I’m definitely gonna be watching thus debate, mainly because I’m interested in how Perry does. If he does well, it’ll be a two person race between him and Romney for the GOP nomination.
I wish they’d set aside one of these debates to do nothing but poke fun at Obama, the press and the democrat cult. It may send liberals into a foaming at the mouth frenzy which is where we’re eventually going to have to lure them to disarm them anyway.
I’ll be watching, via livestreaming.
I have to watch this one. Other than the fact that I know Ron Paul is a nut and Gingrich has no chance, I am still up in the air. I really like Herman Cain and Bachmann but they seem to be swimming upstream.
Rose, thanks for mentioning livestreaming. I’m at my summer home and didn’t realize this debate is only on MSNBC. MSNBC isn’t in my Dish pkg (I never watch it so didn’t know).
For those of us who are MSNBC challenged, you can watch it live at:
For us Republicans in New York, picking a candidate to support is a moot point. By the time the NY primary rolls around (currently scheduled for April 24th), the race is always over.
Just finished watching the debate. Here are my impressions:
– The whole format, sequencing of the questions, and questions themselves were meant to expose Perry’s potential weaknesses. They were negative talking points against Perry phrased as questions. I was especially ticked off by the question asked of Perry as to which particular scientist he disagreed with. A transparent “gotcha” question a la “What magazines do you read?”
The obvious attempt to discredit Perry was not only revealed by the questions they asked HIM but also questions asked of the other participants. (Like the one about believing in science asked of Huntsman.)
I think Perry handled all this reasonably well except the time he said Rove had been saying “over the top” things for some time. That wasn’t necessary and sounded kinda peevish.
All in all, I don’t think a “killer blow” was landed on Perry and doubt that his poll numbers will change much.
What many, especially those in the liberal media, fail to realize is that many of the so called “extreme positions” Perry has is exactly what many, many Americans believe as well. I think he knows that and has decided to have the courage to support them plainly.
– I was impressed by Huntsman’s responses even though I don’t agree with him about certain issues.
– As usual, I liked Cain’s responses.
– I thought Romney did well even though I wish he hadn’t supported the MA health care bill. I accept his word that he will work to eliminate the effect of Obamacare and help to repeal it.
– I LOVED Ginchrich’s saying he wasn’t gonna get drawn into a fight between the GOP candidates encouraged by the main stream media.
– Michelle Bachmann is starting to sound very repetitive to me, even though I do agree with her on lots of issues. I’m concerned by her lack of executive experience.
– I’m a libertarian so Ron Paul always makes a lot of sense to me but I admit he sounds pretty “far out” to most Americans and simply isn’t electable.
– Rick Santorum sounds very repetitive to me and is almost outta money.
But…..
I’d take any one of the people on that stage over Obama in a New York second. As Romney said…”He’s over his head and doesn’t have clue about improving the economy.”
Perry is bringing the argument about Social Security to where it has never been before. Perry is relying on the truth. This is the perfect venue for him to state his platform and defend it from the “you intend to bankruptcy Grandma and Grandpa” charge. But it is a one-two punch. He will have to articulate how, even though Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, there is a reasonable way out of the mess.
Perry stuck to his guns in calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme. It’s actually worse since buying into a Ponzi scheme is voluntary but Social Security is compulsory. That improved his stock with me. Cain was fun and had good things to say. Ron Paul, as usual , veered between crazy and sensible. Newt hit a few out of the park but he isn’t ever going to get traction. Ditto Santorum. Ditto Bachmann. Huntsman lost me on AGW. I seem to have forgotten Mr. Cellophane man, Mittens.
I had feared that Perry would be a weak debater, and that’s what I saw tonight. He looked and sounded, frankly, like he was stoned.
As everyone knows, I am in no sense of the word a fan of Romney, but in my view he clearly won the trophy tonight. He finally stopped talking only in platitudes and got down to details. He mixed it up. He kicked Perry’s butt, and very impressively had a zinger ready to return what he evidently anticipated would be a zinger Perry would throw at him. That shows solid prep work. I was impressed by that preparation, impressed by his composure, and impressed by his clearly outsized ambition to win this damn thing. He’s hungry, which is not necessarily a good quality, but it does matter because it means he is not going to underestimate Obama. My biggest fear about Perry is that he thinks he can coast to victory by throwing red meat to the people. I hope this debate was a wake-up call on that score.
