Skip to comments.Vanity: Republican Tea Party Debate Impressions
Posted on 09/13/2011 9:51:44 AM PDT by JDW11235
Hi Freepers, having watched last nights debate, I have come away with a little bit more information on each of the candidates, and I was wondering if anyone would be willing to share their thoughts and impressions about how each of the candidates did. I will be looking through the live thread further (there are thousands of comments), but mostly I am looking for a few specific things, if anyone would be willing to oblige:
1) Were there any "Deal Breakers" or any positions which were taken that would keep you from endorsing a candidate at this stage in the game?
2) Was there anyone whose performance stood out as more professional/presidential than the others?
3) Where do you see the political field going from here?
Not physically ready for the campaign trail....Back issues?
Either way....he was like the dolphins defense last night....whithered under the no huddle offense of the Patriots!.....lol
Paul was a deal breaker when he blamed the U.S. for 9/11. But he did make good points about personal responsibility and Austrian Economics.
Santorum was solid, but not smooth. Other than his attacks on Perry regard HPV, he wasn’t memorable.
Cain was his usual, jovial self. He needs to explain the 9-9-9 plan. A crowd favorite, but not polished enough to take on Obama.
Huntsman was a jerk, and much of what he said made little sense.
Bachmann was very passionate and relentless about the HPV vaccine and Obamacare. I thought she had a good night, but others have said she was an insufferable nag.
Romney was good when he was relentlessly attacking Obama and the economy, but he has become a defender of social security, and he still refuses to disavow Romneycare.
Perry had a rough night. He was attacked from all sides regarding the border and the HPV vaccine, and his answers were not articulate. He seemed slow witted. His body language was poor at times, but he does manage to stay cool.
I came away thinking that Newt had the best night. His points were right on the money, particularly with regards to GE and Jeff Immelt being Obama’s guest of honor at the joint session speech last week.
When Perry joined that first debate, I thought he did pretty well. While I won’t say he did awful last night, he was hammered by some of the other candidates (Including Bachmann on the vaccine issue), and it seemed he was almost left stammering. I realize that politics is a brutal sport, but I thought he could have done better in that regard.
1) Any position taken merely for political expediency is a deal breaker for me. A position should be born from principle. The republican field at this point is devoid of principle... and that is rather regrettable.
2) “Was there anyone whose performance stood out as more professional/presidential than the others?”
Would this have been a criterion in the days before television? Do you think the country was better off in the decades and centuries before televised debates? Could it be possible that this criterion could actually cause people to support a given candidate for the wrong reasons?
He did. YOU need to try listening to him. That statement by you indicates you are NOT listening to him.
Newt: The man is bright and knows whats going on. Yes he has baggage but its hard to beat experience.
I was always under the impression that primary debates were to always be used as preseason training....Hopefully Perry takes away from last night a few things.
Mentally you could see him dwelling on the shots he was taking rather than flowing with the debate.
Physically, like I said perhaps it was his back issues but he was beat and he opened up to some rather odd facial expressions and smirks....just plain tired it seemed. Not good this early in the game.
Huntman and Paul out. Would vote for any of the rest. Bachman got her point across. Enuf said on that one. Loved cain newt and santorum the most.
And you obviously haven't bothered to a single thing the candidates are saying and are merely repeating somebodies press release.
Your statement above is completely divorced from reality
I thought that aside from the couple times he was jabbed, he did better than last time.
Ah I see. So which Left wing clown posse is paying you to "infiltrate conservative websites and spread disinformation about the GOP candidates?" We see your sort every election cycle. Sorry infliTraitor, your tactics will not work here.
I watched most of it...but missed the last half hour or so.
Perry - Perry was the one that everyone drew their guns on (naturally as he’s now the “frontrunner”). Most of his responses were good, better than the last debate, except 2 - the Gardasil one (a hard one to work around and something I have mixed feelings about) and the Texas “Dream Act” one, (also mixed feelings) which got a few boos and he actually could have answered it a lot better. My understanding is that its basically a state decision that says “if you’ve lived here, you qualify” and doesn’t look into legal status. I’m not 100% behind it, but in the bigger picture I won’t let it influence my decision too much. Other than that I thought he did well.
