firestorm of controversy over the depiction of a dysfunctional White House fueled by testosterone at the expense of top female advisers who said they felt outgunned at meetings and excluded from key conversations.

On Tuesday, Suskind described the book as "solid as a brick."

"The book was pushed through with great effort and the fact is, is that this book, like all the books that I've written, is densely sourced and the analysis is picture-perfect," Suskind told NBC's "Today" show. 

According to a Washington Post account of the book, former White House communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying, "This place would be in court for a hostile workplace. Because it actually fits all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women."

But Dunn, who is married to former White House counsel Bob Bauer, told the newspaper in an interview on Friday that she told Suskind "point blank" that the White House "was not a hostile environment."

"The president is someone who when he goes home at night he goes home to a house full of very strong women," she said. "He values having strong women around him."

But Suskind allowed a Post reporter to listen to a recorded excerpt of the original interview, which occurred via telephone in April, that includes Dunn's "hostile" remark. 

"With Anita, The Washington Post this morning confirms the quote," Suskind said. "I had to do something that I've never done before, but I said it's a special occasion, which is I let The Washington Post listen to the tape. "They're like, there it is clear as a bell."

Although Jarrett acknowledged the Obama White House had a problem with women, White House spokesman Jay Carney still questioned the accuracy of the book overall.

Carney acknowledged he has yet to read the book.

Dunn made the comment as she recounted for Suskind a conversation she had with senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, the newspaper reported.

Author Provides Evidence Of 'Hostile' Workplace Claim In White House

I think he left more then his heart in SF

Tony Bennett, legendary crooner, delivers rant about 9/11 on Howard Stern show: 'We caused' it

Legendary singer Tony Bennett raised eyebrows in a bizarre interview with Howard Stern when he proclaimed that "we caused" the 9/11 attacks and former President George W. Bush admitted to him that the Iraq war was a mistake.

"They flew the plane in, but we caused it," the 85-year-old crooner told Stern on his Sirius Radio show Monday night. "Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop."

Bennett's controversial answer came after Stern asked the World War II vet how the U.S. should deal with the terrorists responsible for toppling the Twin Towers.

"But who are the terrorists?" Bennett said, according to ABC News. "Are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists? Two wrongs don't make a right."

Bennett went on to describe a night in 2005 when then-President Bush made a frank admission to him about the war in Iraq.

The pair were at an event at the Kennedy Center honoring Bennett.

"He told me personally that night that, he said, 'I think I made a mistake,'" said Bennett, who was appearing on the show to promote his new album, "Duets II."

Bennett said he believed that the president made this revelation because "he had a special liking to me."

Bush could not immediately be reached for comment.

Bennett said he just so happens to agree with the former president.

"To start a war in Iraq was a tremendous, tremendous mistake internationally," he said.

I think he left more then his heart in SF