Gov. Rick Perry came into tonight’s debate the leader and I think he leaves it in that position. Mitt Romney positioned himself as the non-Tea flavored alternative to the frontrunner, but the fact is that the energy in the GOP now is almost entirely with the Tea Party and the conservative base. Romney can win if Perry is discredited or implodes, but neither happened tonight. Instead America saw a GOP frontrunner who is willing to take the risk of telling hard truths about difficult issues. Americans also saw in Perry a leader who recognizes past policies that didn’t work, and does not double down on them. I think Americans saw in Rick Perry a plausible replacement for Barack Obama. The Texas governor’s stature grew and I expect polls to show that he is solidifying his lead in the GOP primary and is moving to a lead nationally over the president.
The country was served well in this debate. It was substantive and interesting despite the occasional interjections of host Brian Williams. Scoring it, Perry and Romney essentially tied on substance and presentation. Both stood apart from the rest of the candidates. Newt Gingrich was effectively aggressive, especially when he noted that the GOP really is a team focused on defeating President Obama and rolling back his destructive agenda. Bachmann’s star faded a bit from her earlier, more powerful debate performances. Cain, Huntsman and Santorum all acquitted themselves credibly and all showed that they belonged on the stage. Ron Paul’s quirky performance continues to be a taste that I have not acquired.
The big loser tonight is Barack Obama. By comparison to all but one of the candidates, the president comes off poorly. He delivers a speech before tomorrow night’s NFL kickoff that will not be as substantive or as interesting as this debate. Despite the atmosphere of a joint session of Congress he will seem small because his ideas are small and he is a proven failure in his office. I doubt that Americans will have any qualms replacing him next year with a solid, credible Republican, and there were many of those engaged in this debate tonight.
Spot-on analysis.
Okay, I watched the debate and as expected, I didn’t hear anything new. If asked for my opinion as to who came out ahead, I would have to say the one person who went into the room with the most going on in his head – Newt Gingrich. Whether you like him or not, he is the smartest and best prepared of all of them; he knows what he is talking about. Romney, Paul, Huntsman, Santorum, Perry – all made some good points but fall very short of the mark. Cain had many good points on the economy but is lost in foreign affairs. Michelle Bachmann is solid but I am not sure she picked up any points tonight; time will tell.
Overall, if you are able to set aside preconceived ideas or favorites, you must admit Gingrich is the smartest, all around. Now, does that mean he can beat President Obama – sure, I think most of the candidates on that stage would, if the economy continues to wane.
I will say that I am not sold on anyone yet – and I am still an independent, so I don’t vote Republican just to beat the Democrats – I vote for the most qualified person.
I encourage your thoughts on this issue, but let’s keep it civil.
Cain’s 9-9-9 was certainly new. It may have gotten lost in the Perry-Romney show, but it was a fresh new idea.
Steve
I disagree that Newt looked like the smartest man in the room TONIGHT!
I do think he won all the other debates to include the Forum Monday (to bad he is unelectable).
I think he was off his game tonight!
TJ
Newt is an excellent policy wonk, but a lousy politician. Add to that his horrible personal history with respect to his ex-wife, and the man is unelectable.
…Not to mention Barry is also a “smartest guy in the room” type (just like Carter) and look how well that worked out…
Casey – 100% correct. Newt Gingrich will never be president.
Casey, you only think it’s “horrible” because the media spun the story then told you what to think about it.
Django, many people said “will never be President” about Obama in late 2007.
Micha,
I can’t speak for Casey, but I think the way Newt Gingrich treated his ex-wife is terrible for the same reason that I think the way the band director at my kids’ high school treated his ex-wife is terrible: you don’t break a promise just because a more attractive option comes along. The. End.
You certainly don’t get to lecture me on morality and then behave the way Mr. Gingrich behaved without losing credibility. God can forgive Newt and his ex-wife can forgive Newt and that’s all that is required in his personal life, but that doesn’t mean I have to forget a glaring character flaw when I’m considering for whom to cast my vote.
If Newt manages to win in the primaries, and I can’t see that happening, then I would vote for him over Obama. But I’m tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils because someone else has decided that both evils are “smart” or “electable.”
Newt lost me when he was still speaker, with his treatment of John Hostettler.
Whether or not that is true – it’s certainly true that Gingrich is a smart guy in control of the facts – let’s also not make the same mistakes the technocratic left-Progressives make in thinking that raw brains is the most important asset of a leader.
