Posted on 05/05/2011 7:51:34 PM PDT by Triton42
"So who won the debate? In a political debate, of course, there is no such thing as "winning the argument." Instead, candidates aim to achieve certain goals. In this case--even for Pawlenty--the goal was to attract media attention. The debates also present an opportunity for the candidates to prove their rhetorical ability. So who succeeded?
No candidate performed in an outstanding way. Two candidates, Santorum and Johnson, performed poorly. But Cain, Paul, and Pawlenty each achieved what they set out to do...."
(Excerpt) Read more at elephantwatcher.com ...
We've been "public serviced" by enough presidents. We need a business type at the helm for a while now.
“Santorum’s strong position on LIFE, FREEDOM and FAMILY....was key for me!”
Me too!
Ron Paul would shutdown every US Military Post and Base everywhere in the world and bring all of our Service Members back to the Unites States. He would subsequently separate out almost all Military personnel leaving us at the mercy of whatever foreign force or faction that filled the power vacuum.
Isolationism had a terrible outcome several times in our past and would only have worse consequences in today's Modern World.
Can't figure how Johnson thinks he has a shot at anything, save your money.
Yes we really do need another older and WISER candidate, that's for sure. Herman Cain fits that bill.
I hadn’t heard Ron Paul on marriage until tonight. I found his views interesting. He’d prefer government out of the marriage regulation business and leave it to churches and private contracts. He supported DOMA because of Federalism.
He may or may not be "gay" but he's certainly weird.
The gay Republican candidate is some guy named Fred Karger.
Rather than answer what Obama's flaws are he talked about his ability to defeat Democrat incumbents while ignoring the "elephant in the room" of an 18 point loss ending his U.S. Senate career.
My take away is he knows the talk, possibly cribbed the Declaration/Rights from God/family bits from Alan Keyes but Santorum camp off as a jerk politician who doesn't like to be challenged.
He fumbled all over himself trying to explain the misogynist-sounding passage from a book he wrote, a passage that helped end his senate career. He should've been ready for it. He'll be hammered by it endlessly to drive off women voters.
I don't know what makes him think he could or should be president.
That's a bit unfair. You said he's a former member of the Federal Reserve Board. That's real experience. He's been a successful businessman of a national company. That's also real experience. Truthfully, he has real world experience germane to our large economic problems: monetary policy, job creation and business expansion.
I'm not saying Cain's going to win or even should win but his experience is more applicable to our domestic problems than anything Obama had.
Take your racist broad-brush elsewhere.
You obviously missed a question. Santorum was asked about Medicare Part D because he had voted for it and later said he regretted that vote. In his answer, Santorum responded that he wanted to replicate the Medicare Part D experience. How is that not a flip-flop? You vote for it, you denounce the vote, you say, "I was right all along, let's do more!"
Estimating from the live thread, it was asked around 30 minutes into the debate.
South Carolina has a bad habit of voting for candidates who can claim that “it’s my turn” to be the nominee. By supporting the “my turn” candidate every four years, South Carolina ensures that their primary will be hotly contested and produce boring results. None of the candidates who could make a “my turn” claim were here. Time will tell whether South Carolina will reward one of the others or whether the state will continue to make predictable choices.
Tim Pawlenty came into this debate as something of a “favorite” and maybe having the only “my turn” claim in the group. He has the best credentials of this group, and he was almost chosen to be John McCain’s running mate. Unfortunately, he started the night speaking as a candidate who might have the frontrunner status. He had the first question and spent a third of his time thanking everyone for being there. Overall, he gave good answers, but he didn’t always sound strong. Sometimes, he sounded more like a politician trying to hold the frontrunner position than like someone at a few percent in the polls trying to rise.
Throughout the debate, he made points that I’ve heard him make in the past, but with new people watching, making those points again is good. He generally came across as a strong candidate and good conservative. He was right to criticize Obama for being against all of the actions and policies that led to our catching Osama bin Laden. He was right to point out that Obama dithered in his response to the Libya situation. He answered the liberal talking point that he will leave Minnesota in debt by pointing out that Minnesota will only be in debt if they go back to profligate spending. He answered his previous support for cap-and-trade by admitting very openly that he made a mistake. That kind of honesty should get respect from people who want a new kind of politician.
I like Tim Pawlenty, and I’d like to see him do well in the primaries. If he develops a following throughout the country but doesn’t win the nomination, he could be a very strong VP choice. He would also be in a good position to run in 2016. Many people seem to dismiss him because he doesn’t seem tough enough to confront liberals when necessary. Sometimes the best or even only approach to a liberal is to administer a hard smack down. However, anyone who wants to be effective cannot always be in that mode. Tim Pawlenty can be effective in office because he’s not breathing fire in every public appearance.
Rick Santorum helped himself more in this debate than any of the other candidates. He gave strong answers on both foreign and domestic issue questions. His distinction between tactical and strategic decisions was excellent. He did a good job of making a distinction between affirming women who stay at home and not condemning women who work. He did a good job of explaining how the Medicare drug benefit was supposed to fit into an overall reform of Medicare. He did a good job of explaining that Islam needs a “Reformation” movement. He reminded people that he was a big part of the original welfare reform back in the 90’s. His biggest weakness may be that he appeared to be scowling through much of the debate. While a sour expression doesn’t make anyone a bad executive or bad president, inability to appear friendly will hurt him on the campaign trail.
I have mixed feelings about Rick Santorum. I’ve always seen him as an intelligent man who generally stood for the right policies. I still believe that he would have been the best choice for John McCain’s running mate in 2008. His problem is that he comes across as too much of a religious authoritarian. Many of us would love to see our country’s Christian heritage defended. We’re not interested in the government funding indecent “art” exhibits. We’re not interested in tearing down displays of the Ten Commandments. On the other hand, we think freedom means more than just picking which church we’ll attend on Sunday morning. Rick Santorum sometimes doesn’t seem to appreciate that not everyone wants to live a life of strict religious observation.
People are saying that Herman Cain won the debate, but I don’t see how they come to that conclusion. He wins the one-liner competition for the night by asking “how’s that working out for you” about electing presidents who have held elective office. Of course, the counter is that in 2008 we elected the guy who had the least experience of any candidate in 50 or maybe 100 years. He’s not working out for us, so we should be rightly suspicious of another “fresh face.” When asked about Afghanistan, Mr. Cain pleaded that he didn’t know enough to make a decision. The point of the question is not that he’s going to set national policy during a one-minute answer in a debate. We’d like to see what he’s learned as a private citizen and how he’s processed that information. People talk about what a great speaker he is, but he was often twiddling his thumbs on the podium. A nervous mannerism doesn’t negate the substance of his beliefs and qualifications, but I didn’t see him as a great speaker. Otherwise, his answers were fairly standard conservative answers.
I like Herman Cain, but he’s not a strong candidate for president. Being a CEO is similar to being president. Both are executive positions, but they aren’t the same. His having been a CEO means that he understands business, but he will have to learn about the powers and limitations that an executive in government faces. I’m not impressed with his speaking ability. I’d be proud to support him against Obama, but he’s not our best choice.
Gary Johnson complained that the panelists weren’t asking him questions, and he spent the night being the guy who didn’t seem to belong. When they asked each candidate to talk about a candidate who didn’t attend, they stuck him with a question about Donald Trump and what a reality TV show about him would show. Some of his answers showed why he didn’t seem to belong. He opposed the war in Iraq and would withdraw troops from Afghanistan immediately. He wants to legalize drugs. He would allow much more immigration. He would allow abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb but would end all late-term abortions. His stand as a free trader isn’t out of line with Republican orthodoxy, but he never answered how he would deal with China’s currency manipulation. His positions on the issues aren’t completely crazy. As he explains his positions, he shows some good thought processes. He didn’t get much chance to talk about his business background, but he’s the one candidate who started from nothing and built a business.
Of all of the candidates, Gary Johnson is probably the one whom I would enjoy most as a friend. He’s summited the highest points on four of the seven continents including Mount Everest. He spoke about doing things outdoors when he talked about a reality show. He doesn’t have a tough guy image, but there’s no other politician who could stay with him in most athletic pursuits. He doesn’t have a businessman image, but no one else in the race has gone as far after starting with nothing. He’s realistic, honest, and respectful about his stand on abortion even though he knows that stand will be unpopular. The people who share his positions politically within the GOP are already committed to Ron Paul, and he wouldn’t win the nomination even without Ron Paul in the race. I hope he’s not planning a Libertarian Party run. Maybe he’ll run for senator in New Mexico someday, but the debate organizers will probably try to make excuses to exclude him as soon as possible.
