drinkTHEkoolaid Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Did anyone see the Iowa Republican debate last night? I missed it just curious what the cliff notes were from those who saw it. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I didn't watch any of it. But according to this map among those who did, Ron Paul was the clear winner... http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I didn't watch any of it. But according to this map among those who did, Ron Paul was the clear winner... http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Did anyone see the Iowa Republican debate last night? I missed it just curious what the cliff notes were from those who saw it. thanks I have this goofy thing about watching all the debates closely. I score the candidates on each question on 1. did they evade or actually answer the question 2. did they come off as presidential 3. did I personally like the answer. I find doing it that way quite interesting. Anyway, to your question of impressions. I thought Romney did fine. He was uncomfortable and rushed at the beginning, but settled down into his reassuring adult persona. A competant defensive night. Bachman held her own, but lacked the spark of her NH debate. She engaged heavily with Pawlenty and Santorum on her congressional achievements, and I think the back-and-forth slowly diminished her. She solidified her appeal as a fighter, but thats about it. Not much offered in the way of ideas. Pawlenty was more agressive and perhaps a bit better than in the past, but I think came off as too much of a politician with the deadly tint of desperation. Huntsman was better than I expected, but left no lasting impression. Santorum came off rather well, but grew to seem whiney about not getting time. He had some fireworks with Paul over Iran. I think Paul came off badly again, speaking a mile a minute and always ending his answers in a rant. On content, I don't see how anybody can support his foreign policy views (though clearly many do). Cain was ok, but a non-entity. He had little time, and lacked the magic of the SC debate. I was most impressed with Gingrich. Almost without exception, he hit every question out of the ball park with an interesting and seeming genuine and uncalculated answer. If he had any media love at all, he would be a very formidible contender. The debate itself was heavily skewed towards the economy, suprising on the eve of the Iowa straw poll. Social issues accounted for only 10% of the questions, and of those half were merely gotcha questions (such as asking Gingrich if he really thought muslims were commies). There were really only about 5 legit social questions, revolving on whether marriage was properly a federal or state issue. Highlights of the night were Cain saying (in response to his adding alligators to Obamas claim that the repubs wanted a moat on the border) that this country really need to learn to take a joke, Gingrich going after the media on gotcha questions, and Gingrich blasting the idea of super comittees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I have this goofy thing about watching all the debates closely. I score the candidates on each question on 1. did they evade or actually answer the question 2. did they come off as presidential 3. did I personally like the answer. I find doing it that way quite interesting. Anyway, to your question of impressions. I thought Romney did fine. He was uncomfortable and rushed at the beginning, but settled down into his reassuring adult persona. A competant defensive night. Bachman held her own, but lacked the spark of her NH debate. She engaged heavily with Pawlenty and Santorum on her congressional achievements, and I think the back-and-forth slowly diminished her. She solidified her appeal as a fighter, but thats about it. Not much offered in the way of ideas. Pawlenty was more agressive and perhaps a bit better than in the past, but I think came off as too much of a politician with the deadly tint of desperation. Huntsman was better than I expected, but left no lasting impression. Santorum came off rather well, but grew to seem whiney about not getting time. He had some fireworks with Paul over Iran. I think Paul came off badly again, speaking a mile a minute and always ending his answers in a rant. On content, I don't see how anybody can support his foreign policy views (though clearly many do). Cain was ok, but a non-entity. He had little time, and lacked the magic of the SC debate. I was most impressed with Gingrich. Almost without exception, he hit every question out of the ball park with an interesting and seeming genuine and uncalculated answer. If he had any media love at all, he would be a very formidible contender. The debate itself was heavily skewed towards the economy, suprising on the eve of the Iowa straw poll. Social issues accounted for only 10% of the questions, and of those half were merely gotcha questions (such as asking Gingrich if he really thought muslims were commies). There were really only about 5 legit social questions, revolving on whether marriage was properly a federal or state issue. Highlights of the night were Cain saying (in response to his adding alligators to Obamas claim that the repubs wanted a moat on the border) that this country really need to learn to take a joke, Gingrich going after the media on gotcha questions, and Gingrich blasting the idea of super comittees. Bachman always holds her own, because she just says the same crap over and over, whether it is relevant to the discussion or not, and refuses to answer any question she doesn't want to answer...it is her strength (staying on message) and her weakness...wise of them to stay away from social issues...that is one rag-tag group of candidates...and bat **** Perry isn't even in the race...yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) I watched about 5 minutes of it. Boring schit. I'll watch more closely when the field gets wittled down some. Edited August 12, 2011 by erynthered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Bachman and Pawlenty spent the whole time bitching at each other. They should just get a room. I thought Bachman looked bad. All she could say to defend herself about not having a record of accomplishment was say that she was a fighter. Santorum made a good point about her only having showmanship not leadership. Her declaring that any debt extention was wrong and that the downgrade proves that she was right is just idiotic. Ron Paul didn't win. He can make some decent points but he comes across as crazy and can't speak clearly. He doesn't have any type of presidential appearance about him. Cain may know business but his lack of political and foreign relations knowledge hurts. Pawlenty is just a big whiner and mud slinger. Santorum was a little whiney himself. Otherwise he'll turn off too many independants to do anything. He was pretty forgettable which may be partly due to his lack of time. Huntsman may be a darkhorse. Gingrich made some good points, but brought up ol' Ronnie too many times. Romney was Romney. He probably won because he didn't whine, didn't mud sling, and didn't appear crazy. And he probably looks the most presidential. Unfortunately he didn't win because of anything he did or said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Huntsman may be a darkhorse. Probably the most qualified candidate who nobody has heard of ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Bachman always holds her own, because she just says the same crap over and over, whether it is relevant to the discussion or not, and refuses to answer any question she doesn't want to answer Sounds like Obama and just about every other politician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Awesome!!! http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/rick-perrys-unanswered-prayers/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Probably the most qualified candidate who nobody has heard of ... He gave some good answers. Sounded intelligent. Didn't back down from criticisms. Looked good appearance-wise. I wish Bachman and Pawlenty would have shut up long enough to let guys like him talk a bit more so I could get a better read on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 He gave some good answers. Sounded intelligent. Didn't back down from criticisms. Looked good appearance-wise. I wish Bachman and Pawlenty would have shut up long enough to let guys like him talk a bit more so I could get a better read on him. Yeah, like the political press is going to focus on a guy with real substance over a cage fighting match between a shiny object and a guy resentful of that glow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Yeah, like the political press is going to focus on a guy with real substance over a cage fighting match between a shiny object and a guy resentful of that glow. None of them looked at all Presidential. Obama has a big lead on them in appearence. Pawlenty, Huntsman and Romney look so wimpy. Do we really want sissies like that running the country? Bachmann could probably beat them up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Yeah, like the political press is going to focus on a guy with real substance over a cage fighting match between a shiny object and a guy resentful of that glow. Yeah, I know. Fox should really be ashamed of how they ran that debate. They aren't, but they should be. It was very MTV-ish. Tons of misquotes/out of context quotes, gotcha questions, and then the focus on the cat-fight. The only thing it was missing was a Snookie sighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 None of them looked at all Presidential. Obama has a big lead on them in appearence. Pawlenty, Huntsman and Romney look so wimpy. Do we really want sissies like that running the country? Bachmann could probably beat them up This proves that you're posting for comic relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 This proves that you're posting for comic relief. He's a partisan puppet don't mind him. I agree that Huntsman most likely would make a good president, but no way no how he wins in this sort of right wing environment. Bachman lacks substance. Paul is a nut, but at least he sticks with his convictions. Huntsman had some good replies, even though he did look a bit nervous. Cain has personality, but that's about it. Gingrich had a good night, but he did seem to want to pick a fight with the moderators. Santorum had passion, but he's way too far behind. Pawlenty looks as if he is now entering into desperation mode. Romney didn't get bashed and didnt get in trouble. So for him that's a win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Yeah, I know. Fox should really be ashamed of how they ran that debate. They aren't, but they should be. It was very MTV-ish. Tons of misquotes/out of context quotes, gotcha questions, and then the focus on the cat-fight. The only thing it was missing was a Snookie sighting. Your take was was almost identical to mine, though I'm perhaps more charitable to Santorum. Whiney, yes. But I was impressed with his taking on the unpopular topics of compromise and the neccessity of raising the debt ceiling. I was prejudiced against him when this all started, and he has risen a bit in my estimation. I don't think he has a chance, but there is a little more depth to him than I had been led to believe. I too was astonished at the level of gotcha's and instigation by the moderators. They were generally more focused on challenging the records (not neccessarily a bad thing in itself) than encouraging a debate about ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 This proves that you're posting for comic relief. No, seriously, unlike Obama, these guys are sissies and wimps. I cannot see any of those fems standing up to BP like our President did. He's a partisan puppet don't mind him. I agree that Huntsman most likely would make a good president, but no way no how he wins in this sort of right wing At least I admit it, your fake independence is pathetic and only makes you look stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 No, seriously, unlike Obama, these guys are sissies and wimps. I cannot see any of those fems standing up to BP like our President did. A president shaking down a private company outside proper legal channels is your standard of conducting effective foreign policy? How's this for a Q - what would Obama's backbone look like if he didn't have Hillary's legs to lean on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 At least I admit it, your fake independence is pathetic and only makes you look stupid. Says the partisan puppet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts