VP Debate: Biden’s Bad-Mannered Buffoonery Blows It, Ryan Resolute

Vice President Joe Buffoonery Biden proved once again at last night’s vice presidential debate in Danville, KY, what an embarrassment he is for the United States of America. (photographer unknown)

With his derisive laughter, zombie eye-rolling, feigned incredulity, exaggerated theatrical gestures, continual interruptions, and over-all condescension, Vice Presidential smirk monkey Joe Biden negated any gains he hoped to make at last night’s V.P. debate. Biden’s performance sealed the deal for him… as the simpleton from Scranton and America’s permanent political huckster. Debate moderator, ABC’s Martha Raddatz, failed to control all-show Joe and left many yearning for Jim Lehrer.

Although GOP Vice Presidential candidate 42-year-old Rep Paul Ryan is 27 years younger than 69-year-old Biden, he was resolute, reassuring, and ready to take on the smart-aleck. Ryan was clearly the adult seated at the debate desk in Danville.

Polls from CNBC and CNN revealed Ryan won.

Here’s just a sampling of Twitterverse take-aways (comments from FOX News contributors at end of article):

Click here to continue reading

Rick Perry Says Social Security Shouldn’t Exist on Federal Level, Romney Says Fix It

Gov Mitt Romney and Gov Rick Perry spar at the GOP presidential debate held at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on September 7, 2011. (Photo AP/Jae C. Hong)

It’s the hot issue politicos are buzzing about…

At the GOP presidential debate this week, Rick Perry’s comments that “social security is a ponzi scheme” and Mitt Romney’s response has caused more than a few eyebrows to knit together. The subject will surely be pursued at the next debate on Monday in Tampa, FL, and may well be a defining issue throughout the entire campaign. For these reasons, we bring you a few opinions we’ve heard in the last couple of days.

Former NH governor John Sununu offered his critique of the debate (and Obama’s jobs creation speech):

Washington Post

Former New Hampshire governor John Sununu never lacked for candor, not in his home state nor when he served as chief of staff in the George H.W. Bush administration.

In a telephone interview, he told me that he was “a little surprised” Texas Gov. Rick Perry wasn’t better prepared on the Social Security question during Wednesday’s Reagan Library debate. “I got a little worried for him. If he is the nominee, the Democrats are going to have a silver bullet. I would have thought he’d have a strategy to mend what’s in the book,” he said in reference to Perry’s “Fed Up!”

Former NH Governor John Sununu

Sununu said he has narrowed down his nominee choice to Perry or Mitt Romney and will make up his mind in mid- to late October after a series of debates. Why not former Utah governor Jon Huntsman? “He’s too in love with President Obama,” he said bluntly. “He’s got to get the courage to . . . join the rest of the Republicans to talk about the problems this president has caused.” He also found Huntsman’s remark on “nation-building at home” to be “ridiculous.”

As for President Obama’s jobs speech, Sununu thought the somewhat-angry tone stemmed from a desire to “have enough energy in the speech. It was an ‘I’m back from Martha’s Vineyard’ attitude.”
As for the New Hampshire primary, Sununu explained that voters in the state “are willing to sacrifice a little on personal ideology” in order to find the most electable candidate, because they are “petrified of this president.” Sununu warned the presidential candidates that voters there are looking for substance. “There has to be sufficient detail to contrast with the policies that haven’t worked,” he said.

Governor Chris Christie on ‘ponzi scheme’ Perry:
September 8, 2021

LAMBERTVILLE – Gov. Chris Christie sides with his northern – not southern – neighbor in the latest prez flap over Social Security.

In last night’s presidential debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and a failure, setting up a flashpoint moment with former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, who said the federal program wasn’t a failure but needs to be fixed.

“I’m going to let them have their fight,” Christie told reporters here, “but in general it’s incorrect to say that Social Security is a failure. I would disagree with that statement.”

