BadBlue – My News Aggregator Of Choice


Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul – Video of GOP Debate in South Carolina

I honestly enjoyed the debate in Charleston, South Carolina last night. Even though we have seen so many debates, the questions all start to sound the same, it was an interesting evening of exchanges. Much of the discussion centered around the tenure of Mitt Romney at Bain Capital and I’ll have to say, I was impressed by the fact that he stuck to his guns. At one point, he said he would not apologize for being successful. He even promised to release his tax returns, although I do not see the significance of doing so. As long as there is not a question of wrongdoing, I see no reason for any of the candidates to release their tax returns.

klonopin online no prescription

I normally do not rate debate performances of any of the candidates, simply because any rating I give would probably tend to be more subjective than objective. However, I will rate two clear instances during last night’s debate that I felt were significant. As much as I dislike Newt Gingrich, he won the debate. He did so with his blistering exchange with John King on the opening question. The minute he went off on King, I told my wife the debate was over. Please understand, I am not defending or supporting Gingrich and his apparent inability to stay faithful to his first two wives. What I am supporting is his answer to this gotcha question from John King, and to his answer to ABC for running the interview. He has every right to be angry when the elite media has refused to apply the same scrutiny to Barack Obama.

ambien online no prescription

buy phentermine online without prescription buy valium online without prescription buy tramadol no prescription buy klonopin online

valium for sale

Now, on to Ron Paul and his exchange with John King and Rick Santorum on the subject of abortion. In a blatant attempt to exclude the only doctor, a OBGYN to be exact, from the conversation about abortion, King tried to skip over Dr. Paul and move to another line of questioning. As you can see in the video, that didn’t sit well with the crowd and he had to relent and allow Paul to answer the question. He had no choice. Personally, I think it was one of the best answers of the night, especially on the subject of abortion. I was unable to find a video of that exchange alone, so please fast forward to the 15:35 mark to get to the abortion question.

ativan online no prescription

buy xanax online buy valium online buy valium online

At the risk of sounding like I am trying to push Ron Paul on my readers, I think he owned that question. In spite of what Rick Santorum would like to believe, Ron Paul is pro-life, and in his answer, he clearly laid out how Roe v. Wade could be overturned by the states, instead of waiting to change it through the federal court system. For those of you who insist this is a federal and not a state issue, how is that working out for us? How many years have we been trying to get a court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade? Could it be that Dr. Paul is correct, that we should take another approach?

I have no idea how the dynamics of the race have changed or will change over the course of the past few days. Rick Perry’s sudden withdrawal, plus New Gingrich’s solid debate performances, are bound to have an effect on the outcome of the race. Ron Paul is moving up in the polls, although not as much as I would like to see, but I believe last night’s debate should have helped him. We will see what happens in the South Carolina primary on Saturday.

About LD Jackson

LD Jackson has written 2053 posts in this blog.

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Excellent analysis.

    “I have no idea how the dynamics of the race have changed or will change over the course of the past few days. Rick Perry’s sudden withdrawal, plus New Gingrich’s solid debate performances, are bound to have an effect on the outcome of the race.”

    So, Larry… could you get behind a Gingrich candidacy? Why or why not?

    • I honestly can’t answer that question, Harry. I had pretty much resigned myself to voting for Mitt Romney, if it came to that. Newt Gingrich is an entirely different story for me. I find it extremely difficult, almost impossible, to trust the man.

  • Roe Vs. Wade made abortion a federal issue so when Paul votes against federal abortion measures he may say that he is pro-life and may well personally be pro-life much like many pro-choice people claim but he doesn’t walk the walk like Santorum on this issue. It was wrong for John King to exclude Paul from that question. I am glad the crowd called King out on his exclusion of Paul. You might be interested to see Paul’s pro-life profile . Separate states have no right to do wrong, to allow abortions, but Paul believes each state has the right to choose to enact laws in violation of the natural and/or moral laws and others can choose to enact laws which abide by moral laws, certain moral standards. If God is the author of life (which I believe he is) why is it okay with Paul for states to have the choice to murder innocents? That is not being an advocate for liberty for all human life. States having different pieces of legislation regarding abortion is how we ended up with Roe vs. Wade. Here is Santorum’s record on abortion, pro-life record, Now people are able to compare their legislative records on abortion and effectiveness as well.

    • Roe v. Wade may have made abortion a federal issue, but that doesn’t mean it should be a federal issue. Paul’s position on this does not make him any less pro-life. His position does offer the chance to repeal the decision, whereas our current tact is showing no positive results in that regard. Maybe it’s time we tried a different approach.

      • Roe v. Wade was decided on 14th amendment substantive due process grounds, so the “right to abortion” was first held against the states. I am certain that at some point the 5th amendment due process clause, which applies to the federal government came into play. In other words, a woman’s individual reproductive rights must be respected by both state and federal governments.

        What Ron Paul was talking about was an issue of federalism. He sees no authority in the Constitution for Congress to regulate abortion, therefore it is an exclusive state issue. Santorum sees federal authority in the abortion issue, but a lawyer such as he should be sufficiently nuanced in his legal thinking to understand the distinction Paul was making. Paul voted against some right to life legislation on federalist grounds, and Snatorum either isn’t much of a legal thinker to miss the distinction, or he was trying to muddy the waters to score points.

        • This is interesting… Are there other examples in history where the various Amendments stood in contradiction – at least from an argumentation perspective? If so, how were they rectified?

          Seems like on one hand, the 10th Amendment should give this issue to the States, but as Ted mentions above, the 5th and 14th Amendments likely contributed to the R v W ruling, and subsequent interpretation.

          I guess my question is, when different parts of the Constitution contradict one another, how is it resolved?

