Jan 20 2012

Debate Recap

Published by at 7:28 am under 2012 Elections

After sleeping on it a bit, I think it was generally a good debate last night. Newt seems to have skated past the media’s muck-raking, can’t say the same for Romney on tax havens in the Cayman’s.

Things that made me cringe:

Ron Paul’s awkward reminders of his military service. His segues between his service and issues seemed like pandering.

Santorum’s back-stabbing of Newt as Speaker on right to life and other topics. We all know Newt has switched positions, sometimes at convenient times. But somehow Rick’s delivery comes off as if he is superior to all.

Romney’s evasion on tax returns and continued denial that RomneyCare was a bad idea.

Newt’s comments on SOPA and Hollywood smacked of favoritism.

Admirable moments:

Paul’s comments on abortion and taking it out hands of the federal government was a good push back on Santorum. His comment about having two patients when dealing with pregnant mothers was spot on.

Santorum did well on the RomneyCare issue, really nailed it with facts and problems.

Romney had very few topical strong points that set him above the rest. His best moment was early on when he showed Santorum how to deal with the Gingrich marriage issue – move onto the real debate.

Newt really blasted the media over its muckraking, always a winner in conservative circles. Probably a winner with centrists as well. Was on average better than the rest on each topic.

I think overall Romney took more hits. He just did not look smooth but more elitist in his responses. That gap is beginning to widen. Paul and Santorum did OK, but their supporters seemed to think every answer was gold. This gives their campaigns a cult feeling and turns off the average voter. I would have to say Newt won the night here.

 

26 responses so far

26 Responses to “Debate Recap”

  1. ivehadit says:

    Also, if I were Romney, I would make a point of the fact that if democrats win and raise taxes EVERY SUPER WEALTHY PERSON WILL TAKE THEIR MONEY ELSEWHERE. It’s legal and smart. Point to California as the example of smart money leaving the state. And all the jobs that are lost because of this. I would make the point that If the country wants to flourish, CUT TAXES and REGULATIONS that are strangling business and growth. And don’t tell me you can force the wealthy to keep their money here-you can’t! They will just move!

    So, who’s going to buy that airplane your company is manufacturing? Who’s going to buy that luxury house you’re designing/building or that boat or take that around the world trip? It takes the wealthy to PURCHASE what the middle class is making…as we all with any common sense know.

  2. Redteam says:

    Obama wiped the floor with McCain because McCain wasn’t in it to win, he was just in it as a place holder for the Repub party. Him and Dole both just ‘Mr nice guy’
    Have to chuckle at this comment:
    “Newt Gingrich is a great debater. We have a great debater in office, ”
    Newt is good, obama is not great at anything except leading disasters.
    He wasn’t successful as a community organizer and has never succeeded at anything in his life. He didn’t even win the presidency, his “backers” Soros, etc: pulled that off. He will only be as successful as his enablers allow him to be.

    Several have said there is no ‘good’ candidate running. basically I agree with that. There are a few Repubs that could have run that a lot of people would feel good about, unfortunately we didn’t get any of those. We just have to go with what we have and right now, our choice is Newt or Rick if we want a conservative. Romney if you want a left to center moderate and Paul if you want a nut.
    For all those that think a divorce is a disqualifier for presidency: Reagan was a divorced guy. didn’t hurt him. Clinton and JFK were essentially divorced in their marriages but continued to live together for convenience. which is more honest?
    As for tax forms: look people…we don’t even require the president to prove that he is eligible to run for president so why should he be required to show where his income comes from? We all know that a lot of Obama’s campaign money came from illegal foreign sources, but no one did anything about it and won’t again when it happens again this time.
    And for this Mormon thing: the guy is a Christian, that is certainly preferable to the muslim that is presently in office. so let’s just drop that issue, it’s a non-starter til we get the muslim out.

    nuff said, for now

  3. Redteam says:

    “”Is that who people want for POTUS — someone who uses smoke and mirrors to out-shock other candidates and get an upper hand in the primaries?”"

    I’d say so Jan, they elected obama didn’t they?

  4. jan says:

    Good point, Redteam. But, I had hoped we would have learned something in this rather painful interim…guess not!

  5. WWS says:

    The problem with Gingrich isn’t that he is divorced – that’s just like the Democrats claiming that the only complaint about Clinton was that he had sex with Monica. That willfully ignores the real problem with Gingrich. He isn’t just divorced, he’s a serial adulterer who has spent the last 20 years proving that he will sell out anyone and anything the instant it looks to be in his own personal advantage to do so, *especially* those who trusted him most.

    These are the reasons I don’t trust him and, in fact, can never trust him, even if he does by some miracle get the nomination. I’ll always be waiting for the day he sells me out, and he will, because he always has. He’ll sell you out, too, and then you’ll be cursing not only him but yourself for ever having believed his pretty words. He only says them because he wants something from you, and what he wants is power. Once he has it you’re just going to be the dirt under his feet.

    Furthermore, it is grossly unfair to dirty Ronald Reagan’s name by comparing him in any way to Gingrich. Yes, Reagan had a divorce, but no one has ever claimed he had relations with anyone while he was married. (a man who lives up to his personal promises lives up to his private ones.)

    And his divorce to Jane Wyman came about when he began to be interested in a political life, and she told him that she wanted no part of it and that if politics was going to be in his life, she wanted out. The breakup was her idea, not his. But to the end of their days RR and Jane Wyman remained good friends and were notable role models, as they were both adamant that neither would ever say anything bad about the other one, ever. It drove dirt digging reporters crazy, but they both took that promise to each other to their graves.

    That’s the kind of man you can admire – what a far cry from a pathological liar like Gingrich.

  6. Redteam says:

    WWS…at least you have a sense of humor..
    and just which politician do you trust to ‘not sell you out’?

    Isn’t that the definition of politics (many blood sucking creatures)?
    poli=many tics=blood sucking creatures

    Yes, some divorces are admirable (you seem to admire Reagan for peacefully giving Jane a divorce instead of having to put up with him and his politics) that’s generous of you. As good a reason as any, at least that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
    I’m sure anyone can see the good in all divorces if they look long enough. Let’s face it, some people are just not compatible.
    If I cursed every time a politician ‘sold me out’ I would have a profane vocabulary.

    “That’s the kind of man you can admire – what a far cry from a pathological liar like Gingrich.”
    Now I guess you’re going to claim you know a politician that is not a pathological liar. Well, clue us in…..we’re waiting….. who is it?

    and don’t say Reagan again, he’s dead, all politicians quit lying when they die…

    but Reagan was certainly my most admired politician ever.