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 ...
I didn’t see the debate, but on the whole, it’s doubtful anyone in that room will win the GOP nomination. This was a group of second- and third-tier candidates jockeying for the “dark horse” position and maybe the lead in the VP sweepstakes.
I hope you don’t have to have chemotherapy.
“;^o
I’m glad you enjoyed my comments. Thanks for the kind words.
An example to your point of full implementation, if drugs are legalized but the socialized medicine is not revoked, imagine the impact to the cost of the socialized medicine.
So far all of them on the stage are the best. I guess the so called top tier are unable to make up their mind if they want to be President. They can’t decide if their career on TV shows is more important.
Are they worried we will get sick of them? They need not worry, I already am sick of them. Some of them need to step up and start leading by putting some pressure on that fool Boehner. Right now, he is the face of the GOP and it is not a good face.
Obozo will win by default.
Paul is 100% wrong on marriage. The bumper sticker “Govt out of marriage” is absolute utter nonsense. It is simply another way (worse than gay marriage) to destroy marriage.
Reality check: What happens to the kids when you divorce? You go to family court. That’s Government!
Libertarians make a lot of sense on economics but completely fumble marriage. Pretending adults can somehow fend for themselves is one thing, but they forget the kids. There is no way to get Govt out of marriage without destroying it as an institution to protect kids as issue of adult relationships.
How well do kids do when their parents have no Govt ‘marriage’ license? Oh, thats right, its called shacking up, and kids are victims of abuse and neglect far more in those cases.
No Govt-endorsed/defined marriage? Another chink of civilization goes kaput.
I would say rather that the so called top tier are smart enough to realize that they don't need to jump at the MSM bait this early and start campaigning before they have to.
I didn’t see the whole debate. I missed that part, but that has been Santorum’s problem since he left office. He seems angry that voters took offence when he put allegience to the party and Bush ahead of his true beliefs.
I was hoping that Santorum had gotten over it because he has a lot to offer. He’s been right on all the issues. I don’t know what the passage in the book said, but I believe Santorum does think that the women’s movement has damaged the family by making women feel unfulfilled if they stay home and raise a family. In reality all that goes unfulfilled is their bank account.
Besides the economy, our schools are the biggest problem in this country and I believe that it is going to take someone like Santorum or maybe Chris Christie to take back the school system and put a lid on the destruction that is be wreaked on the country by the unions. We need a true believer who isn’t afraid to express his opinions because of political correctness.
That argument no longer washes.
Look what is happening. This isn’t about a person, this is about the country.
Already the chance for any GOP candidate is declining. Why? Because the Repubs were given a big victory in 2010 to do something about it. They are already making deals and kicking the can down the road. They say “just wait until after 2012”.
I am sure every dem that runs against any of them will start very soon sounding far more conservative than Boehners F-troops who are already caving like little girls.
The GOP in the Senate is a lost cause.
At this rate, it won’t matter who the nominee is because the GOP will have lost the House and the Senate.
Truth is, if the other so-called GOP prospectives aren’t prepared to deal with the media by now, then they best not bother to run. They will get crushed.
Summer is upon us. People need to get to know the candidates and their stances. People don’t sit in the house and watch TV as much, so time doesn’t linger.
As Grandma said “shit, or get off the pot”.
Sometimes people are too smart by half.
Nonsense. Every single “top tier” candidate out there already has plenty of name recognition and the ability to (if not already under with) raise money. They don’t need to jump to someone else’s whistle so soon — especially not with so many wanna-be candidates out there right now (who need the early spotlight if they’re going to do anything to drive the debate at all). But not participating in this dog-and-pony show doesn’t mean they aren’t doing anything to get ready to run; on the contrary, staying out of this debate is more reason to speculate that they’re working on other things to get elected instead of lowering themselves to their potential competitors’ level.
Daniels is finishing up a legislative term in Indiana with some pretty good accomplishments. He’s not my favorite for several reasons, but there’s no denying he’s out thee building a strong resume.
Palin continues to challenge the Administration directly, laying out an alternate vision of how the government should/could act (or not act) in her speeches, articles, TV appearances, and Facebook/Twitter notes. Gingrich is doing the same, albeit to a lesser extent and only through the traditional channels.
Romney is... well, now, that’s a good question actually. But it mirrors his 2008 strategy of working behind the scenes to build networks and fundraising support rather than appealing directly to voters at this stage. Not sure why he thinks it will work any better for him than last time, though. There’s an outside chance he’s not running but using his “backroom” ability to build support for a Huntsman campaign.
Huckabee, in my opinion, is not running. If he does, it is likely to play spoiler on someone else’s behalf, possibly in exchange for VP or a nice cabinet position.
Trump doesn’t warrant discussion as a serious candidate. He’s not ready to debate anyone, and I’m not sure he’s serious about running. If he is running, it will be all about his brashness and the amount of cash he can dump into his own bid, because he doesn’t stack up well against pretty much anybody in the GOP field when it comes to policy.
The wild card in all of this is if one of these front runners doesn’t run, but instead lends their support directly and openly to a second- or third-tier candidate. I don’t think it’s likely, but it is possible,
I don't think he would be able to. For example, 0bama was not able to shut down Gitmo, as much as he wanted to.
But you are right, he would certainly want to shut down all the bases on foreign soil.. not a good thing.
This(below the line)is from the other thread. Some folks agree with me. They are sitting on the sidelines and nobody will look at them in any serious way unless they enter the race.
411 posted on Friday, May 06, 2011 1:04:29 AM by tsowellfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
____________________________________________________________
I can’t blame any of them if they don’t want the race or the job. The race will be very nasty and the job will be a monumental task.
At this point in time the top tier would have to rise to the occasion. Not a one of them is anything to write home about.
We’re not saying very dissimilar things. Anyone truly sitting on the sidelines at this point isn’t going to be a major factor. We just disagree on what “sitting on the sidelines” entails — I simply maintain that announcing this early and participating in last night’s debate is not the only way to be off the sidelines.
If you haven’t made your mind up you are going to run, you are sitting on the sidelines.
Sideline opinions don’t mean much unless you are a candidate.
Name recognition doesn’t mean much if half of the association with your name isn’t positive. So, you have to go out and change that opinion.
Everyone knows who Ron Paul is, but he couldn’t win.
We all know who Romney is, but I doubt he could win.
Huck, maybe, but he seems to be happy being TV guy.
Sarah, she has a lot of work to do. When 58% say they wouldn’t vote for you, you have to change minds.
Daniels, he could probably please Indies, some of the GOP, but he has almost no name recognition. He isn’t attractive.
If a charismatic conservative like Allen West jumped in he could probably rise fast. Not to mention both he and Cain would ruin the race issue for the dems.
Pawlenty? Seems like a nice guy...but his earlier support of Cap and Trade didn’t go over well last night. He is a little milquetoast.
I don’t judge a book by its cover. I judge it by its content. Paul’s demeanor was definitely more dynamic than the others last night. I am not a Paul fan, but I calls ‘em the way I sees em. Incidentally, I am very much a woman, in every sense of the word.
Not releasing a decision publicly does not mean that a decision hasn't been made. I doubt any of the "potential" candidates is not at least 99.9% certain what he or she is going to do.
Okay, thats how you see it. I see him as effeminate in his mannerisms.
And for most, Ron Paul’s demeanor comes across as clownish and certainly not dynamic in the sense one looks for in a presidential candidate.
He claimed to be pro life but only supported pro abortion senatorial candidates. He never supported one pro life candidate.
He claimed to be for secure borders but it took him 3 years to introduce legislation (which his buddy Specter) bottled up in committee. He can claim that he offered a bill, but in reality, he also voted against 2 other bills.
He loved to use the Tax Code to control behavior and he supported increasing funding to Africa and other nations.
In his own words, he is a big government conservative. That is an animal that only exists in the DC Zoo known as Congress. It doesn't exist in a free country.
You can have him. Us here in PA have had it with him. He is nothing but a big party boy.
The refuge of liberalism. How sad.
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.