Notes on the CNN/ TEA Party debate

Tonight’s CNN/ TEA Party debate was a vast improvement over the NBC/ Politico debate last week. While Wolf Blitzer did get the candidates to mix it up, he was subtler in his approach than NBC’s Brian Williams and Politico’s John Harris. Kudos to CNN for allowing actual TEA Party members to ask question. Unfortunately, Blitzer did not allow all the TEA Party questions to be answered by all candidates. (I really wanted to hear everyone’s answer to that young man’s question about how much should he be taxed).
Here is how I saw each candidate’s performance.

Mitt Romney: Mitt did nothing to regain his front runner status. His attack on Perry on Social Security, sounded like Mitt was willing to go with the status quo. The cat is out of the bag on Social Security, we all know it needs to be reformed. Simply saying that you will fix it, sounds like the failed promises of the past that has led us to the current problems.

Rick Perry: John Podhoretz sums it up best when he says Perry had better get better. Perry needs to really have some solid answers for the Gardasil question and illegal immigration. You could drive a truck through both answers. On Gardasil, simply saying you made a mistake and your emotions got the better of you, leaves you open to the question of will it happen again. On the immigration question, Perry’s answer for Texas’ mini Dream Act, sounds like Romney’s weak answer on RomneyCare. The 10th Amendment is not a Band Aid for past lapses in conservative judgment.

Michelle Bachmann: I think she drew blood with her tangle with Perry over Gardasil. It wasn’t with her accusation that Perry was engaged in a Crony Capitalism with Merck (that was sloppy), but her response to his answer of being bought. Bachmann took the higher ground and sounded like she had her priorities straight.

Herman Cain: I really loved Cain in the beginning, but his answers are sounding way too sound bite-ish at this point. We are well past the stage for sound bites. Meat is needed on the bone of his answers, otherwise it is impossible to take him seriously. My advice to Cain, get Wonkish, like yesterday.

Ron Paul: Given his answers tonight on foreign policy, it is clear the Ron Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination. When Rick Santorum can school you on foreign policy and American Exceptionalism, you have a problem. This is sad, because so much of Ron Paul’s economic views are correct for the times.

Newt Gingrich: I love feisty Newt who has shown up to these debates. Even tonight, Newt looked like he was ready to bust Wolf Blitzer in the mouth if Wolf got out of hand. All of the candidates would do well to take a page out of Newt’s books when it come to handling a biased media. Unfortunately, for Newt, being feisty isn't enough to overcome his early major gaffs .

Rick Santorum: Santorum’s attempts to tie all his action’s of the 1990’s to today is getting very old. Let’s fact it, the political landscape has changed so drastically on the right since the 90’s, that references to the 90’s seems like comparing apples to oranges. Rick needs to find a reason why he is relevant today or he is going to have to make an early exit.

Jon Huntsman: Why is this guy still around? He is polling worse that Tim Pawlenty ever did and I cannot stop detecting the condescending attitude in all of his responses. There is nothing about Huntsman that resonates with today’s conservative base. Excluding him from the next debate would be a wise move.

Overall, I would have to say Rick Perry was the winner tonight because he did just enough to hold on to his front runner status. He will have to do a heck of a lot better in the next debate, because both Romney and Bachmann are sharpening their attacks. Even Palin seems to see an opening. Perry need an air tight A-Game if he wants to stand any chance against Obama, the Bully Pulpit and a complicit media.

Via: Commentary

Via: The Right Scoop

Via: The Right Scoop

A few notes on the CNN New Hampshire debate

I just finished watching the debate and I have one major complaint.  What was the point in asking so many questions?  By asking so many question, the candidates were forced to give the most perfunctory answers.  It was really stupid to ask questions like; "what would you specifically do to fix entitlements" and then expect a decent answer in 30 seconds or less. For future debates, I really wish moderators would learn that the quality of the questions is far more important than the quantity on the questions.

Oh and those completely asinine questions from John King like Coke or Pepsi?  Our nation is three steps from going to hell in a hand basket and this dumb MoFo wants to know who likes Coke or Pepsi! American journalism is dead, dead, dead!

Here are my notes on each individual's performance.

Mitt Romney:  Was it just me or did Romney seem a little tired tonight.  He did not come off as the man to beat to me. I thought he got a little hung up on the auto bailout question.  He certainly got off easy on the RomneyCare questions.  Despite CNN's over abundance of questions, they totally did not ask Mitt about climate change.