Big brains have shortcomings, not least of which is hubris. You’ll think you know more than you do, which is a problem, because the responsibilities of the President are so vast that arguing about whether one candidate is smarter than the other is like arguing over what place on the planet has the nearest mean distance to the sun: it may be X, but the comparative distance from Y is meaningless.
Heuristics matter, character matters, too.
It is hard to think of a failure about he facts that any of the candidates have made that can compare to Gingrich’s John McCain-like shoot-your-own-team behavior.
I agree that raw intelligence is highly overrated, especially when it comes to executives. It’s much more important in that role to be a good decision maker–and that is a pretty rare skill.
Honestly? No one on the planet cares what Obama’s gonna say tomorrow.
He’s toast, and just doesn’t realize it yet.
Are you kidding me – Perry came out number one????? What I saw of his responses were pathetic and inept. Platitudes do not qualify someone for the job. Sorry but we are seriously screwed with this field of candidates. Huntsman is an a-hole of the first order. He truly is a New York Times Republican. Mitt is probably the most viable – if we could just infuse his body and personality with Newt’s mind we could trounce BO. But alas…
Romney, perry and Bachman were losers. Cain, santorum and to a limited degree huntsman were winners
Totally agree! I thought Newt killed, Perry ok, but not spectacular, liked Cain a lot.
Perry.s history with the vaccine is deplorable when you look into it.Evolution theory doesn’t explain the missing link , and global warming / climate change is the greatest hoax ever. {Jon Huntsman}. With the exception of H. Cain, they’re all phony politicians. Mr. Cain is a problem solver and will gather the greatest minds to tackle any issue in the constitutional way.The Elites are afraid of him and with whoever he picks as a running mate, will win in a landslide to make our country great again. P.S. The minorities would vastly support him but many will not admit it for fear of ignoramuses badmouthing.
We cannot afford a single issue like the vaccines distract us.
This country cannot afford and probably will not survive another four years of the Obama administration, especially when he no longer worries about re-election.
Huntsman and Paul scare me to death.
But the rest are fine and we cannot allow the media to portray the GOP as a bunch of infighters!
… was server well
My take on the debate is here:
http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2011/09/thoughts-on-the-republican-debate
I agree with above analysis that Perry and Romney stood out from the rest and that Bachmann didn’t do much to help herself.
I feel it was Romney who came across as the winner of this debate with Gingrich a close second. Perry was lackluster and played it safe with his answers keeping in mind all that he says will be thrown back in his face during the presidential campaign–I found this too slick and politicky! Romney went for broke dropping all pretenses and came out a true conservative tonight. His answers were forthright and conservative without any waffling…admitting his MA healthcare hail Mary would not work nationally and that his first executive order will be to give states opt-out power. I didn’t hear the same conviction in Perry when asked about illegal immigration.
On everyone else I agree with what you said.
It was interesting though that while the debate was on I was on a live-chat with SPG and they all agreed Perry was not doing as well as anticipated and that Rommney was sounding very presidential and saying all the right things. But at the end, “because Perry didn’t screw up” he was deemed the winner. Huh? That’s what we want in a solid, credible Republican?
So, — he was for Romneycare before he was against it? Now he came out as a conservative? Where’s he been hiding for the last 3 years?
Palin 2012
Horse crap. Romney is not now, nor has he ever been a political conservative. He’s a moderate masquerading as a conservative just to get elected. There’s even video out there showing him decisively refuting Reagan, saying he had nothing to do with the man, nor did he want to.
Romney is, in short, “Obama lite.”
Romney is a centrist, and thus would not qualify as Obama lite, since Obama is a raging leftist who tried to disguise himself as a centrist. You could make a better case though that Romney is McCain lite. he will say whatever the latest electorate demands. Basically romney is McCain without the war record.
Brian Williams (quizzing Perry about Texans without health insurance) doesn’t seem to get the idea that health care does NOT equate to health insurance. There are zillions of folks who have the former but not the latter and vice versa.
I’m one of those Texans, free to spend my healthcare dollars in Mexico, Brazil, Czech Republic, Costa Rica, Hungary and Thailand. With Obamneycare or even conventional Amerikan insurance, I would not be so free.
No one seems to see the same debate but I’d declare Romney the clear winner. He was well-spoken and presidential and well placed to win Independent as well as GOP votes. Perry fumbled a few times, but deserves some slack because this was his first debate. He’ll get better but his comments on Social Security did not remove the fear that he may turn into a candidate who spends a huge amount of time explaining his positions. I suspect that Romney will do a better job of keeping the focus on Obama’s vulnerabilities.
All in all, an impressive showing by two strong candidates against hostile questioning.
