The 2012 ABC/Des Moines Register Republican Presidential Debate

[bell110]

I've never heard Newt's statement about the Palestinians being an invented people. I wonder how he means it. Is it because there is no country called Palestine so Palestinians is a misnomer? But that logic doesn't hold up because the region was called Palestine so it seems reasonable to call the people from there Palestinians.

I love how these politicians can get away with saying contradictory things but it's even more amusing when they do it in the same sentence. How can a society be secular atheistic and still be dominated by religious (in this case Islamic) radicals. lol

What that's basically what he means about the Palistinian thing. It's like saying the Cherokees are an invented people. As for the secular atheistic Islamic dominance, it's doesn't have to make sense, they're just words to appeal to the base.

During the debate, when Gingrich was defending his Palistinian remark and talking about his views on the Israeli/Palistinian conflict, he kept saying how it was the truth and he was the only one standing up for the truth. That was really obnoxious.

 

[SV Fan]

During the debate, when Gingrich was defending his Palistinian remark and talking about his views on the Israeli/Palistinian conflict, he kept saying how it was the truth and he was the only one standing up for the truth. That was really obnoxious.

Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it. that's why Gingrich can get away with stuff while Romney can't

 

[Excel]

I didnt have a problem with the $10,000 bet. Romney might now always know his own positions, but he never seems to get anyone elses wrong. Fact checkers have already stated perry was incorrect- listening to somebody insist they know what you said better than you do must be very annoying and the bet was Romneys way of saying "im not f'ing around, Im right and I know it".

Romney must be incredibly frustrated because 1) there just isnt much else he can do, and 2) atm it looks like he will once again be passed over for a less qualified, older candidate who stands little shot of beating Obama.

While I cannot stand Newt, I did enjoy his "you would've been a career politician had you not lost to Teddy Kennedy" response to Romney.

I didnt see how this was relevant. I actually found Mitt's "football star" response far more clever.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I really wish they'd address the recent effort to allow miltary detainment of Americans without due process.

It's the most important current issue and the media black out regarding the issue is nothing less than terrifying.

The Libertrarians need to at the very least bring it up. How can you call yourself a libertarian and ignore this issue?

 

[hippie_hunter]

I didnt have a problem with the $10,000 bet. Romney might now always know his own positions, but he never seems to get anyone elses wrong. Fact checkers have already stated perry was incorrect- listening to somebody insist they know what you said better than you do must be very annoying and the bet was Romneys way of saying "im not f'ing around, Im right and I know it".

Romney must be incredibly frustrated because 1) there just isnt much else he can do, and 2) atm it looks like he will once again be passed over for a less qualified, older candidate who stands little shot of beating Obama.



I didnt see how this was relevant. I actually found Mitt's "football star" response far more clever.

I pretty much agree with this.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I think the $10,000 bet thing is being blown out of proportion. Aren't conservatives always complaining about how the librul media is apparently indoctrinating kids to hate the rich? If that's the case, then why would this be a problem? Isn't Romney's big argument supposed to be that he's a super-savvy businessman who knows how to turn the economy around? If so, why's it a problem if he's rich? To quote the Fox anchor I saw discussing how The Muppets are a communist conspiracy, shouldn't conservatives be telling their kids, "see, he worked hard and played by the rules and now he's rich, and you can be too"? Regardless if that's true (it isn't), conservatives should be saying it.

Ah, but I know what the real reason is. You can be a rich Republican running for President - in fact, a non-wealthy person hasn't run for President on a major party ticket, um, ever - but you have to put on a cowboy hat and walk around your fake ranch and act like you're 'jes one of the folks. Romney simply can't do the playacting as well as Reagan or Bush.

Funny thing is, for all their jeremiads against "class warfare" and "elites", conservatives are more than happy to use resentment of that kind as a political tool; it just has to be directed against Hollywood celebrities, Democratic politicians and supporters, and of course, the idiotic cliche of the latte-sipping liberal elite.

 

[SV Fan]

I think the $10,000 bet thing is being blown out of proportion.

I personally don't get it myself, betting on a sure thing is always smart no matter how rich you are. lol

 

[hippie_hunter]

I personally don't get it myself, betting on a sure thing is always smart no matter how rich you are. lol

That's the way I took it.

 

[bell110]

I didnt have a problem with the $10,000 bet. Romney might now always know his own positions, but he never seems to get anyone elses wrong. Fact checkers have already stated perry was incorrect- listening to somebody insist they know what you said better than you do must be very annoying and the bet was Romneys way of saying "im not f'ing around, Im right and I know it".

Romney must be incredibly frustrated because 1) there just isnt much else he can do, and 2) atm it looks like he will once again be passed over for a less qualified, older candidate who stands little shot of beating Obama.



I didnt see how this was relevant. I actually found Mitt's "football star" response far more clever.

Well, he shouldn't have taken that part out of the book. And Mitt's "football star" response basically backs up Newts claim; if he won against Ted Kennedy he would have been a career politician.

I really wish they'd address the recent effort to allow miltary detainment of Americans without due process.

It's the most important current issue and the media black out regarding the issue is nothing less than terrifying.

The Libertrarians need to at the very least bring it up. How can you call yourself a libertarian and ignore this issue?

I've never heard of this. Please explain.

I personally don't get it myself, betting on a sure thing is always smart no matter how rich you are. lol

I know, because when I was a kid, when I would bet on something I knew was right, I would bet A BILLION DOLLARS that I was right. Obviously I didn't have a billion dollars, but the bet was to make a point.

