Tuesday, October 09, 2007
|
|
The Debate
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
7:31 PM
|
Giuliani and Romney win, going away.
On the economy and trade, taxes and optimism, Romney has the edge, but he miffed the Iran question. As I discussed on the show with Rick Santorum, most of Romney's answer on whether military action against Iraq required Congressional approval, was very good. The talk of lawyers --probably a fumbled reference to when and if the War Powers Act applies, but you couldn't really tell-- was not his finest hour, but also not the huge deal that some want to make it out to be.
Romney's Michigan-specific references underscore the roll-out of his campaign. The former Massachusetts' governor drilled into the woeful state of the Wolverine State's economy, its crushing tax burden, and his roots as a son of Michigan. That's a shrewd dual use of the debate format --advancing his national image while supporting his plans to win in Michigan after the Iowa and New Hampshire contests.
Fred Thompson is just flat. Period. And the perpetual frown isn't going to win anything.
|
|
|
way off base. Fred held his own, and that's all he needed to do. It was all about how he was going to do before the debate and it's going to be about how he held his own after. He's in and didn't make any gaffes, made some zingers, called Chris "christopher" and did well. |
|
Ha Hugh. I'm reading returns all over the web and Zanotti on "The Corner" says that the consenus in the hall was that Fred won narrowly. Then Guiliani.
I'm a Fredhead and I think he did fine for a 1st time out. In my opinion Guiliani did the best overall and seems to give very even performances over several socalled debates. After that it was Romney, who really does seem over rehearsed.
Having said that, I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for Rudy should the occasion arise.
These exercises make the press and the politcal junkies overestimate their importance cuz few else care at this early date.
Oh yeah, Chris Matthews was less of an asshat than ususal but still an asshat. |
|
I know you're all in for Romney Mr. Hewitt but please...nothing worked in this debate for him. He looks as plastic tonight as he did yesterday and all that Michigan hometown stuff seemed like straining to pander.
Personally I like Thompson in this debate. To me he wasn't flat at all. He stumbled at first and then held his own and he throttled the moderator who was gunning for him.
I think he'll get smother and more comfortable with more debates, just as the others have. You are right, Giuliani did pretty well though. |
|
|
"Buzz from the Scene: The general feeling around here is that Fred Thompson pulled out a narrow win over Rudy and McCain, though a few hardcore Mitt supporters are attributing that to low expectations. I have to disagree. Mitt looked scripted..." |
|
At least you can call a spade a spade on Romney's ridiculous answer on Iran. Yeah Mitt, whenever the going gets tough, just lawyer up. How pathetic. Try reading the Constitution Gov. Romney. I know it's a little passe probably for you, but it is the controling legal authority on going to war.
Seriously Hugh, how could Romney have won this debate? He was a disaster.
|
|
Romney and Rudy are clearly the frontrunners now - they showed it again tonight. Fred failed to show that he adds anything. Romney and Rudy both have leadership qualities and experience, whereas Fred has no leadership experience or even the persona of leadership.
McCain is incidental at this point. |
|
|
This debate showed that the GOP candidates mostly looked stronger than the Dem contingent. Rudy, Fred, Mitt, then the Huck and the surprisingly absurd Ron Paul all looked as serious adults. John looked old and now fading quickly. Too bad that they don't follow the Sean Hannity and Rush script of putting it to the media, the pacifist socialists and the Moveon-Media Matters groups via the Dem candidates. The MSM will never tell the public that the Dems are Sorros Moveon socialists. Period. It is time for the GOP group to do so. |
|
Giuliani was surprisingly (to me) good, and Romney is starting to settle in. A couple of flashes of humor (that worked,) and a generally more relaxed mode. He's trying to get the old "Reagan" optimism/good humor thing working, and with a little time and exposure might pull it off.
Romney requires "getting to know." That being said, he can't "Beat" Rudy, I don't think. Rudy has to Beat "Himself." The Good news is, "he might." The bad news, for Romney supporters, is "He Might Not."
New Hampshire is the whole "shooting match." If Giuliani can beat Romney there, he'll, also, take Michigan, and the "Magic" is gone. Buh bye.
