I’m sure Santorum would be light years ahead of what we have now. But there is something not quite right in how he appears to take himself too seriously. Which means he could theoretically win the debate but not win over people IMO.
I’ll probably just catch the highlights of it tomorrow.
Not since CNN excluded Gary Johnson: a self-made businessman & successful two-term governor in bluish New Mexico & advocate of a libertarian small-government agenda.
He doesn’t fit the leftist narrative that small-government candidates are religious kooks in disguise.
Game six of the Stanley Cup Finals. hmmmmmm lemme think about it…NO!
Planning on watch tectonic drift instead.
I will watch tonight… Looking at Cain and T-Paw.
I love how CNN has put Romney front and center, you’d think they were pulling for him or something.
Fine, Neo, fine. Don’t watch. Sometimes you leave me scratchin’ my head. Just so’s you don’t have anything to say about any of the debaters anytime in the next few weeks.
It will be my first time seeing CNN save for being inundated by it while waiting in airports.
I think a lot of people are going to watch. I will only be able to listen to part on a drive home from work.
America just started paying attention in the past two weeks. Palin, Weiner, Gas, Jobs. They have turned against Obama and are looking for his replacement. Therefore the candidates tonight will get a good first look.
Like Don Carlos the only time I watch CNN is at the airport where it is unavoidable.
I will make an exception tonight. I think the debates are very important. I have no preferred candidate at this point and am hoping one will rise to the top.
So far, I have watched the first debate and several interviews of candidates on Fox. Pawlenty was on Chris Wallace’s show yesterday and Wallace was very probing in his questions. Pawlenty acquited himself reasonably well, but he’s just not an exciting person. Maybe that’s a good thing, but I don’t think so when we desperately need someone to defeat Obama.
Thus far I have been impressed by Cain and Santorum, but have to see more before I get enthusiastic. I would like to see Romney do well, but he seems to not understand the TEA Party message – an issue, IMO, of his being too closely aligned with the NE elites.
I like Gary Johnson because his libertarian economic ideas are very close to mine. My beef with him is that he is almost as much of an isolationist as Ron Paul. IMO, our president cannot be an isolationist.
Well, on to the debates. Looking forward to hearing what Michelle Bachmann has to say.
Don Carlos: This explains why I don’t like to watch debates.
gs Says:
June 13th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Not since CNN excluded Gary Johnson: a self-made businessman & successful two-term governor in bluish New Mexico & advocate of a libertarian small-government agenda.
I have a real problem with the people putting on the debates picking and choosing who is a “serious” candidate or not. Are they afraid that Johnson will show up the rest of them?
I’ll go out on a limb and predict that the media will call Romney the winner.
I’m with Tom – game 6 of the Stanley Cup finals takes precedence. Especially since I live in Boston (but am not a Bruins fan). Everyone here is excited about it.
Will watch it precisely because I HATE hockey and could care less about the stupid Stanley Cup! 🙂
I will be pulling for Mitt, of course. I don’t love him, I recognize that he has serious hurdles to jump, and I wish that the GOP had a stronger front runner. But, come on, folks! He and Pawlenty are the only candidates who realistically could defeat Obama.
The day we hear the words “President Cain”, “President Paul”, “President Bachmann”, or “President Santorum”, well, I’ll be searching the skies for swine in flight.
Neo;
I hope you changed your mind and tuned in…they just went to a commercial break and it is a very lively discussion. Romney is the most restrained but all of the candidates are much stronger than expected.
And…I detect a note of surprise on the face of the CNN presenters.
And I some thinly-veiled hostility on the faces of some of the media questioners.
Jed S: I just got back at about 8:45 and started watching. It’s a more lively format than usual, I’ll say that for it. But debates leave me cold, and this one is being held way too soon.
Debate is a profound misnomer for this event. This is more a presser, run by the jornos for the jornos; only 2 or 3 of the 9 get to respond before the next ? is posed. The moderator, apparently a John Somebody, keeps snorting into his mike during the answers. Since I don’t watch CNN, I don’t know who he is.
