All Eyes On New Hampshire… Another GOP Debate–Updated

Mitt Romney wins… Rick Santorum second… and Ron Paul third, just like in the Iowa Caucuses. After some initial feistiness, I really didn't see any big attacks on each other that were noteworthy and with those headlines, they came out swinging Sunday morning.

The Spectacle Blog - ABC NH GOP Debate Post-Mortem - By Aaron Goldstein on 1.7.12 @11:59PM

Here are my final thoughts on tonight's New Hampshire GOP debate which aired on ABC.

Jon Huntsman - A typical performance for the former Ambassador to China with more than a touch of snark. Somehow I don't think there's a significant Mandarin speaking community in New Hampshire, and his display of the command of the Mandarin language just made him look uppity.

Ron Paul - He had a couple of testy exchanges with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich and squeaked at a high enough pitch that he could be heard by dogs residing at the animal shelter nearest to St. Anselm College. But as always he made some good points.

Mitt Romney - He stayed on message, made George Stephanopoulos look ridiculous and got some laughs when he called Ron Paul "our constitutionalist." Nobody challenged him except for Santorum and Romney seemed to get the better of those exchanges. Mitt Romney again kept his eye and focus on the prize… defeating Obama.

Rick Santorum - He had a particularly testy exchange with Paul over his lucrative post-Senatorial activities. Drew jeers when he told Paul he wasn't telling the truth after a bell rang. He did challenge Romney on a couple of occasions but didn't knock him off his game. It wasn't one of his better debates, but overall I’d rate him as coming in 2nd.

Newt Gingrich - Contrary to expectations, Newt did not go nuclear on Romney, other than another swipe at Bain Capital. He generally reserved his toughest language for Ron Paul. Aside from that exchange, Newt stayed positive and drew applause when he challenged Sawyer and Stephanopoulos over their gay marriage questions and energy independence. It got better, but in the beginning Gingrich just came across as an angry curmudgeon.

Rick Perry - He spoke little but earned applause when he spoke about the Obama Administration's "war on religion." When he suggested that New Hampshire adopt a right to work bill, the applause was far more tepid. Perry is clearly gearing up for South Carolina. This debate certainly didn’t move him up in New Hampshire.

The next debate will take place tomorrow morning on NBC at 9 a.m. Since we have to get up bright and early tomorrow for the next GOP faceoff I think the candidates should be required to spend the debate in their pajamas. Admittedly this format would work better if Michele Bachmann were still in the race.

Lead In To Tonight's Presidential Debate In New Hampshire 2012

January 07, 2012 ABC News

2012 Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire At Saint Anselm College pt.1

January 07, 2012 ABC News

2012 Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire At Saint Anselm College pt.2

January 07, 2012 ABC News

2012 Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire At Saint Anselm College pt.3

January 07, 2012 ABC News

2012 Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire At Saint Anselm College pt.4

January 07, 2012 ABC News

2012 Republican Presidential Debate in New Hampshire At Saint Anselm College pt.5

January 07, 2012 ABC News

2012 Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire At Saint Anselm College pt.6

January 07, 2012 ABC News

Post Debate Analysis 2012 New Hampshire Saint Anselm College Republican Presidential Debate

The Winners from the Iowa Caucus… Santorum #2… Romney #1… and Ron Paul #3, but may have won in delegates

(Latest NH polls show Romney at 40.1% Ron Paul at 20%, Rick Santorum at 10.5% and Jon Hunstman, who has virtually in NH for months and skipped the Iowa Caucus at 9.4%)

The attacks expected on Mitt Romney that did not come in last night’s (Saturday’s) debate in Saint Anselm College were waged this morning in Concord… Mitt shrugged them off as expected if you are 20+ points ahead in the polls. And it probably had little effect since few got up to watch a presidential debate at 9a.m ET on a Sunday!!

Meet the Press – January 8th

Verbal attacks by Gingrich served as bookends to the 90-minute morning debate in which Romney strongly defended his standing as front-runner in the Republican campaign to pick an opponent to President Barack Obama. Romney is 20+% ahead in all polls in New Hampshire. He is as much as 44% ahead in some.