Again, I am in no sense a fan of Huntsman, but he did a very good job tonight. Why the hell can’t we find a single candidate with the principles of a conservative who can speak fluidly?
Gingrich was excellent, as usual. If he wasn’t such a flake and a slimeball, he’d be my choice. Unfortunately, he is what he is.
Bachmann was “meh.”
Cain was surprisingly good – “surprisingly” because I thought he stunk in his last few debate appearances. Cain looked better than Perry, in my view – and that’s not an evaluation one wants to be making about a “frontrunner.”
I have nothing to say about Ron Paul.
Santorum, while not great, was still better than Perry.
In sum, I agree that much of the debate was geared toward sliming Perry, but I think that’s a GOOD thing. If Perry can’t handle an MSNBC slime-job, then he can’t handle the national media’s slime-job that will assuredly come in the general. I took away one thing from the debate tonight, and it’s something I truly hate to say:
Romney can handle it. Until I get solid evidence that another candidate is as determined, cunning, and ready to mix it up as he is, I have no choice but to support him by default.
Now I need to go puke.
Bachmann actually uttered the word “caliphate” at a national debate! That won points from me as far as her awareness of what may be brewing in the middle east….
I’m with Kolnai completely. That was my introduction to Perry, and I’m so unimpressed. Huntsman did sound solid. But Romney was heads and shoulders above everyone else, for the win. He’ll be our next president, and I say good for us.
Don’t puke yet, Its too early to count anyone out, I was worried about Perry because I am sure he is distracted and worn from the disaster in Texas, it is a pretty big deal, he probably should have skipped this one, I am willing to see how he will do in the next few, one thing is for sure, the media etc wants Romney to be the one, they see him as beatable, they use this reverse psychology stuff all the time, actually how we wound up with McCain I believe.
Also I have zero trust in MSNBC and boycott them so only read the live blog stuff, I am not surprised they would try to set Romney up
Michelle Malkin has a good observation: the debate sucked because our enemies controlled it.
The only clear winner: Sarah Palin.
It might be a clue that the two individuals who did the best are the two individuals most appealing to the Democrats. Kind of reminds me of “Miller’s Crossing” where Johnny Casper says, “It’s gettin’ so a businessman can’t expect no return from a fixed fight.”
Darrell – I agree with you. I think the death penalty response was the one reply Perry utterly nailed.
I also agree (as I never tire of complaining on this site) that Romney is a horrible candidate who is VERY beatable. His flaws are almost enough to make him a “no support unless he wins the nomination” guy for me. Almost. Because IF Perry is going to perform in debates with Obama as he did tonight, his chances of losing top Romney’s. I am by no means “decided,” as this is a running tally sort of deal. Yet for now, I have no choice but to be a completely frigid supporter of Romney. I pray that Perry or someone else can make me change my mind.
I think Perry nailed the SS question too. Anyone who thinks SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme in its present form can’t do simple math.
I want to say something about this baloney about Texas only adding minimum wage jobs. Anyone who says this hasn’t lived in or near Austin.
When I first moved to the Austin area, we Texans would say “I’d love to live in Austin but I can’t make a living there.” Austin was pretty much a state government and university town. It had only two high tech facilities of any size outside of university research facilities…a Texas Instruments plant and a fledgling IBM typewriter plant.
The highest priced home listing in MLS was a $450K home on Lake Austin. Truth.
Since then, Austin has become a high tech center. As an example, Dell Computer was started here by a UT student selling home made computers out of the trunk of his car. IBM, Motorola and AMD have huge facilities here. The Austin American Statesman has a steady stream of articles about Internet start ups and Austin based high tech companies going public.
The highest priced homes in Austin now go for multiple millions each. The real estate market has almost taken on a California flavor (probably because so many Californians have moved here).
I’m sure Houston is booming too with engineering opportunities in the oil and chemical industry.
Tourism is growing…especially in and around San Antonio.
A full spectrum of jobs, both low wage and high paying have been added to the Texas economy.
Texas has pretty much been booming my entire (74 year old) life. Why is that? Because our population is hard working and entrepreneurial and because our state has common sense policies that encourage business.
Perry has lived in and been an important politician in that environment. He has absorbed the lessons taught here.
