Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,407,894 times
Reputation: 2394
Its not much of a secret that Fox (collectively) wants Gingrich. No matter how often he puts his foot in his mouth, they give him all the positive press they can. Gingrich will just further humiliate the Republican party. If that party is going to be viable - it needs to shed the neo-con malaise it has been in for more than 2 decades.
Its not much of a secret that Fox (collectively) wants Gingrich. No matter how often he puts his foot in his mouth, they give him all the positive press they can. Gingrich will just further humiliate the Republican party. If that party is going to be viable - it needs to shed the neo-con malaise it has been in for more than 2 decades.
You have to be kidding me. I'm not voting for Romney or Gingrich but there are only slobbering love affair Romneyites at Fox News with two exceptions. Huckabee is in Santorum's corner. In fact, the reason why Santorum isn't watching the debates on his TV at home is because right after Huckabee made bold predictions about him in Iowa, Santorum surged. Nobody gives Huckabee credit for that. I'm not sure why. The other one is Eric Bolling who has been for Rick Perry. Gingrich gets respect from Hannity but the rest of them are all in the tank for Romney and that especially includes Fox News ANALYSTS like Baier's and Wallace's panels and the likes of people like Dick Morris and Karl Rove. Ask yourself why they keep talking about Romney like he's inevitable when he's sitting with 20 delegates and the winner in SC will get 25. They don't mention that. They have convinced people the race is over. They keep talking about Romney and Obama like it's a foregone conclusion. They have also convinced people Romney is the most electable. Then when those people are polled, they parrot what they heard on Fox News in their poll responses. Then Fox News turns around and points to the polls and says see, Romney is most electable. They repeat that almost every half hour but you never hear them ask people why they think Romney is Most Electable or talk about Romneys 20 delegates vs the 25 up for grabs in SC 0r the 1,144 needed to win the whole thing.
Its not much of a secret that Fox (collectively) wants Gingrich. No matter how often he puts his foot in his mouth, they give him all the positive press they can. Gingrich will just further humiliate the Republican party. If that party is going to be viable - it needs to shed the neo-con malaise it has been in for more than 2 decades.
Newt Gingrich directly insulted African-Americans when Juan Williams asked him about Unemployment. Gingrich implied that it's Ok to be a janitor because his daughter did it.
The boos for the NDAA support were FAR less than any other boos throughout the night, for Romney and for other candidates.
I agree - this was Romney's weakest performance to date in a debate. That said, he was still not at the bottom of the heap. He came in probably 3rd. Newt shined, as he did in prior debates. Santorum gained a few points, but he made some pandering comments (marriage may be correlated to anti-poverty, but that is not a 'causation'). Perry was decent but never answered questions, especially about the housing market. Paul started strong and then just fell off the map with his tirade on nation-building. I get this is his schtick, but he comes off as rambling and incoherent and it makes potential supporters tune out. Plus, not supporting the eventual assassination of Osama bin Laden was an immediate death nail for any chances in SC.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,407,894 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
You have to be kidding me. I'm not voting for Romney or Gingrich but there are only slobbering love affair Romneyites at Fox News with two exceptions. Huckabee is in Santorum's corner. In fact, the reason why Santorum isn't watching the debates on his TV at home is because right after Huckabee made bold predictions about him in Iowa, Santorum surged. Nobody gives Huckabee credit for that. I'm not sure why. The other one is Eric Bolling who has been for Rick Perry. Gingrich gets respect from Hannity but the rest of them are all in the tank for Romney and that especially includes Fox News ANALYSTS like Baier's and Wallace's panels and the likes of people like Dick Morris and Karl Rove. Ask yourself why they keep talking about Romney like he's inevitable when he's sitting with 20 delegates and the winner in SC will get 25. They don't mention that. They have convinced people the race is over. They keep talking about Romney and Obama like it's a foregone conclusion. They have also convinced people Romney is the most electable. Then when those people are polled, they parrot what they heard on Fox News in their poll responses. Then Fox News turns around and points to the polls and says see, Romney is most electable. They repeat that almost every half hour but you never hear them ask people why they think Romney is Most Electable or talk about Romneys 20 delegates vs the 25 up for grabs in SC 0r the 1,144 needed to win the whole thing.
I should have clarified: You are right that Fox pushes Romney, but they are also keeping Gingrich in the race by very favorable press. They are pushing both of them. Huckabee is pushed for Santorum and Napolitano is definitely pushing for Ron Paul, but they are the minority of fox.
The boos for the NDAA support were FAR less than any other boos throughout the night, for Romney and for other candidates.
I agree - this was Romney's weakest performance to date in a debate. That said, he was still not at the bottom of the heap. He came in probably 3rd. Newt shined, as he did in prior debates. Santorum gained a few points, but he made some pandering comments (marriage may be correlated to anti-poverty, but that is not a 'causation'). Perry was decent but never answered questions, especially about the housing market. Paul started strong and then just fell off the map with his tirade on nation-building. I get this is his schtick, but he comes off as rambling and incoherent and it makes potential supporters tune out. Plus, not supporting the eventual assassination of Osama bin Laden was an immediate death nail for any chances in SC.
As much as I hate to say it I think your take on the debate is uncomfortably accurate. Dr. Paul is not the best of public speakers and he does have a tendency to ramble. This makes it hard for the typical voter to follow his thought process and understand his position.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