Tim Pawlenty:  I think Tim did himself a lot of favors tonight.  He seemed more like the front runner than Romney. If I were an establishment type, I would be switching from Romney to T-Paw now. Pawlenty totally wimped out on ObamneyCare.  If he is unwilling to clean Romney's clock, how is this guy going to mix it up with Obama and his leftist minions?

Newt Gingrich: Newt looked like a little boy who just found out his dog died.  What was up with that?  Despite the depressed look, he did give some very solid answers on the need to build majorities in Congress next year and fighting false assumptions on immigration.  Did he do enough to undo his self inflicted wounds?  I don't know.

Rick Santorum: Someone really needs to tell Santorum that every answer does not require an angry forceful answer.  The key to getting looking passionate is allowing your natural emotions to temper your response.  You cannot be angry and forceful over everything.  I think Santorum was clearly lost in this crowd and did not really distinguish himself in anyway, especially against his true rivals Cain and Bachmann.

Ron Paul: New Hampshire might not be Ron Paul country.  None of his Fed Reserve, or anti war rhetoric seem to have resonated with the audience like in past debates.  Perhaps CNN screened the Ron Paul supporters at the door.  Tonight, Paul seemed like nothing more than the crazy old man in the corner.

Michele Bachmann:  The gal stood out.  Aside from making her presidential bid formal at the debate, Bachmann came off very crisp, polished and sharp.  Dare I say first tier quality?  Again, despite CNN's flurry of questions they failed to ask Bachmann about her campaign manager's remarks about Palin.  They actually gave Pawlenty a Palin question.  Did her performance overcome Rollin's damage?  Time will tell, but sooner rather than later Bachmann needs to address that.

Herman Cain:  I was really hoping to see Cain run away with this thing like he did the last time.  However, Cain seem to fade to behind Bachmann.  Perhaps it was the questioned he got or perhaps at this stage of the game people are looking for deeper answers.  Whatever the case, I don't feel Cain held court. Cain had better start getting really tight on the Muslim question, because judging from how much time CNN spent on that issue, the left smells blood in the water.

Winners:  Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty.  I feel they both came off better than their poll numbers suggest.  Pawlenty came off much more aggressively than Romney.  Clearly, Pawlenty was working on not being dull.  Bachmann out shined her two conservative rivals Santorum and Cain. Her current Congressional experience easily trumped Santorum's past deeds and provided the details that Herman Cain lacks.

Losers:  Mitt Romney and Herman Cain.  Romney allowed Pawlenty to look far more aggressive than he did. As the supposed front runner and the  establishment's choice, that was a bad thing.  Herman Cain failed to build on the momentum he had from the last debate and allowed Bachmann to look more substantive.  Time to hit the books Herman, more details will be required.

What are your thoughts?  Who did you think were the winners and losers?


NOTE:  If you missed the debate, Left Coast Rebel has the full video up on his site.

The New Hampshire Debates - What will you be looking for?

Tonight CNN is hosting the Republican debate in Manchester New Hampshire.  The field will include Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann,  Ron Paul,  and Rick Santorum.


Here is what I will be looking for:


Herman Cain:  I want to see how Cain handles himself with Bachmann and Romney in the mix.  Right now Cain is the strongest declared conservative.  He is way out ahead of both Bachmann and Santorum.  In the last debate, Cain easily out shined Santorum and establishment favorite Pawlenty.  Can Herman do it again with Romney and Bachmann in the field?


Michele Bachmann:  I want to see how she handles the debate and matches up against Herman Cain.  Of course I am dying to see how she will handle the inevitable Palin/ Rollins debacle. Her response will be quite telling.


Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty: This should be the source of all the friction in this debate.  Romney is the front runner thus far so all the others will try to knock him down.  Pawlenty has a lot to gain by knocking off Romney so I expect he will be throwing the most elbows.


CNN's behavior:  CNN is no friend to conservatives.  They have had plants in some of their past debates.  I suspect they will be extra unfriendly to both Cain and Bachmann.  Let's watch and see just how much bias CNN  exhibits tonight.


Newt Gingrich: I will be watch this clown purely for entertainment value.  I cannot imagine him saying anything that could resurrect his disastrous campaign.  Look for CNN to ask Newt all the ugly questions.


What will you be watching for in this debate?  Sound out.


Via: Memeorandum
Via: CNN

Rudy Giuliani tops CNN poll- Huh?

Washington (CNN) - Call it a sign of how unsettled the GOP presidential field remains: Two of the three people at the top of new national poll in the battle for the Republican nomination may not even run for the White House. And a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey also suggests that there is not a lot of enthusiasm about any of the major candidates.