Re: enemies controlling the debate, this at Pajamas Media:
“These questions were clearly fair game, but the phrasing and tone of the moderator made them seem far more akin to a scene from the Spanish Inquisition. Honestly, by the end of the evening I had lost track of the number of questions which were far less solicitations of opinion and policy than accusations. It was as if Brian Williams and company were looking for the candidates to apologize for being conservatives. As the night progressed, it became clear that the hosts would be severely disappointed.”
Take it from another (until recently) lifelong Democrat: if Perry is the nominee, that will mobilize the left to turn out and vote against him; if Romney is the nominee, that will encourage the left to stay home.
And if Romney is the nominee, that will also encourage another (not inconsiderable) segment of Democrats to turn out and quiety pull the lever for him, since it seems that there will be no opportunity to vote against Obama in a primary.
Thanks but no thanks Cleaver to the fear mongering.
I agree with kolnai. Perry was not the winner last night. Romney was. He seemed to have more fire than usual and was clearly well prepared.
Perry did okay, but will have to raise his game. His answer on AGW was okay, but he needs to master that issue. AGW proponents are part of the reason we have fewer jobs and are finding it difficult to get out of recession.
I was surprised by Huntsman. He made good points until…..the bit about AGW. Oh no! Do your homework, sir.
The other candidates acquitted themselves well.
Bachmann keeps turning the questions back to those things she has credibilty on. Family values, fighting big government, and standing up to Islamism. She needs a jobs plan because that is what is going to win or lose the election.
I like Herman Cain. He may be a good VP choice.
Newt was Newt again. Feisty, with lots of ideas, many of them good. He, unfortunately, outlined an idea in education that would (oh, no!) involve more government control. Not good, Newt.
Santorum can’t get any traction. He looks and speaks well, but his resume is not as impressive as Romney or Perry or even Huntsman. He did have a decent answer about why a Catholic can be against welfare as it exists.
I am like Stephen Green (Vodkapundit) when it comes to Ron Paul. Even though I think of myself as a small l Libertarian, I find Paul does a poor job of representing Libertarian ideas. Also, small l Libertarians don’t believe in the isolationism that he represents. That said, if by chance he is the candidate against Obama, I will vote for him. ANYBODY BUT OBAMA -2012!!
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>
I’m definitely gonna be watching thus debate, mainly because I’m interested in how Perry does. If he does well, it’ll be a two person race between him and Romney for the GOP nomination.
I wish they’d set aside one of these debates to do nothing but poke fun at Obama, the press and the democrat cult. It may send liberals into a foaming at the mouth frenzy which is where we’re eventually going to have to lure them to disarm them anyway.
I’ll be watching, via livestreaming.
I have to watch this one. Other than the fact that I know Ron Paul is a nut and Gingrich has no chance, I am still up in the air. I really like Herman Cain and Bachmann but they seem to be swimming upstream.
Rose, thanks for mentioning livestreaming. I’m at my summer home and didn’t realize this debate is only on MSNBC. MSNBC isn’t in my Dish pkg (I never watch it so didn’t know).
For those of us who are MSNBC challenged, you can watch it live at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com
For us Republicans in New York, picking a candidate to support is a moot point. By the time the NY primary rolls around (currently scheduled for April 24th), the race is always over.
Just finished watching the debate. Here are my impressions:
– The whole format, sequencing of the questions, and questions themselves were meant to expose Perry’s potential weaknesses. They were negative talking points against Perry phrased as questions. I was especially ticked off by the question asked of Perry as to which particular scientist he disagreed with. A transparent “gotcha” question a la “What magazines do you read?”
The obvious attempt to discredit Perry was not only revealed by the questions they asked HIM but also questions asked of the other participants. (Like the one about believing in science asked of Huntsman.)
I think Perry handled all this reasonably well except the time he said Rove had been saying “over the top” things for some time. That wasn’t necessary and sounded kinda peevish.
All in all, I don’t think a “killer blow” was landed on Perry and doubt that his poll numbers will change much.
What many, especially those in the liberal media, fail to realize is that many of the so called “extreme positions” Perry has is exactly what many, many Americans believe as well. I think he knows that and has decided to have the courage to support them plainly.
– I was impressed by Huntsman’s responses even though I don’t agree with him about certain issues.
– As usual, I liked Cain’s responses.
– I thought Romney did well even though I wish he hadn’t supported the MA health care bill. I accept his word that he will work to eliminate the effect of Obamacare and help to repeal it.
– I LOVED Ginchrich’s saying he wasn’t gonna get drawn into a fight between the GOP candidates encouraged by the main stream media.