Excellent analysis! The only advice I’d give to Perry now is when asked about man-made global warming and which theories or scientists he follows would be to answer: The sun. A good laugh line and it is true that solar activity including solar flares affect the Earth’s temperature. The facts are finally coming out. Even middle of the road Dems and Independents don’t want their lights shut off or to live in the cold because the gov’t declares a failed computer model, based on faulty data to be a “consensus of science”.
Let me offer an analysis of Congressman Dr Paul. He echoes the sentiments of President Washington’s 1796 “Farewell Address” when the retiring president cautioned us against foreign entanglements, to engage in free and fair commerce with all, and to avoid debt. Dr Paul also actively supports President Eisenhower’s admonition to beware the military/industrial complex.
I think the problem is that we are so far removed from what our founders tried to secure for us that a Paul presidency would be doomed from the start. We need to move back to the original nation, but, alas, it will have to be done incrementally.
I’m not sure about Gov Perry. I want to be his most ardent supporter – he’s a fellow Texan, an Aggie (!), and a real cowboy/rancher from Paint Creek. He isn’t afraid to bring up secession (he may be kidding, but many of us aren’t) or state flatly that social security is a Ponzi scheme, but I am troubled by the Gardasil fiasco, his support for the trans-Texas corridor and his immigration policies.
That said, I worked as a 14 year old for Sen Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 campaign and for Sen McGovern’s ill fated run in 1972 as an 18 year old. I respect Dr Paul and would love to live in an America under his leadership, which would dissolve the Fed and begin to get rid of the IRS and the 16th amendment (sorry, but a tax on labor and the fruits there of, and the apparatus for a draft smack of feudalism/serfdom/cottager/socager) would hearten Thomas Jefferson. Dr Paul’s campaign reminds me of Sen McCarthy’s 1968 run to some extent; idealism combined with a less than exciting personality. However, we’ve had a lot of razzle dazzle in past years. Maybe ‘staid’ is what we need this time.
I like your analysis. I do like Rick, but fervently hope the GOP will abandon its historic alliance with Alexander Hamilton’s vision of an American Empire and opt for Jefferson’s vision of very limited government and maximum personal liberty. Would’t that be refreshing!?!?
Thanks for your efforts.
“Perry and Romney stood out” LOL, they were given like an hour and a half out of two hours, of course they stood out…the debate was pathetic, and Perry sounded like a moron. MSNBC and POLITICO put out a joke debate which was more of a Perry interview…it was worthless after I had looked forward to it.
Tonight I liked Romney, Ron Paul, and Newt…..I know, very eclectic and random seeming, but all for different reasons….Newts record would be tore up I think if he got anywhere, such as when he wanted a death penalty for marijuana etc…
Bottom line is, the debate was simply a joke, the media telling us who is viable, I it does nothing but anger me quite honestly, it doesn’t get me excited about an election or anything else.
Huntsman did a pretty good job as well in the Perry interview.
How about….ask a question and let all the potential candidates answer?
The only winning issues!
Cain: 9-9-9 tax reform and individualized social security accounts.
Huntsman: Trade reform and foreign relations reform.
Everything else was the normal political rhetoric Tea Party and GOP lines of today. Sustainable jobs cannot be had until the economy is completely overhauled which will take several decades if and when anybody comes up with all the right reforms. In the meantime nobody has the answers to stop the nations arterial bleeding!
Paul has some good solutions but is unelectable and and wouldn’t be good in getting any congress to implement his better more reasonable economic and foreign relations ideas.
High marks to Herman Cain
I can’t support Gingrich after he threw the Ryan plan under the bus. But I did enjoy the red meat he threw out.
Could not disagree more. The energy is with the Tea Party? I think we will in a year and two months time look back and all agree the Tea Party was the loud, vocal minority. Everywhere we’ll read about the “silent majority” of folks who covertly resent the Tea Party and that Republican association to it.
ROFL
Sure, ok.
LOL, sure. The silent majority is for higher taxes and more government intervention in our daily lives, oh, and don’t give a wit about the Constitution.
Any conservative or republican that despises the tea party are simply exposing themselves to be RINOs and we need to get them out of office. They are what destroyed the Bush admin and continue to destroy the GOP
Taking the debate on it’s own merit? Newt Gingrich won, handily.
Taking into account the current standings? Romney didn’t lose, which means he won.
Perry needed to be electric tonight, in order to meet his status, and he didn’t. He seemed too halting in his responses.
Cain rocked it, but got no time.
Bachman looked very tired, but mostly did fine. Looking tired will hurt her, sadly. We like our candidates to look “presidential”. I don’t agree with it, but that’s simply a fact.