The ‘debate’ is suspended for commercials.
I heard it on the radio. It came across well – lively, fair questions, decent answers.
By sound most impressive were Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Ron Paul
Bachman so so, Pawlenty so so
Romney sounded least effective to me. He comes across as a weak and weasley and potentially waffling pol on the radio – although good natured.
Don’t know how it came across on TV.
I just finished watching and I liked what I saw. All were energetic and most answered the questions.
I was impressed by many of Newt’s answers. I particularly liked the fact that he took on the issue of Muslims in the government head on while both Cain and Romney tried to dance a bit.
Santorum was well prepared and spoke well. He’s just a bit light on “gravitas” but his obvious passion on the issues is refreshing.
I was amazed that Pawlenty came out looking much more energetic and less plodding than he has seemed. He has a good record, but is it enough?
Anyone of them would be a better President than Barak Obama. All of them understand that we need to cut government spending, reduce the size of government, and decrease the regulatory burden so businesses can get moving again.
Hopefully we will see a couple of them move into the lead as the race defines and refines their messages.
We’re gonna be in good shape. I agree Newt did very well, but all did well. Paul should get a lot of credit for getting the Repubs to where they are today. If the winner will take the others for his cabinet and czar jobs, Mitt perhaps excepted since I distrust him, we may yet recover, as long as we can keep going; it’s a long row to hoe.
In the end it was not a real debate. It was a forum that advanced a set of values and it wasn’t just a Bash Obama-fest.
All of the candidates seem pointed in the same direction with variances depending on the topic. Several of them took time to plainly correct the CNN questioners when they misstated facts or misquoted the candidates. That was very effective.
Each of these debates will serve to introduce our candidates and their viewpoints to different slices of the viewing audience, one voter at a time.
Excluding Johnson was a shame as far as I’m concerned. I think he has sound ideas about fiscal/economic issues and from first hand experience he understands entitlements must be controlled by the states, not DC. I was surprised by Pawlenty, he actually seemed a bit animated. The Newt was pedantic as usual. We’ve been lectured to enough by the current CINC. Santorum came off better than I thought he would. Ron Paul is right about many things and wrong about many others. He’s right the Federal Reserve is a big problem but he’s wrong that a return to the gold standard is the solution. Plus he’s an isolationist. The world can’t afford an isolationist USA except when BHO is president. Bachman I can like, but I don’t give her much chance of beating BHO
Romney is the chosen one of the republican establishment and MSM. (That ought to tell you something.) He’s often wishy-washy and he has avery stiff personality. He lacks empathy and he lacks personal force. He’s pussy footing around over ‘climate change’. He was against abortion before he was for abortion and he was for abortion before he was against abortion. He is open to merciless attacks over Romney Care. (Its going to be difficult to attack BHO’s signature ‘achievement’ if you’re the author of Romney Care.) I can’t see him defeating BHO and neither can the MSM. That’s why he’s their chosen one.
Cain, as usual, came across as straight forward, possessing business experience and common sense, and tons of personal force. He can win Iowa which may give him a chance of coming in second in NH. South Carolina will be his for the taking. But then I’m biased.
“I’ll go out on a limb and predict that the media will call Romney the winner.”
rickl called it.
The winner was Sarah Palin because the tea party candidates sounded reasonable and moderate.
Slowly but surely the myth that Palin is unelectable is losing traction. Tammy Bruce and John Nolte address the very real and understandable fears many would be Palin supporters have. The fact is that Palin’s numbers are trending the right way and aren’t shabby. It is not the Palin camp but the Obama camp which is delusional (and arrogant).
The other reason Palin was the winner last night is that her absence continues to identify the main opponent in the 2012 election is not Obama but the MSM.
Curtis said, “The other reason Palin was the winner last night is that her absence continues to identify the main opponent in the 2012 election is not Obama but the MSM.”
An excellent observation. The Republican candidate, whoever it is, must have an aggressive media team that will challenge, correct, and chide the MSM when they lie, mis-quote, infer, and generally act as the democrats media arm. They are the major hurdle.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Watch Santorum win and no one notice.
“”Watch Santorum win and no one notice.””
Bob
I’m sure Santorum would be light years ahead of what we have now. But there is something not quite right in how he appears to take himself too seriously. Which means he could theoretically win the debate but not win over people IMO.
I’ll probably just catch the highlights of it tomorrow.
Not since CNN excluded Gary Johnson: a self-made businessman & successful two-term governor in bluish New Mexico & advocate of a libertarian small-government agenda.
He doesn’t fit the leftist narrative that small-government candidates are religious kooks in disguise.
Game six of the Stanley Cup Finals. hmmmmmm lemme think about it…NO!
Planning on watch tectonic drift instead.
I will watch tonight… Looking at Cain and T-Paw.
I love how CNN has put Romney front and center, you’d think they were pulling for him or something.
Fine, Neo, fine. Don’t watch. Sometimes you leave me scratchin’ my head. Just so’s you don’t have anything to say about any of the debaters anytime in the next few weeks.
It will be my first time seeing CNN save for being inundated by it while waiting in airports.
I think a lot of people are going to watch. I will only be able to listen to part on a drive home from work.
America just started paying attention in the past two weeks. Palin, Weiner, Gas, Jobs. They have turned against Obama and are looking for his replacement. Therefore the candidates tonight will get a good first look.
Like Don Carlos the only time I watch CNN is at the airport where it is unavoidable.
I will make an exception tonight. I think the debates are very important. I have no preferred candidate at this point and am hoping one will rise to the top.
So far, I have watched the first debate and several interviews of candidates on Fox. Pawlenty was on Chris Wallace’s show yesterday and Wallace was very probing in his questions. Pawlenty acquited himself reasonably well, but he’s just not an exciting person. Maybe that’s a good thing, but I don’t think so when we desperately need someone to defeat Obama.
Thus far I have been impressed by Cain and Santorum, but have to see more before I get enthusiastic. I would like to see Romney do well, but he seems to not understand the TEA Party message – an issue, IMO, of his being too closely aligned with the NE elites.
I like Gary Johnson because his libertarian economic ideas are very close to mine. My beef with him is that he is almost as much of an isolationist as Ron Paul. IMO, our president cannot be an isolationist.
Well, on to the debates. Looking forward to hearing what Michelle Bachmann has to say.
Don Carlos: This explains why I don’t like to watch debates.
gs Says:
June 13th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
I have a real problem with the people putting on the debates picking and choosing who is a “serious” candidate or not. Are they afraid that Johnson will show up the rest of them?
I’ll go out on a limb and predict that the media will call Romney the winner.
I’m with Tom – game 6 of the Stanley Cup finals takes precedence. Especially since I live in Boston (but am not a Bruins fan). Everyone here is excited about it.
Will watch it precisely because I HATE hockey and could care less about the stupid Stanley Cup! 🙂
I will be pulling for Mitt, of course. I don’t love him, I recognize that he has serious hurdles to jump, and I wish that the GOP had a stronger front runner. But, come on, folks! He and Pawlenty are the only candidates who realistically could defeat Obama.
The day we hear the words “President Cain”, “President Paul”, “President Bachmann”, or “President Santorum”, well, I’ll be searching the skies for swine in flight.
Neo;
I hope you changed your mind and tuned in…they just went to a commercial break and it is a very lively discussion. Romney is the most restrained but all of the candidates are much stronger than expected.
And…I detect a note of surprise on the face of the CNN presenters.
And I some thinly-veiled hostility on the faces of some of the media questioners.
Jed S: I just got back at about 8:45 and started watching. It’s a more lively format than usual, I’ll say that for it. But debates leave me cold, and this one is being held way too soon.
Debate is a profound misnomer for this event. This is more a presser, run by the jornos for the jornos; only 2 or 3 of the 9 get to respond before the next ? is posed. The moderator, apparently a John Somebody, keeps snorting into his mike during the answers. Since I don’t watch CNN, I don’t know who he is.
