Tag Archives: Wins

UK Telegraph pronounces Michele Bachmann the winner of the debate

From the UK Telegraph, Michele Bachmann is the winner of last night’s Republican  primary debate.

Excerpt:

Tonight, she relentlessly pushed her experience as a tax lawyer, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, a decision-maker not afraid to buck her own party on TARP and a leader of the charge against Obamacare – not to mention being a mother of five and foster mother of 23.

There is often a herd mentality at debates. But I’ve never seen such unanimity as there was this time. In the spin room afterwards, almost everyone flocked initially to Team Bachmann to hear what they had to say.  Their game plan has been simple: 1. Grab the headlines by announcing she was running for president. It was gimmicky but effective. All the wires led with this “news” – I use inverted commas because we all knew she was running and she still hasn’t set a date for the actual announcement. 2. Push details of her broad experience and policy know-how.

Here’s the debate transcript:

Best sound bite from Michele Bachmann:

KING: Congresswoman Bachmann, should the president have supported and jointed more U.S. presence, but now a NATO operation? Was that the right thing to do? Is that in the vital national interest of the United States of America?

BACHMANN: No, I don’t believe so it is. That isn’t just my opinion. That was the opinion of our defense secretary, Gates, when he came before the United States Congress. He could not identify a vital national American interest in Libya.

Our policy in Libya is substantially flawed. It’s interesting. President Obama’s own people said that he was leading from behind. The United States doesn’t lead from behind. As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind.

We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. That’s all we need to know. The president was not leading when it came to Libya.

First of all, we were not attacked. We were not threatened with attack. There was no vital national interest. I sit on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. We deal with the nation’s vital classified secrets.

We to this day don’t yet know who the rebel forces are that we’re helping. There are some reports that they may contain al Qaeda of North Africa. What possible vital American interests could we have to empower al Qaeda of North Africa and Libya? The president was absolutely wrong in his decision on Libya.

To learn more about Bachmann, check out these profile pieces:

You can also see videos of Michele Bachmann interviews from a previous post.

These are both worth reading to understand her background, policies and voting record.

 

Michele Bachmann wins Republican primary debate in New Hampshire

From the mainstream media:

From Twitter:

John Hawkins (Right Wing News)
Winner? Michele Bachmann. Last place? Herman Cain. His Muslim answer sounded awful. #cnndebate

Kathleen McKinley (Houston Chronicle, Right Wing News)
Now that Bachmann has proven herself a worthy candidate, the msm will go after her like they did Palin #waitandsee

Erick Erickson (Red State)
That sound you hear is millions of jaws hitting the ground by Bachmann’s stellar answer on Libya. She just did very well with that.

Erick Erickson (Red State)
Newt proved he can handle the debate. Bachmann wins as the strongest non Romney. Romney wins overall as no one knocked him off his perch.

Jennifer Rubin (Washington Post)
@daveweigel and Bachmann exceeded expectations

Jennifer Rubin (Washington Post)
who thinks Palin could have been more impressive than Bachmann?

Kathryn Jean Lopez (National Review)
michelle bachmann wins tonight and i suspect mitt romney is quite comfortable with that. #cnndebate

David Freddoso (National Review)
Lesson 1: Bachmann is a more serious candidate than Gingrich.

Jim Geraghty (National Review)
Bachmann’s performance tonight was so strong, it will take Ed Rollins at least half a week to derail her momentum…

Larry Sabato (Democrat)
Bachmann also pleased with her performance, with reason.

S.E. Cupp (Moderate conservative)
Romney looked good tonight, so did Pawlenty. But it must be said, Bachmann was actually the only rockstar on that stage.

S.E. Cupp (Moderate conservative)
David Gergen also says it was a very good night for Bachmann. So who did you think won the night?

Ezra Klein (Democrat from Washington Post)
Romney won. Bachmann surged. Cain disappointed. Pawlenty whiffed. Gingrich slept. Santorum fretted. Paul scolded. #CNNDebate

Keep in mind that Romney is the establishment candidate, the pick of the moderate Republicans and the Democrats. However, he did do well – it’s his record on abortion, religious liberty, global warming and health care that troubles me. (See related links below)

Debate transcript:

Best sound bite:

KING: Congresswoman Bachmann, should the president have supported and jointed more U.S. presence, but now a NATO operation? Was that the right thing to do? Is that in the vital national interest of the United States of America?

BACHMANN: No, I don’t believe so it is. That isn’t just my opinion. That was the opinion of our defense secretary, Gates, when he came before the United States Congress. He could not identify a vital national American interest in Libya.

Our policy in Libya is substantially flawed. It’s interesting. President Obama’s own people said that he was leading from behind. The United States doesn’t lead from behind. As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind.

We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. That’s all we need to know. The president was not leading when it came to Libya.

First of all, we were not attacked. We were not threatened with attack. There was no vital national interest. I sit on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. We deal with the nation’s vital classified secrets.

We to this day don’t yet know who the rebel forces are that we’re helping. There are some reports that they may contain al Qaeda of North Africa. What possible vital American interests could we have to empower al Qaeda of North Africa and Libya? The president was absolutely wrong in his decision on Libya.

This is the answer that EVERYONE is pointing to as her finest moment.