Santorum was excellent, but lacks that same ‘something’ that Palenty didn’t have.
Paul was still the crazy uncle. Great on fiscal policy, absolutely dangerous on foreign policy.
Huntsman improved dramatically. Still a democrat in republican clothing, though.
Perfect analysis. Just perfect.
I knew the original article would be bad, because it is written by Bryan Preston. Normally, I like his stuff, but he is a huge Perry booster, being a Texan and all.
Perry would be a more Conservative Bush, but would not be markedly different. They really are very similar. None of these guys would be an excellent President, truthfully. Way too many flaws. Still, I’d vote for many of them, just not Romney nor Huntsman. I’d vote for the crazy uncle first. If this were a normal election, I’d not vote for any of them. Only Obama makes them viable. Sad, really. (sigh)
Agreed with all of that.
If Obama weren’t so unbelievably horrible, some of these guys wouldn’t have made it to the stage last night.
However, I’ll take ANY of them over Obama. Even Romney if I have to.
I appreciated Mr. Romney’s concentration and astute views on issues. He focused on problem solving and the shortcomings on the Obama Administration. The two obviouslt biased moderators did their best to embarrass Gov. Perry and some of the other candidates – especially that wisp from politico who also tried to highjack Pres. Bush. Cheap, cheap, cheap!
Santorum and Paul, on the other hand, attacked the other candidates as though they were democrats. Tacky, tacky. Santorum didn’t seem to have new and fresh ideas and Dr. Paul continued his Constitutional agenda; which is very persuasive. Newt is one sharp dude ….if only he didn’t have baggage. He would make a great Secretary of State.
Mr. Cain had some powerful and decisive arguments and impressed me. We need him in a power position in Washington. Gov. Huntsman……still sounds like a democrat to me. Ms. Bachman may not have been flashy but had sound doctrine. All in all, I believe we have good talent in the pool.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Hillary wrestled the nomination away from Barry?
“Paul has some good solutions but is unelectable and and wouldn’t be good in getting any congress to implement his better more reasonable economic and foreign relations ideas.”
If you have followed this for more than one election or for more than a few decades, you obviously and honestly understand, most of the republican field is running on Ron Pauls ideas which garnered him nothing but scoffs…it’s kind of hard to ignore. I think the guy has already won in a way….he is just not a pretty polished politician….he is the real deal though….anyone following the whole mess knows the whole tea party movement gained movement after Ron Paul supporters raised more than 6 million in one day on the anniversary of the boston tea party….next thing you know, the Boston Tea Party is the new big thing….never was before.
As much as I love the guy, and think all the others are vying for people who believe in exactly what Ron Paul believes in after they dismissed him and belittled him four years ago….he just is not a good presenter of the message…he is not a good public speaker, and he goes too far for mainstream too much. We need someone who can be elected and voted for by people who are the masses, and don’t follow these things daily…most don’t.
Most of the people who voted for Obama could not even describe to you the structure of the government, but alas, they are the voting majority…pretty faces and words (whether true or not) win…sad really, but true.
Huntsman looked more likable to me than Perry by far….he stood out among those who got little air time, and I think he will get more after this debate.
In my view, it doesn’t matter how many good ideas Paul has, his views on foreign policy rule him out entirely.
Amen and Amen!
Here’s where I’m at on some of the front-runners at the moment.
In a perfect world, I’d go for Cain, if for no other reason than he has successfully turned around two money-losing companies. Sometimes, you need a war president, sometimes you need a peacemaker, but no sane person can argue against the fact that right now, we need a president with proven experience as a bankruptcy turnaround expert.
Unfortunately, the MSM will never let Cain get anywhere close to equal airtime, because the thought of an intelligent, articulate, accomplished black man in the White House scares them worse than Sara Palin. The media needs the race card more than the race hustlers like Jackson and Farrakhan. It was OK to elect a half-African/half/European, Frank Marshall Davis protege, affirmative action hire, wannabe, because he was a creation of the media. But all-black, American of African descent, self-made, unabashed capitalist? Nope, the media will not let that happen.
Gingrich – Still the smartest guy in just about any room, but lacks the fire and business world knowledge. A smart candidate will buy him out of the race with an offer to be SecState, a job Newt is perfect for.
Romney – If he’s the party’s candidate, I’ll campaign my butt off for him, but to me, his hard to forgive sin was not exhibiting more leadership in 2008, resulting in four years of Obama.
Bachmann – Her personality is just a bit too unique for wide appeal to have the top spot on the ticket, but would be a good pick for Veep.
Huntsman – Nope.