According to the poll, which was released Friday, 16 percent of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say they would most likely support Rudy Giuliani as their party's nominee. One point behind, at 15 percent is Mitt Romney, with Sarah Palin coming in at 13 percent. [MORE]

I find this poll rather surprising. Rudy Giuliani? Really? Perhaps the people polled think that since Giuliani turned New York City around, he might just be the man to turn America around.

Believe it or not, in 2008 Giuliani was my first choice (Thompson second and finally had to settle for Mitt). I picked him because I knew he would fight the War on Terror with gusto and he has no problem with making the biggest liberal crybabies twist in the wind. But that was 2008. The world is quite different now. I cannot see myself rolling the dice on anything but a true fiscal conservative. he

In the end, I don't see Rudy getting a campaign together and going for the gold off of this poll. The stakes are much higher that 2008 and the problems Rudy faced with the conservative base are even greater today.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: CNN

Adios Amigo! Rick Sanchez get himself fired from CNN

CNN’s dimwit anchor Rick Sanchez has gotten himself fired from CNN, after doing a radio interview where he called Jon Stewart a bigot and implied CNN is run by Jews. Here is the audio, listen to it all the way through.

Mediaite: CNN’s Rick Sanchez is not happy with being made fun of constantly on The Daily Show and Colbert Report. It is from this jumping off point that he absolutely unleashed on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and at times his own network, on Pete Dominick’s satellite radio show yesterday.

The big takeaway – Sanchez calls Stewart “a bigot,” then walks it back a bit, and he implies CNN is run by Jews.

Dominick was not just a radio show host – he is a CNN contributor who has a regular gig on John King, USA (more on that below), and he formerly was the warm up comic at The Daily Show. Which is why when Sanchez says “I think Jon Stewart’s a bigot” early in the interview, Dominick pushed back:

Dominick: How is he a bigot?

Sanchez: I think he looks at the world through, his mom, who was a school teacher, and his dad, who was a physicist or something like that. Great, I’m so happy that he grew up in a suburban middle class New Jersey home with everything you could ever imagine.

Dominick: What group is he bigoted towards?

Sanchez: Everybody else who’s not like him. Look at his show, I mean, what does he surround himself with?

A few minutes later, Sanchez takes back the word “bigot,” changing it to “prejudicial” and “uninformed.”

Later in the interview, Dominick brings up the fact that Stewart is Jewish, so is a minority himself. Sanchez laughs this off:

I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority? Yeah.

Sanchez is not a thinking man that is for sure. Talking smack about your employer is bound to get you on the unemployment line.  I think what happened here is that Sanchez is very sensitive about being called stupid (probably because he knows it is true). As such, he wanted to lash out at Jon Stewart. In typical liberal fashion Sanchez went for the race card.

What I found amusing about Sanchez’s race card play is that he has to be one of the whitest Latino I have ever seen. If his last name wasn’t Sanchez, I would never have known. Yet here he is playing the grieving minority to deflect criticism and jokes about his past stupid statements. I think all of Sanchez’s complaints about being Latino were just a smoke screen to hide the fact that he questions his own ability.

I wonder if Sanchez will have a hard time finding another news organization.  Trashing your employer and comedy gold YouTube clips are not resume boosters. 

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Mediaite

Via: Mediaite

Via: The Right Scoop

A day late and a dollar short: CNN finds Democrats at Tea Parties

Last week, The New York Times detailed the steady decline of CNN’s ratings, noting CNN’s main hosts have lost half their viewership in just one year. Perhaps viewers are fleeing because of CNN's timely reporting.

CNN: Grand Junction, Colorado (CNN) -- They are not typical Tea Party activists: A woman who voted for President Obama and believes he's a "phenomenal speaker." Another who said she was a "knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal."

These two women are not alone.

Some Americans who say they have been sympathetic to Democratic causes in the past -- some even voted for Democratic candidates -- are angry with President Obama and his party. They say they are now supporting the Tea Party -- a movement that champions less government, lower taxes and the defeat of Democrats even though it's not formally aligned with the Republican Party. [..] 

CNN is just now finding out that there are Democrats at the Tea Parties! Damn, I knew about that last year!  

There was a small group of Obama supporters who were against all the spending but still supported Obama. They seem to blame Congress but not the President, go figure... 

Of course CNN could have also learned that Democrats were at Tea Parties last year, however they were rather preoccupied creating their own narrative.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times

Via: CNN

Anderson who?

Anderson Cooper, that CNN anchor nobody watches anymore, has continued his slide in the ratings. Check this out from the Business Insider:

Anderson Cooper is fading in the ratings.

