Monday, June 13, 2011

MULLINGS has a fun ratings sheet for the debate tonight

I don't do Excel but that's how he sent it out to his readers.   Anyway, I put this on my computer and got it over here and I think you can click on it and it'll enlarge and then you can print it...maybe? Try it out...could be fun while you're watching the debate tonight on CNN.  
8 pm EST time........
z

22 comments:

Ducky's here said...

I'm watching the Bruins.

BB-Idaho said...

Looks like one of those score sheets for interviewing job applicants....wait-it is!!

Mike said...

Ducky,
Canada v. Massachusetts.

I'll cheer for the less socialist state--just tell me which it is.

bftm

beamish said...

Watching Ron Paul fumble through misquoting the First Amendment was about as enlightening and predictable as it could possibly be.

Watching Herman Cain admit he'd violate Article 6 of the US Constitution to impose a religious test on employees of his administration was more shocking.

I think that eliminates the candidates most unfamiliar with the Constitution.

Next?

beamish said...

Who knew there was a border between Iraq and Afghanistan?

Ron Paul, please, just stop.

Dave Miller said...

Beamish, the problem is that while you are correct in that Cain muffed a couple of questions that had Constitutional implications, the ones that are solid, or at least more solid, are the least liked by more right leaning members of the party.

What can the GOP do about that?

beamish said...

Beamish, the problem is that while you are correct in that Cain muffed a couple of questions that had Constitutional implications, the ones that are solid, or at least more solid, are the least liked by more right leaning members of the party.

What can the GOP do about that?


Stop confusing the Tea Party with conservatism?

Z said...

Dave, we have to be a united front no matter what, no matter how conservative we are. We can fix things later; we can't have Obama....it would do America in forever.
Republicans are too divided but they usually are; they think and ponder and have different opinions and this is what happens.
This is the time for unity. There's not much we can do. The media is so leftwing...Poor John King said "But, but...but...but.." so much I couldn't concentrate on the answers. Like the JOY BEHAR of interviewers.. Imagine giving candidates ONE MINUTE to answer questions like they were being asked? :-)

Ducky, that says a lot. I watch all debates of either side.

BB..it is an interview for a job, isn't it?

Mike...at least Canada's media is honest and pro American...

beamish said...

we have to be a united front no matter what, no matter how conservative we are. We can fix things later; we can't have Obama....it would do America in forever.

I agree we have to be a "united front," Z. I'm pretty sure all the candidates on the stage are convinced that Obama needs to go.

But we can pare down the list of potential replacements NOW. We can't "fix things later." Replacing Obama is only the starting line to the solution, if it is, but it is not the solution itself.

Otherwise "I'm not Obama" would be the only answer in a debate a candidate would have to give.

See it as an attack on "conservatives" :cough cough: if you want, but I'm failing to see the first step to an actual "united front" as jumping on the Going Rogue tour bus.

Unless I fell unaware through a worm hole to the Twilight Zone, being conservative used to actually mean something.

Ducky's here said...

z, it's the Stanley Cup final.

You think "Big Mouth" Luongo should have come out to cut off the angle on that first one. Bad goal.

Now for Game 7.

Dave Miller said...

Z... you said Canada's media is honest... and pro-American... isn't that inherently evidence of bias and a lack of honesty?

On the length of answers, all the candidates knew ahead of time that they would have 1 minute to answer.

Me thinks the problem was that they did not want to limit their answers to the actual questions. If they did, 1 minute was more than ample time. the problems came when they felt they had to get their individual talking points in too.

I saw many times when the candidates did not even answer the questions, having to get a restatement of the question from John King of just totally ignoring the citizen questions.

I think Romney "won" because he did not lose and his presence caused Pawlenty to back down. TPaw was intimidated by Romney being right there and wouldn't even defend his own word, "Obamneycare."

beamish said...

It bothered me that Pawlenty didn't put Romney on defense and keep him there, but the feed of rope is there.

In the bigger picture, strikingly absent from the last two years is Romney making the case that Obamacare isn't Obomneycare. He's let Obama call his plan "based on Romney's plan in Massachussetts" for two years without grievance or rebuttal, and we all know the reason for that. Romney's no better prepared to debate Obama on health care than Robert Gibbs is.

Z said...

Dave...you said "Z... you said Canada's media is honest... and pro-American... isn't that inherently evidence of bias and a lack of honesty?"

How? Did you think I meant every Canadian article is pro American? :-) no...at least SOME ARE. Even Britain's Telegraph and Guardian are more honest than our press is. They covered the Obama visit there with much more open a mind than ours sycophants did.

Really? You think ONE MINUTE is ample time for questions about our economy, illegal immigration, etc.? I was wondering how many debates have ever limited them that much? I'd like to know that. They had points they wanted to make and could barely get them in, especially with John King saying "But...but..........uh...but.." from the second they hit the minute mark ; that was very distracting.

As for Pawlenty, that really did disappoint me; some are saying he's got a nice streak that wouldn't allow him to criticize Romney's health care plan with him there but he didn't have to get ugly, he could have just told the things he disagreed with about it.

Beamish, I thought Romney well represented himself on that. He admitted there are problems with the Mass. plan and added "if he patterned it after Mass., why didn't Obama come to me and ask what we did wrong?"
slam dunk

beamish said...