The Romney rivals spent most of the debate attacking Romney instead of Obama. Romney again stayed of the weeds focused on the bigger goal and therefore looked more presidential and less petty.

Romney won the Iowa caucuses last Tuesday by eight votes over Santorum. He leads in the polls in New Hampshire, where his rivals have all but conceded he will win.

South Carolina comes next, on Jan. 21, the first Southern state to hold a primary, and Romney pointedly noted that he has been endorsed by that state's popular governor, Nikki Haley.

Right now the averaged polls show Romney as 1st, Santorum as 2nd, Gingrich as 3rd and Paul as 4th. Huntsman and Perry lag far behind there.

The Concord debate began only hours after the one at Saint Anselm college in which Romney's rivals made early attempts to knock the former Massachusetts governor off-stride but then spent more time squabbling among themselves in an attempt to emerge as his chief rival. So this morning they came our swinging… but to questionable positive results.

Unfortunately for Newt Gingrich, he has put himself in the position of being the wounded whiner throwing rocks instead or the statesman with the best lines and debating skills as people saw him a month ago. Today he even repeated a charge from a past debate that Romney had already answered well.

Santorum, took a swipe at Romney, asking why he hadn't sought re-election as governor after one term, but in the end he didn’t appear to help or hurt himself in this debate appearance.

A small group of Santorum supporters stood outside the morning debate in Concord

Rick Perry drew laughter as well as applause when he said that federal bureaucrats would experience pain as a result of his plans to cut spending, especially those in the departments of education, commerce and energy. That was a reference to his gaffe in an earlier debate when he couldn't recall the name of the third of the Cabinet-level agencies he has proposed eliminating.

Jon Huntsman, who was President Barack Obama's ambassador to China before quitting to run for the White House, returned to a comment Romney had made the night before. Romney said then that the rest of the GOP hopefuls had been trying to oppose the administration's policies while Huntsman was advancing them.

"And I just want to remind the people here in New Hampshire and throughout the United States, he criticized me while he was out raising money for serving my country in China, yes, under a Democrat, like my two sons are doing in the United States Navy. They're not asking what political affiliation the president is. "

Ron Paul who is polling 2nd in New Hampshire, but losing a little momentum, was a little bit more subdued this morning than in last nights debate. The recent attacks on his newsletters plus his stand on foreign policy are taking its toll.

Generally, the morning-after debate followed the same trend as the one the night before leaving Romney fairly untouched after a lot of ineffective petty jabs.

Several of the candidates went directly to other events from the Concord debate.

Concord New Hampshire 2012 Republican Presidential Debate pt.1

January 08, 2012 NBC News

Concord New Hampshire 2012 Republican Presidential Debate pt.2

January 08, 2012 NBC News

Concord New Hampshire 2012 Republican Presidential Debate pt.3

January 08, 2012 NBC News

Concord New Hampshire 2012 Republican Presidential Debate pt.4

January 08, 2012 NBC News

Concord New Hampshire 2012 Republican Presidential Debate pt.5

January 08, 2012 NBC News

Mike Huckabee: “Will I support any of the candidates if they are chosen as the GOP nominee… Absolutely, because the mirror on my wall says compared to Obama, they are conservatives one and all!!”

Scientist: Global Warming Claims a Lot of Hype

(Photo: UCLA Shutterbug - New Hampshire Jan 2009)

Lawmakers who described the alleged effects of global warming are spreading a lot of "eye wash," a top climate scientist says.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax, S. Fred Singer, a renowned climatologist and professor of environmental sciences emeritus at the University of Virginia, discussed the background behind the recent open letter to Congress he and six other scientists sent to members of the House and Senate.

In the letter, the scientists cited a letter sent by the Woods Hole Research Center, which exhorted Congress to act quickly to avoid a global disaster due to alleged global warming.

Singer said the Woods Hole group “put on a sort of scary exaggerated kind of letter to Congress ahead of the vote in the House in an obvious attempt to stampede them into voting for the Waxman-Markey [cap and trade environmental] bill.

Singer explained: “We thought it would be useful to write a letter that would provide a balance. The instigator of the letter was Harold Lewis, a retired professor of physics at the University of California in Santa Barbara.” Lewis, he said, “provided the initial draft, several of us made comments and seven of us signed our names to it."

Lewis sent the letter "to every member of Congress ... and it was also sent to a number of bloggers and others who are generally sympathetic" to the group’s point of view.

“The letter itself is self-explanatory,” Singer said, noting that it did not “give much detail."

“Two of us, Richard Lindzen and myself, are actively working on climate issues. The others are renowned physicists – people of some stature, members of the National Academy and others who have a good amount of scientific judgment but who have not directly published or been pre-eminent in climate research.”

Asked if it is not established that the earth is cooling, Singer explained that “The earth is either always warming or cooling; one cannot tell which it is unless one specifies the time interval.

“It's like the stock market: it is rising or falling. Both depend on whether it's a week or a month or a year. It's the same with the temperature – if we start during the last Ice Age 15,000 years ago, then the temperatures have warmed. If you start from the Little Ice Age, which ended 200 years ago, it certainly has warmed.

“If you start from 1998, however, then it has not warmed – it has cooled. So it depends on the time interval. People argue about this, and much of the difference between groups comes about when you don't specify the time interval. There's no question that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years."

Reminded that there were members of Congress standing up in the debate and talking about the terrible things that are happening now as a result of global warming, Singer said: “That's all eye wash. That's not true. That's simply hype.”

He went on to explain that “Nothing untoward is happening. The ice is not melting any faster, the sea level is not rising any faster. Hurricanes are not increasing in intensity or frequency; there's been no impact. Those things are always hard to measure. It depends on statistics. The easiest thing is to specify temperature, because it's easily measured and there is relatively little disagreement on what temperature stands for.”

He then went on to challenge what he called former Vice President Al Gore’s “mantra” that he says Gore’s "been handing out for years now – that the science is settled. That is simply not true.

“When you have 31,000 scientists signing the Oregon petition saying they disagree with the current wisdom that humans are producing increased warming, it speaks for itself. It's true that the 31,000 are not all climate scientists. There are not that many in the world.

“However, it does show you that the science is not settled. Among climate scientists there is a split. There are those who believe in models, and those who believe in observations. And there are some who don't believe in both, and some who don't believe in any.

“The modelers believe that the models correctly describe what's going on in the atmosphere, and they trust their models to predict the future. And the models all predict increased global warming. Some more, some less. There are plenty models in the world, and they all get different results. We don't know which one of them is correct, if any, or even if any of them is correct.

Then there are those – sometimes called the skeptics, but we prefer to call them the realists – who believe in the observations, who believe that the atmosphere tells us what's going on. The models try to describe what's going on in the atmosphere, but they don't succeed. It's extremely difficult – the atmosphere is very complicated. For example, the models can't really describe clouds. Yet clouds are very, very important. So that's the basic split.

“When the observations show that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years, which contradicts the models, who are you going to believe? The models or the observations. Obviously, we believe in the observations.

“When you ask the other side to debate on this issue they either won't debate; or if they do debate, they say, ‘Well there must be something wrong with the observations.'”

Singer agreed that it is a case of "do you believe what the models tell you, or do you believe in your lying eyes?"

Friday, July 3, 2009 10:17 PM
By: Phil Brennan - 2009 Newsmax

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

• No More Green Guilt
• Senator Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into ‘Supressed’ Climate Change Report
• Energy Czar Has Not Read Climate Bill Either & Boehner Say Bill Is Pile of S__t!
• Congressman Requests Moment of Silence for Jobs Lot From Cap…
• Stifling Science To ‘Fight Warming
• Video: Obama: My Cap-and-Trade Plan Will Make Electricity Rates 'Skyrocket' | The FOX Nation"’
• Green Hell
• Red Hot Lies