The respected CNN anchor has seen his numbers slip significantly through the past year. His 10 p.m. show, "Anderson Cooper 360," has declined 62% in total viewers and 70% in adults 25-54 from November 2008, according to Nielsen figures.

Last month, in Cooper's time slot, Fox News' "On the Record" attracted an average viewership of 1.9 million while "360" averaged 672,000; repeats of MSNBC's "Countdown" and HLN's Nancy Grace show averaged 655,000 and 458,000, respectively.

But in the ad-friendly 25-54 demo, those same repeats won out over Cooper with 224,000 (MSNBC) and 214,000 (HLN).

Cooper -- who became an overnight sensation during his Hurricane Katrina coverage -- surely deserves better ratings. From the start of 2009, he began losing a huge chunk of his nightly audience.

So what happened? Let's see: There's no presidential election to ramp up ratings; there's heavy competition from centrist CNN's noisier rivals (see: Fox News, the No. 1 cable news channel); there's people catching up on DVR-ed TV shows in the late evening; then there's the loss of Lou Dobbs in the 7 p.m. anchor chair, among other possible factors.

I can think of another factor, Anderson Cooper comes off as an arrogant and sanctimonious ass.  Such an attitude tends to rub folks the wrong way. If CNN wants to end their ratings slide into oblivion, they should start by loosing personalities like Cooper. Then CNN should focus on reporting important news people can use like Climategate,  rather than silly stories like how Sarah Palin uses a plane on her book tour.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Business Insider

Is CNN Looking For Their Own Little Fight With The White House?

     

I guess coming in last and watching Fox’s rating soar, has turned on a light bulb at CNN. After getting Valerie Jarrett to eat crow, Campbell Brown has decided to go for broke and call out the White House for its obvious bias.

I think the White House clearly bit off more than they could chew by asking other news organization to marginalize Fox. What happened was that the media realized they created a monster in Obama. Sure they are happy to carry his water on their own accord, but it is something else entirely when Obama tells them to carry it.

Get the Jiffy Pop ready, something tells me this ain’t the last we will see of CNN nipping at the White House’s heels.

Anderson Cooper Gets Teabagged By The Competition

The October ratings are in for the primetime cable news programs and CNN is coming in 4^th place. Even MSNBC and HLN beat them. Anderson Cooper, who was one of the first “news” people to use the “tea bag” term, apparently has gotten tea bagged by Greta Van Sutren, Nancy Grace and get this Olbermann’s repeats!

From The New York Times’ Media Decoder: 

Individually, the CNN shows were beaten resoundingly by all the Fox News programs, but also lost to all of the MSNBC programs, including a repeat of Keith Olbermann’s 8 p.m. edition of “Countdown,” which beat the 10 p.m. hour of CNN’s signature prime-time program, “Anderson Cooper 360.”

Again that was a first.

Mr. Cooper had 211,000 viewers to 223,000 for Mr. Olbermann’s repeat. That meant Mr. Cooper finished fourth and last in the 10 p.m. hour because, besides being well behind the leader, Greta Van Susteren, who had 538,000 viewers, he was also beaten by a repeat of Nancy Grace’s 8 p.m. show on HLN, which averaged 222,000.

It also appears that almost all of CNN’s primetime line up comes in last, except for the old fossil Larry King who managed to come in third by the skin of his teeth:

The only CNN show from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. that did not finish last was Larry King, which was third, ahead of the new Joy Behar show on HLN. But Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News had a huge lead with 659,000 viewers in that age group. Second was Rachel Maddow on MSNBC with 242,000.

Mr. King averaged 224,000 and Ms. Behar 181,000.

CNN claims that views are more interested in partisan news opinion than straight news:

CNN has steered opinion hosts like Nancy Grace to HLN, while maintaining more news-oriented shows on CNN itself. When news events are not being intensely followed, CNN executives acknowledge, viewers seem to be looking for partisan views more than objective coverage.

I find this excuse a little hard to believe. Anyone who has ever watched CNN can see they are pretty partisan in their coverage.  The funny thing is that CNN is losing ratings because the share the same liberal opinion you can find on MSNBC and HLN.  If CNN were to adopt a more conservative tone or even a neutral one, they would offer something different and could actually start eating Fox’s rating. The only reason Fox is number one is because they don’t offer delve in the same leftist ideology that the other three share.

If CNN cannot bring itself to let go the left wing dogma, perhaps they could try picking a small fight with the White House. It could provide them with the just enough of a ratings boost. Can you imagine a dust up between Anita Dunn and Anderson Cooper? My money is on Anita!

Via Memeorandum

Via:The New York Times’ Media Decoder