Romney - Romney debates well most of the time, although I’m not a Mitt supporter. This time, however, he seemed a bit “off” from the last couple debates, not quite as sharp as usual. He was on the defensive trying to explain that somehow his statements in his own book that SS was a criminal enterprise was not the same as Perry’s statement that it’s a Ponzi scheme. The two of them (and Bachmann a little) spent a lot of time arguing semantics but all actually agree SS is broken. This is, IMHO, not really helping the conservative cause to argue that someone’s words are too harsh rather than argue the actual facts...but that’s basically what it boiled down to, even though they didn’t say it that way. He also kept trying to say that Perry was dealt a hand of aces as governor of Texas between the zero income tax, oil, GOP legislature, etc...(partially true, yeah, but it also made him sound like he was blaming his own lack of greater success as governor on others in the MA government...also probably somewhat true, but doesn’t come across well).
Bachmann - Bachmann did better than last time, but not as well as she did in the first debate (Pre-Perry). Looked better than last time (her hair was done better), which does matter (whether it should or not is a different story). Again, she ran off the stage at the breaks before they even cut the cameras...not sure what that’s about. Maybe she has a weak bladder or something. She sounded pretty strong on some of the economic and fiscal questions.
Wrong Paul - I missed the end of the debate where they covered foreign policy, but Paul managed to sound slightly less like a crazy uncle in the first half of the debate. However, he was still Ron Paul. He made some stupid remark that he shouldn’t say anything bad about Perry because he’d have his taxes raised.
Herman Cain, The Hermanator! Was strong, funny, and RIGHT as always...wish he could catch fire. As it stands maybe the eventual nominee will find a place for him in their administration or as head of the Fed...he had some great responses that showed he wasn’t going to get wrapped up in the drama between the candidates. When asked about Social Security, and whether it was a Ponzi Scheme...he just said “whatever it is, it’s BROKE!”
Jon Huntsman - Huntsman actually made some sense, but still comes across as an insufferable douchebag, I can’t really grasp why. He spent a lot of time pointing out that Utah was #1 for job growth and not Texas...but if you close your eyes, he sounds just like Romney, it’s weird. Same voice type, same inflections...
Newt Gingrich - Newt is not someone I plan to vote for in the primary, because he’s just too much of an ass to win a general election, but he is definitely entertaining in a debate, and shows BALLS. He was the entertainment of the night, and was generally right on. In this and the last debate, he turned the focus off one another and back to Obama, which I think is important to do politically speaking. When Mitt, Perry, and Bachmann (I think she was involved) were sparring about Perry “scaring” seniors...Newt piped in and said that Obama is scaring us every day.
Santorum - someone lit a fire under ol’ Rick’s rear end last night...for a moment I wanted to support the guy! He sounded like the Santorum who was part of the new class of ‘94 during the Contract with America era. However, I don’t think he is all that distinguishable against Obama in the general election, I don’t mean ideologically, but he’s not the kind of guy with charisma that can win over a lot of swing voters. Plus, it’s hard to get excited about a guy who lost his last Senate election by 19 pts. He did a good job though.
If I had to venture a “winner” - it depends on your definition of winner. If you mean who helped their chances the most, probably Santorum. Perry and Bachmann did well enough to hold their own and clear up some questions (and possibly left a couple unanswered), Romney may have slipped a bit, and Newt was just entertaining. The rest were non-factors and probably neither helped nor hurt themselves.
If “winner” means simply making the most points in an articulate fashion, then it was a tie between Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.
In my opinion, these debates rarely matter in the end, aside from the occasional outstanding performances (like Reagan vs. Mondale and a few others), but few candidates ever do that well, or that poorly, that it changes their fortunes all that much over the long run.
Perry is really the only one in the bunch with ironclad credentials.
Woe, I agree with you on virtually everything you said (hey, maybe it is everything). I was thoroughly put off by Ron Paul. I am left wishing (for his sake), that he doesn’t really believe those things, and it just pandering to his base. It’s hard to believe anyone can be that deluded.
I have not cared for Santorum, and he is the pinacle of slippery politician to me. I found it odd how he touted states rights in this debate, when he trampled them the the 1st debate several weeks back.
I like Cain a lot, however, I’m not for his 9-9-9 plan. (I’ve looked it up). He said (in the previous debate), that he wants to unite the flat taxers and the Fair taxers. It won’t happen with that nonsense. He’s stated that “10% is good enough for God,” yet his plan calls far a greater than 10% tax, because it taxes income AND purchases, so essentially an 18% tax (9% on everything, and an additional 9% on consumption), a nightmare for the Fair Tax crowd.
I hated Huntsman when he was Governor (I have lived in Utah for the most of the last decade), and think he’s an idiot. I do not like his pandering, feather fluffing. While I voted against him as Governor, and never would have voted for him as President, the AGW issue was a deal breaker long ago for me.
I liked Bachmann’s performance very much last night. I had, and still have, not formed an opinion about her, but I really thought she shined when talking about personal accountability and the “big picture” ideals (where tea partiers shine, IMHO).
I’m not a fan of Romney, nor do I think he would be a good choice for President. That’s the best summation of my feelings about him.
Perry did indead have a rough night. You said: “He seemed slow witted.” I agree. He seemed very off, and almost seemed to stammer at times. I think teh in-state tuition for illegals is an issue he’ll be forced to face for some time.
I agree that Newt did a good job. He’s been in Politics a while. While I have read some of his writings, I was not active in politics when he was in power in the 1990’s (as speaker). I don’t know his chances (I understand him to ahve a lot of baggage), but I think he’s done a good job articulating his views.
Agree, I like Cain, Newt and Santorum the best.
Has there ever been a fight/war/terrorattack that has been undertaken without a reason or motive? Is it important to know the enemies motive for attack when acting in defense?
Some say the enemy’s motive for attacking us is because they hate our freedoms. If this be the case then what was the impetus for the “Arab Spring” uprisings that toppled dictators? Were they fighting for more oppression or for freedom?
I don’t understand how people can accept that the uprisings in the muslim world were caused by a desire for freedom and yet still hold the belief that they attacked us because they didn’t like the fact that we are free.
Maybe someone can shed more light on this situation for me.
Perry was ok, still the frontrunner, but he needs to get moreinto specifics and work on his poise.
Bachmann & Romney both diminished themselves. Bachmann is off the reservation with the allegation that some form of bribery had to do with the vaccination decision. She looked unbalanced and if she had a valid point, you’d never know it. If she has proof, show it. If it is gossip and innuendo, she should rightfully be finished.
Romney seemed desperate and petty. He seemed to be channeling liberal democrat talking points with the Social Security issue. Someone should also tell him when he stressed that he is a turnaround guy with an eye for restructuing Social Security, most people hear the word ‘restructuring’ a few days before they get fired. Poor performance from both.
Romney is still #2 by default, Bachmann is out of it.
Newt is going after Obama and aiming for clips in the higlight reel. He succeeded on both goals. Probably won’t be the candidate since people hate the smartest kid in the sixth grade, and Newt is that kid all grown up. Great ideas man and it is great that he is out there - keeping the heat on Obama and keeping conservatives honest.
Huntsman shouldn’t be there - the crowd largely recognized him as a ringer, giving him cool reactions save for a handful of easy pops.
Ron Paul is shooting for that ‘crazy uncle everyone loves’ conceit, but he is that ‘crazy uncle only crazy people love.’
Santorum tries too hard to parlay his status as a successful GOP Blue State senator into a guy who could be president. Too bad he leaves out his last campaign, where he was impotent and flailed about desperately at the end, before his home state voters ran him out of town. Nothing going on with this guy.
Everyone else ran in place. Cain is the standout with some good lines, but not enough there (yet) for him to be a well rounded out candidate.
Yes, Perry’s credentials as an amnesty supporting cronycapitalist with poor communication skills and questionable intelligence are ironclad.
“Any position taken merely for political expediency is a deal breaker for me. A position should be born from principle. The republican field at this point is devoid of principle... and that is rather regrettable.”
“Could it be possible that this criterion could actually cause people to support a given candidate for the wrong reasons?”
People can support others for any number of insignificant and misguided reasons. I have only been active in politics for the last 4 (general) elections or so, so I can’t reminisce about the pre-television days of many decades ago. But if you’re point is that people shouldn’t vote for people because of their looks, sure. I value wisdom and experience more than cheap talk, “Charisma” and youthful vigor.
I simply think that the candidates are catering to people’s emotions. Emotional crap is a deal breaker for me. I’d prefer to hear intellectual debate rather than debate centered on emotion. That is all.
Mitt Romney - I'll just parrot Herman Cain while I squash Rick Perry.
Rick Perry - I own the Gardasil Exec Order & TX Dream Act.
Ron Paul - I'm an apologist.
Ron Huntsman - I'm getting nowhere. Can we say that?
Rick Santorum - I want back in. Hey...over here.
Newt Gingrich - I did not do a climate change ad with that woman.
Herman Cain - I have very specific solutions...here they are:
Barack is an “Anchor” POTUS!
First, they didn’t simply attack us for our freedoms. A radical group attacked us because they hate the West, they hate Israel, and they hate infidels. America was the obvious target.
They didn’t attack us because they disagree with a particular policy. Their goal is worldwide sharia law. Their method is to kill a lot of people and create fear.
Regarding the “Arab Spring”, there are a lot of dynamics to it. There is a component made up of young people that desire freedom and economic opportunity. They may have been the impetus for the uprisings. They are different than Al Qaeda.
The other group is made up of Islamist hardliners that want to get rid of Middle Eastern dictators who have stood in the way of Sharia law, such as Mubarak and Gaddafi. The Middle East is not very cut and dry.
Sorry...wrong thread! :( not sure how that happened.
They vary in the degree in which they would implement these principals. They vary from Dr Ron Paul who advocates wholesale dismantling of the Federal Government to John Huntsman who would make some fundamental change in a few areas but leave the bulk of the structure as it currently exists.
The principals for 2012 all the GOP candidates are making clear are these.
The US Federal Government is corrupt, inefficient and intrusive. It spends far too much to accomplish far too little. The US Government requires deep serious fundamental restructuring and reform.
Nice try, good questions, however you cannot reason with Paul or his supporters. Paul is anti-Semitic and he is becomes more anti-American by the hour.
I agree with your first assessment, though I question whether all candidates truly believe your last assessment regarding the US govt.
I like Cain, but he does not explain 9-9-9 or the Chilean model. He can’t just assume everyone is as knowledgeable as he is. Well he can, but that won’t get him any votes.
The debates were my first exposure to Perry. Other than Newt he is better than the rest but has a real problem with immigration. The vaccine flap does not bother me as there is a parental opt out provision. He should not have admitted wrong doing as Bachman does not have enough class to stay away from attacking a front running Republican. I almost threw up with her "Little Innocent Girls" "schtick!"
Bachman gave a new index to politics; the B.I.(Bachman Index) which is arrived at by measuring the shrillness of her invective. The louder it is the worse the candidate is doing in the race. She should drop out soon for the benefit of the party.
Romney actually praised Perry's job creation which was interesting. Romney appears a light weight, poised but a not quite ready for prime time player.
Ok. I think I understand your view.
In sum you believe that the terrorism and attacks that we have experienced are part of an offensive attack by radicalized muslims who want to spread sharia law to every corner of the world using killing people and creating fear as their method. And you don’t believe that this is in anyway a political war that was initiated by them because they dislike such and such policy.
I think much of the disagreement between some people is that one group sees the war as politically motivated, while the other group sees the war as religiously motivated.
I am in no position to know which camp is correct, but I thank you for the reasoned response.
Freedom is not an issue in the uprisings in Moslem lands that is merely the Left’s way of disguising what it really is, an Islamist takeover. There is also a difference in the rhetoric used to give the LeftMedia a fig leaf to hide your actions behind and reality.
Democracy = Islamist takeover. Freedom = Islamist takeover.
That is a fair summation of my position.
Remember, these jihadists believe that Allah rewards them for killing non-believers. The killed 3,000 such infidels on 9/11, a major score for them. It is not because they don’t like the fact that we have bases in Saudi Arabia. Sure, they hate that we do, but the reason they hate it is because they hate us. The reason they hate us is because we are the infidel West, the antithesis to sharia law.
The IRA, the Basque Separatists, the ELF...those are political terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda is an ideological terrorist organization. Even if we didn’t have bases in the Mid East, they would still hate us because of our support for Israel. Even if we didn’t support Israel, they would hate us because we are the global power, the Great Satan.
Thank you for your analysis. What I particularly hate is that Jon Huntsman keeps telling us how we’re all curled up into a fetal position hiding in the dark. It’s actually getting to be more annoying than John McCain’s “My Friends” and almost on par with Obamao’s “Let me be clear.”
Thank you for taking the time to post all that, I found your analysis very compelling. I realize that there are a lot of dynamics in this race, but I am starting to wonder if any of these candidates will “pair up.” I’ve heard of talk that Bachmann will likely be Romney’s running mate if he makes the cut. There’s a lot I like about Cain, but at this point, there’s little that’s certain in politics. the media Foisted both Obama and McCain out of nowhere on us, and it’s hard to say who will end up in the chair. One thing is certain, we could really do ourselves well as a country to have many strong willed, compassionate, fiscal and social conservatives in the race. Sadly, they appear to be nearly exticnt among politicians.
And I hated the political double speak, and flat out refusals to give straight answers, all around.
With Islam it is the same, both Political and Religious. There is no difference in Islam.
If Islam is both political and religious, would you agree then that it would probably be foolish to ignore the political (foreign policy) reasons they would want to attack us?
I have always wondered what is meant by “compassionate conservative”.
Can you explain?
Someone who is compassionate and a conservative. I didn’t use the phrase, so I’m not sure. I said we needed someone with a list of qualities, and who is conservative. You could argue that they are one and the same, but it depends on your definition of “Conservative.”
Conservative generally means, holding to the U.S. Constitution, and principles of the Founding Fathers (thus, conserving). The Constitution allows for freedom of choice in a broad array of areas, so one could arguably endeavor to conserve the U.S. constitution and not be a compassionate person. I can think of a few examples of the type of people, but would rather not start an argument. It’s like the Pharisee’s (lawyers) in the New Testament, questioning Jesus Christ about “Who is my neighbor?” Compassion is generally easily seen, but not always simple to define.
To addend my post (I think you have a legitimate question), I was not calling you a Pharisee, I was comparing how it’s not a simple matter to define, but best illustrated, in my opinion.
Our foreign policy has nothing to do with it. We are not muslin so they wish to convert (by the sword), enslave or kill us. That is all it is period. They wish to do it to us and any one who is not Islam.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I’m not certain why Herman Cain isn’t picking up any momentum, either. I think that there’s a lot of dynamics that are going to play out in this election that will make it unpredictable. It’s just a feeling that I have. I didn’t like Perry’s defense of the Texas “Dream Act,” but he is right, it is a states issue. However, it, to me, says a lot about the character. Essentially “Oh well, they beat the system, so lets make sure they can suceed even further.” That, I don’t care for.
Sorry it’s taken so long for me to reply, I just got back in town from my honeymoon.
The reason I asked about what is meant by a “compassionate” conservative is because I have always wondered if it was a kind of euphemism used to describe a conservative politician who agrees with most of the philosophy behind welfare and other redistributive philosophies. At the very least, when a politician refers to himself as a compassionate conservative, it makes me examine their past actions more closely to see if they use the term euphemistically or not. I agree that compassion is important, but does one truly have compassion if one must take from those who have in order to help those in need? (I don’t mean to imply that you think this to be true or otherwise) Or does a government truly show compassion by allowing people the freedom to succeed on their own and the freedom to fail on their own.
Compassion is important from neighbor to neighbor. When someone fails it is important for families, neighbors, churches, private foundations, etc to rise to the occasion and help that person. Individual compassion builds strong communities. But does governmental compassion (in the euphemistic sense - welfare, etc) do the same? (i am in no way saying you agree or disagree with any of this, it is just kinda something to think about when you hear conservative politicians describe themselves as compassionate)
Let me know what you think. Thanks for the previous reply by the way.
First off, congradulations on getting married, may you have a full, happy marriage together!
Secondly, I agree with you completely. As sad as it may sound, I have seen the term “Compassionate conservative” tossed around but knew only that that term was used as a pejorative, and have kept my eye out for it to look more closely how it is used, especially here on FR. I’ve seen a lot of references to Baby Bush as being a “Compassionate Conservative” and the TARP etc., etc.
I think you are absolutely correct in the notion that the word “compassionate” has been co-opted. Government, in my opinion, should NEVER be compassionate (or most any other “-ate”), because it’s a concept, but I think the people who hold government offices can most definitely be compassionate. And I most definitely do not equate that with the robbery that goes on for social welfare programs.
In my view a compassionate leader is one who gives of themself, and inspires others to do so. I personally don’t believe that government positions should be paid, but rather voluntary (at least Federally elected offices), but I also understand a reason for it (ie. Those who were poor may never be able to be representatives, etc.), but that’s a whole other conversation.
And to answer this:
“But does governmental compassion (in the euphemistic sense - welfare, etc) do the same?”
NEVER, and it previously was deemed unconstitutional in the past (Ie. with agricultural diseasters), but that seems to have been forgotten.
Thanks for the warm wishes.
I just want to add that I agree with you about everything and especially like your definition of a compassionate leader: “In my view a compassionate leader is one who gives of themself, and inspires others to do so.”
We most definitely need more of this: fewer selfish politicians and a greater number driven solely by the desire for the well-being of our country.
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.