Perry – Not perfect, but the most marketable of the bunch, and has a broad base of the right experience equal or better to any of the rest.
Excellent comments!!
In order for Perry to be more marketable, he’s gonna have to get a better hair piece. This one is really hard to look at.
Romney can talk all he wants and come off sounding good but, and it’s a big-ass BUT: Romneycare does not endear him to conservatives. It shows that Romeny, like the Global Warming debate…granted the premise that left-wingers have a legit issue.
Romney will not make it out of the primary.
The last time the GOP had a debate without Gary Johnson, I watched the Bruins Stanley Cup gameinstead. This time, I watched NOVA on PBS instead. I’ll find something else to do or watch next time, too, if Johnson is not invited.
Johnson Who? Oh he is that Ron Paul Light Guy!
Quote of the night:
“Galileo got outvoted for a spell.” In other words, I’m probably wrong but let’s throw the people who are right in a dungeon for a piece.
What a buffoon.
– is where I am lodging in a couple weeks for my annual visit to Florence. May stay in exile there like Galileo if Obama is re-elected.
I’m not a Perry guy (yet, anyway), but you’ve got his point backwards. You might want to Google Galileo…
Oh, he’s saying he’s Galileo! That’s even better. I’m a science teacher. I know who Galileo is. And I know someone who doesn’t know his head from his rear when it comes to science. Caching! Perry’s our man.
Huntsman delivered up his own Pawlentyism during this debate. When a moderator challenged Huntsman to confront candidates on stage that the Huntsman campaign had decried as cranks offstage, Huntsman weaseled out.
Not in regards to policy, but as to their communicative abilities on this single night. (going stage left to right)
Huntsman D- Polished to the point of schmoozing cheesiness. Seemed plastic. No real plans and seemed to never drop below 100,000 feet.
Cain A Best communicator of the night. His clear plan statements are pointed, sharp, and memorable (ex 9-9-9 plan).
Paul C- Too smart and philosophical for his own good. Suffers from being offered minimal time in debates, thus, he tries to squeeze too much into each answer. Bumbles. Needs to move philosophy (as important as it is) to the background and present the solutions which lie on top of his libertarian philosophy more clearly.
Perry B++ Loves the role of being the contrarian. Stood by some bold statements such as Social Security being a ponzi scheme . Took some right crosses from others without totally evading them.
Romney A- Polished, poised and stately. His answers are controlled but passionate. Stayed on message and appeared Presidential in tone.
Bachmann B- Generally well spoken. Didn’t get nearly the time she thought, nothing that set herself apart but did no self-harm either.
Newt B Newt is Newt. This night he was the oil in the Republican cogs stating that the media isn’t going to breed GOP infighting. He applauded many of his fellow candidates efforts and views. It was almost as if the Republican party paid him to be there to keep the message clear that the opponent is Obama, not other GOP members.
Santorum B Consistent answers, but like Bachman did nothing that set himself apart. His best moment might have been when he spoke of welfare reform being about helping the poor versus saving money.
Moderators Brian Williams of NBC News and POLITICO editor-in-chief John F. Harris D+ They came across as pompous and pejorative.
Hear, hear!
Excellent analysis, comrade. I felt the same way myself.
Let’s try not to be too biased when looking at the potential political landscape. Other people vote than us, of course.
Your grades are right on target, Jordan. Excellent analysis.
I would like to add that Rick Perry, the newbie on the stage and the surprise front runner in several polls, was the target for the media talking heads as well as his competitors and the Obama spinmeisters. Next time, he will probably have a better idea of what is in store, and will probably be better prepared on offense and on defense. This was his first pre-season game!
Romney might have sounded all conservative and stuff tonight, BUT he has doubled down on RomneyCare. He recently said it’s still a good thing–even though it’s failing, people are gaming the system left and right, and the insurers who were “allowed” to participate are losing their shirts because the state won’t let them raise rates to cover the added risk they’ve accepted.
Sorry, but that kills any chance for Romney to win my vote, no matter how many 100-page plans he publishes.
Perry looked distracted, but hey, I’d be too if my state was on fire. So I’m cutting him some slack for this one. We need a jobs president who also has enough of a spine to help America stand up again on the world stage. Perry seems to be that guy.
The moderators were being raaaaaaaaaaacist for giving Cain little time. Wonder if that’ll be reported tomorrow? I like Cain and think he’d be hell on wheels to the DC parasites.
Huntsman is in the wrong party. Santorum made me yawn. Bachmann is likable, but she’s much better as a lightning rod/gadfly/flak-catcher for the cause. For a senior member of Congress, Paul’s overall record is pretty lame, which indicates that he doesn’t play well with others and can’t close a deal. Not the way to run a country, as we’ve seen from Obama.