– Michelle Bachmann is starting to sound very repetitive to me, even though I do agree with her on lots of issues. I’m concerned by her lack of executive experience.
– I’m a libertarian so Ron Paul always makes a lot of sense to me but I admit he sounds pretty “far out” to most Americans and simply isn’t electable.
– Rick Santorum sounds very repetitive to me and is almost outta money.
But…..
I’d take any one of the people on that stage over Obama in a New York second. As Romney said…”He’s over his head and doesn’t have clue about improving the economy.”
Perry is bringing the argument about Social Security to where it has never been before. Perry is relying on the truth. This is the perfect venue for him to state his platform and defend it from the “you intend to bankruptcy Grandma and Grandpa” charge. But it is a one-two punch. He will have to articulate how, even though Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, there is a reasonable way out of the mess.
Perry stuck to his guns in calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme. It’s actually worse since buying into a Ponzi scheme is voluntary but Social Security is compulsory. That improved his stock with me. Cain was fun and had good things to say. Ron Paul, as usual , veered between crazy and sensible. Newt hit a few out of the park but he isn’t ever going to get traction. Ditto Santorum. Ditto Bachmann. Huntsman lost me on AGW. I seem to have forgotten Mr. Cellophane man, Mittens.
I had feared that Perry would be a weak debater, and that’s what I saw tonight. He looked and sounded, frankly, like he was stoned.
As everyone knows, I am in no sense of the word a fan of Romney, but in my view he clearly won the trophy tonight. He finally stopped talking only in platitudes and got down to details. He mixed it up. He kicked Perry’s butt, and very impressively had a zinger ready to return what he evidently anticipated would be a zinger Perry would throw at him. That shows solid prep work. I was impressed by that preparation, impressed by his composure, and impressed by his clearly outsized ambition to win this damn thing. He’s hungry, which is not necessarily a good quality, but it does matter because it means he is not going to underestimate Obama. My biggest fear about Perry is that he thinks he can coast to victory by throwing red meat to the people. I hope this debate was a wake-up call on that score.
Again, I am in no sense a fan of Huntsman, but he did a very good job tonight. Why the hell can’t we find a single candidate with the principles of a conservative who can speak fluidly?
Gingrich was excellent, as usual. If he wasn’t such a flake and a slimeball, he’d be my choice. Unfortunately, he is what he is.
Bachmann was “meh.”
Cain was surprisingly good – “surprisingly” because I thought he stunk in his last few debate appearances. Cain looked better than Perry, in my view – and that’s not an evaluation one wants to be making about a “frontrunner.”
I have nothing to say about Ron Paul.
Santorum, while not great, was still better than Perry.
In sum, I agree that much of the debate was geared toward sliming Perry, but I think that’s a GOOD thing. If Perry can’t handle an MSNBC slime-job, then he can’t handle the national media’s slime-job that will assuredly come in the general. I took away one thing from the debate tonight, and it’s something I truly hate to say:
Romney can handle it. Until I get solid evidence that another candidate is as determined, cunning, and ready to mix it up as he is, I have no choice but to support him by default.
Now I need to go puke.
Bachmann actually uttered the word “caliphate” at a national debate! That won points from me as far as her awareness of what may be brewing in the middle east….
I’m with Kolnai completely. That was my introduction to Perry, and I’m so unimpressed. Huntsman did sound solid. But Romney was heads and shoulders above everyone else, for the win. He’ll be our next president, and I say good for us.
Don’t puke yet, Its too early to count anyone out, I was worried about Perry because I am sure he is distracted and worn from the disaster in Texas, it is a pretty big deal, he probably should have skipped this one, I am willing to see how he will do in the next few, one thing is for sure, the media etc wants Romney to be the one, they see him as beatable, they use this reverse psychology stuff all the time, actually how we wound up with McCain I believe.
Also I have zero trust in MSNBC and boycott them so only read the live blog stuff, I am not surprised they would try to set Romney up
Also, I thought Perry knocked the death penalty question out of the park…
http://www.therightscoop.com/rick-perry-fabulously-defends-texas-death-penalty/
Michelle Malkin has a good observation: the debate sucked because our enemies controlled it.
The only clear winner: Sarah Palin.
It might be a clue that the two individuals who did the best are the two individuals most appealing to the Democrats. Kind of reminds me of “Miller’s Crossing” where Johnny Casper says, “It’s gettin’ so a businessman can’t expect no return from a fixed fight.”
Darrell – I agree with you. I think the death penalty response was the one reply Perry utterly nailed.
I also agree (as I never tire of complaining on this site) that Romney is a horrible candidate who is VERY beatable. His flaws are almost enough to make him a “no support unless he wins the nomination” guy for me. Almost. Because IF Perry is going to perform in debates with Obama as he did tonight, his chances of losing top Romney’s. I am by no means “decided,” as this is a running tally sort of deal. Yet for now, I have no choice but to be a completely frigid supporter of Romney. I pray that Perry or someone else can make me change my mind.
I think Perry nailed the SS question too. Anyone who thinks SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme in its present form can’t do simple math.
I want to say something about this baloney about Texas only adding minimum wage jobs. Anyone who says this hasn’t lived in or near Austin.
When I first moved to the Austin area, we Texans would say “I’d love to live in Austin but I can’t make a living there.” Austin was pretty much a state government and university town. It had only two high tech facilities of any size outside of university research facilities…a Texas Instruments plant and a fledgling IBM typewriter plant.
The highest priced home listing in MLS was a $450K home on Lake Austin. Truth.
Since then, Austin has become a high tech center. As an example, Dell Computer was started here by a UT student selling home made computers out of the trunk of his car. IBM, Motorola and AMD have huge facilities here. The Austin American Statesman has a steady stream of articles about Internet start ups and Austin based high tech companies going public.
The highest priced homes in Austin now go for multiple millions each. The real estate market has almost taken on a California flavor (probably because so many Californians have moved here).
I’m sure Houston is booming too with engineering opportunities in the oil and chemical industry.
Tourism is growing…especially in and around San Antonio.
A full spectrum of jobs, both low wage and high paying have been added to the Texas economy.
Texas has pretty much been booming my entire (74 year old) life. Why is that? Because our population is hard working and entrepreneurial and because our state has common sense policies that encourage business.
Perry has lived in and been an important politician in that environment. He has absorbed the lessons taught here.
Re: enemies controlling the debate, this at Pajamas Media:
“These questions were clearly fair game, but the phrasing and tone of the moderator made them seem far more akin to a scene from the Spanish Inquisition. Honestly, by the end of the evening I had lost track of the number of questions which were far less solicitations of opinion and policy than accusations. It was as if Brian Williams and company were looking for the candidates to apologize for being conservatives. As the night progressed, it became clear that the hosts would be severely disappointed.”
Especially here: Rick Perry defends death penalty
Take it from another (until recently) lifelong Democrat: if Perry is the nominee, that will mobilize the left to turn out and vote against him; if Romney is the nominee, that will encourage the left to stay home.
And if Romney is the nominee, that will also encourage another (not inconsiderable) segment of Democrats to turn out and quiety pull the lever for him, since it seems that there will be no opportunity to vote against Obama in a primary.
Thanks but no thanks Cleaver to the fear mongering.
I agree with kolnai. Perry was not the winner last night. Romney was. He seemed to have more fire than usual and was clearly well prepared.
Perry did okay, but will have to raise his game. His answer on AGW was okay, but he needs to master that issue. AGW proponents are part of the reason we have fewer jobs and are finding it difficult to get out of recession.
I was surprised by Huntsman. He made good points until…..the bit about AGW. Oh no! Do your homework, sir.
The other candidates acquitted themselves well.
Bachmann keeps turning the questions back to those things she has credibilty on. Family values, fighting big government, and standing up to Islamism. She needs a jobs plan because that is what is going to win or lose the election.
I like Herman Cain. He may be a good VP choice.
Newt was Newt again. Feisty, with lots of ideas, many of them good. He, unfortunately, outlined an idea in education that would (oh, no!) involve more government control. Not good, Newt.
Santorum can’t get any traction. He looks and speaks well, but his resume is not as impressive as Romney or Perry or even Huntsman. He did have a decent answer about why a Catholic can be against welfare as it exists.
I am like Stephen Green (Vodkapundit) when it comes to Ron Paul. Even though I think of myself as a small l Libertarian, I find Paul does a poor job of representing Libertarian ideas. Also, small l Libertarians don’t believe in the isolationism that he represents. That said, if by chance he is the candidate against Obama, I will vote for him. ANYBODY BUT OBAMA -2012!!