Last night’s Republican debate
Anyone who wants to discuss the debate last night can use this thread.
I tried to watch it, I really did. But fifteen minutes was all I could take. I hate debates, and this one seems highly premature.
[ADDENDUM: Ace has an exceedingly interesting take on Romney’s performance.]
To call last night’s political showcase a “debate” is stretching the definition too far. The many questions on wedge issues, and the monitor’s constant attempt to limit responses that he did not want to hear, shrank the value to the viewer. It was a sorry CNN attempt at edutainment, not a debate, or even an opportunity for the candidates to differentiate their positions.
I didn’t see the debate, but I’ve read lots of posts. Aside from the idiot CNN questions, it sounds like it was a good night for the Republicans. I don’t think the time is right for real battles among candidates. The party needs time to tie voters’ unease to Obama’s performance. It needs time to show the candidates as sensible and competent people, not the raving maniacs portrayed by the MSM and Soros bloggers. Voters need a time to distance themselves from their previous Obama votes and to put the blame for our messes on Obama. Most people are not political junkies. They don’t scour the internet to find the context for the latest MSM sound bite, so they don’t really understand why Obama’s promises aren’t working. If the party doesn’t work together to tell the voters, then individual candidates will be chewed up by Obama one by one. If they stick together now, each will be able to attack Obama’s record from his own area of expertise. Cain doesn’t impress me on foreign policy, but he can talk to businessmen in a way that Bachmann can’t. Romney can talk to the corporate people. Let them talk. When the time comes, they can point out their strengths and the other guy’s weaknesses, and the people will vote based on the issues they care most about and who can best address them. The strongest candidates can then put together their teams. I am really tired of all the my-way-or-the-highway attitudes. And I think the voters will be very tired of them in a year and a half. Things are too serious for gotcha games. It seems like the party is ready to move beyond them. I hope they stick to the method they used last night.
Just remember.
all of them are academics and people who live away from empirical reality..
AND
The soviet union was the first academically designed political state… – artfldgr
a bansai tree is not a real tree
any more than a organic society turned bansai society would be
I caught parts and was impressed with all of them. Of course we’ve had Obama so i’m probably easy to impress.
Maybe Artfldgr lives in a different universe than the one I occupy.
Romney, an academic? He spent most of his life in business. Salvaged the Salt Lake City Olympics and served as a Governor.
Bachmann, an academic? Tax lawyer. Mother of 5, foster mother of 23. State Senator. Congresswoman.
Cain, an academic? Chairman of a Federal Reserve Bank. Entrepreneur. Computer Scientist working in ballistics for the USN.
Well, you should see my point. Maybe I missed his.
Expat makes a good point, and one that a caller on Rush made also. By keeping a crowded field, and not attacking each other for the time being, the GOP prevents the Dimocrat/Barack Hussein Obama attack machines from zeroing in on a single target. Once they get one in their sights, it will be brutal. I do not agree with some of his characterizations. Bachmann, the tax lawyer can certainly talk to business about the tax code and regulation. As a member of the House Select Intelligence Committee she can talk national security. There is a lot of talent among the various candidates. Some of it is not conventional; but people like Cain has proven themselves capable of learning and growing. (I did not know until I looked him up for this post that he was a Deputy Chairman/Chairman of a Federal Reserve Bank for four years. Seems the media skips over that fact.) There is much to learn. It is not appropriate to catalog them too definitively until we know more about them; as we will.hear them speak more–and we will.
It is not a ‘debate’. They are not even asked the same questions. Boring.
Ace’s point about Romney is interesting. And maybe one reason I don’t see Romney as being the leader. I like specifics and I understand the plans that Ryan and Pawlenty have put forward. Anything that presents market based, common sense solutions resonates with me. On the other hand I can see why not being so specific and playing off as not A, can be a good strategy when dealing with the voting public, most of whom do not follow economics or politics enough to make judgements about the specifics.
I especially liked the idea that the candidates all took aim at Obama and not each other. (Could that have been pre-arranged?)
I liked Michael Barone’s summary, although he believed Mitt won. Read it here:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/my-take-new-hampshire-debate
Was there an actual winner, and not 7 losers?
This is not just a good field. This is the BEST field we’ve ever had. And in 17 months this maliaise will end. Can i get an amen!
J. J., I don’t see Romney as one I’d vote for either, but think of it another way; look at the hordes that elected Obama. How many of them will wake up and cross the aisle for a real hardball candidate? Maybe warm fuzzies and generalities are what win the race.
…heaven help us all.
jim murray Says:
June 14th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Bingo. I didn’t watch last night, but by all accounts it was better than I expected. However, years ago I watched a re-creation of one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates on PBS. These modern things are just collections of sound bites and talking points, not debates.
I like the idea of the Republican candidates refusing to appear on any network except Fox.
It wasn’t a debate, it was a forum with the MSM being snarky and making leading statements within their questions to the participates. We all have our favorites and see them as performing better than others but all in all I think the entire group performed well.
Funny I should mention that.
Lots of buzz about Bachmann. Although I believe it is deserved, because she did perform well, I am cynical enough to wonder if the media allies of the Dimocrats are setting her up as a strawperson.
I have respected her for some time as a good spokesperson, and a courageous conservative. I did not see her as Presidential. I am re-thinking my opinion, and I will keep an open mind as this unfolds.
It is amazing to me how so many people write off Romney. I really crave competence in a President.
I like Pawlenty, but he seems to be having a hard time breaking through the shell.
I like Santorum, but believe it is hopeless. Not sure what his motivation is in this. As an afterthought, see Cain comment.
Cain is impressive. His credentials are broader than I realized; but, seems unlikely over the longer haul. Maybe he wants a cabinet or VP look.
If only Newt’s personality was as attractive as his intellect and his ability to articulate the issues…
Oldflyer,
I agree with much of your above comments. However, I completely distrust Romney. He once was a competent businessman, that is beyond question. But his record while governor of MA and many of his ever shifting positions make me discard him. He’s too willing to please the MSM, much like McCain. I want a candidate that will show the MSM sharp, shiny teeth. The MSM is the real opponent, not BHO.
I agree, Parker. I do not want Romney to get the nomination under any circumstances. The guy is way too much of a chameleon for my tastes.
His father was a governor, too. Do we really need yet another political dynasty? I swear, it seems like we are gradually adopting the timeless tradition of an hereditary ruling class, right here in America.
It wasn’t too bad. I was annoyed at the short amount of time they were given to answer questions. The moderator jumped around too much, and didn’t give them all a chance to answer the same question, so we could compare and contract positions.
I would like to see the candidates be just a little more aggressive in the next debate, and go after each other’s records and positions….nothing nasty, but just enough so we can see who really stands out. They were a little too nice. That being said, they did a good job going after Obama.