But, if Romney takes Iowa, and then New Hampshire, "He'll" take Michigan, Nevada, and it's all over. De fat lady won't even have time to warm up.
It's ALL about New Hampshire. |
|
|
Hey, check out the Captain's Quarters. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
|
|
I have been a Romney fan from the beginning. I really thought that this was one of the better debates. I find that there is actual debate and ideas being bantered about. The Democratic debates are usually about what can they promise, depending on what special group they are pandering to. Fred did fine enough. Guiliani was strong, but he is just a male Hillary to me. McCain is passionate, but i think he is just finished. Romney needs to loosen up a bit and show people that he is a passionate person. he is a smart guy and has I think would have some creative ideas for our country's problems. |
|
HUGH So how did you think you did, Governor?
MITT I don't think I can give you an honest answer to that question, Hugh, without a great deal of further consideration and consultation. But thank you for asking.
HUGH Well I interpret that to mean that you were a great success tonight. In fact, there are really only two serious candidates left, yourself and Guliani. Isn't that so, Governor?
MITT Well, that might be so, and then again it might not. I don't really think I can give you an honest answer to that question, Hugh, without a great deal of further consideration and consultation. But thank you for asking,
HUGH What you really mean, Governor, is that you're a lock to win this thing, and that Fred Thompson is a old whiny pretender who should go back to acting on TV. Now I am right, Mr. Romney?
MITT I think you probably are right, Hugh, yes. However, you can't discount the possibility that you might also be wrong, and therefore I cant really give you an honest answer to that question, Hugh, without a great deal of further consideration and consultation. But again, thanks for asking.
HUGH Thank you Governor. Well folks, you heard it here. None of the other candidates in either party are anywhere near as clear thinking as Governor Romney. I say it's apparent to anyone paying attention that, of the Big Two, Mitt is clearly the winner, and the best chance we have. |
|
...if only he would!
I guess he did OK, other than that one time where his face froze in a rictus of a grin because his wireless control unit was jammed and his robotic programming took a few CPU cycles to recover.
No, really, he was great. So presidential, so animated, so...almost lifelike! |
|
|
Rudy clearly won. Mitt had some good points but the more people see him the more they think he is plastic and fake. Besides Freddy southern accent I am still trying to figure the appeal. |
|
Hugh finally admits Mitt made a mistake. And not a little mistake, in my opinion, but a huge mistake. Mitt would Lawyer Up when faced with possible military action. This man does not have the temperment to be President and he demonstrated it today.
Did FDR call his lawyer after Pearl Harbor?
Did Lincoln call his after Fort Sumter?
MATTHEWS: Governor Romney…if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?
ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat.
I bet OBL is afraid, very afraid! |
|
|
Mitt's answer that lawyers should decide when we go to war was the most shocking miscue of the debate. Fred did fine. Mitt was quite bad, really. |
|
I wrote a brilliant assessment of Hugh's shameless shilling for Mitt and, I have to assume, that I got censored for using "kiss-butt". It was the only comment that could have possibly been considered contraversial.
A conservative that will only vote for romney as a last possible resort to hillary,
Wade |
|
|
Fred looked commanding and presidential. Clear winner. Portlandmom, "There you go again." |
|
|
No foul language - why not post my comments? |
|
|
Don't feel bad. I'm sure it's the filter setting. |
|
A little biased Hugh? Get over it Hugh... you're such a shill for Romney! At least Fred doesn't have to keep writing himself checks to fund his campaign!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfB5dhd8e80
|
|
|
if his wife would get out there and campaign more. Hottest wife of a candidate I have ever seen in my life. Damn, Fred is good! |
|
|
Your "conversation between Mitt and Hugh" is right on! Nicely done Mike! |
|
|
I'd interrupt my next speech in order to call Fred Thompson's wife on my cell phone. I'd tell her to leave that old loser; she can be my wifey number 4. |
|
Romney actually did very well, not on the Iran question, but on many other questions. Ron hit many of his points very well, especially on the Iran question, denouncing this wiggle room, people acting like this administration is going to have a Jack Bauer situation when it comes to Iran. Bush will go in or run so many covert ops to get a response. That question was all about the now because Bush is serious and it was a weak way to ask the question. Because if Bush takes action they can't flip flop on agreeing or disagreeing.
Tancredo did very well on most of the questions, yeah he stuttered a bit, but who didn't. McCain forgot his hearing aid apparently, Rudy is too sophomoric for my taste, and Fred was ho hum. But if you listened to what Tancredo actually said he won hands down. You want introspection on the party and its mistakes, most people know where Ron stands but Tom was more outspoken than usual and he seemed to put as much information in his answers and made so many important points that he won hands down. I don't care who you support, I can see a Romney win but that's too plastic for me. That'll get you Rockefellers and people who aren't conservative anyway, but Tancredo actually spoke to conservative principles....and he didn't talk about nuking Mecca which helps.
The same government we sought to change in 1994 exists. |
|
|
I'd interrrupt my next speech in order to call Fred Thompson's wife on my cell phone. I'd tell her to leave that old guy and I'd offer her the post of wife #4 |
|
running away with you. Fred did not look presidential or commanding at all. He barely managed to suffer through, but I'll cut him a break because it was his first debate, after all.
There ain't no way he won. |
|
Simon from the Politico hammers Mitt too:
'But in the end, while all that Thompson proved is that he could stand upright for two hours, it was Romney who fell on his face.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked Romney whether, as president, he would need to go to Congress to “get authorization to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
Romney said “you sit down with your attorneys,” and “we’re going to let the lawyers sort out” whether such authorization was needed.
Yeah, because you can never go wrong letting lawyers make your decisions for you, right? ' |
|
|
The media is playing that up but he didn't mean at the time of the threat. He is a business man, he will contact legal and make a decision ahead of time. I think he is a horrible candidate and I think he has to contact legal because he doesn't understand the Constitution, but neither does most of the men on stage. That should be obvious, but I don't think anyone could reasonably say that if there was an imminent threat he would have been briefed on his option months to years before the event. That is what transitioning administrations do. And like I said, the imminent threat garbage is useless to the discussion of Iran because it will be another war of choice. Once again a badly worded question. |
|
|
...would not have been briefed.. |
|
|
|
Fred did NOT win this debate.
Of course, neither did Mitt.
Neither did Rudy.
None of these guys won.
I joke a lot to keep from being too depressed here. I am an independent who can't stand Hillary Clinton, but the Cleveland Browns will win the Superbowl before any of these bozos are able to take her out. I mean, get real: who are we kidding here? Fred can barely stay awake, Rudy can't get off a single sentence without annoyingly reminding us for the zillionth time that he was mayor of NYC during 9/11, and Hugh's buddy Mitt has all the personality of a vending machine. And these guys are your frontrunners? really? |
|
It's so refreshing to read posts by Ed Morrissey at Captains Quarters blog because unlike Hugh, Ed is not a shill for anyone! The biased posts by Hugh are frankly "flat"! For all of his intellect, Hugh's analysis of Fred is hardly worthy of reading. I encourage everyone to read Ed Morrissey more often at Captains Quarters for a more honest and unbiased view.
|
|
Look all these events right now are for the reporters to have something to say. No one candidate that I know of has gotten the least amount of bump out of all this brouhaha. Neither have the Dems'. This is all for the fun of the MSM reporters and the Foolish Forum Folks to wile away the days until the real campaign begins.
I did, however, find the gay, transgender, homosexual, and bisexual (did I leave anyone out? Oh yeah, toe suckers)a hoot. The dems' out did themselves and made a rich environment for political ads.
Relax everyone. Who on earth watches a phoney debate at 1:00 on a Tuesday afternoon (my time zone)on CNBC and thinks it important?
Let us have a vote. Those without a life get to vote first. |
|
|
No one comes here for an unbiased analysis. We're all here to have some fun over at the Romney's house. I just wish they had better booze. |
|
Hugh, I love your show, but this is who you are with all the water you carry for Romney. He was merely average in a forum that should have been his moment to shine because of his background in business. I did like his Law and Order line, but it wasn't really a shot on Thompson as it was just a good joke.
