The Official CNN/Tea Party Express Debate Discussion Thread

[WillK]

I didnt get to watch he debate so I want to say thank you for this thread and to all who posted in it.
It gave me a way to 'enjoy' the debate. 

[Simfan34]

Huntsman must have noticed he wasn't getting any attention and so went on the attack, poorly. I doubt you'll see it again.

[krazen1211]

Unfortunately for Bachmann nobody gives a damn about this vaccine business when the poverty king is currently in office.

Perry ain't president yet.

You don't have to worry, if you actually are one of the few who care about poverty. It was lower under all of the last 3 Texas Presidents.

You mean Lyndon Johnson--Great Society--Texas President?

He would be one of 3. Of course, government spending was much lower then even at the peak of the Vietnam war.

[Senator Sbane]

Will you let him die?

Audience: Yeah!

Oh yeah that was awesome! Very Christian of them.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Unfortunately for Bachmann nobody gives a damn about this vaccine business when the poverty king is currently in office.

Perry ain't president yet.

You don't have to worry, if you actually are one of the few who care about poverty. It was lower under all of the last 3 Texas Presidents.

[krazen1211]

That is a very nice graph that unfortunately cuts off quite a bit too soon. Poverty is now likely over 15%.

[King]

That is a very nice graph that unfortunately cuts off quite a bit too soon. Poverty is now likely over 15%.

2011 data does not exist yet.  It was 14.3 in 2010.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

It felt like Bachamann was put in the Santorum corner tonight. Sad considering this would be her crowd. I loved Perry getting pwned by Romney and Huntsman on immigration and Paul schooling Santorum on blowback due to foreign interventionism. Remember Chairman Sanchez, I'm one of those odd pro-Israel Ron Paul supporters and think the congressman had to call to account the militarism.

As for my rankings

1. Ron Paul: His line on common sense narrowly overcome my second place pick for tonight. If he had just a little more time regarding the 9/11 comment those misguided boos would've been cheers.
2. Jon Huntsman: He was the most articulate of the candidates tonight made Romney look real bad and was the most improved
This next one I can't believe I'm saying this
3. Rick Santorum: On many issues I agree with him yet your foreign policy is seriously flawed we do not need to police the world
4. Herman Cain: You get points for your 999 plan "which as a bridge to a full fairtax plan I would support" the humor at the end was great
5.Newt Gingrich: Solid as always but it's the little things Newt. Thanks for the dogpile on Romney for Romneycare and Perry for his Dream act lite.
6. Michelle Bachamann: She was largely ignored tonight and it hurt her. When she got in she was excellent but I fell she was lost in the shuffle tonight.
7. Mitt Romney: Thank you for joining in on pwning Perry on immigration. Though you got schooled by everybody on Romneycare. Good comments on eliminating capital gains but I still won't vote for you ever.
8. Rick Perry: If you're gonna be a Tea Party candidate you don't advocate a Dream Act Lite.
 

[angus]

JohnnyLongtorso,

Not to sound like a broken record, but WTF?  Nice graph, as has been pointed out, but the employment certainly fluctuates.  No new information there.

Not sure what "Good job Texas Presidents" is meant to say either.  The Republic of Texas only had a few presidents, and all of them died long before the 20th century began.  In the time period covered, only one US President was born in Texas, and poverty, according to the graph, fell from about 20 percent to about 12 percent during his tenure.

More broadly, what are we meant to take from this graph?  There doesn't seem to be any correlation to anything.  Even the purple "recession" periods don't show any monotonic increase or decrease.   In some case it's up, in some cases it's down, and in some cases it's just sort of flat.

And, when I try to look at periods wherein congress was controlled by Republicans, sometimes I see unemployment going up and sometimes it's going down.  Similarly, I see times when Democrats controlled congress and unemployment went up and sometimes it's down.

So, what's your point?

[krazen1211]

That is a very nice graph that unfortunately cuts off quite a bit too soon. Poverty is now likely over 15%.

2011 data does not exist yet.  It was 14.3 in 2010.

14.3 in 2009 actually, for which the data was released in September 2010. We should be due for new figures soon.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

JohnnyLongtorso,

Not to sound like a broken record, but WTF?  Nice graph, as has been pointed out, but the employment certainly fluctuates.  No new information there.

