I never thought I would see the day, but it looked an awful lot like Newt finished fourth out of the four candidates in tonight’s debate. For the first time during this primary season, Newt paid a price each and every time he went after Romney personally, who looked unusually aggressive and actually managed a passable impersonation of a human being. After the second time, he attempted to follow Santorum’s lead by saying that the tax return question was a distraction, and in a bizarre twist, Newt actually got his liver eaten by a moderator when Wolf Blitzer nailed him for having been the one who made an issue out of the tax returns. Newt managed to look at least better during the second half of the debate but he did so mainly by staying in the weeds and making several unsubtle appeals to Paul voters. Even then he was overshadowed by Santorum (who has had back-to-back strong debate performances) and even Ron Paul, who a) was clearly on his medication and b) having conceded a last-place finish in Florida, was committed to having some fun at the other candidate’s expense. In the last three days, Newt has watched a 7-point Florida lead evaporate into a 7-point deficit to Mitt Romney. He needed a bump from tonight’s debate in order to mount a challenge to Romney in Florida and hold his momentum heading into Super Tuesday. Instead, voters saw Romney displaying a killer instinct for perhaps the first time during the campaign, and Newt clearly overshadowed even on style points by both Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. If Mitt Romney ends up winning the nomination, we may end up looking back at tonight as the night the tide finally turned in his favor for good.
Follow this link:
A Bad Night for Newt Gingrich
OK, with [96%] of the vote in we can maybe start to look at the results and get some meaningful data out of them. Apologies if any of this sounds loopy: the cold that took over the rest of my family last week finally hit me, so anything weird that I say is the medication. Also… you’ll note that I avoided being rude about the actual Republicans running for office (Ron Paul can be included as one just as soon as he promises to support my party’s eventual nominee); I really suggest that the triumphalism be kept down to a dull roar. So… right now it appears that Romney and Santorum are pole-positioning for first place with 25% of the vote each; Romney was ahead earlier, Santorum is ahead as of this moment, and that may flip back and forth. Given that the difference in their vote total is unlikely reach four digits, both campaigns will probably credibly claim a win if Romney ends up with the higher vote total. Rick Santorum is having the best night of his political life, and I figure that we can let him have it before we start pointing out anything problematical ; Mitt Romney is probably already focused on New Hampshire. Ron Paul… came in third, thank God. If you’re wondering why he’s unequivocally in third place when the polling had him tied for first , it’s probably because most of the polling showing Paul ahead or tied under-counted the Republican vote, over-counted the Democratic/Independent one, or both (the actual entrance polling had it at 75/2/23 R/D/I). This hurts the heck out of Paul’s chances; and, again, thank God. Gingrich/Perry: there’s going to be calls for candidates to drop out (nobody’s going to bother trying to get Ron Paul to do it, of course); and Gingrich is going to be able to point to his fourth-place finish to argue about why it should be Perry who does so. Speaking as a Perry supporter I still think that he’s the best choice that we have*, so I’m not done until he’s done; but the non-jackasses who point to his fifth place showing as an argument for why Perry should drop actually do have an argument. Gingrich has a lifeline, and we’ll see how that affects him in the next two states. Bachmann… it’s over, Rep. Bachmann. I’m sorry. Time to start on your re-election campaign for Congress. Huntsman wasn’t ever in this race to begin with. And, in general: New Hampshire is stereotypically eager to put a metaphorical thumb in the eye of Iowa over these things. Blessed if I know whether that means giving Romney or Santorum the win, though. Moe Lane *After the debacle of 2008 it’s going to be a long time before I support a candidate for President who hasn’t been a governor. Preferably one who has won re-election.
See the rest here:
First thoughts on the Iowa primary.
Let me summarize this Dallas Morning News article about Lisa Blue: if your husband (Fred Baron) is a millionaire and multimillion-dollar Democratic Party fundraiser – John Edwards’ bagman , in fact – and also dying of bone marrow cancer, then you can not only get away with smuggling into the country experimental cancer medicine of dubious efficacy; you can get the Speaker of the House herself to lean on the FDA to let your husband get the medication in question – despite the fact that it didn’t actually work. And then you get to brag about it, while piously talking about how awful it is that regular families don’t have your ability to violate federal regulations on access to experimental and untested medicines*. Which is irrelevant, of course: because it’s not going to get any easier for people to get that access in a system where private health insurance is eliminated. In fact, as the Avastin controversy demonstrates, access to experimental or possibly-marginal medicines will decrease under an universal health care regime. Not that it matters to people like Lisa Blue, Fred Baron, and Nancy Pelosi – after all, they live in the other one of the Two Americas that Edwards liked to so pontificate about. The one where you can publicly call in a marker like this to the Speaker of the House and not be shunned afterward. It takes a lot to erode my instinctive sympathy for both anybody dying of bone marrow cancer, and their families. Being lectured on the need for universal health care coverage by a person who successfully evaded an intolerable medical regulatory regime that her own husband helped spawn will do it every time, though. Moe Lane *Regulations, by the way, that are in place partially because of unscrupulous tort lawyers like… Fred Baron. You see, drug companies are terrified of lawsuits, because they’ve been taught to be by a generation of lawyers. And those lawyers get away with it because many of them are heavy contributors to the Democratic party, like… Fred Baron. Crossposted to RedState .
Link:
Got cancer – and millions of dollars? Nancy Pelosi can help!
The only chemo this guy should get now should be administered by an MQ-9 Reaper . A calculated decision. The Lockerbie bomber refused chemotherapy in a Scottish prison in an attempt to make his condition deteriorate and force his release, it was claimed yesterday. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was believed to be terminally ill with prostate cancer when he was sent home to Libya on compassionate grounds exactly a year ago. But since his release Megrahi has responded well to a similar treatment – which is available on the NHS – and there claims that he could live another seven years. Dr Andrew Fraser, the Scottish doctor responsible for assessing Megrahi’s health a year ago, had assured the Government that the bomber was resistant to treatment – assumed to mean that body was not responding. But in fact Megrahi chose to refuse the treatment , ITV have claimed. It is understood that Megrahi discussed the treatment with Scottish doctors but said he would only undergo it with support of his family, who were in Libya. Notes of a meeting on July last year, which have been released by the Scottish Government, report that doctors told Megrahi that he needed to ‘take his medication regularly’ – suggesting that he had skipping doses that would have improved his health. Just days later, his condition began to undergo such a dramatic deterioration that it appears to have been deciding factor in the release.
Read the original:
Lockerbie Bomber Refused Chemo in Jail – to SECURE His Release