Newt hit several home runs, but he won’t win because he’s proven himself to be a squishy RINO. Sorry, but I remember 1995 too well! Wouldn’t mind seeing him in the cabinet, though. His experience would be a good asset for a newcomer like Perry or Cain.
While I find the debates entertaining, I normally support a candidate based on what they’ve done in office, and not on what they claim they will do in the future if elected. In the 2000 campaign, GWB talked a good conservative game, so I voted for him. After one term in office, it became clear he was no conservative, so I did not vote for him in 2004. Nor did I vote for McCain in 2008. And nor will I vote for RINOs like Romney, Gingrich, or Huntsman in 2012.
While, like Reagan, Perry may be a convert to the GOP, he does have a fairly solid conservative record as Lt. Gov./Gov. of Texas. And like Reagan, both the GOP establishment and democrat liberals despise him equally.
They seek to portray Gov. Perry as being a dim-witted, bible-clinging, hayseed. But here’s one indisputable fact to consider: How many supposedly “brilliant” Democrat presidents in the history of this country (Obama, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, Truman, FDR, etc.) were actually smart/mature/brave enough to fly a supersonic fighter jet at the age of 23 years old? The answer is none of them.
I’ll support Perry for now. The only other conservative candidate I would consider supporting is Bachmann. Forget the RINOs like Newt, Romney, or Huntsman.
You’d better take Truman off your list of “supposedly brilliant” Democratic candidates. Truman was another supposedly STUPID President whose performance was much better than expected. He was a farmer, never got past high school, ran a haberdashery business that went bankrupt, and was a machine politician.
From a conservative perspective, of course, there’s plenty to find fault with, but he was a much more capable president than JFK, Carter or Obama, despite their superior educations.
Big loser tonight. The mainstream media. And whatever Republican party dolts who agreed to a debate on an NBC affiliate. The moderators were a disgrace, trying to ‘balance’ a debate for lack of Democrats on stage.
where was mccotter ??? he’s polling just as high as some of these other candidates and that’s with ZERO coverage in the media. who has decided that he doesn’t count ?
“The country was served will in this debate.” I couldn’t decide if the country was served swill, or served well.
First, I would never again allow an openly hostile cog in the propaganda machine that is our mass media empire…to EVER be putatively “in charge” of a Republican debate.
The notion is so counter-intuitive to me to have people who are in the tank for the far left be the “moderators” of a non-far left debate. It is so silly and unnecessary. Why offer them credibility…while they are openly trying to sabotage you? It is rather insane, in fact.
Secondly, I am terrified. There is only ONE winner coming out of these debates. Everyone else MUST line up behind the top of the ticket…and likely Marco Rubio at the second name on the ticket.
Here is my fear There are people on that stage that I fear will not only NOT back Obama’s opponent…but who will actively work to split the vote as a third party candidate.
Ron Paul marches to his own drummer…and often to other voices that seem to be speaking to him in his head…in tongues.
Huntsman gives very little appearance of being a guy who will throw his full weight behind the Republican victor.
While Obama will not be seriously primaried…the leftists will want desperately to divide and conquer. Is there a Judas on that stage who will try to take down the independents? Are there self-serving interests up there that will sit on their hands and not bring their constituency to fully back the winner?
Treachery is around every corner.
Huntsman has NO chance to win a Republican primary. Does he get recognition on stage, lay low…and try to build a Tony Blair “third way” candidacy that rips the independents from the Republican victor…ensuring an Obama victory?
Does Ron Paul take his isolationist, sub rosa anti-Israel, hyper-libertarian, Pat Buchanan wing and make a dent in the Republican base…throwing caution to the wind for a Custer’s Last Stand for the war weary and overtaxed, overregulated?
Does Bachman turn her overdrive on the Tea Party and withhold support while the winning ticket goes “centrist” to woo the necessary independents in the general election?
Does Newt repeat his nutty professor off the reservation undermining…once he is not put on the ticket..trashing the ideas that aren’t his and throwing Paul Ryan, and everyone else under the bus, because he isn’t driving it?
Will the screams of “RINO!!!!!!!” follow Romney around, if he heads the ticket?
All this and more terrifies me as the radicalization of this land of ours continues each and every day. The union thugs have declared an open war on us, in the most vivid terms. The President said nothing, his press machine provided cover….and there is a chill wind in the air that a distinct lack of unity, even sabotage, could keep us on the current path of stealth radicalization.