Ron Paul was Ron Paul. Bret Baier asked the audience not to interrupt with applause because doing so took time from the candidates. His supporters interrupted with applause for him. Ron Paul continued his foolish assertions that we shouldn’t be involved anywhere else in the world. He makes the proper distinction between state and federal issues, but that distinction is often lost.
In many ways, I still like Ron Paul. I would like to see the scope and cost of the federal government reduced. I would like a greater return to strict Constitutional principles. At the same time, I recognize that the Constitution didn’t quite cover everything as specifically as the libertarians would like. For instance, the Constitution didn’t specifically say that the federal government could buy land from other countries. Strict libertarians would say that without specific permission, the government shouldn’t buy land. However, Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, and history has vindicated that action. At some level, Ron Paul has to know that he’ll never be president. Why does he keep running? I like him enough not to believe that he’s running just to raise money from donors. I guess he keeps some young people involved in the Republican Party, but many of them are not supporting candidates who can actually win. I don’t understand why he’s still there.
The Republican Party will need to find balance in 2012. The rise of the Tea Party movement since 2009 has brought tremendous energy to the party, but many Tea Party folks are looking for candidates who are more than just the usual politicians. In some cases, they rightly desire a candidate who will make tough decisions and take tough stands. At other times, they seem more intent on finding candidates who have a combative style than on candidates who can substantively advance their stated goals.
I keep thinking about the Delaware senate race in 2010. I’m not sorry that Mike Castle wasn’t nominated and elected to the Senate. If he’d won, he’d have spent the next eighteen years sitting in the Senate selling out Republicans as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe do. We don’t need his kind. On the other hand, I don’t trust Christine O’Donnell. She seemed to be an “empty suit” media creation trying to parody conservatism. Even if she really believes what she claimed, she was a candidate who could never win moderate and independent voters. Liberal Republicans will point fingers at the Tea Party movement for nominating her and say that they cost Republicans a senate seat. Conservatives see no point in having a senate seat occupied by a male Susan Collins.
Imagine Delaware Republicans nominating someone who had struck a balance. Imagine nominating a candidate who had some real accomplishments in life. Imagine nominating someone who wouldn’t stab Republicans in the back on many of the most important votes but wasn’t so combative that only red-meat, foaming-mouth conservatives would support him or her. If Delaware had found and nominated that candidate, the US Senate would be one seat closer to Republican control and would have made that step without giving up a vote on many big issues.
The challenge in 2012 will be to find a candidate who strikes that balance. This debate needs to be considered in light of finding that candidate. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson’s positions on a few issues are too far outside mainstream GOP positions for either to represent the party. Unlike a Christine O’Donnell type, Herman Cain has tremendous accomplishments in life. He’s not an empty suit in any way, but a complete newcomer to political office doesn’t strike the balance. Rick Santorum reminded us that he’s a serious, intelligent man who understands issues. He showed himself more balanced than I expected, but he isn’t going to get that many independent and moderate swing votes. Because I like Tim Pawlenty, I have a hard time finding much fault with his performance, but he was probably too far on the politician side of the scale to draw much support tonight.
You’re to right about Cain. He’s a fine man would should have started as a congressman, a senator, or with a statewide office. He is also older than Mitt Romney and would be in his 70’s in his first term in office.
It’s unfortunate how many Freepers get the “see, they’d know we aren’t racist now” thrill about him as a candidate without reflecting on how much just that sentiment on the other side had to do with Obama’s victory.
But I thought participants in this debate were supposed to be showing up with at least 1% support in national polls. Do Johnson and Santorum have that?
Seems to me there was another Republican who was a “great communicator”. Can’t remember his name, though. Bush? Dole? Gingrich? Romney? Darn, it’s on the tip of my tongue.
I missed the debate last night (teething infant and I had a migraine—unpleasant combo), and I appreciate such an in-depth overview.
And, according to what he says, he has learned from this. I believe him and I like him very much. His pro-Life base is essential and strong.
He also has the background experience and has good positions on the issues.
I don't need the experience of a Governor Jimmy Carter or Governor Bill Clinton to be my next President.
I am fed up with “having” to elect someone with “political” experience.
As Herman Cain put it - Look at the mess we have in Washington today because of people in charge with “political” experience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.