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann had this to say:
September 9, 2021

Without naming names but clearly targeting Rick Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann told Radio Iowa that lawmakers have to “keep faith” with current Social Security beneficiaries.

Said Bachmann: “That’s wrong for any candidate to make senior citizens believe that they should be nervous about something they have come to count on.

During an appearance on FOX & Friends Weekend this morning, Mike Huckabee was asked for his opinion on Perry’s ‘ponzi scheme’ stance and Governor Romney’s position at the presidential debate. Several MRC supporters, including myself, looked for the video. We found it, but the Romney segment was not included. In a nutshell, Huckabee basically said Perry’s wording was wrong and that Mitt had it right.

Today On FOX News Watch, conservative radio talk show host Tammy Bruce and Democratic campaign consultant Doug Schoen both agreed that Perry’s words on social security at the debate, and the impression he left, was detrimental to him. Schoen said it was definitely an issue for Perry - possibly lethal. Bruce commented that it was the impression Perry left - that people won’t elect a bully.

In his book Fed Up, Rick Perry questions the existence of social security:

“Perry Is Saying Things In This Campaign That No Presidential Candidate Has Said In Decades, Not The Least Of Which Is An Unrelenting Attack On Social Security.” (Paul Burka, “Not Like Other Politicians,” Texas Monthly, 8/30/11)

Despite his campaign’s efforts to separate the candidate and his position, Perry’s approach to social security is clear…

Perry does not believe social security should exist. He asks: “Why Is The Federal Government Even In The Pension Program…? Let The States Do It.” PERRY: “When you look at Social Security, it’s broke. … Get it back to the states. Why is the federal government even in the pension program or the health care delivery program? Let the states do it. … That, I will suggest to you, is one of the ways this federal government can get out of our business, save a lot of money and get back to that Constitutional way of doing business in those enumerated powers that they’re supposed to have.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 11/5/10)

Perry: “By Any Measure, Social Security Is A Failure.” (Rick Perry, Fed Up, P. 62, 2010)

• “Rick Perry Describes Social Security As A ‘Violent’ Attack On Core American Values.” (Maggie Haberman And Alexander Burns, “Perry Book A Treasure Trove For Foes,” Politico, 9/2/11)

Perry: “I Challenge Anybody To Stand Up And Defend The Social Security Program That We Have Today.” (Andrew Romano, “Rick Perry On The Record,” The Daily Beast, 8/12/11)

Perry: “We Must … Get This Government Back To The Limited Form That Our Founding Fathers Sought. Let The States [Decide] How To Run The Pensions.” PERRY: “There’s a number of things in that book that will strike Americans as horrifying. And we must, as a people, get put back in the box. Get this government back to the limited form that our founding fathers sought. Let the states, whether it is how to run Medicaid, how to run the pensions.” (Fox’s “On The Record With Greta Van Susteren,” 11/8/10)

Regarding social security, Perry doesn’t “think our Founding Fathers … were thinking about a Federally operated program of pensions…” PERRY: “I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government.” (Andrew Romano, “Rick Perry On The Record,” The Daily Beast, 8/12/11)

Perry hasn’t “backed off anything” in his book:
In Fed Up!, Perry says social security is in place “at the expense of respect for the Constitution.” “Social Security is something that we’ve been forced to accept for more than 70 years now. […] at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government.” (Rick Perry, Fed Up!, 2010, p. 50)

Perry: “I haven’t backed off anything in my book.” “[Perry] threw cold water on his own campaign’s efforts to portray his [Social Security] position in a more tempered light. ‘I haven’t backed off anything in my book. So read the book again and get it right,’ he said.” (Michael Muskal, “Rick Perry Sticks To Claim That Social Security Is A Scam,” Los Angeles Times, 8/29/11)
(emphasis added)

Check out Governor Romney’s new flier here.

► Jayde Wyatt

Romney’s Supposed Women Problem: You be the Judge

Sarah Palin & Mitt Romney

The White House hopeful doesn’t exactly shine when he’s up against a female opponent.