“First, I would never again allow an openly hostile cog in the propaganda machine that is our mass media empire…to EVER be putatively “in charge” of a Republican debate.”
^^
when i saw the backdrop shrouded in msnbc and politico logos i was more than confused– bizarro world to say the least– i then quickly changed the channel to watch the rained out us open
35. Joe Stable has it exactly right. Romney or Perry will be president (most likely of the current crop, if it stays the way it is) but the makeup of Congress will decide how we handle this tremendous economic disaster about to engulf us.
The president will have more say in foreign affairs, but how much will we be able to afford foreign affairs?
30. cfbleachers, you are one of my favorite bloggers. Why don’t I see you at Wretchard’s Belmont Club much any more?
Don’t worry about Ron Paul going third party–he wouldn’t wreck his son Rand’s chances of running for prez some day. Nor Michele Bachmann, who need only run for Minnesota governor in a couple of years, win that, and be in position to run for president again, with a much stronger background.
Newt is angling for a cabinet position, and I hope he and Santorum and Cain are offered cabinet positions.
Huntsman might do a third-party run, though. Him I don’t trust. He came back (was brought back?) from China to be a spoiler for the Elephant crowd.
Sarah Palin–what of her? She’s the only person who could mount a serious third-party bull moose (femme-moose?) run. I don’t think she would, but if she gets in the race, it will mix it all up again. Ditto Chris Christie.
Look for Bam to try to ditch Bite-me for Hillary–but if the Obamanation’s poll numbers continue downward, she’d be a fool NOT to challenge him in the primaries, and a bigger fool to accept the Veep spot. He’d do an LBJ rather than fight it out. (Unless he and his people have the dirt on the Clintons, of course.)
PS I don’t know why Marco Rubio would want to be Veep–unless out of sheer patriotism he accepts it. Look at what happened to Palin. She’d have been better off had McCain picked Pawlenty. She’d definitely be in the top tier of candidates now. The same misery she has had would be Rubio’s fate, if the ‘Publies lose. If they win, well, unless the president makes a great use of Rubio, he’s in a kind of limbo.
An Préachán
I didn’t mind the “hostile” moderators. The MSM will continue to take it to the GOP and carry water for Obama. The candidates might as well get used to combining their repudiation of Obama’s uber-liberal policies with the articulation of their own positions. I was pleasantly surprised that most managed to do this quite well. To me, Romney was the clear winner here. Very articulate and utterly unflappable. Perry had some good moments, but if you are going strictly on presentation and content, he lacked Romney’s poise and grasp of the issues.
Perry made George W. Bush look articulate. I for one refuse to spend another 4-8 years cringing every time our president speaks.
I certainly don’t think we need to elect an egghead as president. But everyone else on that stage could speak better than Perry. And it wasn’t just that he was inarticulate. It was that you could see the light isn’t all that bright behind those squinty eyes.
For those of you who think he’s electable in the general, sorry. As a pale imitation of George W. Bush, it will be so easy for the Obama campaign (and their media water carriers) to equate him with Bush.
And he’s not even a real conservative. So he supports the death penalty. But he’s pro-immigration, like W. And that line, “I will never apologize for trying to save lives” (or something like that) just smacked of the worst aspects of “compassionate conservatism.” Reminded me of W’s line, “When people are hurting, government’s got to move.”
Mark my words, Perry will implode during one of these debates. Let’s just hope it’s before the general election campaign, while there’s still time to choose a replacement.
I’m a real conservative and I’m in favor of legal immigration. I am against illegal immigration and have concerns about Perry’s positions. He will probably offer vague promises then once elected maintain the status quo of allowing millions of illegal aliens to live in this country which is costing us hundreds of billions per year.
I was ready to be impressed by Perry but instead I found Romney to be the most presidential and electable. In temperament he was calm, gracious and commanding. Perry sounded like an idiot with his low Texas colloquialisms and sloganeering responses. He actually make GW Bush sound like Thomas Jefferson – quite a feat ..
Perry is “tea flavored” ?
Perry chaired Al Gore’s campaign in Texas!
He has also stated his opposition to any border fence. And people are saying he rented a huge mansion with taxpayer dollars…
I know the mainstream media is going to be digging for skeletons in his personal life, but perry needs to answer a lot of questions about his political skeletons before the tea party gets behind him.
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat, FDR and New Deal supporter, and president of a Union.
If we can forgive Reagan those, we can forgive Perry.
1. In 1988, Gore was very conservative, or at least he acted as such.
2. Perry does not oppose “any border fence”. He knows as I do that building a wall the entire length of the TX border is unfeasible, because the border in in the middle of the Rio Grande and its two reservoirs. But Perry says fencing in some areas is appropriate.