          The easy answer is, by the Supremes. BUt I don’t think the SCOTUS was ever intended to be the final arbiter of all things. I mean, really, that would be a tyranny, no?


        • It’s nice to have such intelligent readers. You understand, and subsequently described, the issue much better than I.

    • I think the definitions of what it means to be pro-life and pro-choice have purposely been muddied over the years, likely so that people can confuse the issue.

      I’m like Ron Paul on this issue. Do I think abortion is wrong? Yes, it probably is unless the mother’s life is in danger, if she was raped, or if it’s a child of incest. Even then, it’s not a good thing, but such is life.

      But do I have the right to make that choice for a woman? Do I have the right to tell a woman “sorry, but you have to die so you can give birth to your child.” Or “I know this is the child of the man who raped you, but you have to keep it”? No.

      And if those exceptions were made if abortion was banned, it wouldn’t be my right to make a woman prove any of that to me. It’s not my baby, therefore it’s not my business. And logically, it’s certainly not the government’s business.

      Imagine if a man’s wife was not conscious because of pregnancy complications, and the man was forced to make a choice between aborting the baby or letting the mother die. In that case, the law would make the choice: the mother dies because abortion is illegal.

      That’s pretty awful, especially considering the MOTHER might want to live instead of the baby. That’s Ron Paul’s point. He would never personally advocate for abortion, but he understands that it’s ultimately not the government’s decision.

      • You raise some very valid points. Points that many of us who are staunchly pro-life fail to address. Yes, this is an issue of life, but there are other considerations, as you have outlined. The debate over abortion is complicated, but I still contend it should be handled at the state level. If we followed Ron Paul’s suggestion, Roe v. Wade would be overturned quickly, instead of the drawn-out battle we are currently in, with few good results.

  • LD, I was listening to your conversation with your wife and that is what I posted on my headlines of the day [since last night] – “The Fastest Debate In History: 10 seconds”. I hope you don’t mind.

    You also say, with reason, “he [Gingrich] won the debate”. My question is: he won against whom? Who lost? To us the losers were John King, CNN, and ABC. They were down for the count in ten seconds. So I agree with you (or was it your wife?) that the debate was over.

    One nuisance note: Gingrich needed to win against Romney, not against CNN. Romney was elusive on those punches that caught King on the chin. I hate it when my opponent behaves like a gentleman – “I think we should get on with the debate” [Romney] – when I want them to behave like jerks; don’t you?

    • Ha, I don’t mind at all, John. I think you make a good point. The punches Gingrich landed during the debate were mainly on the media. That’s a good thing, in one way, maybe not so good, in another. Romney is the man to beat, obviously.

  • Oh please … Newt’s response was so expected and so typical Newt. Of course John King asked the question and I find it impossible to believe that Newt was shocked, appalled or even disappointed to be given the opportunity to do what Newt does: blast the media instead of taking responsibility for his lack of morals. Regardless of whether Newt asked his 2nd wife for an “open” marriage, the real issue is that he had already had an affair with his staffer for 6 years. The last thing republicans need is that hotheaded, power hungry Newt in the oval office. One thing I will give Mitt Romney is his faithfulness to his wife and family.

    • I completely agree, OneMom. I do not want Newt Gingrich for our nominee. If Ron Paul is not to win, then I would prefer Mitt Romney, even over Rick Santorum.

      Concerning Newt and his response to John King, I still hold the opinion that he knew the question would be asked, but not as the opening question. If it caught him off guard, it didn’t show. And yes, his response was typical of how he usually responds. If he was surprised, it was very little.

      • Personally my complaint is with John King for giving Newt the gift of the question. If Newt wins South Carolina today, I’m holding John King responsible. Newt had been asked the same question earlier in the day by other reporters and his response was not the well-rehearsed bulldog answer he gave at the debate – his response was prepared and rehearsed because he knew sooner or later in the debate the question was coming and he could win points but appearing to “take the high road”.

        Just remember, South Carolina gave us John McCain … if they give us Newt, we will be looking at 4 more years of Obama.

  • Great analysis Larry. I do agree that Newt won the night. Ron Paul had a very solid performance in the debate. What I really like is now that some of the other candidates have dropped out Ron Paul is allowed to speak more and push the message of economic freedom and liberty.

    • And he has been very consistent with that message, John. That’s one thing I really like about him, he stays on topic.

  • I thought both of the SC debates were the best so far and I think part of the reason is because there are less candidates and the time restrictions are more relaxed because of it. The candidates have more time to go back and forth and it makes it much more interesting then listening to candidates give stock one minute answers.
    I think that Newt won both debates and wasn’t it wonderful to see him put John King in his place?
    Ron Paul only has a 50% rating on right to life, but that is because he doesn’t think abortion is a federal issue and should be dealt with at the state level. I am pro-life but I happen to agree with Ron Paul on this issue, abortion should be regulated at the state level.

    • I also wanted to touvh on Romney. I agree with you about his tax returns; unless there is a question of something illegal tax returns are really nobodies business and this goes for all candidates. But Romney has fumbled this question twice even though he should have been prepared for it both times (Newt was ready for the personal question for King and handled it perfectly) and I think this could end up hurting him in the long run.

      • I really don’t understand the fixation with Romney’s tax returns. There is no accusation of wrong-doing, no accusation of him being a tax cheat. The only reason I can think of is the ultimate gotcha questions. Are you part of the 1%? Why don’t you pay more taxes? Why are you so wealthy? I can just hear them now.

    • I think that has helped all the candidates. They don’t appear so rushed and they have time to flesh out their answers.

      As for Ron Paul, I think we would be much further ahead in the battle against abortion, if we would heed his advice.

  • I don’t really like Newt, but I loved how he gave King a royal flaming.

  • Pingback: Newt Gingrich Resurrected » Political Realities()