Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

I thank you in advance for any commentary you can share. Like I said, I know I'll continue looking through the other thread for some people's opinions, but I know that will take a lot of time, and looking through quite literally a novel of opinions, that or not necessarilly what I'm looking for. Thanks to any posters in advance.
1 posted on 09/13/2011 9:51:50 AM PDT by JDW11235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: JDW11235

Perry...

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


2 posted on 09/13/2011 9:57:03 AM PDT by winoneforthegipper ("If you can't ride two horses at once, you probably shouldn't be in the circus" - SP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JDW11235

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.


3 posted on 09/13/2011 10:01:45 AM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JDW11235
Yes, there was a deal breaker.
Ron Paul is definitely off my list of candidates.
His claim that we caused the World Trade center attack was disgusting.
If he really believes that we as a country caused Muslims to hate us than why are they killing so many of their own in all of the muslim countries?
Why do they deny Somalians humanitarian aid?
Why is Asaid killing his own in Syria?
I could go on and on.
I pity him now because he could have been a great president.
4 posted on 09/13/2011 10:03:49 AM PDT by lucky american (I'm tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JDW11235

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?


6 posted on 09/13/2011 10:05:39 AM PDT by Veritas_et_libertas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JDW11235

Newt: The man is bright and knows what’s going on. Yes he has baggage but it’s hard to beat experience.


8 posted on 09/13/2011 10:08:07 AM PDT by Java4Jay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JDW11235

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.


10 posted on 09/13/2011 10:08:49 AM PDT by Donnafrflorida (Thru HIM all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JDW11235

I watched most of it...but missed the last half hour or so.

My $0.02:

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.


14 posted on 09/13/2011 10:14:13 AM PDT by RockinRight (Carter Obama and Reagan the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JDW11235

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.


19 posted on 09/13/2011 10:19:57 AM PDT by Ted Grant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JDW11235
Michele Bachmann - I have inside info that you don't.

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:

23 posted on 09/13/2011 10:27:40 AM PDT by taraytarah ( Get acquainted with a Proven Leader. Hermancain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JDW11235

Barack is an “Anchor” POTUS!


24 posted on 09/13/2011 10:28:24 AM PDT by proudtobeanamerican1 (A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JDW11235
Newt is intellectually head and shoulders above the rest of the candidates, both individually and collectively. That being said, he carries too many character flaws.

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.

32 posted on 09/13/2011 10:55:47 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson