Scoring the GOP Debate at the Reagan Library
In a season of high expectations and perhaps less than stellar delivery, the Republican presidential debate of September 7, 2011, offered the novelty of having newly anointed frontrunner Rick Perry in attendance. Even that tempting tidbit had been in doubt up until the final 24 hours while fires raged in the Texas governor’s home state.
The biggest question may not have been what the two “top dogs” might say, or what those trailing might do to get ahead, but how the moderators would handle it. That answer came quickly when Brian Williams turned the first two questions — directed to Rick Perry and Mitt Romney — into six or seven additions before anyone else got a chance to speak. Each query was an accusation. First, Perry was hammered about the number of new jobs in Texas which were minimum wage. Romney got the next dip at the fountain, asking why his state was 47th in job creation.
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.
One of the early highlights of the debate came from the initial question to Herman Cain regarding tax policy. The man is amazing in debate formats and I was reminded once again of the mystery as to why he polls so poorly. His delivery was concise, crisp, and an obvious draw for the crowd. Cain could have been declared the winner of the evening had he been given more time, but he was clearly being treated as a third-tier candidate.
There were a couple of contenders who clearly locked in their status as third-tier runners. Rick Santorum delivered what was essentially a rerun of his past outings. As a tip to his campaign staff, he shouldn’t talk about himself in the third person. It borders on creepy.
Ron Paul drew a fair amount of air time, but struck me as looking a bit more old and tired than he normally does at these events. When he took a shot across the bow from Rick Perry about his 1987 resignation from the Republican Party, he began to stammer and seemed rather absent-minded, for lack of a better term. Congressman Paul most likely neither helped nor hurt himself at this debate.
Newt Gingrich was also on the stage. Unfortunately, that’s about all I have to say about the fact that he showed up.
The person most in need of a breakout performance in the debate — and thereby the one with the most to lose — was Michele Bachmann. She managed to duck under even that bar. There were no notable gaffes on her part, but her stock answers and frequent, distracting glares off camera served as more of a sideshow than anything else. This debate delivered a message to me that the Bachmann campaign is effectively over.
I think Romney performed far better than Perry, and I can’t stand the guy. He re-directed many times to attack Obama, as he should. Stayed focused.
Perry flubbed foreign policy, offering a strawman argument about “military adventurism”. He stammered with AGW and “science”. He does well in the familiar subjects, but like Bush, he is ignorant outside Texas.
I think Bachmann did the best tonight. She generally does well in debate format. It is why she has gained credibility as a candidate. She was simply dwarfed by the emphasis on Romney and Perry. Nothing she can do about that.
Yes, Cain sounds good, and he is pithy. He does poorly in the polls, because he leans towards stock government stuff. He just does not know enough.
Santorum is the SoCon warrior. Good stuff. Wrong election. No chance… and I am a SoCon.
Paul seems more tinfoily (TM), of late. He is not wrong, but comes across as tinfoil-hat wearing.
Mostly agree with you except about Romney/Perry/Bachmann, the big 3. Different order.
Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of “military adventurism”; not strawmen. Six thousand of our best dead for nothing, tens of thousands more wounded, when a few bombs in the right place would have, early on, settled the scores. Perry knows we need to bring all our forces home; every one of them. Let the raghead dingbats continue to kill each other. Good riddance.What we must do is take out their nuclear capabilities, NOW! If not, they will use them to establish the Global Caliphate (When your children are living under Shariah that notion won’t seem so strange.)
Question: As a “Socon” what do you think of Perrys’ Bilderberger adventure and his self-identification as an evangelical protestant?
As a veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq I take umbrage with the “for nothing” bull$h!t that comes out of the Paulites. I can understand it coming from the leftist trash because they hate this country anyway. But you guys need to get over yourselves. Paul is a brilliant man and right on until he starts talking about foreign affairs where he goes right off the deep end and takes his kook followers with him. If you have been over in those parts of the world you would know how essential air conditioning is during parts of the year. Ron Paul needs to just stop speaking when it comes to these matters.
And if you need an explanation for why we are trying to set up safe relatively free societies in Afghanistan and Iraq take a deep breath, step back, and look at a map of the world. There is a reason why we are fighting over there. The tactics may need some adjustment but the strategy is sound.
Thank you John. Not only is it admirable that you put your life on the line for the Iraqis, Afghans and your fellow fighters, but it’s unfortunate that you are forced to explain to the ignorant why this is a good thing.
Tiger, go back under the bed.
And we print or borrow 43 cents out of every dollar to do it.
That’s not smart.
What Mr. Shaw makes crystal clear in this article is that he doesn’t think much of Mitt Romney and he heavily favors Rick Perry.
This article could have been written yesterday afternoon, or one day last week.
Whoa! Advocacy, what a surprise! Who else would possibly do this? You?
No conservative thinks much of Mitt “Homosexual Marriage Promoter, Socialized Medicine Lover, All Around Lying Hypocrite” Romney.
Perry is probably a Trojan Horse, but it’s not hard to see why some are fooled by him.
Until Perry explains his close contacts and friendships with reactionary Muslims who have infiltrated Texas education with nonsense about the religion of peace, he will be a danger to American security. He does not know anything about Islam and its obsession with conquest.
Abso-damn-lutely!
References? Links?
Worth a read about Perry and Islam, before people start foaming at their mouths:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10576#.TmOoU46jvkJ
How can people take so much at face value? Where did you learn that? I know Obama and his horde depend on this phenomenon, but, get real.
Here’s an article that dispels the notion that Perry is caving in to Islam. Looks to me that he wants to have students educated in what Islam really is. And is getting the muslims to share the cost:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/is-rick-perry-a-closet-sympathizer-of-islamic-radicals/
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.
I was stunned at the confrontational questioning of Brian Williams and his sidekick. Nearly each “question” began with a long diatribe against the candidate or conservatism in general. I got pen and paper to keep track but after it was apparent that this was how all of the inquisition was going to take place I stopped note taking. The hispanic guy that asked a few questions was probably the most straightforward honest questioner.
That said, I was fairly impressed with all of the candidates, including Huntsman until he slammed us “deniers” and those that reject evolution as anti-science. Perry I rate as good, he needs to brush up on why global warming is a scam, learn some of the scientists names such as Roy Spencer, address some of the latest findings such as satellite temperature readings indicating no temperature increase, the CERN revelation about cosmic rays, and so on. Since the liberals seem intent on nailing Perry over this then he needs to brush up on it. He’s in a position now where he can be a great spokesman for the truth. His best moments were on social security and the death penalty.
Romney did very well and I was pleasantly surprised. Unlike the author of this piece I thought Newt was great in taking Williams down a notch and defending the group against him. Newt as always articulated his positions well.
Paul impressed also, he was passionate, sane and came across as a serious competent contender. The others stood their ground also and didn’t blow their evenings. I thought Santorum was a bit too aggressive against the others.
Well, anyway, that’s my one cent worth. I am a Perry supporter.
Why would anyone be stunned that three leftists would ask questions meant to demean and insult Republicans?
Ha, will be interesting to hear the kind of questions they come up with for Bambi when it comes to the Dem on GOP debates. Michael Boskin’s piece in the WSJ today (THursday) would give them good material for some zingers. In my dreams, I know….
I agree! Let’s start “Rating the Questioners” — 1. rude and silly to have all those people stand there and then question only the two frontrunners. 2. Can’t someone come up with some innovative way to question that elicits NEW information?
I think the forum format in South Carolina was really very good. Everybody got treated with respect they deserve for being there and I think it demanded a lot. Walking out, just standing there responding without wisecracks or interruptions from others. And others not hearing what each candidate said.
Actually Perry was smart to skip S.C. and check the fires and go to California–far less demanding format.
Perry is the guy for a dog fight and we’re in one.
The main issues are economy, economy, economy. Perry wins.
I agree with Jazz Shaw’s comments about the “moderators” whose hostility to conservatives was clearly evident, but I don’t agree at all with his comments about Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. As Dick Morris tweeted last night, Gingrich did very, very well, showing his mastery of issues; and Santorum was good (and I am someone who has been skeptical of his run). I particularly liked Santorum’s challenge to the GOP whether it would be the party of Ronald Reagan and be a force for good in the world or turn isolationist. Cain was also strong.
Jazz wrote in reference to Huntsman:
“Sadly, there is still no measurable percentage of the GOP base which will take him seriously….”
Really? While is it sad that the GOP base doesn’t take this liberal seriously?
Liberal? Why do we just assume that because he speaks in a quiet tone that he is a liberal? Did you look at his economic plan? Thats as strong of a conservative, pro-growth, supply-side plan as we’ve seen, and he has a record of doing those exact things as Governor. Check out the CATO Institute grading of records: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa581/reportcard_table.html. Also, hes the only candidate on record supporting the Ryan Budget plan. He had a very strong pro-life record as Governor enacting several strong pieces of legislation, and hes never flip-flopped on it. He holds on moderate positions on peripheral issues; hes pro-civil union (the George W. position) and yes he does believe global warming exits (he has no intentions of enacting cap and trade at this time), but is that all it takes to label a strong fiscal conservative and defender of life a liberal? He’d crush BO in a general. I hope we let him.
“He holds on moderate positions on peripheral issues” Way to downplay it.
“moderate” positions. Like George W. Now, there is a ringing endorsement.
“Peripheral issues”. There is nothing peripheral about AGW. It is why the EPA is doing all it can to destroy our economy. This election is about the economy and jobs. Huntsman may have a good plan on paper, but it means nothing if he believes in AGW, because AGW will destroy his plan. I do not vote for AGW-the-sky-is-falling, tinfoil-hat wearing fools like Huntsman. AGW is moonbattery. These idiots need to be relegated to the fringe where they belong, they and their tinfoil hats.
Couldn’t figure out why Huntsman came out in favor of the “science” of human-caused global warming. Struck me as very odd. Was getting interested in him as a potential top-tier contender until he came out with that head-scratcher.
Huntsman looks like he’d be the kind of president arrested by Jack Bauer.
I was surprised Perry reaffirmed his position that social security is a Ponzi scheme. This kind of statement will not play well in the general election and I think many republicans (who now support Perry) will eventually come to see him as less electable than Romney. Romney was solid last night if somewhat dull.
Nonsense. The Dems would love the GOP to nominate Romney or Huntsman. If the choice is between a liberal and liberal-lite, the liberal wins. If the choice is between a liberal and a conservative, the conservative wins.
Actually, Perry is correct. Social Security IS a Ponzi scheme and, with a shrinking ratio of workers to retiree and longer life expectancy, it’s not sustainable. And Medicare is worse. I was impressed that he stuck to his guns and explained what he meant. Denying this reality doesn’t allow anyone to have an honest conversation, and I think honest conversations are both in short supply and necessary.
I’m still undecided, personally. Santorum just doesn’t come across as presidential, Cain is smart but I think he’s a better bet as Secretary of Commerce, Gingrich is the smartest and most creative guy in the room but not the right temperament, Paul is the crazy guy in the attic, Bachmann seemed brittle and not as coherent as she should.
I came away more impressed with Huntsman on substance (other than his views on Afghanistan) than I expected to be. Romney is a smart businessman, but it still feels like we’re seeing a facade. There was a moment in the first debate when he cracked what seemed to be a spontaneous joke and the facade cracked, and I’ve felt more comfortable with him since then. However, I think Romneycare is a huge albatross – there are differences to Obamacare and they’re nontrivial, but go explain them to anyone other than a policy wonk. And I was more impressed with Perry than I expected to be – he seems very at ease in his own skin and he’s willing to take a provocative stand based on principle.
But I agree with the other posters: ABO (Anybody But Obama — other than perhaps Ron Paul).
Is there really somebody in America who does not know that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? (Well, I suppose there are plenty of people who don’t know what a Ponzi scheme is– but they probably know what a pyramid scheme is, so…)
There is no point in this silliness of pretending. Our government has been running all sorts of scams on us for a long time. They even have a new one that they have outsourced to the Fed. It is called “Create enough inflation to make houses worth something again so that our banks are not technically broke.” There is also “Mark to Market”, a game that allows banks to pretend that the houses and commercial property they hold mortgages on is worth what the note says.
Enough pretending that either Social Security or our banks are solvent, or that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they burn up in medical care and educational costs.
We are the biggest debtor nation in the history of the world, and it does not matter if we can never technically go bankrupt because we can print our own money. When the rest of the world wants to be paid in something other than the US dollar, we will be bankrupt.
Americans know what is going on, and they are not going to be shocked by straight talk. It is the lefty media that is feigning shock, trying to make Perry out to be a nutjob, just as they do with every Republican who becomes a threat to their insane liberal ideology.
Who from last night’s debate is in it to help America?
Who is in it to help themselves?
Thats a very good question, and one that is a bit difficult to answer, I think, because it is not easy to know a person’s true motives.
The person I think is not in it for himself is also not someone I would likely vote for in the primaries.
But, for the challenge, I would say that Ron Paul is probably in it for his country. He consistantly defers to the Constitution instead of his own personal beliefs (There may be some who argue that he is not interpreting this part or that part of the Constitution correctly, but he does not attempt to twist it into a pretzel, as liberals do)
Now that you have prompted me to give it some serious thought, I may have to reconsider Ron Paul.
Why is it that Romney looks like he wants to jump the gate every time he is asked a question? He always looks like he knows the question before it’s finished, and has a reply that can’t wait to bust out.
Bachmann must have taken the same speech class as Romney.
Perry, and all the others, at least listened to the complete question, and mostly focused on the question with their answer.
Paul had to look at his notes during his answers, although his answers were spirited.
Mr. Balart was prepared and should have been one of the facilitators from the beginning.
Overall, Perry looked most impressive and the candidate best suited to combat the current gang of thieves in power today.
And what about Perry’s relationship with the muslims?
We’ll certainly find out if Perry has been properly potty trained, or picked his nose, since the media will be in full vilification mode any minute now, if not already.
“Mr. Balart was prepared and should have been one of the facilitators from the beginning.”
What was he doing there?
Do we really need to have an authentic Hispanic person ask questions about immigration?
This is part of the problem in this country– liberals and Dems separating everybody into race categories. There is absolutely no reason why either of the two moderators could not have asked the questions. It was just more of what is wrong with the thinking process of liberals in this country.
I don’t know why he was permitted to ask any questions. That was strange, but, I thought it refreshing after the loaded, pre-qualified questions from the moderators.
Yea; They could have just picked some homeless latin off the street instead of Balart. But, the Cubans have “extra special protection” as refugees, thanks to more reckless legislation by our Congress. I don’t have a link handy, but it’s readily available on the web.
As soon as I saw “Politico” on the drapes, I knew it was going to be biased.
Yes, Politico and MSNBC. What a pair.
I guess maybe the question should be “What were the Republicans doing there?”
The moderators were predictable liberal gotcha hacks. None of the candidates destroyed themselves or their opponents. Newt remains the smartest, quickest ,most experienced, and best able to think on his feet. Would LOVE to see him debate BHO more than any of the other candidates. Bachmann did well again. Santorum is just annoying. Gov. Perry did very well and has the courage to not hedge his bets for the press. Huntsman needs to get an anchor job to feed his narcissism. Romney looks a bit bored, Paul is tired, and Cain is being ignored to death. Hope the next debate is more stimulating with better moderators.
I’m going to go on record: the GOP ticket — and the next administration — will be Perry/Cantor.
Perry-Cantor or Perry-Ryan over Clinton-Manchin!
