- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,667
- Reaction score
- 35,453
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I made a few running notes during the debates since I was watching on DVR and couldn't do a running commentary of thoughts here...
John Huntsman seem’s to have decided to punt this debate in regards to sticking to any kind of topic. EVERY question seems to go back to him attempting to stay on message with his new campaign direction rather than actually answering the question. We’ll call this “Bachmanning”. I’m not sure how this will affect him. If he doesn’t continue with it, he should be okay and it may come out as useful. He’s not really got a shot in Iowa, so using the debate to push his “news message” focusing on the “trust deficit” and “Consistent Conservative” may prove a bit helpful. But if he continues to avoid answering the actual questions it’s going to bite him in the ass.
I liked the way Romney took the Bain Capital question and spun it wonderfully well in regards to some of his businesses laying people off and closing facilities, etc. I think the analogy to Barack Obama and GM was outstanding and will play well both in primaries and if he gets to the general to help deflect and explain a bit the issues with Bain Capital.
Newt I think did a decent enough job trying to spin the “lobbying” thing, though MAN he was getting hammered about it. I almost think Bachmann on the attack looked a bit worse in the end. I laughed when Bachmann was utterly stumped when asked to provide facts that Newt influenced peddled.
Rick Perry = Tim Tebow….? Yeah, I think it was a good analogy to try to go for (my wife liked the analogy) but god was the delivery wooden and uncomfortable. No Rick, all Timmy does is win win win no matter what. You seem to be losing.
The exchange on Medicare with Newt and Romney showed a little of the camaraderie between the candidates. Think it was a good positive message and a bit of showing that hey, bipartisanship and democrats…not ALWAYS bad people.
Perry's "Part Time Congress" thing. I'm intrigued. Not necessarily because I like it but because I'm really curious how it will play. On one hand, the notion could be viewed as just very weird and counter intuitive to what most people think. On the flip side, the horrendous support for Congress could lead to a point where I could see it popular. I'm curious to see more of this going forward.
China is going to be HUGE with regards to our foreign policy over the next 20 years and my god Huntsman looks like a man among babes when it comes to this issue. While his answer specific to the question wasn't the most direct, I think his answer highlighted that answering a question like that in a 30 second sound bite isn't going to work. However I think he quickly gave an indication of his depth of knowledge of the area and his strategic plan there. Let me say right now, if Huntsman doesn't win the election and someone who does win wouldn't make a good match for Huntsman as VP, I would be ecstatic to see him as Secretary of State.
The Twitter Question to Romney (can I just "ugh" at @soandso questions being part of a debate, stupid little bird) about what industry will be the next big one was handled I think VERY deftly by Romney. Managed to put forth a powerful message, get across some basic conservative principles, managed to attack Obama a bit, and in the end managed to actually drill forth campaign messages. Very well handled by him.
While the Judges conversation for Newt was controversial (and I agree with Megan Kelly with it playing well in Iowa and some of the primaries but hurting in the general) I will say two things. Pointing to the Liberal icon of FDR regarding his manipulations, threats, and tactics with the Courts was a wise move to include in his list of past precedence. I also had a good laugh at his delivery of the “Not by those in 1802” line which I think hit well.
Romney’s answer on the lack of republican judges was a good one I think. The 85% legislature and the 9 person democrat panel for judges were both good eye opening items for republican voters to explain a bit of why he slanted left…he had to do get anything done with that kind of situation.
With the judges thing I only have one thing to say. JUST PICK ONE JUDGE FOR ****S SAKE. Yes, we know, you all like the conservative judges. We get it. Answer the damn question, man up, and actually pick just one.
With Bachmann going after Obama about the Iraq pull out, I really want to know if she supported Bush when he created the time table.
People, please…start to finish up when the beep happens. This is getting ridiculous. Huntsman, you are largely included in this chiding.
I thought Newt’s “answer” to the tax cut / pipeline question was exceptionally good…aggressive, direct, clearly putting forward negatives and positives, with good cheer inducing rhetoric. I put “answer” there because it didn’t really answer the question, but it was a great delivery none the less.
God Michelle Bachmann, just go away. No, everything you say ISN’T factually correct. You state one thing that is factually correct and then say two or three factually incorrect things based off said fact and then when you get called on it resort to going back to the initial fact. Just shut up.
Again, I think Huntsman ended the debate on a good line and a good presentation, taking advantage of that last spot on the stage. Over all though it was a really poor debate for him. I was really impressed with Romney in this debate, I think it was his best yet and I think he did very well throughout. Newt did pretty good, had a few low points but over all did good. This wasn’t one of Paul’s best. His foreign policy stance with Iran was focused on for a good portion and is not going to play well with primary voters outside of his core base. This debate actually highlights my point with Paul. He’ll say some things that will garner support…some of his fiscal comments early in the debate for example…but before long he’ll go somewhat extreme on you on a different issue that is likely so unpalatable to the people he earlier attracted that they back away from him again. Bachmann just seemed like an angry attack dog, I don’t think she did well. Santorum was just the same boring hysterical “OMG THE MUSLIMS WILL GET US” Santorum. Perry did better this time out but nothing about it really excites me. The little bit of picking on himself was probably helpful for him.
Overall I can see this helping Romney in Iowa and Gingrich in Iowa, not really moving Paul much more than he is, and I could actually see it hurting Bachmann a bit.
John Huntsman seem’s to have decided to punt this debate in regards to sticking to any kind of topic. EVERY question seems to go back to him attempting to stay on message with his new campaign direction rather than actually answering the question. We’ll call this “Bachmanning”. I’m not sure how this will affect him. If he doesn’t continue with it, he should be okay and it may come out as useful. He’s not really got a shot in Iowa, so using the debate to push his “news message” focusing on the “trust deficit” and “Consistent Conservative” may prove a bit helpful. But if he continues to avoid answering the actual questions it’s going to bite him in the ass.
I liked the way Romney took the Bain Capital question and spun it wonderfully well in regards to some of his businesses laying people off and closing facilities, etc. I think the analogy to Barack Obama and GM was outstanding and will play well both in primaries and if he gets to the general to help deflect and explain a bit the issues with Bain Capital.
Newt I think did a decent enough job trying to spin the “lobbying” thing, though MAN he was getting hammered about it. I almost think Bachmann on the attack looked a bit worse in the end. I laughed when Bachmann was utterly stumped when asked to provide facts that Newt influenced peddled.
Rick Perry = Tim Tebow….? Yeah, I think it was a good analogy to try to go for (my wife liked the analogy) but god was the delivery wooden and uncomfortable. No Rick, all Timmy does is win win win no matter what. You seem to be losing.
The exchange on Medicare with Newt and Romney showed a little of the camaraderie between the candidates. Think it was a good positive message and a bit of showing that hey, bipartisanship and democrats…not ALWAYS bad people.
Perry's "Part Time Congress" thing. I'm intrigued. Not necessarily because I like it but because I'm really curious how it will play. On one hand, the notion could be viewed as just very weird and counter intuitive to what most people think. On the flip side, the horrendous support for Congress could lead to a point where I could see it popular. I'm curious to see more of this going forward.
China is going to be HUGE with regards to our foreign policy over the next 20 years and my god Huntsman looks like a man among babes when it comes to this issue. While his answer specific to the question wasn't the most direct, I think his answer highlighted that answering a question like that in a 30 second sound bite isn't going to work. However I think he quickly gave an indication of his depth of knowledge of the area and his strategic plan there. Let me say right now, if Huntsman doesn't win the election and someone who does win wouldn't make a good match for Huntsman as VP, I would be ecstatic to see him as Secretary of State.
The Twitter Question to Romney (can I just "ugh" at @soandso questions being part of a debate, stupid little bird) about what industry will be the next big one was handled I think VERY deftly by Romney. Managed to put forth a powerful message, get across some basic conservative principles, managed to attack Obama a bit, and in the end managed to actually drill forth campaign messages. Very well handled by him.
While the Judges conversation for Newt was controversial (and I agree with Megan Kelly with it playing well in Iowa and some of the primaries but hurting in the general) I will say two things. Pointing to the Liberal icon of FDR regarding his manipulations, threats, and tactics with the Courts was a wise move to include in his list of past precedence. I also had a good laugh at his delivery of the “Not by those in 1802” line which I think hit well.
Romney’s answer on the lack of republican judges was a good one I think. The 85% legislature and the 9 person democrat panel for judges were both good eye opening items for republican voters to explain a bit of why he slanted left…he had to do get anything done with that kind of situation.
With the judges thing I only have one thing to say. JUST PICK ONE JUDGE FOR ****S SAKE. Yes, we know, you all like the conservative judges. We get it. Answer the damn question, man up, and actually pick just one.
With Bachmann going after Obama about the Iraq pull out, I really want to know if she supported Bush when he created the time table.
People, please…start to finish up when the beep happens. This is getting ridiculous. Huntsman, you are largely included in this chiding.
I thought Newt’s “answer” to the tax cut / pipeline question was exceptionally good…aggressive, direct, clearly putting forward negatives and positives, with good cheer inducing rhetoric. I put “answer” there because it didn’t really answer the question, but it was a great delivery none the less.
God Michelle Bachmann, just go away. No, everything you say ISN’T factually correct. You state one thing that is factually correct and then say two or three factually incorrect things based off said fact and then when you get called on it resort to going back to the initial fact. Just shut up.
Again, I think Huntsman ended the debate on a good line and a good presentation, taking advantage of that last spot on the stage. Over all though it was a really poor debate for him. I was really impressed with Romney in this debate, I think it was his best yet and I think he did very well throughout. Newt did pretty good, had a few low points but over all did good. This wasn’t one of Paul’s best. His foreign policy stance with Iran was focused on for a good portion and is not going to play well with primary voters outside of his core base. This debate actually highlights my point with Paul. He’ll say some things that will garner support…some of his fiscal comments early in the debate for example…but before long he’ll go somewhat extreme on you on a different issue that is likely so unpalatable to the people he earlier attracted that they back away from him again. Bachmann just seemed like an angry attack dog, I don’t think she did well. Santorum was just the same boring hysterical “OMG THE MUSLIMS WILL GET US” Santorum. Perry did better this time out but nothing about it really excites me. The little bit of picking on himself was probably helpful for him.
Overall I can see this helping Romney in Iowa and Gingrich in Iowa, not really moving Paul much more than he is, and I could actually see it hurting Bachmann a bit.
