Under this banner I will be posting reactions as the debate (unfortunately hosted on MSNBC and following Chris Matthews’ (otherwise known as one of this nations largest fatheads) show, proceeds. This debate will doubtlessly feature some annoying liberally-biased and leading questions, given who’s hosting it…this will be a test of media savvy and quick thinking.
I’ll be keeping a VERY close eye on Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry…both of whom are vying for the Tea Party vote.
Let the games begin!
I have to say…I am not impressed with Perry. Not one of his answers have included anything other than buzz words. I am beginning to wonder if there isn’t something to the accusation that Perry really just continued all of the policies of previous governors of Texas…he just rolled with it…and the things he actually proposed ended up going nowhere or blowing up.
Bachmann still sounds like she’s focusing on her desire more than her ideas. Which is IMHO a bad sign.
And Romney and Gingrich still seem….mean spirited and problematic. Seems like it would be hard to work with either.
That leaves…the best answer of the night so far – from Rick Santorum AGAIN – this time about how well wellfare reform worked for the veyr people that Obama claims to represent with his entitlement/spending driven platform. Now for round two!
Dear Ron Paul,
Let’s deny our soldiers any comfort abroad while they fight for our freedom so that they can come home…oh wait…whether they’re comfortable or not, their home/abroad status is NOT THEIR CHOICE. You fraggin’ lunatic, please get off my party.
Oh and BTW, no Ron…having laws does not engender chaos. Your position that the drug laws here are creating illegal drug trade and therefore the violence and illegal border activity that lead to an insecure border…is idiotically illogical. Sorry, sir…but having laws leads to order…not chaos. The illegality of drugs has no bearing on the market for drugs here. If drugs were legal, the huge market demand for them in the states would still drive massive illegal border activity.
On immigration, I believe I liked Romney’s answer best here…but none were wholly satisfying.
*sigh* Perry is the most evasive Texan I’ve ever seen. He claims that specific comments he’s made are merely philosophical…and then when asked for specifics, he simply repeats that it’s a philosophical.
Bachmann busted out a good answer when it came to national defense. The bottom line, as far as Bachmann was concerned, was that Obama’s decisions in Libya, Israel, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan have weakened us militarily while abandoning our allies. Asking Israel to fall back to borders that were utterly indefensible in the first place removes all of our credibility. Why would anyone be an ally with us when we reneg on all of our agreements when they become unpopular.
Now…Perry is not the guy to make the arguments regarding climate change. He proved that today. That answer sounded totally ignorant and muddled. I could name twenty recent papers questioning climate orthodoxy…he couldn’t name even one legitimate counter-mainstream THEME in current climate science. This is why climate skepticism is viewed as the ignorant position…and it drives me nuts.
There are plenty of other issues I could mention…I’ll expand my thoughts in subsequent comments and I’ll encourage my co-author to find a transcript and contribute as well. But I think in the general sense, I can boil it down this way (by candidate)
PERRY: Weak leader…poor communicator…strong on jobs and states rights, but extremely weak on matters that require scientific of professional expertise or dogged determination…or diplomacy. Bush – skill = BAD
ROMNEY: Strikes me as a sleazy politician. We may be stuck with him, I fear, but he is a deal-maker if ever there was one…and now isn’t really the time for sleazy back-door Washington dealing. We need accountability in the deals we make and we need permanent solutions…I don’t believe Romney is the type to prefer to do things out in the open.
PAUL: Needs to get out of the GOP…because he’s not a republican. Or sane. Or intelligent. Or useful in any way.
HUNTSMAN: Other than his equivocations on Climate Change, on certain social matters, and on military matters…he’s a great guy! Seriously though…can’t really call this Utah Governor a Republican either, but I’d still rather it be him than Obama in the White House.
SANTORUM: I like that Santorum took more time with many of his answers and actually spoke by example…engaged in real persuasive rhetoric like the days of yore. Is it just me or does he always look like he’s pissed off though?
BACHMANN: Didn’t get much chance to speak in this one…she seemed better prepared than in her last outing, and gave some very sharp responses, but I think the MSNBC folks were playing this candidate off the stage.
CAIN: Has a great mind for business, but not a deep enough knowledge base elsewhere…and most of his plans, while logically sound, are not feasible…and he doesn’t seem to realize this.
GINGRICH: The smartest man in that room…by a VERY wide margin. This is an under-appreciated man for his historical knowledge, his common sense, and his rhetorical prowess. But every single time he answers a question in a debate, it OOOOOOZES arrogance and lacks the social graces. He does have a checkered history with his own compaign advisers, with previous political mentors and associates, and with the women in his life (this matters to me…and to many moderates), and you can see where it comes from. He’s just an ass. That’s all there is too it. It’s a shame…to see such gifts and insight wasted on a guy who can’t lead because no one even likes him.
I fear that the winner of this debate was Romney. And I fear that’s who we’re going to be stuck with unless Chris Christie or some other X-factor gets into the race.