If Perry/Cantor did end up becoming the GOP’s pick then it’ll be Obama/Biden that comes out winning. We don’t need another party switcher/former Al Gore supporter and a weak figure, for VP, like Eric Cantor.
This week after a little time to reflect, Texans are wondering what happened to the TSA bill last week. A month ago it looked like shoe-in, then it looked dead, then it was reborn, then it was delayed in creative ways only to find the dustbin at the end of the special session. Barring reintroduction in a second special session, the bill is dead for the immediate future. But what happened? Why are Texas leaders refusing to step between the TSA agents’ fondling fingers and citizen’s dignity? Why are Texas leaders allowing the TSA to run around the clear limitations set forth in the Fourth Amendment?
Lots of questions. Very few answers.
But there is one answer that remains clear… the Texas leadership completely failed Texans!
Less than a month ago, the confidence level in passing the TSA bill was high. The Texas House had just passed the bill with a vote of 138-0. The Senate was next and was widely reported to have near unanimous support for the bill as well. Then it would be off to Gov. Perry’s office. This was a strongly worded piece of legislation that rejected outright invasive searches without probable cause. Few state representatives at the time were willing to side with a federal agency that groped innocent citizens and denied Texans their Fourth Amendment rights. At this point in time, passing the legislation looked like a sure thing.
Suddenly, without warning, the Department of Justice engaged head-on the Texas legislative process, threatening Texas with a no-fly zone should this legislation pass. From then on everything changed. Never mind, the DOJ letter was laughably inaccurate in its suggestion that the Supremacy Clause could be used to deny Fourth Amendment protections. Never mind, the TSA is acting as a rouge agency without laws authorizing its behavior. Never mind, that an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be required to negate the Fourth Amendment so that such authority might be given to the TSA. Never mind, the wide range of confirmed incidence of overzealous TSA gropers of babies, pre-teens, grandmothers and even a Miss USA contestant. Never mind, the exact purpose of this bill was to say “NO” to the federal government!
Regardless, everything changed.
Motivated by cowardice and/or federal collaboration, Texas state leadership worked diligently to kill this bill. This is the true record of Perry!
As well stated as you make your case, (and it appears believable), would you go away believing that same statement if I, or anyone else, made it?
You have nothing but dialog, and no references, no links to fortify the conclusion. There must be many references.
Seriously; you’re being foolish if you want anyone to believe you based on pure discourse.
Support the claim with some evidence; We need evidence; We’re Conservatives, not sycophants.
No, he is absolutely right. There was all this defiant talk that they would pass it anyway… and then it dropped from sight.
It may be because Perry is running for Prez, and a spat with the FedGov would be very ugly for his campaign. Too easy to paint as a secessionist. Politics. Perry is a career politician.
References? Links? Might be helpful.
This article, and the debate, illustrates WHY voting Republican is the only levelheaded way to vote.
Republican candidates have been surgically examined, opened and exposed, and everybody knows exactly what they are voting for.
Obama has been in the spot light for more than 5 years, and we still don’t know a single grade he was given for any academic achievement. (Even though that “achievement” is severely dubious).
I’m really baffled how a person with his known background and activity can obtain any security clearance.
When I entered the military, if I would have indicated any activity or relationships like his, I would have been immediately discharged. And this tele-prompter ignoramus is Our Commander in Chief! How frightening is that?
How much hypocrisy is enough? How can you convince people they are being scammed?
Looks to me, that many don’t really care.
They think they’re gonna get some of Obama’s stash!
Perry folded on the TSA issue even when a nearly every legislator in Texas voted to limit TSA groping. Perry folded like toilet paper. Perry hates individual rights, he was with Gore on AGW, he was with the drug companies in attempting to force every schoolgirl to take the HPV vaccine. Perry would be worse than Obama. Get it correct Pajama, Perry will not be the President. We the people will defeat him in the primaries and if not there in the general election. The unfortunate problem is that leaves President Obama receiving a second term. You may say Paul is a tinfoil candidate but you should actually listen to what he says, not how he projects. You want smoke and mirrors, pomp and circumstance, then vote for any of the other morons. No candidate is perfect, but we need a Monty Python (and now for something completely different) to reverse the last 20 years of insanity.
“Get it correct Pajama, Perry will not be the President. We the people will defeat him in the primaries and if not there in the general election. The unfortunate problem is that leaves President Obama receiving a second term.”
I said it before, and am forced to say it again. Even Elmer Fudd would be better than Obama.
We currently have a President who does not love his country. We know this from his actions, and because he has publicly stated that his goal is to “transform” America.
Ask yourself, “Why would somebody try to ‘transform’ something he loves?”
No matter Perry’s poor decisions in the past, he would not intentionally inflict damage on his country. He would not bus goons into another state to create a disturbance, as Obama did (Organizing For America bused the union goons into Wisconsin. They stopped when the press began to report the story) And he would not, I am sure, stand by silently while the Speaker of the House of Representatives implied that peacefully protesting citizens were Nazis. (Pelosi: Well, you saw them…they were carrying swastikas.”)
Perry is not perfect, but at least he is not Obama. Not even close.
Actions speak louder than words. Moderators, some debaters = words. CAin and Palin = actions.
Very simple, its We The People vs. We The Elite People. Don’t be fooled by RNC, DNC, Wall Street and MSM protecting their “turf.”
Last nights debate was a show put on by We The Elite People. Candidates (waiting in the wings)who honestly do and perform good for Our Beloved America are always swept under the carpet or relegated to “third tier” status…Barry Goldwater anybody?
Herman Cain appears to have Harry Trumans’ traits, i.e., middle American view of US and World affairs. Sarah Palin definitely has a Ronald Reagan type charisma, philosophy and drive, believes in America’s fundamental goodness and greatness. Don’t hear these things from any of the moderators nor some debaters.
Basically its We The People vs. We The Elite People. Don’t let these Elite People pull our cords.
Vote massively because massive fraud is going to be visited on Our Beloved USA this 2012 Election. God Bless America.
Re:
“Romney got the next dip at the fountain, asking why his state was 47th in job creation.”
No, Romney certainly did not ask himself why his own state was 47th in job creation.
That should have been written as,
“Romney got the next dip at the fountain; he was asked why his state was 47th in job creation.”
Jazz Shaw is a heretical, Northeastern former RINO…
The genuinely “heretical” ones in this day and age don’t borrow Spanish Inquisition tropes from Monty Python comedies. Instead they will describe a PC-media grilling as “Pharasee-style” or “Saul of Tarsus serious.”
People want jobs. Perry is the best equipped of all do say he can deliver jobs.
People want an effective man in the White House. Perry comes across as effective, where Obama does not.
Perry is flawed, but Obama is way more flawed.
I would vote for Romney over Obama, it’s that important to get rid of the current Prez, but I’d rather vote for Perry.
The Republican Debate was better than tonight’s Democratic Debate of the Union where Candidate Obama will debate President Obama.
OweBama’s refrain of the night was borrowed from Pelosi: we’ll have to pass the Jobs Bill to find out what’s in it.
Seriously wondering how many trolls are insidiously throwing out unsubstantiated attacks on Perry on these pages. Unless Palin throws in, Perry is the only one with the cojones to take on the traitorous corrupt Democratic party.
Obama will be debating his usual opponent, “The Straw Man”.
I also agree that Newt did a good job. Hope he gets a place in the 2012 cabinet so his good ideas will be used. Also liked his early-on deflection of the obnoxious “why don’t you’n him fight” questions. The libs will do their best to assassinate (metaphorically of course!!!) the GOP candidates who look like contenders. The GOPs should address their attacks (metaphorical of course!!) to BO.
It’s perfect time to make a few plans for the long run and it’s time to be happy. I have read this put up and if I could I wish to recommend you some fascinating issues or tips. Perhaps you could write next articles referring to this article. I desire to learn even more issues about it!