As a registered independent who tends to vote democratic, I wanted to tune in to last night's republican presidential candidate debate to get a better feel for all of the candidates.
Right off the bat, I have to admit the two moderators were AWFUL. Most of the question choices were pretty poor and I felt they went out of their way to have the candidates attack and criticize each other, which Romney and Perry did early on about the other's job creation record as governor.
Newt Gingrich hasn't changed my mind one bit that he is the smartest and best idea man in the field. He just can't stay out of his own way when it comes to non-political matters and his campaign has been a debacle from the beginning.
Herman Cain says some amusing things and I appreciate his business background but he has no chance of winning the nomination. Rick Santorum has no amusing things to say and I can't figure out why he even merited an invitation.
I find myself liking what Jon Huntsman has to say and he easily has the best voice among the candidates. He's also served in several administrations, been a governor and worked in the private sector. He just doesn't know how to run a campaign and has found no traction nationally or in any of the early voting state polls.
Michelle Bachmann apparently can't answer any question without bringing up Obamacare. I really disliked how all the candidates brought it up as if that's the only thing contributing to a stagnant economy and low job hiring numbers since most of its major provisions don't kick in until 2014. She also touts leadership and accomplishments from her time in the House of Representatives, which just flat out isn't true.
Ron Paul lost me a few times but I agree with his stances on having the federal government butt out of several issues and also the money that could be saved by eliminating air conditioning in the green zones in Iraq and Afghanistan and just getting the U.S. out of those two countries completely. He'd never win the nomination but he comes across well since he's been running for president forever.
Ricky Perry showed better than I expected, especially since later in the debate the moderators and other candidates ganged up on him pretty good. He gave a terrible answer regarding Social Security and while statements of it being a ponzi scheme may play well in Texas, Iowa and South Carolina, in a national campaign, not so much. He also responded much better to the border security question than Romeny and Bachmann, who apparently don't know Texas and Mexico are separated by a river, which makes it hard to build a wall. My main gripe about his candidacy is how much he wants the federal government to butt out while continuing to ask for and accept any money he can get from the federal government. I also don't understand why he keeps saying the science on human contributions to climate change aren't settled.
Mitt Romney had to be on his toes early when Perry went after his record as governor over job creation and his jab at Perry stating George Bush created more jobs than Perry has was strong and accurate, despite Perry saying it wasn't true. His lines are well crafted and his experience in these types of debates was obvious to those watching. I don't know what he's saying regarding immigration but everything about him last night looked presidential to me.
Overall the format was disappointing, with candidates getting one minutes responses to questions and sometimes 30 seconds to rebut the answer of another candidate. Time was not spread equally among the candidates nor did they field the same amount of questions.
In my view Romney and Huntsman scored the highest in my book, followed by Perry, Gingrich, Paul, Cain, Bachmann and Santorum. Many of the candidates touted their job creation abilities and I agree on some points regarding a reduction in the corporate tax rate and perhaps loosening some environmental restrictions on domestic drilling. I don't believe the oil lobby's claims that opening up all drilling will result in 1.5 million jobs, $800 billion in tax revenues, etc.
Herman Cain says some amusing things and I appreciate his business background but he has no chance of winning the nomination.
That would depend a lot upon how he assembles and manages his campaign team and PR apparatus. Obama did better than HRC with regard to that, in my opinion, thus his victory. Right now I would feel better about Cain's nomination than any of the others.
Nice quick but concise rundown on your thoughts on each candidate in the debates, by the way.
Newt Gingrich hasn't changed my mind one bit that he is the smartest and best idea man in the field.
Ricky Perry showed better than I expected.
Obama prays at night that newt gingrich wins.
Perry said nothing like no body can. He simply ignored the questions asked, like someone interrupted him by was asking him for his order at a dinner. He bounced around the stage with out the constraints of reason or logical thought. He stole the total composure of George Walker Bush. He showed that he could take charge and make the questions bounce off him like they where made of jello. I have to hand to to him, he acted like an untrained half wit and managed to be the leader of the pack, which is, in the group of people, not hard.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
I didn't pay any attention to it as I think it's too early in the election cycle and there was also a baseball game on. I've got my priorities. Personally I'm supporting Bachmann. I think she's bat nuts crazy, but our policy of trying to elect the most qualified and reasonable person for the office has not worked out for us so far so I think we should try something new.
I still think she should be elected. Like I said we've tried rational, sane, qualified people up to this point. We've had one epic fail after another. Why not try bat nuts crazy? What can it hurt?
Or, and here's a thought, why not try the one option who not only doesn't follow the 'business as usual' way of politics that have driven this country (and as a result the world economy) into the ground but has a PROVEN track record for voting and standing for exactly what he says he's for. I don't agree with all of his stances but I can't say that I don't know exactly where he stands on each and every topic that can be brought up.
He didn't do so bad on some matters, but he did manage to heat up tensions between us and the U.S.S.R to the point of the world getting just as scared as he was.
But he did go to China.. did ok there.
We also had a guy who was suffering from the early stages of dementia and we did Ok too. But let's be honest here, no crazy guy is as crazy as a crazy chick. Women make very, very little sense to the average man to begin with and less to the average woman I think. You toss in a woman who's a certified nutjob and no one will have a clue what she's thinking. It'll keep everyone on their toes.
Well, that's another thread, about the relative understanding we have of each other with regard to gender. I find people easy or difficult to understand depending on other things than their sex.
Females in power situations do behave differently depending on if they are surrounded by men or other women, though, I've noticed. Not worse or better in those two environments, just differently.
A woman President's success or failures would depend on the same things as a man in the White House: things having nothing at all to do with the fact that she's female, unless it were an issue with those she deals with.
From what I've read, Queens vs Kings in times when those roles were the most powerful, behaved in manners much similar to one another for the good or bad comparatively. Power messes everybody up.
... Ricky Perry showed better than I expected, especially since later in the debate the moderators and other candidates ganged up on him pretty good. He gave a terrible answer regarding Social Security and while statements of it being a ponzi scheme may play well in Texas, Iowa and South Carolina, in a national campaign, not so much. He also responded much better to the border security question than Romeny and Bachmann, who apparently don't know Texas and Mexico are separated by a river, which makes it hard to build a wall. My main gripe about his candidacy is how much he wants the federal government to butt out while continuing to ask for and accept any money he can get from the federal government. I also don't understand why he keeps saying the science on human contributions to climate change aren't settled. ...
... Anyone else tune in have any thoughts?
"Perry said "the first round of stimulus ... created zero jobs." We say Pants on Fire."
Device(s): HTC One,
HTC One S,
Thanked 220 Times in 147 Posts
If I had to choose it would be Paul or Romney.
The problem here is that people like Perry because he is a parrot that knows how to woo the not-so-smart - such as people in the aforementioned Texas and South Carolina.
Obama had his shot and my support because he seemed like the guy that would change the game, but once he got in he turned out to be just another politician looking for another handout.
None of this is going to make a difference since I live in a 'party line vote' state - people here will vote for the Republican no matter what he does or says.
The only Republican candidates that anyone in my office that anyone has heard of ironically, is.... Perry and Bachmann... the far right naturally.
Never heard of Romney, or Paul, or any others.
If *I* had to choose it would be Ron Paul.
But... since I live in a state that is effectively going to vote for the most right ring guy they can find out there short of Hitler... I don't vote here.
I disagree. In fact, I would rather not see ANY president get a 2nd term. The possibility of a 2nd term is about the only thing that keeps them sane. Once they know they don't have a chance at reelection then things tend to really go down the circular water repository.