Giuliani is just in his element in these things, and is consistently at or near the top of every debate.
Fred started slow but seemed to settle in, got stronger as the debate went on, and had some nice soundbites to play on the news to offset his early fumble. That's really what these things are about when there are 10 people in the field, no one is going to remember the debates they had on the minutiae of the line item veto or the importance of a strong dollar. It was a credible start for Fred and he needs to pick up in the next one where he ended today. |
|
Portland Mom is just Hugh in a costume, think Tootsie or that time Robin Williams guy dressed like a woman...
really Mitt blew it all tonight
"uh Mr. President, a nuclear device just blew up New York
okay Jasper get my Lawyer on the phone...."
Fo Real dudes
dirL |
|
I still say that the only debate format worth anything would be to give each one 10 minutes on the Topic "Why America Needs Another Ronald Reagan" with that as the manditory first sentence and the following as the manditory last sentence "I am that man." Let Rush, Hannity, and Coulter warm up the crowd with 5 minute speeches on "the 4 Pillars of Regan Republicanism" and do shticks between speakers. Make it a 2 hour TV special and see which candidate has the right stuff to bring the studio audience of 65% conservative voters and 35% Regan Democrats to their feat screaming for more. Sort of a pre-convention political version of "American Idol." That candidate is the only one who can whup HillyBamas aszzz
I haven't seen one since the first Fox one, don't care to, and it's obvious the "results" are only in your pre-existing preferences heads.
If they want my vote, they gotta take the pledge below.
the big mick |
|
1. WIN the War against the Sand Nazis on all fronts.
2. DEFEND our Southern border against the Mexican Invasion.
3. RETURN to Constitutionalism by appointing ONLY Strict Constructionist Justices from a consensus list of the top 10 MOST Strict Constructionist.
4. REDUCE the size of the FEDGOV 3% (in real, absolute, terms, not mere slowed growth) each year of their Admin.
WIN, DEFEND, RETURN, REDUCE. In writing, no quibbles, all or nothing--or I vote for HillyBama in the hopes they will shove the Republic the last couple of inches into Socialism and bring on the long overdue American Revolution Part 3.
the big mick
|
|
|
Still has my vote in the primaries. |
|
|
Fred, Rudy, Hunter, Mitt in that order. |
|
|
Hugh said; "...the perpetual frown isn't going to win anything." Hugh's criteria for a President: good looks! By the way, Fred did smile when appropriate! |
|
Fred kicked Chris Matthews butt!
Best line of the night:"... It was getting a little boring without me." - Fred Thompson |
|
|
Fred looked so old and dour that I felt for him. It shouldn't matter, but it does, He has no energy, enthusiasm or heart. |
|
...the replay, but I only say about 3/4 of it. Hunter is still my guy. Fred looked ok to me, I don't know why people are saying otherwise.....
Rudy and Mitt looked good too.
The one guy I would NEVER vote for is Ron Paul.
All you Paul guys....just save it. He's a nutjob through and through.... |
|
I like fred's wife. Rudy's wife is ugly. Mitt's wife looks like a typical Salt Lake City Stepford wife. I wonder what she looks like in her sexy "garments." LOL
Go Fred!!!!!!!!And your wife too! |
|
|
Thompson- Rudy-Hunter-then Romney. To say otherwise, must not have watched the debate. |
|
Rudy was in great form tonight and I came away from this debate convinced that he is the best opponent we can put in the ring vs. Hillary. Barring the unforseen, he's got my support from here on out.
Fred started out shaky but I thought on the whole finished stronger than expected and didn't lose any ground from his performance.
Mitt in no way, shape, or form won this debate. His comment about consulting lawyers in the face of a national security threat was no small gaffe at all. It will be the one thing that is remembered about him from this debate. In fact, the rest struck me as robotic, with the lawyer comment perhaps being a short circuit.
