Echoing comments made earlier today by Newt Gingrich, Hasselbeck felt the network had been trying to stifle the debate’s Republican audience:

RELATED: Newt Gingrich Blasts Brian Williams For Silencing Debate Audience: ‘The Media Doesn’t Control Free Speech’

The American people deserve something better than a crappy debate. That was the worst debate I’ve ever seen, and I’ve watched all of them. Number one — I love this — like, dare we not let anyone applaud for a Republican. [...] I don’t like that idea. I think the American people sitting there to say, or express, how they believe peacefully. Number two, I am annoyed that they didn’t even get to the topic of jobs until near fifty minutes into that debate, when we are in the most devastating job situation in our nation.

Have a look, via ABC:

RELATED: Chris Matthews On ‘Nasty’ Looking Newt Gingrich: ‘Dogs Walk Away When They See Him’

In the interview, Matthews mentioned that Gingrich had snarked Romney with an SNL jab.

Matthews: You called him a Saturday Night Live joke.

Gingrich: Well, that ad was a SNL joke – for a Massachusetts moderate to put out an ad questioning my credentials as a conservative, it’s the kind of chutzpah that you don’t really quite expect to find in someone like Romney.

Matthews: Let’s talk about Tampa. I have always thought, watching this thing from the other side, I could see it from the middle sometimes and sometimes sympathetically. I look at this tea party phenomenon – how do these people and their representatives go to Tampa at the end of this summer when it’s sweltering down there. I always like to the get the atmosphere in there – it’s hot, the humidity is 105 degrees, and they sit around and cheer Mitt Romney? How does that work?

Gingrich: It won’t. He’s not going to be the nominee.

Matthews: Could it work if he were the nominee? Would [the tea party] ever be able to cheer him on there?

Gingrich: They would never cheer him. Why would they cheer someone – if you were a Tea Party person, why would you cheer someone who raised taxes, created the prototype of Obama care – appointed liberal judges to appease the Democrats – that’s his line, not mine – and put in taxes paid abortions, took care of Planned Parenthood… here’s any easy question for you to answer — – name one conservative accomplishment or public policy of Romney’s.

Watch Matthews and Matthews go mano-a-mano on Hardball below via MSNBC:

Here is what Matthews had to say about the GOP field Monday night. I have a feeling it stands to resonate most with Republicans inclined to agree with his assessment of the change within the party.

RELATED: Karl Rove Blasts Donald Trump, Says He’s Trivializing The Election Process

It’s a long quote — a monologue, really, — but it’s all so poetic and just so golden, that I’m going to leave the whole thing here for you, gentle reader, to peruse at your leisure:

“How did the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and General Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan descend into a diabolic clown qhow? When did P.T. Barnum grab hold of the Tea Party and New York money and mix it into this witch’s brew of a TV Debate headed by Donald Trump?

How did this clown show of Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich find itself with the ‘Sorcerer’s Apprentice’ as its grand ringmaster? How did the King of the Birthers become the midwife of right-wing presidential politics? And what sin did someone commit to unleash this torrent from hell on a once-serious political party?

I don’t claim any deep sympathy, but it takes a deeply cold heart not to feel for those good-minded Republicans out there who have this grotesquery leap before their face. What happened to the moderates and the reasonable of the center-right? Did they go mute? Did they lose their tongues? Their right to speak out? Are they watching what I’m watching? Are they going to let this happen?

Are they going to chug along from here to Tampa, to the sweltering convention hall of next September, all the while anticipating the Hobbesian choice between a candidate who puts them to sleep and one who gives them nightmares? Is this what all the debates, all the speeches, all the wanderings-about has achieved – a duet of death, a karoake of the choke-hold?

‘Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.’

Newt Gingrich. Donald Trump. Let me say no more.”

Ok, show of hands: Who in the room has a tingle running up his leg?

Have a look at the segment for yourselves, via MSNBC:

Christopher Ruddy, Newsmax Media’s chief executive explains the choice: “Our readers and the grass roots really love Trump. They may not agree with him on everything, but they don’t see him as owned by the Washington establishment, the media establishment.”

Writing for the NY Times, Jeremy Peters reports:

Mr. Trump’s role in the debate, which will be broadcast on the cable network Ion Television, is sure to be one of the more memorable moments in a primary season that has already delivered its fair share of circus-like spectacle.

Mr. Trump’s own flirtation with running for president this year seems almost quaint (whose birth certificate was he all worked up about?) compared with more recent distractions – like allegations of adultery and sexual harassment, gaffes that seemed scripted from a late-night comedy show, and a six-figure line of credit at Tiffany & Co.

Trump, you’ll recall, had briefly flirted with the idea of running on the GOP ticket before dropping hints that he may seek to run as an Independent.

So, yes. That’s happening. Good job, everyone.

Read the full report at the NY Times.

Thank you, Jimmy Kimmel, for airing the following mash-up.

(H/T Philip Bump)

On Fox News Sunday, Rep. Hensarling all but confirmed that the super-committee’s work would amount to nothing. “No one wants to give up hope… reality to some extent is starting to overtake hope,” he told a skeptical Chris Wallace. The latter asked several times whether this was a confirmed failure (“we’re not going to give up hope,” Rep. Hensarling repeated), and noted the clear point that this was a “missed opportunity” that rang particularly unpleasant for the American people. Wallace also asked Rep. Hensarling whether it was “all the Democrats’ fault,” a bait that Rep. Hensarling didn’t entirely take.

RELATED: Nancy Pelosi’s Suggestion For Reducing The Debt: Put Super Committee Negotiations On TV

“It’s not about assigning blame,” he responded, “but we are not aware of any Democratic offer that did not include several millions in tax increases.” Most telling, perhaps, Rep. Hensarling answered a question about a future meeting not with an outright “no,” but indicated he would not be interested in a future meeting in this nature. He added that he could not see an agreement on health care, either, unless “you fundamentally figure out as a nation how we’re going to get quality healthcare opportunities at a price that doesn’t bankrupt our children.” He refrained from predicting how the stock market would react. Rep. Hensarling on Fox News this morning below:

Meanwhile, over on CNN, Candy Crowley asked Sen. Murray to comment on the mess. The Democratic chair stuck to her “shared sacrifice” talking point guns, being somewhat more optimistic than Rep. Hensarling in that she noted there were some points of agreement. That said, “there is one sticking divide,” she noted: the “shared sacrifice” issue, “where everyone contributes in a very challenging time for our country.” While she also didn’t see much to be optimistic about, she told Crowley that she would “be at the table willing to talk to any Republican… all night long; we have a few hours left.”

RELATED: President Obama: Next Chapter Of Deficit Reduction Will Include New Tax Revenue

She added that she believed it was a problem that would need to be solved at some point no matter what, with the super committee or not. When asked specifically why the negotiations had failed, she cited no Congressman in particular, but anti-tax personality Grover Norquist, and argued that Republicans were too faithful to a pledge he had made them sign against taxes. Her comments on the matter via CNN below:

While there are still a few hours left before the super committee is officially declared a failure, neither chair appeared particularly enthused about the chances of a deal, adding yet one more reason atop the many Americans already have for having given this Congress its lowest approval rating ever. Who is to blame and which chair has a better argument will likely fall upon party lines– though in his interview, at least Rep. Hensarling seemed to blame Democrats in Congress who were actually on the super committee and not marginal characters like Norquist– though watching both interviews, it is hard to see the American people mustering up any sympathy for any of their super-committee representatives at all.

RELATED: Paul Krugman: Newt Gingrich Is ‘A Stupid Man’s Idea Of What A Smart Person Sounds Like’

Gingrich took a lot of bashing this morning, but mostly from familiar sources (Paul Krugman later on in the program commented that Gingrich was merely “a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like,” which is accurate if not somewhat projecting on Krugman’s part). But from Will, the barbs seemed even sharper. “It is an amazingly efficient candidacy in that in embodies everything disagreeable about modern Washington,” he began, arguing that his “colorful personal life” was actually the better part of his record, since he still supported ethanol subsidies, the types of programs from which the Solyndra scandals blossomed, and shrugged away the Freddie Mac scandal with a claim that he was a “historian.” “He’s not a historian!” Will noted derisively.

Turning to Gingrich’s comments that he was not a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, host Christiane Amanpour asked whether such damage control had a chance of working. The rest of the panel– Peggy Noonan and Matthew Dowd– seemed skeptical at best, though Noonan felt compelled to defend Gingrich after, in another attack, Will held Gingrich’s “absurd rhetorical grandiosity” against him.” “The base of the Republican Party doesn’t like Newt,” was the best she could muster as a defense, “and that’s a big plus.”

RELATED: Heilemann To Matthews: If I Were Romney, ‘I Would Be Suicidal’ Over Gingrich Lead

The panel then agreed that Rep. Paul had a decent shot at Iowa, which would be incredibly unsettling to the GOP field. Interestingly, Will gives even more credit to Paul than to Gingrich, noting that it was possible for him to take a primary and, moreover, should he choose to run as a third party candidate, could seriously impact the general election.