The ‘debate’ is suspended for commercials.
I heard it on the radio. It came across well – lively, fair questions, decent answers.
By sound most impressive were Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Ron Paul
Bachman so so, Pawlenty so so
Romney sounded least effective to me. He comes across as a weak and weasley and potentially waffling pol on the radio – although good natured.
Don’t know how it came across on TV.
I just finished watching and I liked what I saw. All were energetic and most answered the questions.
I was impressed by many of Newt’s answers. I particularly liked the fact that he took on the issue of Muslims in the government head on while both Cain and Romney tried to dance a bit.
Santorum was well prepared and spoke well. He’s just a bit light on “gravitas” but his obvious passion on the issues is refreshing.
I was amazed that Pawlenty came out looking much more energetic and less plodding than he has seemed. He has a good record, but is it enough?
Anyone of them would be a better President than Barak Obama. All of them understand that we need to cut government spending, reduce the size of government, and decrease the regulatory burden so businesses can get moving again.
Hopefully we will see a couple of them move into the lead as the race defines and refines their messages.
We’re gonna be in good shape. I agree Newt did very well, but all did well. Paul should get a lot of credit for getting the Repubs to where they are today. If the winner will take the others for his cabinet and czar jobs, Mitt perhaps excepted since I distrust him, we may yet recover, as long as we can keep going; it’s a long row to hoe.
In the end it was not a real debate. It was a forum that advanced a set of values and it wasn’t just a Bash Obama-fest.
All of the candidates seem pointed in the same direction with variances depending on the topic. Several of them took time to plainly correct the CNN questioners when they misstated facts or misquoted the candidates. That was very effective.
Each of these debates will serve to introduce our candidates and their viewpoints to different slices of the viewing audience, one voter at a time.
Excluding Johnson was a shame as far as I’m concerned. I think he has sound ideas about fiscal/economic issues and from first hand experience he understands entitlements must be controlled by the states, not DC. I was surprised by Pawlenty, he actually seemed a bit animated. The Newt was pedantic as usual. We’ve been lectured to enough by the current CINC. Santorum came off better than I thought he would. Ron Paul is right about many things and wrong about many others. He’s right the Federal Reserve is a big problem but he’s wrong that a return to the gold standard is the solution. Plus he’s an isolationist. The world can’t afford an isolationist USA except when BHO is president. Bachman I can like, but I don’t give her much chance of beating BHO
Romney is the chosen one of the republican establishment and MSM. (That ought to tell you something.) He’s often wishy-washy and he has avery stiff personality. He lacks empathy and he lacks personal force. He’s pussy footing around over ‘climate change’. He was against abortion before he was for abortion and he was for abortion before he was against abortion. He is open to merciless attacks over Romney Care. (Its going to be difficult to attack BHO’s signature ‘achievement’ if you’re the author of Romney Care.) I can’t see him defeating BHO and neither can the MSM. That’s why he’s their chosen one.
Cain, as usual, came across as straight forward, possessing business experience and common sense, and tons of personal force. He can win Iowa which may give him a chance of coming in second in NH. South Carolina will be his for the taking. But then I’m biased.
“I’ll go out on a limb and predict that the media will call Romney the winner.”
rickl called it.
The winner was Sarah Palin because the tea party candidates sounded reasonable and moderate.
Slowly but surely the myth that Palin is unelectable is losing traction. Tammy Bruce and John Nolte address the very real and understandable fears many would be Palin supporters have. The fact is that Palin’s numbers are trending the right way and aren’t shabby. It is not the Palin camp but the Obama camp which is delusional (and arrogant).
The other reason Palin was the winner last night is that her absence continues to identify the main opponent in the 2012 election is not Obama but the MSM.
Curtis said, “The other reason Palin was the winner last night is that her absence continues to identify the main opponent in the 2012 election is not Obama but the MSM.”
An excellent observation. The Republican candidate, whoever it is, must have an aggressive media team that will challenge, correct, and chide the MSM when they lie, mis-quote, infer, and generally act as the democrats media arm. They are the major hurdle.