Alex Sink & David Jolly Debates

Alex Sink sent out an email announcing upcoming debates with Republican nominee David Jolly.

February 3rd: Bay News 9 / Tampa Bay Times Debate - 7:00p.m. at St. Petersburg College.

February 25th: Clearwater Chamber of Commerce Candidate Forum - 6:00p.m. at the Pinellas Realtors Association.

February 28th: WEDU Debate - 3:30p.m. to air 8:30p.m. and again at 12:30p.m. on February 29th, location TBD.

I hope this provides the same level of excitement as Bill Nelson and Connie Mack debate cows. I am not making that up.

Mack blasted Nelson for having an agricultural property tax exemption on 55 acres of land of pasture land he owns in Brevard County, saying it saves Nelson $43,000 in property taxes a year, even though Nelson has advocated closing tax loopholes for the wealthy.

Nelson responded that his family has pastured cattle on the land for 60 years. The second time Mack brought it up, Nelson shot back, "Not only has it been a cow pasture for 60 years, why don't we ask him why he takes two homestead exemptions, which is directly contrary to the Florida Constitution?"

Don't mess with Bill Nelson's cows.

Is Charles Krauthammer Ever Honest?

Charles Krauthammer's view on calling presidential debates is about as trustworthy as Dick Morris. Krauthammer declares Mitt Romney the winner. Krauthammer says that all Romney had to do is show up.

”I think it’s unequivocal — Romney won, and he didn’t just win tactically, but strategically. Strategically, all he needed to do was basically a draw, he needed to continue the momentum he’s had since the first debate, and this will continue it. Tactically, he simply had to get up there and show that he’s a competent man, and somebody you can trust as commander-in-chief.”

Krauthammer is a man who helped further the Bush administration's bogus case of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Former Office of Special Plans staffer Karen Kwiatkowski wrote that Krauthammer was using talking points fed from Pentagon neoconservatives.

I suspected, from reading Charles Krauthammer, a neoconservative columnist for the Washington Post, and the Weekly Standard, and hearing a Cheney speech or two, that these talking points left the building on occasion.

The height of Krauthammer's chutzpah is when in 2004 he declared in 2004 that President George W. Bush won the war in Afghanistan.

President Bush put in place a military campaign that did in two months what everyone had said was impossible: defeat an entrenched, fanatical, ruthless regime in a territory that had forced the great British and Soviet empires into ignominious retreat. Bush followed that by creating in less than three years a fledgling pro-American democracy in a land that had no history of democratic culture and was just emerging from 25 years of civil war.

Krauthammer wrote in 2009 that President Barack Obama was committed to losing the war in Afghanistan. Krauthammer penned this masterpiece after Obama's West Point speech.

I would therefore defer to their judgment and support their recommended policy. But the fate of this war depends not just on them. It depends also on the president. We cannot prevail without a commander in chief committed to success.

And this commander in chief defended his exit date (vs. the straw man alternative of "open-ended" nation-building) thusly: "because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own."

Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets -- some of whom may not return alive -- but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.

Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?

I would love someone to ask Krauthammer how could Obama lose a war Bush won. The Charles Krauthammer archives is the gift that keeps on giving.

Krauthammer can't even tell on the history of a war still going on? There is no reason to trust his opinion on the outcome of a presidential debate.

Romney's 'Come On Our Website' Answer

Bob Schieffer asked Mitt Romney how he would pay for increased military spending. Romney's answer was hysterical.

SCHIEFFER: Let me get — I want to try to shift it, because we have heard some of this in the other debates.

Governor, you say you want a bigger military. You want a bigger Navy. You don’t want to cut defense spending. What I want to ask you — we were talking about financial problems in this country. Where are you going to get the money?

ROMNEY: Well, let’s come back and talk about the military, but all the way — all the way through. First of all, I’m going through from the very beginning — we’re going to cut about 5 percent of the discretionary budget, excluding military. That’s number one.

SCHIEFFER: But can you do this without driving deeper…

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: The good news is (inaudible). I’d be happy to have you take a look. Come on our website. You look at how we get to a balanced budget within eight to 10 years. We do it by getting — by reducing spending in a whole series of programs. By the way, number one I get rid of is Obamacare.

There are a number of things that sound good, but frankly, we just can’t afford them. And that one doesn’t sound good and it’s not affordable. So I’d get rid of that one from day one. To the extent humanly possible, we get that out. We take program after program that we don’t absolutely have to have, and we get rid of them.

Romney's answer is to look at his campaign website. I have been to Mitt's website. It most certainly doesn't tell you how Romney would pay to massively increase military spending. How can any conservative believe in this man enough to vote for him is enough to me.

Fewer Horses and Bayonets

President Barack Obama rightfully mocked the empty rhetoric of Mitt Romney's proposal to increase military spending.

Live Blogging the President Foreign Policy Debate

I will be live blogging the presidential debate on Twitter at @pushingrope. Feel free to tweet me your observations.

The Crowley Report tweets, "Apparently Sheldon Adelson and his wife are at the debate."

Observation: A lot of people will skip this debate because of baseball playoffs and Monday Night Football.

8:47 News flash to people: members of both parties have already written their press releases on how their candidate won.

9:21 Just how dumb is Romney. MT @stevebenen Syria is not Iran's "route to the sea." Syria and Iran do not share a border, Iran has a coastline.

USF GOP Debate Live Blogging

My understanding is the Marshall Center at USF is shut down for the Republican debate.

Drink every time a candidate mentions Ronald Reagan's name.

The Ron Paul supporters are out in force by the Marshall Center.

Video of the scene outside the Marshall Center. The media is on the second floor in the ballroom.

State of Sunshine blogger Jim Johnson said he estimates there are about 200 Ron Paul supporters.

The Tampa Bay Times has a photo gallery of the protest outside the Marshall Center. Occupy Tampa is present.

The USF Oracle has a photo of the Occupy Tampa protesters at USF.



Jim Johnson will be live blogging the debate.

My understanding is that Peter Schorsch will be live blogging. Check his blog at 9:00 PM.

Tas just sent me this awesome tweet.

There's another fucking debate tonight? I thought it was on Thursday.

It feels like there have been debates since the day after Obama's inauguration. What makes matters worse is these debates have been substance-free.

9:00 Brian Williams introduction and sweeping music.

9:02 Gingrich brings up Herbert Hoover to make the case he is electable. Good God.

9:05 Romney hits Gingrich twice on him "resigning in disgrace."

Romney declaring his love for the Paul Ryan plan is a great general election sound bite for Democrats.

Romney hits Gingrich for working on Freddie Mac. Romney is coming out swinging because he is in trouble.

9:10 Newt defending himself on House ethics reprimand. Newt attacking Romney on false facts. What part of ethics reprimand and fine does Newt not understand. Newt won't fess up to anything.

9:13 Man is Rick Santorum boring.

9:17 Is Gingrich and Paul having an onstage bromance?

Jim Johnson picks up on the bromance vibe.

Ron Paul praises Gingrich, and might support Newt. Gingrich returns some of the favor.

Ginger Lee thinks Newt brushed off Paul.

'Rick Perry said I'm cool, fuck the other dude from TX'-What Newt really meant.

9:22 Newt wants a 15 percent flat tax and zero capital gains tax. Next Newt will say he will balance the budget.

9:24 Short answer: Mitt lifted himself up by his designer boot straps.

Peter Schorsch sums up Santorum's electability. Remember, Santorum lost his Senate race.

“I lost by 18 points but it was only because I was a terrible candidate.”

9:27 Shorter Gingrich: "I didn't lobby. I told Freddie Mac how to lobby."

9:28 Romney hits Gingrich on the infamous "historian" defense. That was the best b.s. answer during the debates.

Jim Johnson thinks that Romney needs to stop the Freddie Mac attack. Romney has no choice. He is in trouble.

9:33 Isn't Brian Williams suppose to be moderating? Romney and Gingrich have been arguing forever.

9:37 Santorum blaming the entire foreclosure crisis on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie and Freddie were part of the problem. Santorum won't name the major banks that sold the majority of the mortgages.

9:41: BHAH! HA! HA! HA! HA! Romney said Pam Bondi is cracking down on illegal foreclosures. Wrong.

Ginger Lee pointed out the stupidity of the debate.

Holy hell, we're arguing about Castro going to heaven or hell?

Candidates can't be accused of getting bogged down in wonkery.

9:50 Gingrich is attacking Obama on foreign policy. Obama backed Libya bombing and killed Osama bin Laden.

9:52 Romney wants to keep troops in Afghanistan longer. Afghanistan is a losing proposition.

Commercial break: Do Romney and Gingrich truly believe sending more troops to war and accusing Obama of being weak on national security will win in the general election? It won't.

9:58 Adam and Beth Reinhard in the House to help Williams give candidates non-questions.

9:59 Santorum is making same argument on Iran that Bush administration did with Iraq.

10:02 Shorter Rick Santorum: Offshore oil drilling helps tourism. Nothing prettier than seeing an oil rig off the beach.

10:04 The bashing the Spanish language should continue to repel Hispanics from Republicans.

10:06 Gingrich supports citizenship for military service.

10:07 Romney proposes that immigrants would turn themselves for self-deportation. This took 30 seconds for Romney's staffers to think up.

I agree with Ezra Klein on this.

I bet watching Newt Gingrich run for president makes Bill Clinton want to run for president sooooo bad

Commercial break saves America from the boredom. None of these candidates have anything resembling charisma.

Reactions to Mitt's "self-deportation" immigration policy. People are wondering what the hell is Romney talking about.

Jim Johnson

Adam Smith continues on immigration. Romney says the best plan is self-deportation… what?