The problem here is that the average person sees Romney casually bet $10,000. Right or wrong, that's a lot of money just to throw up on national tv. And Perry not taking the bet makes him look unsure of what he is saying. Both lose on that point.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I've never heard of this. Please explain.

.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=372551

 

[hippie_hunter]

Well, he shouldn't have taken that part out of the book.

All the fact checkers say that Rick Perry would have lost Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet. He never took it out of the book because it was never in the book to begin with, just like what Romney said.

Hence why I feel that Romney's bet is being blown out of proportion. It's just like a kid who would bet a billion dollars when it's a sure thing. Romney offered a "bet" that was a sure thing for him to win and Perry turned it down because he knew that he was wrong.

 

[Excel]

Well, he shouldn't have taken that part out of the book. And Mitt's "football star" response basically backs up Newts claim; if he won against Ted Kennedy he would have been a career politician.

Because Romneys career began in 1994? All the work he did in the private sector in the 70s, 80s, and 90s never happened?

What "could/would" have happened is irrelevant though, as was Newts point. Romney lost, so he went and got more private sector experience. Newts point is....?If Newt had lost, he wouldn't be labeled a career politician? You win some you lose some.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

All the fact checkers say that Rick Perry would have lost Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet. He never took it out of the book because it was never in the book to begin with, just like what Romney said.

Hence why I feel that Romney's bet is being blown out of proportion. It's just like a kid who would bet a billion dollars when it's a sure thing. Romney offered a "bet" that was a sure thing for him to win and Perry turned it down because he knew that he was wrong.

Bingo. It isn't betting when you know you can't lose. People talk that way all the time. Betting a lot of money isn't someone saying they can afford it, it is them saying they can bet that much because they know they are right and there is no risk. He was calling Perry's bluff. Nothing more.

 

[Frodo]

Here's the thing: Whether he Perry or Romney woulda won or lost the bet is irrelavent .

1)When you have a Presidential candidate saying in public, on a debate stage , "Hey , you wanna bet $10,000?" It looks childish, foolish, and desperate. Romney's whole arguement is that he's the steady and serious guy and the rest are clowns . When Romney is reduced to placing bets with Rick Perry to try to prove a point, it looks politically bad.

2) It fits into the narrative of Romney as so rich and out of touch that he can make a $10,000 bet with no problem. When you're trying to appeal to people who are struggling through the economy, its not the best thing in the world to come off as some rich guy who can drop thousands in a whim. Even if people know he could, you don't need to remind people of it.

3) It contradicts what he said earlier about his father teaching him the value of money. The bet seems to place a hole in his whole arguement about being fiscally responsible. And that further plays into the whole "Romney is a phony" arguement . Is that fair, no , but that's how its perceived.

So basically, what i'm saying is that the bet has more to do with perception then who was right or wrong. I'm actually surprised Romney would make a gaffe like that when he needed to focus his attention on Newt. Its not a fatal wound by any means , but I still don't know why Romney thought that making a bet like that would be a great comeback.

 

[Siby]

Here's the thing: Whether he Perry or Romney woulda won or lost the bet is irrelavent .

1)When you have a Presidential candidate saying in public, on a debate stage , "Hey , you wanna bet $10,000?" It looks childish, foolish, and desperate. Romney's whole arguement is that he's the steady and serious guy and the rest are clowns . When Romney is reduced to placing bets with Rick Perry to try to prove a point, it looks politically bad.

2) It fits into the narrative of Romney as so rich and out of touch that he can make a $10,000 bet with no problem. When you're trying to appeal to people who are struggling through the economy, its not the best thing in the world to come off as some rich guy who can drop thousands in a whim. Even if people know he could, you don't need to remind people of it.

3) It contradicts what he said earlier about his father teaching him the value of money. The bet seems to place a hole in his whole arguement about being fiscally responsible. And that further plays into the whole "Romney is a phony" arguement . Is that fair, no , but that's how its perceived.

So basically, what i'm saying is that the bet has more to do with perception then who was right or wrong. I'm actually surprised Romney would make a gaffe like that when he needed to focus his attention on Newt. Its not a fatal wound by any means , but I still don't know why Romney thought that making a bet like that would be a great comeback.

All of your points are great and spot on. I think Romney made the bet out of frustration. Even plastic crinkles and makes a noise when crushed and Romney is being crushed by everybody.

Kahran also hit the nail on the head:

Bingo. It isn't betting when you know you can't lose. People talk that way all the time. Betting a lot of money isn't someone saying they can afford it, it is them saying they can bet that much because they know they are right and there is no risk. He was calling Perry's bluff. Nothing more.

 

[Thundercrack85]

As if anyone on that stage can relate to normal people. They're all multi millionaires.

Seriously, look up their individual net worths, you may be surprised.

 

[enterthemadness]

Yeah, not all of them grew up with money.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

What that's basically what he means about the Palistinian thing. It's like saying the Cherokees are an invented people. As for the secular atheistic Islamic dominance, it's doesn't have to make sense, they're just words to appeal to the base.

During the debate, when Gingrich was defending his Palistinian remark and talking about his views on the Israeli/Palistinian conflict, he kept saying how it was the truth and he was the only one standing up for the truth. That was really obnoxious.

Agreed. If Hamas believes that Israel does not have a right to exist, and Israel and the US agree that all Palestinians should suffer for that...why would Gingrich be supportive that Palestinians should not exist either? Hypocritical and totally obnoxious.