3. He is living in a rented mansion because the state-owned ante-bellum mansion provided all TX governors was torched by an arsonist. The DPS thinks the arsonist was most likely a Dem anarchist. Don’t blame Perry for the epidemic of arson attacks the Dems (most likely) perpetrated on GOP affiliated sites that year. Palin’s church and the GW Bush museum in Midland were also set on fire by arsonists.
How the candidates perform during the debates is irrelevant today in the US, the media filter is what matters. POTUS can get on stage say drill baby drill, castrate the EPA and cut corporate taxes to zero, his base will still vote for him. POTUS will not get reelected, most in the liberal media know this. The liberal media will inflate Romney and deflate Perry, they are choosing the lesser of two evils in their minds. When the smoke clears and votes are counted, our country’s future will be decided by how many conservatives are elected to congress.
What I saw was that Perry and Romney kept each other in check when either spouted “fact” without some context that tended to tarnish the ” facts”. Newt could be better. He gets in awesome zingers than goes dull like the guy in a pharma commercial rattling off the side effects. He also jumps around. Stay on point. The after debate analysis on MSNBC was a riot. They fell all over themselves trying to be the first one to find a good way to twist the debater words and to set up minor disagreements as major conflagrations. Chris Matthews flat out lied. Rachel Maddow could not contain her glee when they discovered the differences on SSc between Perry and Romney. Ed Schultz was actually the fairest. Sharp ton just wanted to invent a bumper sticker saying, ala Jess Jackson. Gene Robinson was pretty fair. All considering they are a rabid bunch of liberals who have to hide it on camera. It wasn’t easy for them.
Kinda like some–note, I said some, not all–the commenters here.
Why would any flavor of Republican – Tea Party patriot, conservative, Reagan Democrat or establishment moderate – give a damn about what Rachel Madcow, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, or Gene Robinson have to say about a Republican debate. Their only interest is in dragging Obama further to the left into the progressive twilight zone. The concept is laughable. The only left-wing loons missing from the “panel” were Michael Moore and Roseanne Barr.
Go to the MSNBC.com article on the debate and read the results of their reader poll: the candidate favored by MSNBC readers hands down to run against Obama is . . . . . . . . . . . .Ron Paul! Surprise, surprise!
Look at the candidates that were on the stage, plus a few that aren’t running (Sarah Palin, John Bolton, Rudy Guliani). Put together a President, Vice President and major Cabinet secretaries from that group. Now, compare it to the “Bar Scene From Star Wars” group that we currently have in office. Let’s work toward that goal for 2012, and let the cream rise to the top!
Perry’s ape-like demeanor actually lends some credence to the evolutionists ..
Oh please, can’t you do better than that? Bush looks like a chimp, now Perry looks like a chimp.
Grow up.
Bryan – I read that Gov. Perry was criticized for Texas’ poor educational standing. If you can get to the Governor, or one of his advisors, please relate to them that each ethnic group in Texas outperforms the corresponding ethnic group in Wisconsin (white, Hispanic, black) at each grade level. The reason that Texas does not rank that high overall is that Texas’ demographic mix of ethnic groups is more heavily weighted towards lower scoring Hispanics and blacks than in Wisconsin. BTW I think the same is true for the unemployment rate. When I applied Texas’ demographic mix of whites and black to national unemployment rates for whites and blacks, I got an unemployment rate of about 10%. So the Texas unemployment rate, which doesn’t look good compared to some other northern states, is skewed upwards because of Texas’ demographic mix.
I found Newt to be the most articulate and the most informed of the speakers. Considering that the greatest danger to United States is the harm we’ve done and continue to do to ourselves through our bloated bureaucracy and out-of-control Congressional spending sprees, there’s hardly a person more capable of navigating that snake pit and undoing the damage than a former Speaker, We’ll need someone with his knowledge in the administration even if not as president.
I support Newt for president, but I’d be satisfied to see him as an active VP or Chief of Staff.
My favorite Perry moment was calling BS either hopelessly ignorant or an abject liar.
I would like to see a Perry/Cain or Perry/Bachman ticket.
Newt takes no BS from the MSM.
Romney is, i fear, too much of a moderate.
Santorum is, like me, a Fourth Degree Knight. I would love to see him do well in the primaries.
I am not going to comment on the two ass hats, Paul or the Utah Govenor.
What is a 4th degree knight?
Google was my friend. Forget the question.
I delight in, cause I found exactly what I used to be taking a look for. You’ve ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye