6:14 Central Time: Just letting you know that I'll be here with the live-blogging when things start. Join me in the comments.
7:19: "Romney's already won," Meade announces, after Pawlenty gives a weak response to John King's repeated challenge of his use of the term "Obamaneycare."
7:26: A New Hampshire citizen frets about the influence of the Tea Party, and Santorum and Bachmann try to placate with platitutes. Bachmann speaks as if she's at a rally.
7:29: You can stream the debate on line here.
7:33: A federal right to work law? Pawlenty says yes.
7:37: Bachmann is asked if she prefers Elvis or Johnny Cash. An infusion of cuteness.
7:38: Ron Paul is tearing into another question. He's so crusty and cranky. It's refreshing... and a bit weird.
7:42: Romney looks good defending his position that the auto companies should have gone through bankruptcy. Obama, in effect, gave the bailout money to the unions, he says. King asks if everyone else agrees, but Santorum and Bachmann consume so much time answering that we don't get to find out if any of the others disagree.
7:45: Is everyone against the space program? Pawlenty's not. Gingrich thinks private business could run the program. Hard to picture that.
8:16: There's a question about the separation of church and state, and I'm struck that Ron Paul says, "The most important things is the First Amendment: 'Congress shall write [sic] no laws,' which means Congress shall never prohibit the expression of your Christians' faith in a public place." Why specify Christians? And under the First Amendment, there's freedom of speech for all opinions, including religious opinions. I thought that was bad of Paul, but Meade said, no it was great, because he won a lot of votes saying that. There are plenty of voters who will respond precisely because he said "Christians."
9:40: A good debate. I'd say all of the candidates did reasonably well, but wasn't Romney the big winner? He seemed believable as a leader, made no missteps, and none of the others landed a significant blow.
June 13, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215Romney can obviously win against Obama, and we need that win very badly as a nation, but damn, I'm tired of faux conservatives. The two Bushes and now this guy. They don't move the ball in the right direction, and consequently not only does the nation get worse, but conservatives get the blame for it.
I believe this is stated as part of Althouse's concern troll approach to her Obama vote. I share her concern, but as we can now see, it doesn't change a thing to clarify only half of the equation and never try the alternative.
The choices are always are between homeopathic medicine and weak poison. When you are very ill, there is little difference.
I only saw parts of the debate, but it was interesting. I thought Romney was a little too smooth, and he talked too long without saying all that much. Pawlenty was solid, but didn't say anything spectacular. Santorum is just creepy and God help us all if he wins. Cain was awesome, and I liked his answer on gay marriage when everyone else just pandered to what they thought the Christian Right wanted to hear. Gingrich always makes a good case, but I swear he is deliberately trying to lose with his "even handed" approach.
This was my first look at Bachmann and I was not impressed. Far too black and white - she answered the abortion question like she was Dukakis talking about his wife being raped, and it left me cold.
I'm with Trooper at 11:32.
I want to hear Rick Perry.
Perry / Palin?
(Would give her time and space to get Piper on her way and Trig settled. Give her more experience. [Although we would be MUCH better off right this minute is she were elected in 2008 when she wasn't even running for POTUS.])
So. Basically the final consensus is we could pretty much call this whole "debate" Waiting for Sarah then?
...bada-bing
I was steeled for worse, pleasantly surprised. I liked that overall they complemented each other; their responses & differences worked synergistically [sorry for that word] to communicate a unified message-- primarily focused on the economy, against Obama. As a group, they made each other look better. Ron Paul, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum don't have a chance in hell at the nomination or the VP slot, but in different ways at different moments they were all assets to the debate (i.e. viewing the debate as an at least partially unfiltered introduction of the GOP field, thus the overall GOP anti-Obama message, to MSM-ified America).
I mean, I'd never want Ron Paul near the Oval Office, but I like the GOP so much more for having someone like him up there (would be nice to see Gary Johnson too).
I've been hating Gingrich recently, but he was so good at certain moments. E.g., loved his smackdown of the moderator on at least 2 occasions: the non sequitur from "right to work" to the bullshit question about public unions (like they're the ones being demonized-- as opposed to, the ones doing the demonizing); and the ridiculous false choice on the immigration question. As predicted, the "right wing social engineering" quip is & will be used as a weapon by the MSM/Dems-- stupid, stupid, stupid Newt-- but there was a lot to like about his performance up there tonight.
It's weird how much the debate gave off the impression that these candidates like (at least respect) each other. They often seconded & backed up each other's points; they were remarkably friendly (as Paul noted, "civil"). I doubt these rivals are in fact lovey-dovey, but I think it's true enough that they're more in solidarity against Obama's presidency & policies than in competition with each other. Don't know to what extent that impression was due to a concerted effort, but I think it was a good tone for the first debate-- appearing more earnest in their opposition to Obama than cut-throat against each other. This is the light in which I interpreted Pawlenty's restraint re "Obamneycare": it's not so much that he pulled his punches against Romney, as that he was unwilling to provide the CNN moderator (& subsequent MSM spinners) with precisely the narrative, talking point, soundbite that they wanted. Maybe I'm rationalizing because I like Pawlenty, but I don't think it's necessarily weak or duplicitous (i.e. to not knock Romney to his face). Better to criticize Romney at the time, place, context of his choosing, than be forced into a rushed soundbite by a calculated MSM question.
Overall, politically, Romney was the winner. Gotta admit, I like him a lot more after this-- maybe just because I can easily see him beating Obama. Bachmann was the biggest surprise for me personally-- must admit, I'd bought into some of the MSM caricature, so she really impressed me tonight. Still like Pawlenty--though yes, he's a little bland-- but I don't think that's necessarily gonna hurt him against Obama. To win the primaries-- yeah, that's trickier.
Anyway, I was prepared to feel depressed afterwards, but I don't-- even though none of the candidates I'd most like to see were up on that stage.
not for one nano-second did i get a gut feeling of "now THAT's who i want to be president!" are those seven dwarfs...boring, smarmy, nutcase, plastic,
inexperience, blowhard, and the 'social issues' throwback twins...really the best we have to offer?
all i saw tonight was a panel of losers in an election year that should be a cakewalk for anyone opposing our failed president. there better be somebody waiting in the wings or we are doomed.
PS I tuned out most of the social issues stuff. Like, literally, muted the volume on my remote. They're not my issues, they're not what I'm voting on. Don't think most of America is predominantly focused on them, either. That was one of the surprising take-aways from the debate-- e.g., the way they all (other than Santorum, but even he was diplomatic about it) gave Romney a pass on abortion flip-flopping, took it off the table as a relevant issue, considered the matter "closed."
did not watch the debate; no tv and even if I had one wouldnt watch cnn
that said, Trooper nails it--this was a spring training game.
BTW: anyone know what the CNNs audience share for this "debate" was? I am thinking quite small but I could be wrong.
Well at least Hitchens got to live to see Weiner gate.
Perry / Palin?
Has a VP candidate who lost ever come back as the next VP candidate?
So the GOP is stupid enough to let CNN "moderate" the debate.
And the Dems will be too chickenshit to have their debate on FOX.
Same as last time, no lessons learned.
Unless Obama is debating himself, then there isn't going to be a debate for Democrats this go-round.
Of course, a hypothetical three-way debate between SENATOR Obama, CANDIDATE Obama and PRESIDENT Obama would certainly be instructive...especially to our resident Leftists....
"1 minute to each of you...The country has reached its debt limit. Should it be increased?"
"1 minute to each of you...Should the American government be targeting American citizens for assassination?"
and so on...
Perry's a possible gamechanger though, and the signals are that me actually might be getting in.
He'll be painted as "another Republican Governor of Texas."
That might be hard to overcome.
That might be hard to overcome.
Not necessarily. I always found GW's diction annoying and I'm really glad Barber is out of the race. This has zero reflection on their ideas or ideals and everything to do with a widely held perception that a southern twang = ignorance.
I've not heard a lot of Perry yet, but he doesn't seem to have the same level of twang GW did. Admittedly, I've not listened to a lot of bytes, though.
"Gingrich thinks private business could run the program. Hard to picture that."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269585/out-world-debate-question-rand-simberg
Post a Comment