Beamish, I thought Romney well represented himself on that. He admitted there are problems with the Mass. plan and added "if he patterned it after Mass., why didn't Obama come to me and ask what we did wrong?"
slam dunk


Why didn't Romney come to Obama, or the American people, and fight Obamacare while it was in the oven?

This answer was a cutesy joke, but ultimately as non-serious as Newt's suggestion to turn half of the DHS pencil pushers into Border Patrol agents.

There are no slam dunks in baseball. He needed to hit a home run. Kill this liability immediately. He didn't.

This will come back to kill Romney's candidacy when he's asked to explain the specific differences between his Massachussetts fiasco and Obamacare and he won't be able to offer anything but semantics.

It doesn't help that before Obamacare passed, people were pointing to Romney's folly in Massachussetts as an example of why Obamacare is a bad idea.

It also doesn't help that during all the fights and debates and protests over how Obamacare was jammed down America's throats through 2009 and 2010, Romney was AWOL. Silent. No where, at all.

From where I'm sitting, Romney hasn't put any criticism of his weathervane positions and hypocrisy to rest. He's going to bleed for it. Especially when he gets into states that are bigger than counties.

Z said...

you give the average American voter a LOT more credit than deserved.

Dave Miller said...

Beamish, really? Stop confusing the Tea party with conservatism?

How? Not one single conservative leader in American politics has made that distinction. I'd go even further and say you are the only person I even remotely kow who separates the two.

Until political leaders come out and say that the Tea Party does not speak for conservatives, or represent conservatism, I believe it is fair to equate the two.

The GOP was pretty big on guilt by association in the last election vis a vis the whole Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright issues, even though candidate Obama did denounce them both.

Barring any sort of public declaration telling us to "stop confusing the Tea Party with conservatism," what are we to think?

beamish said...

Beamish, really? Stop confusing the Tea party with conservatism?

To put it nicely, yes.

How? Not one single conservative leader in American politics has made that distinction. I'd go even further and say you are the only person I even remotely kow who separates the two.

My politics haven't changed in over 20 years. If in 1991 someone told you that they wanted to "tear down the Republican Party, raise taxes on 'the rich,' scale back America's global military presence," and that they were opposed to any changes to social "entitlement" programs, would you call them a conservative, or dismiss them as a wild-eyed leftist twit?

Maybe I'm the last man standing, but if the Tea Party is "conservative," then I am vehemently opposed to everything this "conservatism" stands for today. Donald Trump, conservative hero? Really? Gay Pride rally at CPAC? Really?

When's Rod Serling going to narrate this shit?

Dave Miller said...

Beamish, I agree with you... todays conservatives have as much in common with classic conservatism as todays liberals have in common with classic liberalism...

The problem is the classics are in the minority. A Reagan, Eisenhower or Goldwater would have as much chance of getting elected by their party as a Moynihan, Truman or Humphrey by theirs...

Sadly, none...

Too bad the majority of the parties do not agree with you on the conservative side, or me on the liberal side...

beamish said...

Dave,

Would you agree the definitions of both "liberal" and "conservative" have shifted leftward?

Dave Miller said...

Beamish, I think the definitions have each shifted towards their perspective sides of the spectrum.

Whereas before one could be a moderate i his party, think Rockefeller Republicans or Jackson Democrats, that sadly does not seem possible.

Neither of those options are left, or right enough for the partisans.

I 100% agree that a majority of Libs have moved dramatically to the left. [look at the PC crowd for instance or the "Bush caused 9/11 crowd] But I also believe a majority of the other side has moved dramatically to the right. [The Norquist no tax group and the birthers come to mind]

Has the center shifted? Of that I am not so sure because we do not typically hear the voices from that crowd as the edges seem to drown them out.

I do see myself as totally left. On many issues I can support the goals of the conservatives. We cannot, for instance continue to spend money we do not have. We also cannot just up and eliminate programs that people, rightly or wrongly, have come to depend on without a plan.

But a voice like mine gets shouted down from both sides who do not seem interested in trying to find common ground solutions.

What seems more important is winning the argument and not being a DINO or a RINO.

It makes it hard to respond in kind with snarky asides myself, something I do in fact do when I perceive people only wish to see one side of the coin.

Z said...

Dave, MILLIONS don't believe even the last Birth Cert. is valid; there are all sorts of things about it that computer experts say are bunk.
How is questioning that far right??

Dave Miller said...

Z, millions do not believe the official storyline of 9/11. Your side has said many times government will stop at nothing to amass power. Who's to say thet our government did not plan and execute 9/11, using bin Laden, so they could set in motion their plan to rob Americans of their personal liberties?

Just because millions of people believe something does not make it true.

The burden of truth in these instances should be on those making the charges to produce the real evidence, isn't that how the law functions?

Last I saw, reasonable people have debunked both of the lame conspiracy theories. Yet still the extremists persist.

What these sides have in common is a belief that the government can do nothing right.

Here's a nice quote by GW Bush from his 1999 campaign, it was from a Speech called "Duty of Hope"...

"I know the reputation of our government has been tainted by scandal and cynicism. But the American government is not the enemy of the American people. At times it is wasteful and grasping. But we must correct it, not disdain it. Government must be carefully limited, but strong and active and respected within those bounds. It must act in the common good, and that good is not common until it is shared by those in need."

It was a great speech supporting the role of government in public life. Honest, fair, and with a vision.

But his vision cannot stand alongside people who decide to not accept the truth when they do not like it.