Check out this Jennifer Rubin column that was just posted.

Excerpt:

There was some news made Monday night, as Bachmann declared her candidacy and showed herself to be a serious candidate. She often invoked her congressional experience (voting against TARP and against raising the debt limit and introducing a bill to repeal Obamacare). She gave an impassioned speech on the right to life, but said she wouldn’t go into states seeking to repeal their laws on gay marriage. As a federal matter, however, she would support a constitutional amendment if the Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t survive judicial scrutiny.

Read the whole thing. Michele is the candidate we need support.

You can contribute to her campaign right here. You can be her friend on Facebook here and also here.

Related posts

Stephen Harper wins English-language election debate

Stephen Harper shakes hands with petulant children
Stephen Harper shakes hands with petulant children

From left-wing Global TV, a university professor scores the first English-language debate in the Canadian Federal election.

Excerpt:

How well did the four leaders present their points?

Dr. Royce Koop: Harper is very effective at getting his message across. He is very clear, disciplined, and it’s tough to knock him off his game. Ignatieff is not communicating as well as I thought he would. He’s clearly new to this debate format.

Who were the clear aggressors and/or defenders throughout the debate?

Dr. Royce Koop: As can be expected, the three opposition leaders are the aggressors and Harper is the defender. However, Duceppe has distinguished himself as an aggressor. His opening comment was a strong, sharp attack of Harper. However, Harper is effectively defending himself in this debate. His strength is being disciplined, and he’s keeping his cool very well.

Who preformed best?

Dr. Royce Koop: Harper behaved like the PM-in-waiting. These debate formats actually favour the incumbent PM. Everyone is attacking them, and so they are able to rise above it all and act prime-ministerial. This is how Chretien survived the debates in 1997 and 2000, by riding above all the attacks, and Harper is doing so very effectively tonight.

What was your impression of the Harper-Ignatieff face-off? Who won that tete-a-tete?

Dr. Royce Koop: I think that Harper won that exchange, but it was a close call. Ignatieff has to be able to knock Harper off his game, and he hasn’t been able to do so effectively. He came close at the conclusion of the first exchange between them, but Harper came out on top.

A left-wing report from the Markdale Standard.

Excerpt:

Harper projected calm competence and self-assurance from the outset. He carried that through, almost without interruption, to his closing statement two hours later.

There was one moment when Ignatieff had an opening. That was in the prolonged section on democracy. Ignatieff was pressing hard. He scored some good hits on Stephen Harper, branding him a control freak who disrespects democratic institutions and, by extension, Canadians. It was a compelling segment and for a few moments it seemed like Ignatieff might turn the tide.

It didn’t happen. The debate moved on to other topics and ended, advantage Harper, on health care. Here Harper was very strong, looking pragmatic and sensible as the others sought in vain to breach his defence.

Harper’s debating skills, designed for TV, outmatched all three of the other contestants. Most tellingly, he looked constantly at the camera when answering questions, not at his opponents. He was the only one to do so consistently, though NDP leader Jack Layton also used this technique towards the end.

But Harper was rock-solid with it, constantly gazing into the camera, speaking directly Canadians in reassuring tones. With his body language he projected calm confidence. He kept his gestures small and controlled and within the circumference of his body – an effective technique on television.

[…]Tomorrow, look for Harper’s numbers in English Canada to rise sharply, into the low 40s. This will come as bitter brew to Liberal supporters across Canada, but it’s the simple reality: A Conservative majority is back on the table.

How did Harper win the debate? By using evidence.

Excerpt:

Canada’s good economic standing relative to its G8 counterparts, and the country’s relatively quick emergence from recession, can, in part, be credited to encouraging investment in the corporate sector, Mr. Harper said.

While in power, the Stephen Harper Conservatives have cut the corporate tax rate from 22.5% to 16.5%, with a further reduction to 15% scheduled for 2012.

To then foist a sudden reversal in policy on corporate Canada would send the wrong message to investors, Mr. Harper said on Tuesday. He quoted Jack Mintz, a public policy expert at the University of Calgary, as saying that the additional taxes proposed by the Liberals would cost the Canadian economy 200,000 jobs and $40-billion in business investment over the long run.

“Every credible economic analyst, every major business group in this country, says that if you raise taxes, you will hurt growth, hurt jobs and hurt revenue,” Mr. Harper said.

He must be the only politician I know who actually EXPLAINS why corporate tax-hikes are a bad idea. The government needs to cut taxes to attract corporations to move to their country, and to encourage their people to start or grow businesses. That’s where jobs COME FROM. And when people are working, because they have lots of jobs to choose from, they are happier and they pay more in taxes than if they were unemployed. And when people are employed, the government spends less on unemployment and other welfare programs. Notice that our corporate tax rate down here is 36%. More than double the Canadian corporate tax rate. Compared to the Canadians, we spend way too much, and we create far fewer jobs.

If the left-wing newspapers are calling it a victory for Harper, then it was a landslide victory for Harper. I am talking William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens landslide victory. I can hardly wait to see the poll numbers from up north tomorrow. The latest pre-debate poll has Harper leading the socialist Liberal party by 12 points. (H/T Jeanie)

UPDATE: Post-debate poll shows that Harper won the debate.

Related posts