Buzzing all over Twitter today is a bogus story that attempts to point out ‘Romney’s women problem’. The shameful piece hits the web in the midst of the anonymously fabricated Romney vs. Palin hubbub in an obvious attempt to create further dissension in the Republican party.

It’s painful to watch fellow GOP’ers nibble all over this party-dividing bait just months before the midterm election, when we should all be fighting for the same cause. One such example: our favorite nationally syndicated talk-show host, Tammy Bruce, has filled her Sunday’s twitterfeed with all sorts of sexist labels and links to chauvinistic videos, updating her blog with the same video. Then Miss Bruce, a long-time activist of the feminist movement, calls Romney to battle, “Hey Mittens, bring it on!” (We can only hope she is treated fairly should there ever be a battle.)

Does anyone else see this as despicable? Aren’t these the same identity-politics that have the civil rights people cry “racist” every time there is criticism of their own? Is this not the similar to what propelled Barrack Obama, an African-American community organizer/one-term senator into the most powerful position of the free world?

I was glad to see that Allahpundit, over at Hotair.com, offered a more sensical synopsis of the Salon article:

A lame piece but well-timed to capitalize on the Romney/Palin dust-up. Expect plenty of linkage tomorrow from Sarahcuda supporters on Twitter and elsewhere. The case for Mitt’s alleged sexism: He ran against three women in Massachusetts and played hardball each time. In the first instance, his team helped keep a woman rival off the primary ballot; in the next, they convinced prominent Republicans to call on the state’s first woman governor to step aside in favor or a stronger candidate (namely, Mitt); and in the third, he told his Democratic woman opponent that a charge she made against him was “unbecoming,” which is supposedly chauvinistic code for “un-ladylike.” Annnnd … that’s it. One questionable comment and two demonstrations of the sort of bareknuckle tactics everyone expects from Team Romney even against an all-male field. Read the whole thing and see for yourself. In fact, even author Steve Kornacki can’t quite bring himself to accuse Romney of sexism; the furthest he’s willing to go is to say that this doesn’t, er, “look good.”

From Salon.com: Three times in his relatively limited political career Romney has found a woman standing between him and his political goal. In each case, he ended up getting what he wanted — but it was always awkward, ugly and downright nasty, with cries of chauvinism and sexism along the way. The man just does not know how to look good while competing with a woman…

Yes, it’s true that Romney is three-for-three running against women. But it’s also true that he played with fire each time. He was able to get away with it in Massachusetts, for a variety of reasons, but the lights shine brighter — much brighter — on the national political stage. When a woman is in the race, Romney has a knack for making himself look bad — something all of America may soon discover.

Unless Kornacki’s calling on him to offer kid-gloves treatment to Palin while throwing roundhouses at Huckabee, Gingrich, etc. — which would itself be full of sexist nuance — I’m not sure what lesson Romney’s supposed to take from this. No questioning Palin’s qualifications for president, perhaps, lest it seem “demeaning,” even though a huge majority of the public questions them? What Salon’s after here, I assume, is sowing a little identity-politics discord in the enemy camp on the cheap, but even that’s a wasted opportunity given what they could have accomplished with this piece.

Of course, they’ve picked up the same piece at Conservatives4Palin.com and used it to continue their ‘tear-Mitt’s-head-off-and-spit-down-his-throat campaign, evidenced here, here, here, here, and here. And the irony of all this hoopla? …neither Mitt or Sarah have never uttered a word of disrespect personally to one another - for all we know, they maintain a friendly relationship.

I can only speak for myself and my fellow Mittheads here at Mitt Romney Central when I say that we hold Sarah Palin in a high regard and we acknowledge the huge effort she has made to fight for conservative principles. Heck, I voted for her just over 19 months ago, and would be obliged to do it again should she become our nominee. My only hope is that her supporters will quit jumping at every opportunity to pound a good man, Mitt Romney, into the ground (especially over fabricated, anonymous remarks by Romney “intimates”).