P.S.: Why in heck is Brownback still in this race? |
|
Mr. Hewitt,
I have to say that I'm just very disappointed at your bias against Fred Thompson. I just don't get it. Why can't you give anyone but Mitt a air shake? You can't imagine what most people I talk to and the articles I read about you say how in the bag you are for Mitt and that you can't be counted on at all to objectively evaluate anything regarding this Republican primary election. It's a shame because I have a lot of respect for you. I pray that you could have a change of heart for our party's sake.
Shannon in St. Charles, IL |
|
Was too busy.
I know that what ever Hugh says is in super concentrated form when it comes to Romney and in various levels of dilution for everyone else. You also need to take a big grain of salt (about the amount you would dump on a long driveway in Minnesota after an ice storm).
Most of the punditry said Fred was just ok but nothing exciting. His supporters seem to like him, his critics criticized. I doubt he hurt himself but did not seem to help himself either.
Rudy did ok on a few issues.
I heard very little about Romney (other than Hugh) but I assume he did not hurt himself either or I would have heard about it from others.
McCain made a few good points on GWOT and the surge, but what can you say.
Duncan Hunter made some good points. Too bad he is out of it because he would make a good president.
I will watch the rerun tonight and see if this all pans out. |
|
Hugh,
I have listened to you since your KRLA morning show days. Also, I have listened to your election night shows as well in both 2004 and 2006. I am truly a fan of yours. I am truly undecided, I like different things about the different candidates. I have to admit that your shilling for Romney is very disturbing. I want a real analysis on the GOP primaries so that I can make an informed decision. Now, I pretty much ignore anything you say about the candidates because I can't trust that it is any way objective. Also, it makes me less likely to vote for Romney. Please stop being a three hour advetisment for Mitt or I will be forced to listen to KFI or KABC. |
|
I think all Romney & Thompson did was hold their own, therefore they lost. Giuliani & Huckabee clearly won the debate.
However, Giuliani's support is thinning because a large chunk of the base has concerns about his social views. Therefore he's having to hit homeruns in the debates just to stay in contention, in the end, it may not matter that he's a tough debater, strong on the war & immigration or that he's a proven leader in times of crises. Because this campaign is not just about leadership experience, it's a quest for a special or exceptional kind of leader who is not self-serving, and inspires & motivates with integrity as well as great ideas.
Huckabee is a skilled debater, but even though it seems he didn't get asked as many questions this time, it hardly matters because his support is steadily climbing & getting stronger every day. Huckabee just may be showing that he's that rare kind of leader who actually has the ability to unite the party & the country at this critical time. And precisely because his momentum is increasing naturally, without all the big bucks & power brokers in his corner. His appeal is genuine because he's not beholden to any particular special interest or group. One could argue he's more independent than the independents! It's time to welcome the inevitable - Huck is liable to take over the top tier because unlike anyone else running, something about him resonates with everyday Americans. |
|
From the majority of the comments I've seen here, I have to wonder how many even saw the debates? It appears to me that what we're really getting is an analysis of the analysis... in other words, it seems a lot of folks here are jump rehashing what's been said throughout parts of the blogosphere. My advice: read it, but don't just accept it for fact. Watch the debate first, then comment.
Mitt showed a mastery of the facts tonight, and an unparalleled ability to communicate in clear, concise, analytical terms. He's the barometer by which the other candidates are measured in these debates. Fred was fine, he certainly didn't "wow" anyone, and I think he needed to. I think Guilliani did fine, but all he did was reinforce more of the same. There was nothing new from him, nothing to "woo" the fence sitters. Mitt, on the other hand, just continues to impress with his intellect, his communicative style, and the ease with which he delivers in depth, not your run of the mill "platitude" laden, analyses.
Who won tonight? The real question should be, who came in second. |
|
I don't get it. He's scripted, plastic; he doesn't come across as genuine.
I have no animosity toward him, I'd vote for him if it comes down to his nomination; however I can't get beyond his slick demeanor.
All in all however, the Republican field totally outdoes the thin Democratic offerings. |
|
If you don't think a president consults with attorney's prior to a big decision like striking another country, you are kidding yourself. I like a president who will make sure he is doing the right thing, the constitutional thing, the legal and best thing. I think Romney's answer was the honest one, the others were trying to look like John Wayne and failed.
