The Fox News - Wall Street Journal debate

The best debater was, without doubt, Newt Gingrich. He would tear Barack Obama apart in a debate.

A good way of understanding just how good a debater Gingrich is may be to compare him to Ron Paul - someone whose opinions I often agree with more than I do with the opinions of Newt Gingrich.

Ron Paul was asked about a radio interview where he appeared to say that Bin Laden should not have been killed by the Navy Seals (I, and a lot of other people, predicted that he would be asked such questions by Obama if Ron Paul was the nominee).

The only way out of such a position is to apologize for one's confused speech and say "OF COURSE BIN LADEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT".

Instead we got a long complicated reply, comparing (at one point) Islamist terrorists in Pakistan to Chinese dissenters in the United States, and saying that the reason that people attack the United States is "because we bomb their countries all the time".

And on and on (Taliban allies against the Soviets - the Taliban hardly existed at the time, Taliban totally different from Bin Laden's supporters NOT TRUE THEY HAVE THE SAME THEOLOGY, and...).

Ron I agree with you that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have proved to be a mistake - and I was still almost booing at the television screen as you spoke (a lot of people actually present at the debate could not stop themselves booing you - how you spoke was just so offensive). I agree with your policies (on just about everything), but they way you express yourself........ You do not just sound silly (and make errors of fact) you actually sound hostile to the United States and the West in general. As if you were an enemy of the West - you are not, but you sound as if you were.

And Newt Gingrich - he told a brief story about Andrew Jackson and "killing the enemies of America" and had everyone cheering him. As he did on virtually everything else...

"But he is still wrong about the issues" - no more wrong than Mitt Romney, Rick Perry (less than one percent of the vote in New Hampshire) and Rick Santorum. And he can debate vastly better than they can.

Still it is all pointless now.

Neither Rick Santorum or (even) Rick Perry will get out of the race and endorse Gingrich - which means that Mitt Romney will win on Saturday.

And that means it is over.

The candidate with the least good economic plan (although light years better than Obama) and the person who, when asked if he would support the new Obama law that allows imprisonment (without time limit) of citizens suspected of supporting enemies of the United States - said "yes" (and meant it).

People are to "trust in the good character" of the President not to "abuse this power" - well that is fine, let us see the end of what is left of the rule of law at once. As long as the President is of "good character".

Oh well at least Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase will be pleased.

I hear they have switched some of their support from Barack to Mitt - what a good sign of high moral character. Almost as good as being against abortion (as the most senior Elder of the Morman Church in Massachusetts), then being "pro choice" when in politics in Massachusetts, then being against abortion again (when running for the Republican nomination for President). Oh well my "do not say nasty things about Mitt" New Year's Resolution did not last long - but he is going to be nominee after Saturday, so it is a last negative statement before I (and everyone else interested in defending the West) have to rally behind this man's banner.

One must draw a sharp distinction between the person of the King (as a human being) and "the Crown". In the clash against the Marxists, Mitt Romney will be "King" after Saturday (the Coronation is not till the Convention, but a King is King before his coronation) - so his personal imperfections will have to be overlooked, the oaths that I (and so many others) have taken to defend the West against the totalitarians, will bind us to him in the contest (regardless of what terrible end this riding leads to). The choice of not following the banner will still exist - but not as an honourable choice. The statement "the King will lead us to our deaths" may be true - but it is also irrelevant. After all the enemy will still be in the field, seeking to flee (on the grounds that the commander of our own army is useless) is just a "cop out". When the banner is formally raised one follows the banner - even if it leads into a narrow valley, with the enemy in front and on both flanks. One can advice against it - one can even call the King an idiot to his face. But fleeing is not really an option - neither in honour (leaving everyone else to die), or in practicality (for the enemy will follow after they have done their business - in reality there is no real place to hide). And defeat is not predetermined - if one attacks fast enough (and fortune turns in one's favour), one may be able to cut one's way through, before the enemy has time to react.

To turn to lighter matters.... or, at least, the same matters expressed in a lighter tone.

Max Keiser (and the rest of the dodgy people) will be overjoyed - they are already using their "two Dollar whore" lines (and so on) against Romney. The attacks on Bain Capital may be unfair - but "loading companies with debt so that they fail after you walk away with millions" was a line used against Romney by the Wall Street Journal questioner, the left will use it also (and much more). They will love it when he is the nominee.

Which he will be.