Not sure what "Good job Texas Presidents" is meant to say either.  The Republic of Texas only had a few presidents, and all of them died long before the 20th century began.  In the time period covered, only one US President was born in Texas, and poverty, according to the graph, fell from about 20 percent to about 12 percent during his tenure.

More broadly, what are we meant to take from this graph?  There doesn't seem to be any correlation to anything.  Even the purple "recession" periods don't show any monotonic increase or decrease.   In some case it's up, in some cases it's down, and in some cases it's just sort of flat.

And, when I try to look at periods wherein congress was controlled by Republicans, sometimes I see unemployment going up and sometimes it's going down.  Similarly, I see times when Democrats controlled congress and unemployment went up and sometimes it's down.

So, what's your point?

It should be pretty obvious that I was making fun of krazen's factually inaccurate comment about "Texas presidents" reducing poverty. Hence why it was, you know, quoted.

[krazen1211]

It should be pretty obvious that I was making fun of krazen's factually inaccurate comment about "Texas presidents" reducing poverty. Hence why it was, you know, quoted.

Obviously the comprehension of english words is not your strong suit.

[angus]

Now, now, boys. 

The thing is, you can't say how any president's legislative agenda affected poverty based on this graph alone.  (Although, admittedly, the dramatic decrease in the poverty level during Johnson's administration is hard to ignore.)

You'd have to correlate those decreases or increases with actual policy proposals made by those presidents to the data.  And I'm far to lazy to try to do that for you. 

I think you're both a bit off your rockers.  According to economic theory, unemployment is a function of population, wages, technology, money supply, and inflation. 

But I'm going to bow out now and let you argue among yourselves. 

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Dude, it was a joke. I have no reason to argue with krazen because he's a robot that spits out Republican talking points. He's only good for mocking.

[BigSkyBob]

It should be pretty obvious that I was making fun of krazen's factually inaccurate comment about "Texas presidents" reducing poverty. Hence why it was, you know, quoted.

Obviously the comprehension of english words is not your strong suit.

Politics, in general, is not one of his strong suits.

[BigSkyBob]

Dude, it was a joke. I have no reason to argue with krazen because he's a robot that spits out Republican talking points. He's only good for mocking.

And, a condescending arrogant sarcasm directed against their critics is one of hallmarks of left.

In Longtorso we have a man whom claims to support commission-style redistricting, yet, is part of the Swing State Project that equated the gerrymandering of Illinois with the joyous Holiday of Christmas!

[BigSkyBob]

JohnnyLongtorso,

Not to sound like a broken record, but WTF?  Nice graph, as has been pointed out, but the employment certainly fluctuates.  No new information there.

Not sure what "Good job Texas Presidents" is meant to say either.  The Republic of Texas only had a few presidents, and all of them died long before the 20th century began.  In the time period covered, only one US President was born in Texas, and poverty, according to the graph, fell from about 20 percent to about 12 percent during his tenure.

More broadly, what are we meant to take from this graph?  There doesn't seem to be any correlation to anything.  Even the purple "recession" periods don't show any monotonic increase or decrease.   In some case it's up, in some cases it's down, and in some cases it's just sort of flat.

And, when I try to look at periods wherein congress was controlled by Republicans, sometimes I see unemployment going up and sometimes it's going down.  Similarly, I see times when Democrats controlled congress and unemployment went up and sometimes it's down.

So, what's your point?

It should be pretty obvious that I was making fun of krazen's factually inaccurate comment about "Texas presidents" reducing poverty.

Since his actual statement was,

"It [Poverty] was lower under all of the last 3 Texas Presidents [than it is today under Obama]."

it is quite obvious that you are constructing a strawman.

Hence why it was, you know, quoted.

[krazen1211]

JohnnyLongtorso,

Not to sound like a broken record, but WTF?  Nice graph, as has been pointed out, but the employment certainly fluctuates.  No new information there.

Not sure what "Good job Texas Presidents" is meant to say either.  The Republic of Texas only had a few presidents, and all of them died long before the 20th century began.  In the time period covered, only one US President was born in Texas, and poverty, according to the graph, fell from about 20 percent to about 12 percent during his tenure.

More broadly, what are we meant to take from this graph?  There doesn't seem to be any correlation to anything.  Even the purple "recession" periods don't show any monotonic increase or decrease.   In some case it's up, in some cases it's down, and in some cases it's just sort of flat.

And, when I try to look at periods wherein congress was controlled by Republicans, sometimes I see unemployment going up and sometimes it's going down.  Similarly, I see times when Democrats controlled congress and unemployment went up and sometimes it's down.

So, what's your point?

It should be pretty obvious that I was making fun of krazen's factually inaccurate comment about "Texas presidents" reducing poverty.

Since his actual statement was,

"It [Poverty] was lower under all of the last 3 Texas Presidents [than it is today under Obama]."

it is quite obvious that you are constructing a strawman.

Hence why it was, you know, quoted.

No, I suspect his lack of grasp of English might lead the words 'lower' and 'reduce' somehow being substituted for each other.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

[t_host1]

 This moderator (Blitzer) did the best job so far keeping the action on the candidates - CNN gets a good grade.

 The opposition to the TEA party is saying to CNN reporters to be in fear of such a group/audience. There was the national anthem, and, if there would of been the usual accompanying prayer, they the atheist/libs would of most likely had an heart attack, so, CNN had to draw the line, - saving the bulk of their normal audience such an inconvenience.

 I was looking for who could keep at it, with the debate, if, it where longer; it would give more to their ability to keep their wit, not getting punchy, keeping composure from policy assaults and such.

 It didn't look and sound like any of candidates lost any ground with their base.
 Governors and their respective states have a "illegals" problem because of the many years of weak enforcement and appeasement of federal law. Here in Arkansas, illegals get more freebies than it's own citizens do, even a new Mexican consulate at tax payer expense - thank you Huckabee and followed up by now Gov. Beebe.

 If only the Mexican people would have as much ambition to fight for their liberty in their country as they do breaking immigration laws here. There would be plenty of support from here, the USA, to reconstitute, liberate Mexico, yes, people will die from the liberation of Mexico, the ? is, would it be Mexicans?

 Illegals and entitlements (health) are promises made by past politicians that do not have to be held accountable for their actions - they're gone now, leaving the present political structure no sustainable outcome. Perry did what he has done for votes, no different than any other good Democrat and the rino's.

 The comment on Reagan's amnesty - Reagan and the country was burned by the deal from Dems, just like Bush senior did. Romney did say, trusting a Dem in any form of a deal, is a fools choice or something to that effect.

[Torie]

A lot of naivete and simplistic BS was offered up tonight by many, with nobody even breathing the notion that maybe we have some tough choices down the road to make. The list I had was long of nonsensical, dumb, errant, only half the story, and why didn't you say this was the real choice I had to make and it was tough, but why didn't you just say that here is the reason why to me it was prudentially and morally compelling to the point that I took the left fork in the road (, e.g., God I wish I could have helped Perry defend better his Hobson's choice about giving in-state college tuition to illegals).  

The thing I most remember was that terrible off-key rendition of the national anthem. It was one of the worst I have ever had to endure.

Romney was really good. He just gets better and better. It is clear that he just knows more than the rest. He has an organized mind. He was really good this time at neutralizing Mass Romneycare. He really shredded Perry on SS, who just got deeper and deeper into his tarbaby. Perry seems to be saying he is willing to carry on this unconstitutional ponzi scheme for a couple of decades, and then do something unspecified. If he thinks its unconstitutional, why doesn't he just file a lawsuit? Romney just gutted him on that. And why didn't Perry take Bachmann out when she kept calling this teen female vaccination a mandate and coercion and so forth? Santorum sort of almost helped Perry out when he said that the problem was the opt out as opposed to opt in, but then realized he was giving Perry a lifeboat, and shut up before really explaining what he meant. That would have  helped remind Perry to say, hey it is not a mandate, it is a service offered that anyone can refuse. Perry is rather pathetic really. I feel sorry for him almost. He's a masochist for getting into this fray.

Bachmann was given a free ride tonight because she has been written off. Thus she did really well (she is really quite smart and crisp even though I disagree with her on so many levels), and I think maybe gave her maybe about a 1% chance of getting the silver now, if Mitt gets caught in a gay tryst or something.