Romney clearly is thoughtful enough to know that a president does not have all the answers but a good one knows where to find them. |
|
|
The old geezer who talks to the ghost of Joe in Salt Lake will be in charge if MR wins. I can't get beyond the horror of this disaster for America. Mitt is not a bad man. He is just confused, and will follow the orders of his master in SLC. Elect Mitt, you elect "The Prophet." Hollyweird could not even come up with a script this scary. |
|
|
You are right that Hunter would make a good President. You are wrong that he is out of it. All it takes is voters like you voting for a good President. |
|
|
Hugh, this is getting embarrassing. You really need to be more objective about presidential candidates about whom you write books. |
|
The bias some have for ROMNEY is clear.
They cannot admit the obvious, the sound strength of Romney.
Perhaps there is jealousy for a savvy success.
Rudy and MITT rocked and serve us well.
I feel Fred did bring some fine efforts as well, as the contingent which pushed Fred flirts with some policy desire which are not completely conservative.
As Hunter was playing to the ears of the fearful, the isolationist protectionist folly, Fred happily chimed for FREE TRADE.
Great moment.
Romney was suggesting lawyers debate afterwards what is legal, not that it would interrupt action.
It was in context to the question regarding a past moment, which did not sound strong, but has been wildly misinterpreted.
Such is the bias against him.
He is very impressive, and his positive, upbeat nature is truly his best attribute.
|
|
I must agree w/Blake. Most of you are just parroting Chris Matthews- desperate to come up with anything to dog Romney. Because guess what kids, pretty soon, when it gets closer to crunch time the whole -"he's too polished, too planned, too powerpoint, too perfect" thing is gonna look and sound pretty good to John Q. Average Voter when they start paying what little attention they have during the holidays. I mean, is that really the best they/you can come up with? Are you really slamming him b/c he would take a breath and get some advice before pulling the trigger?
Look, the superiority of his resume goes without saying, so I won't. In light of recent developments w/the evangelical base of the GOP, Rudy's a non-starter and I know this b/c all day long I listen to them call in to talk radio and say they could not in good conscience vote for a pro-choicer, strict constructionist preference notwithstanding. So even if Rudy wins GOP, I'm guessing many will stay home (even more than would be the case b/c of anti-mormon bigotry), handing Hillary the election.
Sorry Fred-heads, the guy's Southern-fried something, but it's not Reagan. There's nothing to comment on, he just rambles most of the time. Plus he flat out stated he doesn't go to church.
If Huckabee was gonna take off he'd have done it by now. He does well in the debates and the MSM sure likes him. Why doesn't the evangelical base fall in line behind him, he's one of them after all, a minister no less. Personally, I think it's the Gomer Pyle factor, Bartlett from the Bush admin. hinted as much today in a candid moment, just no one's willing to come out and say it.
McCain's done, no matter how hard the MSM wishes it weren't so.
|
|
I like Rudy a lot, I think he's the best debater but he's a social lib. and can't win the whole thing for reasons stated above. Plus, he's too regional, too New York. When you see/hear Rudy you think New York. Same w/Thompson and Huck and the South. Whereas with Romney you don't think Boston or Mass., he doesn't have the accent or mention Red Sox every 5 minutes like Rudy and his beloved Yankees, he has midwest roots and went to undergrad in the west. His appeal isn't limited to a spec. region which should help in the national election once people get to know him.
Oh, and Ray, it sounds like you have some experience with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which by your disgusting, inappropriate comments leads me to believe you're either an anti-mormon bigot or you're an apostate who couldn't hack it and left the church b/c it's just easier not to be a member and try to live up to its standards. Grow up, dude |
|
Mark it down now, the evangelicals will end up supporting Romney b/c he's their only shot and they know it. They'll just have to get over the theology thing. They can't go the third party route b/c they'll destroy their credibility/influence indefinitely by guaranteeing a Clinton victory (yeah, that'll help the pro-life cause!) like Dennis Prager and others have mentioned. They can't go w/the others for reasons mentioned above.
As for Romney,since when was being intelligent, well-spoken, well-educated, telegenic, rich, posessing a norman rockwell-esq. family, and bereft of any skeletons in one's closet a liability in a presidential election? |
|
I hear people calling him crazy and a nutjob, but I ask you, what did he say that was so wrong in that debate? Is it suddenly crazy to think that our citizens should be free? Is it not true that our government is living far beyond their means and wracking up a huge debt to Americans (in Social Security and Medicare) and to the rest of the world?
Have we been so blinding and mind washed by the media and our government officials that we immediately anyone who speaks the truth as a "nutjob"? Can anyone here refute what he is saying?
|
|
From reading some of the comments here it looks to me that Paul's opening statement went right over their heads. Not one of the others candidates addressed the problems that Paul pointed out, starting with a debased currency due to running the printing presses. None of the others wanted to deal with this and that tells me that either what Paul said went right over their heads or they wish to continue business as usual. When it came to specifices Paul and the other "minor" candidates are the only ones to talk about specifics with Paul giving the most in the short time he had. The rest of them spoke only in generalities.
As a moderator Matthews was awful. This person couldn't moderate a high school debate team. The others working with him weren't much better. By the way, CNBC pulled their own polls over the debate. No surprise there, seeing how they are tied in with the gang that writes for the "Wall Street Journal" editorial page. |
|
Good lord, man, you're getting tedious about this. Give it a rest.
|
|
Bill Maher on Fred's performance: 'He does not look well. His slogan should be 'tanned, rested and in remission.' And I'm not making fun of his health problems.'
At least he had the grace not to publish life expectancy projections for Fred's cancer, like Hugh did on the day Fred announced. |
|
... the two very different reactions people have to Romney.
Sure, some of the people posting here are paid hacks, firmly in the camp of one candidate or the other (such as our pathetic host Hugh; and also anyone who writes "GO MITT!" in all caps...). But it can't be all of them. So how is it that the pro-Mitt crowd see a clear winner, and the anti-Mitt's see a plastic loser? I don't have the answer. Maybe some people as more put off by certain things than others. Romney has good command of the language, and know his facts, that is clear. I personally find him fake, however. And his use of stupid sloganeering really irks me; he seems to care more about saying the right things to appease the base than doing the right things for the party and the country. Also, Mitt's humor is totally phoney, and I thought Fred schooled him last night, after Mitt's lame "Law and Order" pun. My $.02. |
|
In addition to the Iran/lawyer bungle Mitt made two other statements that raised my eyebrows:
-- regarding the state of the Michigan economy (first question, I believe), Romney answered that everyone is responsible for turning around the Michigan economy. That's nonsense. The tax and regulatory structure in Michigan is anti-business. Heck, the Governor there just raised taxes! And the auto unions aren't helping, either. Michigan's problems are largely self-inflicted. Romney's faith in collaborative government solutions is pure foolishness.
-- debating the line item veto with Rudy, Romney asserted essentially that tax cuts must be "paid for" with spending cuts. This green-eyeshade approach to the budget is a throwback to the days when Gerry Ford and Bob Michel ruled the GOP roost. Frankly, it's indistinguishable from the Northeestern moderate Republican approach of one George H.W. Bush.
Romney's instincts on taxes and economics are clearly not conservative. Rather, much like the instincts of Bush41 or a Bob Dole, his economic positions are mainly situational. |
|
My opinion is that the people who think Romney is plastic, scripted, or fake are misinterpreting him. Remember, he did not get into politics until the age of 50 - he's not a natural politician and I think he is not entirely comfortable being a politician. He's a businessman - and a very successful one from all accounts. His natural element is as a problem solver, a doer, and a leader.
Some seem to think he is being controlled, or scripted. I would be willing to guess that Romney is in complete control from top to bottom. To think otherwise is laughable considering his experience as a successful businessman and governor. He loves details, data, and the challenge of overcoming big problems.
I just don't think a campaign trail is his most comfortable environment, although I think he is doing very well at it. His real strength is leadership. |
|
|
|