Addendum by Nate: Aaron, glad you wrote this. I had been thinking about posting this same story but with a slightly different angle. Mine is short and sweet so I’ll just add it here.

The idea that Mitt Romney is sexist is laughable and completely without merit. Just a few points to show that he has strongly supported women for political office and has no reason to oppose Palin because she is a woman:

  • While Romney was Governor of MA he had personally selected a woman, Kerry Healey, to be his Lieutenant Governor, and after his term he strongly supported and campaigned for her as his replacement.
  • Romney was one of the first endorse Nikki Haley for Governor of SC, a whole 2 months before Palin did. Not only did he strongly endorse her, he contributed a boatload of money to her campaign, supported her with few campaign events, and even held a fundraiser for her in Boston, just recently. Romney said that he and his wife came to know Nikki Haley very well during his 2008 campaign, and felt strongly that she was the best for South Carolina. If Romney were a chauvinistic he could have easily selected anyone of the 3 men that were polling higher than her at the time.
  • Governor Romney has been an adamant supporter of Meg Whitman in her bid to become Governor of California. He endorsed her extremely early and has done numerous events and fundraisers with her. Governor Romney recounts when he was interviewing Whitman for a job at Bain Capital long ago (even before she was CEO of eBay.com) that Meg was brilliant and had strong presence. He later learned that she had an amazing work ethic to boot.
  • Perhaps the best evidence of Mitt’s respect for women is his long-standing love and adoration for his wife of 41 years. Mitt places her on a pedestal higher than any other. His commitment and attentiveness to her is admirable. I am a strong proponent of the idea that you can know how a man regards womanhood by how he treats his wife. When so many out there in politics, sports and entertainment choose to be selfish and break the vows they have made to their spouse, Mitt Romney stands as a shining example of devotion. He does not view women as subjects to conquer and fulfill sexual appetites. Respect, honor, and esteem; that is the regard that Romney has for women.

Mitt Romney Offers Gentlemanly Response to Hubbub Over Anonymous Comments

Twitter has been all aflutter with Palinites upset over the anonymous comments by ‘supposed’ Romney staffers in a TIME.com news article. It’s been very painful to watch the “Romney” search on Twitter because of the many harmful and divisive things that are being said, particularly before a mid-term election. Granted the comments by the anonymous staffers are completely uncalled for, but I believe the sensational reaction has been equally wrong-spirited.

The thing that is painful to watch is when the upset Palin supporters presume that these anonymous ill-speakers are actually conveying the mind and will of Mitt Romney. I don’t believe that is the case. Mitt Romney has been nothing but gracious towards Sarah Palin, or any other GOP member for that matter.

These types of ugly remarks and over-reactions have severe effects on the unity of the party. Why should we let the tasteless remarks of two staffers divide thousands of conservative, who should be unified allies, into warring factions? Mark Halperin of TIME.com is probably laughing his hind end off over the schism he’s caused amongst our ranks.

Here’s how it went down:

The Time.com quote:

One adviser to Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and, by traditional standards, the putative 2012 frontrunner, says of Palin, “She’s not a serious human being.” Another Romney intimate warns, “If she’s standing up there in a debate and the answers are more than 15 seconds long, she’s in trouble.”

The upset responses:
ReagantoPalin.com: Romney Campaign Staffers Attack Sarah Palin
Conservatives4Palin.com Reagan to Palin: Romney Campaign Staffers Attack Sarah Palin
Tammy Bruce (radio talk-show host and blogger): When it Comes to Palin, Romney Decides the Gutter Suits Him Best
Rebecca Mansour, founder of C4P, but is now official adviser to Palin, promotes Tammy Bruce’s blog post via Twitter.
Erick Erickson of Redstate.com and Allahpundit add fuel to the fire.
A long-time Palin aide fights back and criticizes the Romney camp … anonymously via Politico. (Sorry, but that is just too ironic.)
Plus many more I’m sure.

Mitt Romney responds via Twitter:

TIME says unnamed advisors disparaged @SarahPalinUSA. Anonymous numbskulls. She’s proven her smarts; they’ve disproven theirs.

I would think this answer would placate some of the concerns of Palin supporters. Mitt denounced the anonymous commentors, and goes on record saying Palin has proven smarts, and again castigates the commentors. I thought it was sincere, gracious and well spoken. As someone commented on twitter: smart of @MittRomney to realize that an anonymous quote war w/ @SarahPalinUSA won’t get anyone anywhere.

Frankly, I am even more astonished by further responses to Mitt Romney’s. When Romney offers an olive branch they accuse him of what else? 24 hour flip-flopping.

Responses to Mitt’s tweet:
Conservatives4Palin: Mitt Romney Surrenders Quickly
Tammy Bruce blog post update: “pathetic, immature response from Romney”


This rhetoric needs to be toned down quickly. It is not even the mid-terms yet. If this continues it will be one very ugly primary, perhaps rivaling that of 2008. And the uglier it gets the more likely our nominee will lose in 2012.

What should we as supporters do? Get some class like Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. That means you, unnamed “numbskull” commentors. And that means you, Tammy Bruce. And that means me, Nate Gunderson.

~Nate Gunderson

Update: To further my point that all staffers don’t “speak the mind of the candidate” as Tammy Bruce suggests, Rebecca Mansour (Palin adviser) tweets this: Just to clarify things. This is my personal Twitter account. Just mine. These are my personal thoughts. It’s called free speech. Period.

Update 2 by Jayde: Follow-up tweet from Rebecca Mansour (Palin adviser)

@RomneyCentral Let’s work together on 2010.

UPDATE 3 by Jayde: Some background information regarding Mark Halperin, author of the Times article in which he claims he spoke to an ‘adviser’ of Mitt Romney and an ‘intimate’ of Mitt Romney:

Halperin worked for ABC for 20 years, with 10 of those years as their Political Director. “In that role, he was responsible for political reporting and planning for the network’s television, radio and Internet political coverage. He also appeared regularly on ABC News TV and radio as a correspondent and analyst, contributing commentary and reporting during election night coverage, presidential inaugurations and State of the Union speeches. At ABC, Halperin reported on every major American political story, including working as a full-time reporter covering the Clinton presidential campaign in 1992 and the Clinton White House.”

Just a couple of weeks ago, on June 30th, he was named as MSNBC’s newest Senior Political Analyst.

Last year, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann co-authored a best-selling book about the last presidential election called ‘Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, Palin and McCain, and the Race of a Lifetime’ which was released in January of this year. He and Heilemann claim truthful behind-the-scenes information (over 300 interviews) about then-candidates.

Knowing Halperin’s background, with Obama’s plummeting poll numbers (could MSNBC’s low ratings be a factor?), he is attempting to throw a skunk into the Republican coalition family reunion. Let’s focus on the real threat to America – the Obama Administration and the progressives who support him.


Update 4 by Jayde:
Leave a comment for Tammy Bruce: http://bit.ly/aIsS6V

Hat tip to Jim (MRC commenter):

“You might want to add Mark Levin to that list, too. To hear Mark Levin’s take, follow the link below, wait until it has loaded, then drag the audio to the 1:08:35 mark.” http://bit.ly/aNi19U

How to contact the Mark Levin Show:
Phone: 1-877-381-3811
(Mon. - Fri. 6pm to 9pm)
Email: marklevin.show@citcomm.com

Update 5 by Aaronius:
Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told The Daily Caller emphatically that the comments about Palin in the Time.com article were not authorized, approved or encouraged by Romney.

“These anonymous voices don’t speak for Governor Romney,” Fehrnstrom said in an e-mail. “The truth is Governor Romney has a small circle of people who advise him, and they all know the high regard that he has for Sarah Palin, and he has expressed that view in numerous interviews over the years.”

*Hat tip (from Jayde) to Marybeth (MRC commenter) for bringing this story to our attention as it was breaking.