What is "NGO" about Huntsman?  Stop it!  Huntsman is beginning to persuade me that he is just not as smart and knowledgable as Romney. He just can't offer up some descriptive specifics to embroider his generalized claims, which claims may well be true. Candidates need to learn to offer up descriptive specifics that seem compelling in a very pithy way, when pressed for time. The best debaters do that. Clinton did that. Mitt is getting much better at that. I am concerned that Huntsman just doesn't have a sufficiently disciplined mind. Dubya was no genius, and not very intellectually curious, but made up for it some by being disciplined. I don't see it so far with Huntsman. I do with Mittens.

It is more and more clear to me that Mitt will be the nominee. Drip, drip.

[Senator Sbane]

It is more and more clear to me that Mitt will be the nominee. Drip, drip.

You seem to have way too much confidence that either Mitt or Huntsman could be the nominee. Mitt has a good chance, no doubt, but did you check out the audience? These are the people they have to appeal to in order to win.

[shua]

Bachmann hurt herself by impugning Perry's motives. Does she really believe it was about a campaign donation?
But I'm so glad Perry errs on the side of life . . .  except when it comes to the state actually killing people.

[Sibboleth]

*is amused at the idea that you can measure poverty in that sort of way*

[angus]

*is amused at the idea that you can measure poverty in that sort of way*

Well, something is being measured.  Call it what you will.

We like statistics, and HHS has come up with the definition of poverty as a "family of four living at or below an income of $22314 per year."  Other incomes for other family sizes, of course.  And, technically, the income thresholds do vary with age of family members in their full algorithm.  The US Department of agriculture provides food costs data.  There are something like 48 different thresholds in use.  But obviously it's a statistical yardstick, and not a complete description of poverty in the abstract sense.

Whatever you make of it, it's an objective, time-varying parameter, and it's now at 46.2 million people.  That's huge.  Highest level in the 52 years that the statistics have been collected.

The aggregate GDP may be increasing, and that may have economists saying that the recession was brief, and finished about 2 years ago, but maybe other indicators besides GDP growth should be given more weight in the minds of policy makers.  This poverty index is just one of those indicators. 

[milhouse24]

I'm really surprised at how much the mainstream media/liberal media hate the Tea Party.
Apparently, they hate the Tea Party because "the tea party is racist" or something like that.

 

That they are illiberal is enough for liberals of any kind. But worse, it is demagogic, anti-rational, and low-brow.

I agree that the Tea Party is an insurgent, anti-establishment renegade that rubs a lot of the liberals and older GOP the wrong way, but I'm just surprised at how much liberal journalists "hate" the tea party and aren't afraid to say so openly.  I understand the Tea Party is comprised of many loose groups and leaders, who come off as annoying but its also an insurgent populist independent, secular sentiment that helped propel the anti-war and anti-establishment Obama to election victory.

 

One does not win most political campaigns by showing oneself abrasive, let alone demonstrably wrong. So Barack Obama has become part of the political Establishment? Such demonstrates a measure of success.  

I was watching the Chris Matthews show, which I enjoy for its rapid pace and quick dialogue, and one of the polls said that 11-1 of the panel thought Obama would win re-election despite 8.5% unemployment - either those journalists are obama-loving liberals or they just want to maintain access to Obama until he loses. 

The Hard Right makes President Obama, flawed as he might be as President, look good by contrast.  To be sure, a 12-person panel of educated people is by nature unrepresentative of America. But who else is going to know anything about history or political science?

Its just sickening when journalists ignore the numbers and just let their bias overcome rationality.

Which numbers can one believe? Strange, unforeseen things can happen.

To say that Obama will coast to re-election with 8.5% unemployment or higher is irrational.  Sure, it depends on his opponent, but in most scenarios, Obama will lose re-election with those numbers. 

As the officially elected and currently serving President, yes Obama is part of the establishment.  He's become management, he's "The Man in Charge" and whether liberals or democrats like it or not, there will always be opposing forces to his supposedly "successful policies." 

I'm surprised that over the last 2 years, Obama was a shrinking president who seemed publicly lost after the success of his "anti-war" platform.  During the campaign, he publicly connected with the anti-war and anti-Bush public.  I think he's in over his head now.  Its good that he seems to be back in campaign mode and publicly talking about the economy and jobs, but I think its too late.  He's lost much of the swing voters by now.