Ginger Lee

Is 'self deportation' just a fancy word for leaving? Because it sounds like it.

10:18 Gingrich saying that Terri Schiavo cased wasn't reviewed by the courts. It went up to the federal courts. The Supreme Court rejected hearing the Schiavo case.

Gary Fineout points out that Gingrich won't let facts get in the way.

Newt Gingrich says there should have been a judicial review of Schiavo decision. Well, there was.

10:23 Romney harps so much on "the Space Coast" that it is obvious he was coached for his debate prep. Problem is that Romney makes it obvious.

10:25 Sorry Newt, but most economist don't agree that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy.

10:30 Brian Williams asked what Romney did to further conservatism. Romney says he raised a family and worked in business. Tons of people have done that who aren't conservative or political.

10:33 Shorter Newt: I got Ronald Reagan elected and won Congress. So modest.

10:34 Rick Santorum disses Obama on cap and trade. Cap and trade was the idea of Congressional Republicans.

10:36 The question to Paul should be how he furthered the libertarian movement.

1037 Romney lying about never saying that Romneycare should not go national. Romney said his health care program should go national.

Side note: Pam Bondi's name mentioned several times. Rick Scott's name not mentioned once.

Side note: The Newt Gingrich campaign press release on Mitt Romney's conservative accomplishments is hysterical.

Vice-Presidential Debate Drinking Game

Jill at Feministe has set down the rule for the Sarah Palin/Joe Biden debate. Follow her rules and drink up. I added a few rules.

Big shot if Palin calls McCain a Maverick.

Half shot every time Palin utters reformer.

Two shots if Palin mentions the bailout, health care and job creation in the same sentence.

"Bobo's World invades my own", b/w "How Obama can win"

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

In today's New York Times, David Brooks has a column about what he perceives as the failure of Obama's campaign, and hence his message in general:

Barack Obama had a theory. It was that the voters are tired of the partisan paralysis of the past 20 years. The theory was that if Obama could inspire a grass-roots movement with a new kind of leadership, he could ride it to the White House and end gridlock in Washington.

Obama has built his entire campaign on this theory. He’s run against negativity and cheap-shot campaigning. He’s claimed that there’s an “awakening” in this country — people “hungry for a different kind of politics.” [...]

Now, the Obama campaign is facing another test. There are a few ways to interpret the losses in Texas and Ohio. One is demographic. He didn’t carry the groups he often has trouble with — white women, Latinos, the less educated. The other is tactical. Clinton attacked him, and the attacks worked. [...]

Beneath the euphemisms, what the advice really means is that Obama has to start accusing Clinton of things. [...]

These attacks are supposed to show that Obama can’t be pushed around. But, of course, what it really suggests is that Obama’s big theory is bankrupt. You can’t really win with the new style of politics. Sooner or later, you have to play by the conventional rules. [emphasis mine]

Oddly enough, the conservative Brooks is seemingly channeling yours truly, circa Janruary 22, 2008:

In fact, the lack of content (or any palpable energy) on Obama's blog, to me, highlights one missing entity that's sorely needed in his campaign: Guns. Big fucking guns that are manned, trained on the Hillary campaign, and ready to fire at any time. [...]

How can one successfully defend themselves against the attacks coming from Hillary and still try to raise themselves above the political fray? I'm not sure if Hillary's strategy is to lower Obama into an all out brawl, but if so, she certainly succeed[ed]... What she's offering is shit from all sides.

Obama is on the defensive right now. He started in this position around a week before last Tuesday's primaries when he let Hillary control the messages of the campaign, and Obama will continue to be in this position if he allows Hillary to keep attacking him. But Brooks is right -- Obama will lose if he goes negative. And there lies the conundrum: How can Obama get off the defensive without attacking Hillary? So in either position Hillary wins, right? That's the conventional political wisdom.

I think I have a solution.

To win, Obama has to raise himself above the fray of normal politics. After all, this has been the point of his campaign. Do keep on his campaign's message at this point, and to stay off the defensive, he has to bend the rules and attack Hillary in a way that's not negative, but will force Hillary to reply on his level. What Obama needs to do is propose that he and Hillary have two to three debates under this specific format:

* Each debate will be two hours in length
* Only specific issues will be debate (have the "Foreign Policy" debate and the "Domestic Policy" debate, for example)
* No moderator
* No commercials

With no moderator and no commercials, the candidates pose specific questions to each other about the issues.

It's risky (and some of these debates may not make it into television, save for CSPAN), but if Obama proposed such debates, it would successfully place Hillary on the defensive without having to hurl negative attacks at her. And Hillary can't decline an invitation for such debates -- if she does, then Obama could attack her with it, hanging it over her head while stipulating that all Hillary has to run her campaign on is negativity. And since it's the Hillary camp that wants to draw Obama into a fight, they can't be seen as backing down.

At this point, Hillary has checked Obama. It's upto him to make the right move... Otherwise, it's checkmate.