The discussion via ABC below:

Republican voters also said they least trust Ron Paul with nukes, at 12%, edging out Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain (it’ll be easy for our enemies to hack us when he changes all of the launch codes to “9-9-9″). Rick Perry was in the middle of the pack for both questions, probably because he can be trusted to at least launch the first two.

Gingrich also topped Romney by a point in the Republican primary poll (23%-22%), but came in a distant fourth in likeability at 8%, behind Romney at 26%, Cain at 25%, and Perry at 9%.

On the question of integrity, Romney far outdistanced Gingrich. 55% said Romney has the integrity to serve effectively as president, versus 45% for Gingrich, and this poll was taken before the latest revelations about Gingrich’s relationship with Freddie Mac.

There’s some troubling news in this poll for President Obama, as well. In head-to-head polling, Mitt Romney edged the President, 44%-42%. While Obama beats Herman Cain handily, he only leads Gingrich 46%-41%, within the margin of error. Given Newt’s status as a newcomer to the top tier, that kind of result is disturbing. Although Gingrich’s time at the top might be fleeting, these head-to-head results demonstrate the President’s vulnerability in a general election.

The least surprising result from this poll, however, is also probably the most significant one. Asked “Which Republican candidate do you think has the best chance of beating Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election?”, 37% chose Romney, with Newt Gingrich a distant second, at 18%.

Romney has taken a beating from all sides over Republican voters’ lack of enthusiasm for his candidacy, but this stat reinforces the strongest case for his candidacy, and it hasn’t changed in months. Regardless of who voters like, or who they trust with nukes, in the end, they’re going to choose the guy with the best chance to unseat President Obama.

Wednesday on The Five, Eric Bolling played the clip and began a nine-minute discussion that hit on everything from Coulter’s irrelevance as a political commentator to Romney’s ability to beat Obama next November. Dana Perino tried to convince everyone that Romney is an easily-embraceable candidate and could pull off a win in 2012, but her table-mates weren’t having any of it, with the other four offering up everyone from Paul Ryan to Sarah Palin as better options.

Bob Beckel had the best line of the conversation, bashing Coulter for being a bit of a self-aggrandizing political soothsayer:

“Taking political advice from Ann Coulter is like taking weight control advice from me and Chris Christie,” Beckel said. “That woman knows as much about politics as my retired senile aunt.”

But the main thing to take away from here is the fissure between Bolling and Coulter, who usually sing the same note. With eight candidates and a rotating “new leader of the field” every month, is it really any surprise?

Enjoy the video of the entire conversation below, from The Five, courtesy of Fox News:

RELATED: Fox News Panel Reacts To Mark Block’s Allegations Against Perry: ‘Who Cares?’

O’Donnell referenced his favorite media figure, Donald Trump, saying that Cain’s report would come out when Trump’s Hawaii-based research into Obama’s birth certificate does. “I would not be holding our breath,” said Touré:

We don’t see them dealing with this in a forthright way at all; it’s certainly not a presidential way. It’s not even really a professional way to deal with it, as a politician. But this is a major moment for the GOP because Cain is a really important candidate, perhaps more important than any of the other candidates because he serves a massive psychological purpose. Because there’s a lot of people in the GOP who’ve been critical of Obama and have been made to feel that they are racist because of their criticism. Some of it has been racist, some of it has been reasonable, some of it has been business as usual Republican/Democrat stuff. Ok. Cain comes along, offering salvation, liberation. You’re not racist if you support Herman Cain. So now they have this Herman Cain card they can throw at us any time they are made to feel racist. So this is like a beautiful thing for them. So they need him to succeed as long as they can deal with him so that they can get their Cain card and make it as valuable as possible.

But this whole mode of thinking is a canard, Touré added, because Cain ends up, essentially, “giving comfort to racists.”

Have a look at the segment, from MSNBC:

Robertson expressed worry that Republican front runners are going to alienate voters during the general election by catering to a narrow base:

I believe it was Lyndon Johnson that said, “I doubt these people realize if they push me over to an extreme position that I’ll lose the election. And I’m the one who will be supporting what they want, but they’re going to make it so I can’t win.”

Those people in the Republican primary have got to lay off of this stuff. They’re forcing their leaders, the front runners, into positions that will mean they lose the general election. Now whether this did it to Cain, I don’t know, but nevertheless, you know, you appeal to the narrow base and they’ll applaud the daylights out of what you’re saying, and then you hit the general election and they say “no way” and then the Democrat, whoever it is, is going to just play these statements to the hilt. They’ve got to stop this! It’s just so counterproductive!

Well. If they want to lose, this is the game for losers.

As Right Wing Watch notes, Robertson’s statement came on the heels of a discussion about recent poll favorite Herman Cain‘s shifting views on how the government should approach the issue of abortion.

Now. How long until people take a look at this opinion — made by a man who obviously is deeply integrated in and, we may assume, has a deep commitment to the Republican party — and declare him a “RINO,” further proving his point?

RELATED: Herman Cain: I’m Not Pro-Choice, I’m Pro-Choice On Getting An Illegal Abortion

Have a listen to Robertson’s assessment:

h/t Right Wing Watch

RELATED: Sarah Palin To Hannity: The Left Is Being Hypocritical When It Comes To Gaddafi

Stewart kicked things off by offering a “Dic-Tip.” (Ay, you guys… D: D: D: ) His advice to dictators? “Don’t hide in holes.” Because you will be found and probably killed, and people may celebrate by tossing their young children while others fire guns into the air.

He then poked fun at the wariness with which some right-leaning pundits approached news of Gaddafi’s death given their fear that another oppressive (and possibly anti-American) form of government may end up controlling Libya. Stewart focused specifically on former UN ambassador John Bolton.

“Is there no Republican,” asked Stewart, “that can be gracious and statesmen-like in this situation? We removed a dictator in six months, losing no American soldiers, spending, like, a billion dollars rather than a trillion dollars, and engendering what appears to be goodwill with the people who now have a prideful story of their own independence to tell… not to mention oil, they have oil. Anybody wanna give credit?”

He then played a clip of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R) and Sen. John McCain giving credit. To the French and British.

RELATED: Playing Politics: Marco Rubio Champions ‘French And British Who Led This Fight’

Which prompted Stewart inquire the following: “What the fuck is wrong with you?”
Have a look, via Comedy Central:

One reason that the GOP debates have been rating so highly, Maddow ventured, is because they seem like different episodes of an ongoing — rather exciting, intrigue-filled — TV show with characters we know and recognize. She broke down each of these characters, one by one:

RELATED: Where Does Mitt Romney’s 73 Second TKO Of Rick Perry Rank Among Mike Tyson’s Quickest Fights?

Rick Santorum: The guy who talks about gays, abortion and family values.

Michele Bachmann: The lady who reminds us why we don’t like Obama.

Herman Cain: In Maddow’s words, Cain is “like the anti-intellectual, ‘I don’t have to explain anything,’ folksy guy, where things rhyme sometimes, and it often involves food, and it all sounds very digestible even when it doesn’t actually make sense.”

Newt Gingrich: The guy who wants you to log on to his site, if you please.

Ron Paul: The quirky guy who makes all the other guys uncomfortable.

Rick Perry: The guy who talks about Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney: The front-runner, and the guy who tries to seem “above it all.”

Maddow felt that Romney “dropped character” last night to reveal his true motivation when he said he couldn’t hire illegal immigrations because “I’m running for office.” As for the candidates who don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the Republican vote, they’re sticking around because debating and being in the news helps up their fame quotient, which will serve to help their careers down the road.

She also felt it was odd that Romney — again, cast as the clear front-runner here — had “hopped in bed” with Santorum (Yes, typing that felt icky. Curse you, Dan Savage.), one of the candidates on the “fringe,” when it comes to the issue of contraception.

Take a look at the segment, via MSNBC:

Occupy Wall Street may or may not be the liberal version of the Tea Party, either way we’ll probably know within the next year. But that’s far too late for the GOP to ignore them, or worse act as though they’ll only have 15 minutes of fame. Here’s a clue, GOP: If you’re still looking at your watch waiting for it to end, use that time wisely and get a strategy.

It’s been two weeks and the protests have gone viral and are now occurring not just in New York City but also in cities in more than 78 countries. The message is as clear as the implications: income inequality has gotten out of control and is untenable. It’s a progressive rallying cry that has tapped into something the Obama administration hasn’t been able to do since early 2009; namely, leverage the sense that people powered by little more than anger and a desire to change government can actually do it.

GOP Needs to Change Message
After all, what does the GOP have to lose by showing empathy for protesters, acknowledging income inequality (which is categorical, not fanciful), and lending their voice to implementing structural change? Most recently, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) did mention income inequality (for once) on Fox News, claiming that “Republicans are about income mobility, and that’s what we should be focused on to take care of the income disparities.”

Sure, Republicans can make a case for that. Will it be convincing? Probably not. Tax cuts can drop down like manna from heaven but that won’t nourish those who lack critical job skills and higher education. For instance, that message probably isn’t endearing to rural white voters who make less than $40,000 a year. How could it be? That voter barely pays federal taxes as is and is far more concerned about whether or not they’ll have their job the rest of the year much less in five, the economy, Social Security, and Medicare. The Occupy Wall Street message can and will resonate with this voter if the GOP isn’t careful. It is primarily this kind of voter who makes up the majority — roughly two-thirds — of the coveted swing voters group.

So far, the Occupy Wall Street crowds have been dismissed as hipsters gone crazy, violent protesters with little else to do, and general scofflaws. With crowds collectively reaching past the hundreds of thousands mark, clearly those generalizations are inaccurate and are made with the intent to squelch the movement. But even the Tea Party is taking notice. A local Tea Party leader in Indiana told CBS News that she “sees some similarities between how the tea party movement and the Wall Street protests began” and that in the end the critical step is “taking the emotion and focusing it toward changing government.”

Obama is Learning from Occupy Wall Street
And this is where the Obama administration went wrong. Instead of expounding on voter distrust of financial institutions and firms requiring bailouts and the system being rigged in favor of the haves over the have-nots, the Obama administration acted as though not doing bailouts would have affected all of us equally and that when things got better we would all be better as a result. But are we? Bank of America is a prime example. Fresh off a $5 billion investment from Warren Buffett who expressed confidence in their operations, they have created a $5 monthly debit card fee. This after receiving billions in government bailouts and purchasing Countrywide, a company rife with mortgage fraud that was on its way to implosion as it left victims in its enormous wake. By doing this the administration became an enabler of the problem instead of a fierce supporter of the American people and their interests. Occupy Wall Street intends to rectify that. They make no excuses for corporations’ suspect behavior, for corporate executives’ inflated salaries, or for “political realities” not conducive to the change they seek. Instead they protest, they sit-in, they get arrested. They don’t do much talking because they don’t believe words propel politicians to action; they believe only action compels politicians to act.

GOP Can’t Afford for Democrats to Get the Message
Fact is, Pres. Obama already rode the populist wave to victory once. Cue the 2008 reel where he campaigned on, among other things, delivering universal healthcare and ending the Iraq war, two uniquely populist positions. With the former he lambasted in the general election John McCain’s position that relied on the private market to fix the healthcare mess. And with the latter, he excoriated Hillary Clinton, his rival in the primaries, for supporting the Iraq war in the first place. Pres. Obama is no stranger to endearing himself to the populist animations of a voting public keen on redeeming the American dream they have worked hard for. Occupy Wall Street presents a golden opportunity to do just that. “[Martin Luther King, Jr] would want us to challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonizing those who work there,” said Pres. Obama regarding Occupy Wall Street at the MLK dedication ceremony. Republicans would be remiss to believe different.

John Wilson is a health policy analyst in Maryland, and also a staffwriter for The Loop 21. He frequently writes about health policy, education policy, and politics. You may reach him at john@policydiary.com.

RELATED: Romney Leads Cain! Cain Leads Romney! Confusion Reigns Supreme In Polls

Of course, Scarborough is right on this point, and if you have any questions, just ask Joe Scarborough! It does seem that none of the GOP frontrunners have real staying power, save perhaps Romney, who is beginning to feel more and more like the presumptive nominee. But it wasn’t enough for Scarborough to take a victory lap on his prescient predictions on the future of many conservative personalities (like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck among others.) Scarborough also likened his own sagacious analysis to that of Obi-Wan Kenobi. While The Blaze mocked his metaphor with a screaming headline that read “Media Analogy Insanity!,” he was clearly on something of a comedic jag. And to his credit, it was very entertaining.

See for yourself by watching the following video clip edited together by our friends at The Blaze:

In other New Hampshire news being covered on The Rachel Maddow Show, the state is planning to hold a Republican primary in early December instead of in January or February as it usually does. This, announced Maddow, has the makings of Granite State / Rock feud (Rocky is an accepted nickname for people named Rachel, right? Sure it is.) because it means that Iowa will also have to have an earlier caucus, possibly as early as November and Americans will spend an entire year, pretty much, voting on its next president:

A year of voting! Not campaign season, but election, lasting a year! Aah! If this happens, what happen, then, to the ratio of time when policy can actually get made to time when everybody acknowledges that policy can’t really be made because it’s campaign season? What happens to that ratio?

RELATED: Gretchen Carlson On Joe Lieberman’s Opposition To Obama Jobs Bill: ‘You Sound Like A Republican’

We won’t ever, she worried, be able to actually see officials perform in office because they will constantly be campaigning and talking about policy rather than working on creating any sort of policy. Right now, for instance, job creation is the top priority for the American people. And, yet, Senate Republicans have voted to filibuster Barack Obama’s jobs bill and are focusing efforts on other issues, like abortion. It’s an issue that’s of interest to voters, sure, and some more than others, but it’s not really what the American people want its government to focus on right at this very moment. The role of the media, Maddow opined, is to shed a light on what politicians — particularly those angling for office — are actually doing versus what they say they’re doing in order to garner support and votes.

Have a look, via MSNBC:

Writing for ABC News, Shushannah Walshe reports:

“There’s too much drama and theater in politics,” Huntsman told the co-hosts in an appearance that was pre-empted for President Obama’s jobs plan speech. “I mean come on. You string people along. Everybody who has anything to do with politics knew she wasn’t going to get in the race. She has a profit proposition, she’s got a business. She makes money doing what she’s doing. Who on earth is going to leave that for the uncertainty of presidential politics?”

When asked if he believed her decision was made because she wanted to spend more time with her family, Huntsman answered, “Hey, my family is here. I get to spend time with my family.”

Huntsman was joined on the show with his wife, Mary Kaye. Three of his daughters were also in the audience.

Unfortunately for Huntsman, his appearance on the highly rated dayside program was missed by many east coast viewers of The View, as the show was preempted by President Obama’s news conference in which he discussed his jobs bill. Fortunately for you, however, via the magic of the digital age in which we now live, you can see a portion of his appearance below, courtesy of ABC:

“Well, I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you, I agree, I agree. Some people are really upset,” replied Bachmann with a firm handshake and steady eye contact, before quickly moving on.

Bachmann’s camp does not want credit for the comment, and have already begun working to turn the story. As Bachmann spokeswoman Alice Stewart explained to the National Journal, “Bachmann was not saying that she agrees that Obama should be impeached. She agreed with the man on what they were talking about before — the people are frustrated.”

The video doesn’t show the conversation prior, nor does it particularly lend the impression that conversation was all so serious — the casual way she rubs the woman’s shoulders at the end of the video, for example, is probably not “business.” She did, however, seem engaged with that man, and she does have a practice of going off cue. Whether or not she meant it or the clip has been edited or otherwise, Bachmann’s problems with image control clearly persist.

What do you think?

h/t The Blaze

Conservative radio host Mark Levin was the first to break the news when he read aloud a letter that you can read in full below. He was then joined by Palin, who told the radio host that she would not consider running as a third-party candidate because it would ensure a reelection of Barack Obama. Listen to Palin’s entire interview with Levin below (followed by full text of her letter.)

Full text of her letter below:

October 5, 2011
Wasilla, Alaska
After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.

Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.

In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.

Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country!

God bless America.

– Sarah Palin

Referencing GOP debate crowd’s applauding for executions in Texas and booing of a gay soldier, he carefully explained that ”I would tell you that in these debates there’s been a lot of booing, and a lot of applause, some of which I do not agree with,” but, “I haven’t stepped in to try and say this one’s right and this one’s wrong, instead I focus on the things I think I ought to say.”

This distinguishes Romney from Rick Santorum — who initially said he “did not hear those boo’s” — and Jon Huntsman, both of whom condemned the boo-ers after the fact, as well as Herman Cain, who recently suggested that he should have said something while still on stage.

Romney says he understands where Cain is coming from, but insists that he won’t get involved. ”I don’t know that cheering for executions is something that I would agree with either, but I don’t raise my hand and say, ‘Please, let me talk, I want to tell everyone you shouldn’t be cheering,’” he quipped.

Watch the full clip below:

h/t Breitbart.tv

Live broadcast by Ustream

“I’m not running against any of my friends, they’re all good people,” Gingrich told group of journalists in Iowa, according to MSNBC. “But if you watch them and watch me, the difference in the depth of knowledge and the difference in the ability to debate Obama, the difference in actually having done it at the national level, I can’t only think if you’re worried about the future of the country and you’re worried about how we get the country fixed, I’m a pretty good mechanic who knows how to fix the car and the other folks are good at selling it.

Yesterday, Gingrich released an updated version of his 1994 “Contract of America,” a plan that helped Republicans gain control of the House and Gingrich the speakership. Unlike the original, Gingrich’s lengthier new plan lays out his plan for the country over a span of 26 pages, and is meant to be “more of an open letter.” Today, according to MSNBC, he apologized for his long winded reading of the plan, but also defended the amount of time these sorts of things require:

[Gingrich] again went point-by-point on his plan — and again apologized for taking so long to describe it, but “it took so long to put together,” he said.

Gingrich also claimed that he has been studying how to make the U.S. better since he was a freshman or sophomore in high school.

For what it’s worth, Gingrich has also said he “typed it with his thumbs in the memo section of his BlackBerry as ideas struck him,” a work strategy that we can’t imagine is the most efficient.

Herman Cain

As Cain explains in his forthcoming autobiography, The Herman Cain Way, his prospective White House will function differently than it has in the past. Everyone will always have a copy of the Constitution on hand, and will be very serious about their jobs and America. “My guest lists for state dinners and other important occasions will be light on A-list celebrities and heavy on normal Americans who work each day to restore our nation to greatness,” writes Cain.

Not that there will be too many events for A-listers not to be invited to, though, because as President, Cain will be pretty busy:

“I will reduce the number of protocol-oriented events that presidents are seemingly required to attend,” he writes. “At a time of deepening national crisis, I simply cannot afford to allocate valuable time to things that do not advance solutions to this nation’s problems.”

So there you have it: Herman Cain, a determined and long-sighted candidate planning an only small and celeb-less party for his first inauguration. I would have at least wanted to invite Ryan Gosling or Lil Wayne to mine, but I guess I’ve never imagined I’d be much of a good president anyways.

h/t TPM

According to the Times‘ report, a small group of wealthy and influential Northeasterners working together as the “Meet the Draft Christie” committee have pocket-booked a campaign meant to encourage a Christie bid. Leading the charge are Kenneth Langone, the billionaire who founded Home Depot; Paul Singer, the hedge funder and much sought-after Republican donor; and David Koch, the richest man in New York, who in the past has been known to harbor affections for the Tea Party. Together, they are hoping for a candidate who might successfully take on President Barack Obama, and who will keep their interests in mind.

“Christie understands what it is like to be a Republican in the Northeast,” explained Lynn Krogh, a republican campaign consultant. “He’s practical. He’s not just a barn burner.”

And they like him. As Bradford Freeman, the man who led high-stakes California fund-raising for George W. explained to the Times:

I was at a conference this week with a lot of high-powered people … People just said he was fantastic. Those that know him or have heard him speak are very enthusiastic. He’s articulate, he’s done a good job in New Jersey, he has good charisma.

Although Christie has been mostly clear that he won’t run, he has continued to tease that maybe he could — as he did last night at the Regan Library when he addressed America’s future needs, political territory that falls well beyond his gubernatorial requirements. He seems to be flattered by the ambitious attention, and I would also assume he is enjoying the money being thrown in his direction. Surely these heavy-pocketed donors are showing up at other fundraisers Christie is at in hopes of wooing him. And as the Times points out, another group of Christie supporters, the Committee for Our Children’s Future, spent $1.5 million on a television spot promoting Christie’s accomplishments in New Jersey.

The Meet the Draft Christie committee is made up of folks who have in the past been very influential and are eager to write big checks for the right candidate. You have to wonder if the money they are putting into pushing for a Christie ticket is this money that might have otherwise been spent on an actual presidential candidate? If Christie’s really serious about not running, is he holding things up for the Republican candidates who actually are? This teasing could end up being costly.

The fake news personality takes the GOP tax base logic to its natural conclusion of taxing those who make no money before arriving at his stated desire to dig up graves for precious valuables to help pay our country’s debt. In fact, the seeming oversimplification of such a complicated concept of optimizing tax revenues by increasing taxes on America’s poorest citizens is just enough of an absurd idea for Colbert to amplify to his unique form of laudatory-cum-mocking comedy.

Watch the following funny segment below, courtesy of Comedy Central:

Leading Republican candidates, Jon Hunstman aside, have for the most come out against that idea that human action has been responsible for warming the planet; an idea that has, for the most part, been substantiated by scientists and held up by public concern. Rick Perry has gotten around the issue by suggesting that scientists have manipulated data, while Michele Bachmann has said she believes that climate change is a hoax. This sort of skepticism has become something of a GOP flag this campaign cycle.

According to Politico’s report, Clinton was not critical of their stance so much as we was as the lack of debate it allows for. He urged that climate change and science need not be black and white issue it has become:

“We need the debate in America and every country between people who are a little bit to the right and people who are a little bit to the left about what the best way is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, what is the best, most economical way to do it, what will get more done quicker.”

Clinton asked voters to do their part in rendering the extreme take on climate politically inviable. ”You can’t win the nomination of one of the major parties in the country if you admit that the scientists are right? That disqualifies you from doing it?” he said. “You could really help us there.” Politics, neither, needs to be the will-you-or-won’t-you game it’s become, he seemed to be saying.

But the starkly and intimidatingly designed site has so far been a big hit. A source within the Obama campaign has told Mediaite, that in just the first day, the user-generated research tool has been nothing short of an enormous success. “In less than 24 hours we’ve had over 100,000 people sign up at the website, which indicates significant interest from supporters.” When asked about the design of the website, the source said “its a website with significant resources and its a good resource tool for supporters.”

While the volume of conservative critiques speaks to the intensity of the opposition’s feelings towards the Obama administration, at the very least this digital effort did it’s job bit perhaps instilling a little fear in the GOP campaign efforts. It’s not difficult to imagine social media staffers at the RNC scratching their heads and saying “why didn’t we think of that?”

The essence of AttackWatch is the Obama campaign outsourcing of opposition media research to its army of loyal supporters. Among the critiques leveled at this interactive effort is the notion that this is some vestige of “Big Brother” keeping an eye on citizens opposed to the White House politics. This would be a fairer analysis if it were made before the advent of social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. In the brave new world that is oppo research and political smear campaigns, leveraging the passion of one’s political base is not something that we should fear, but rather a smart and savvy political move.

“People in this hall really did groove on much of what they heard,” he noted, thinking back, perhaps, to some of the night’s much discussed cheering. “And yet, there are huge number of people and an equal number of people who I think were horrified by what they heard in this room.”

Watch the segment from Anderson 360 below:

h/t Breitbart.tv

As Mediaite’s own Tommy Christopher points out:

The reactions of three or four audience members at a debate isn’t all that meaningful on its own, but this outburst follows last week’s Death Penalty Ovation at the Reagan Library debate, and another ugly moment at the Tea Party debate in which the crowd cheered for fed chairman Ben Bernanke to be tried for treason, a capital crime.

While Rep. Paul mercifully declined to leave coma-guy to die, he is simply suggesting a form of socialized medicine, only without the guarantee. He places moral responsibility for coma guy on “our neighbors, our friends, our churches,” which only differs from socialized medicine in that it burdens churches (who don’t pay taxes). That, and my neighbor has a lousy TV in his ICU.

But Perry thought it seemed out of character for a GOP event. During a breakfast event in Tampa, Florida, a local NBC News crew caught up with the GOP frontrunner who said “I was a bit taken aback by that myself,” before adding, “We’re the party of life. We ought to be coming up with ways to save lives.”

Watch the reaction from Perry below, courtesy of NBC News:

“We’ve gone though a decade where wealth was valued over work, and greed was valued over responsibility. And the decks were all too often stacked against ordinary folks in favor of special interests,” said Obama at an event sponsored by the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO. ”America cannot have a strong, growing economy without a strong, growing middle class and without a strong labor movement,” he continued in appeal.

Following last week’s stagnant jobs report, he offered that “there is work to be done and there are workers ready to do it. Labor is on board. Business is on board”– and, in anticipation of Congress’s return to session next week, he continued– “we just need Congress to get on board. Let’s put America back to work.”

Teasing next Thursday’s much embattled jobs speech, he called on the GOP to put the struggling country ahead of their party, and urged Congress to move quickly in creating new jobs:

“The time for Washington games is over. The time for action is now. No more manufactured crises. No more games. Now is not the time for the people you sent to Washington to worry about their jobs; now is the time for them to worry about your jobs.”

“Prove you’ll fight just as hard for tax cuts for middle-class families as you do for oil companies and the most affluent Americans,” he demanded, addressing the GOP’s claim that they are a “party of tax cuts”: “Show us what you got.”

Obama’s tone was stern, and unlike Hoffa’s inciting opening remarks, his rhetoric proposed challenge rather then war. “We’re going to see if we’ve got some straight shooters in Congress. We’re going to see if Congressional Republicans will put country before party,” he said. The battle, he seems to believe, is one the Republicans are going to have to fight with themselves.

Watch the full address below: