Jun 14 2011
GOP Debate Open Thread
Okay, I missed the debate last night (just too early to be getting into Presidential politics), but I am interested in what people thought were the highlights, lowlights and impact on a possible Palin run. Will also attempt to watch the moderation queue closely today.
Did not watch it. But I recorded it. Michelle Bachmann sure made it interesting.
From what I’ve read so far this morning…no front runner emerged. All were good in many ways.
Michael Barone ranked Romney, then Michelle. Hot Air seems to think that the anti-Romney movement wasn’t able to direct many anti-Romney supporters to a single anti-Romney candidate, except for Michelle Bachman…and sees an opening for Rick Perry to step in to pick up the anti-Romney supporters.
The rest don’t seem to have the momentum; although, they’re all pretty good. Cain is weak on foreign policies, though.
Didn’t watch way too early.
Watched and read reviews.
Observation:
Romney is the annoited leader, establishment pick, as its his turn and he can win on the economy alone although the rest of his policies are left of center. I disagree with that philosophy and don’t think he has what it takes to change the damage the socialists have done.
Bachman is trying to steal the Tea Party title without having done the work and her mouth will hurt the cause if she is allowed to assume that title unchallenged. Few congress critters get elected President and she is no exception nor exceptional candidate, although better than Romney.
The rest are running for Vice President as evidenced by their refusal to call out Romney on Romneycare, except of course Ron Paul (Not going there)
Not going there with the Newt either, he is yesterdays news and just doesn’t know it yet.
Sarah Palin won by not playing the games and appearing in a meaningless shame of a “debate” where the gottcha media is just stirring the pot for a soundbite to turn against the Republican candidates in hopes they can coronate their King Barrack Hussein OBlahBlah.
It was a bad format – CNN asked ridiculous questions. Herman Cain has definitely got to up his game if he wants to go anywhere, ditto for Pawlenty.
but overall, I’d say it was about as meaningful as a pre-season game in the NFL or an exhibition game for MLB.
I couldn’t watch the debate. But, from looking around at the comments of others it appears Romney held his own, and seemed “presidential” appearing to many. Bachman came on strong, and seemed to almost step into the second position by her performance. Pawlenty was said to lack the needed “punch,” in order to raise his status among the participating group. Cain, over and over again, was ranked a “disappointment.” Gingrich’s high minded comments did nothing to take him out of the irrelevant category. Santorum & Paul, very much like their placement on the stage, were side dishes.
I did not see the debate but the above comments are what I expected.
The “party pick” Romney has been at this for a while and will come off most polished. (But then are we tired of polished speakers, Yes!)
The remainder of the field are good guys but quite lackluster except for Bachmann. She has the potential to grab the spotlight.
My sense is that it’s going to be Romeny vs. Bachmann, unless Perrry jumps in. If Bachmann emerges as a threat to Romny then what for the Republican party to put her in the crosshairs.
Here are the results of my little ten (all GOP Obama haters) person focus group: ranked in order of who won the debate.
1. Bachmann – surprised at her knowledge and intelligence. Shock and awe of the debate.
2. Newt – great answers, felt like he would go on for hours. Just doesn’t have the x factor. Like an absent minded professor.
3. Santorum – Poised, steady, knows the issues. Intelligent and thoughful but condescending. Talks down to people.
4. Pawlenty – Competent, steady, nice, intelligent. Connects with people with his convictions but not inspiring.
5. Romney – Plastic, slick, unauthentic. He makes me sick to my stomach. Lacks conviction.
6. Cain – Likeable, substantial but out of his element. Needs to know more details of public policy. Connects well with people. He is one of us. Not afraid to speak what the normal folks are thinking. I get the feeling the group liked him because he is not political.
7. Paul – Who let the crazy uncle out of the garage.
This wasn’t a “debate”. This was a “lets see how these guys handle double-binds when we give them two ridiculous alternatives from which to choose”. It was a laughing stock.
If you want a “debate” then the moderator should issue a general topic, such as “healthcare” or “immigration” or “the economy”. You allow each candidate to state their position. Then you go back and allow each candidate to rebut any remarks by other candidates. And finally you go back through and allow each one to make a final argument. THAT is a debate. Then the people can choose who has the better policy track.
These questions were dumb. They were too specific. They did not allow the candidates to show their more general foundation on the various policies. But there were just too darned many people for such a debate as I describe and it would take hours. This wasn’t a debate, it was an “examination”.
“Pawlenty – Competent, steady, nice, intelligent. Connects with people with his convictions but not inspiring.”
Yeah, that’s what I am hearing from everyone. No charisma, no excitement. Sort of like the difference between an architect and an engineer. An architect touches people’s emotions with their designs, an engineer is all about efficiency but comes across “cold” to some people.
A building designed by engineers would probably look drab and boxy but would last 500 years and cost little to maintain. An architect’s building would look fabulous, last less than 100 years and have to be torn down because it is not designed to be repaired as it ages.
So Pawlenty probably is on the right track on a lot of things but he doesn’t get people’s emotions going. It is hard to get people excited about technical details.
One person called it a press conference with the seven dwarfs. I think the seven were pretty strong and shoved it back at King many times. Pawlenty was described as the law partner everyone likes and wants to work for but not the super lawyer that gets on with Greta.
I think the best thing about the debate was that they all looked great and came across strong. I went from being uninspired about our slate of candidates to feeling good about the strong slate of candidates we have. Bachmann was my favorite in this debate. There were many strong moments by these candidates and only a few weak moments. The questions were real and were tough. There was little political correctness or dodging the questions. They were very direct and stood by their answers. I was impressed.
All sales are made on emotion and justified with logic. Karl, are ya listening?
Yikes! The chances of another Maunder Minimum just got a big boost:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/
This may be the day that the theory of Global Warming officially dies. Now that’s good news; but another little ice age will be real BAD news for everyone.
Maybe our only hope will be to pump out as much CO2 as possible!
I also missed it, thank goodness. It apparently was just another attempt by the Lame Stream Media to foist their choice upon us conservatives. The ones they are pushing the hardest are the least likely to win against the illegal alien. Since Sarah Palin is the most likely to prevail, she is the one the media definitely does not want in the race.
The only think Romney is polished at is being a politician. He’s the least qualified Republican presently being talked about. The only mention of Republican associated with him is in the phrase RINO. We can’t afford another 4 years of obama and we sure can’t afford 4 years of Romney.
Time to drill that Arctic oil while we still can.
Just read the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision. Wow – I knew there was a 4-3 conservative-liberal split on that court, but you almost never see a decision where the absolute hatred between the two factions is this open.
http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=66078
I didn’t watch the debate but I think it’s too early to have anyone claim leadership status. I would also be VERY WARY of the leftist MSM trying to nudge people towards a particular candidate.
Regarding the Wisconsin decision referred to above by WWS.
That was a huge win! And you now see why the left went all-in on Kloppenburg (BUT failed big time).
What you will now see is that despite all the hand wringing, name calling, and destruction of public property, the union hacks will STILL have their jobs, STILL have generous benefits, STILL have a pension, and most important, STILL be able to charge the public for their Viagra prescriptions.
Well the Trump is making rumblings about entering as a third party candidate. If he enters we are in trouble. Given the template of the Democrat win in the recent New York election, that is the false Tea Party candidate, Trump may be promised many good things by Obama to insure his entry.
We will turn on Trump in a minute if he tries to help get obama elected.