Tonight's Winners: Cain, Romney, Bachman (in that order) Tonight's Losers: Perry & Huntsman
Everyone else was kinda' "meh."
What do you think?
Also...If you loved Herman Cain’s debate performance tonight…you’re gonna’ love this!
It's the first ever conservative cartoon of it's kind!
Anyone that doesn’t think Gingrich won that debate by a mile is smoking crack.
I’m getting the impression that the professional Republicans are focusing in on a Romney/Cain ticket.
Newt Gingrich is in a class by himself. He sees it.
I looked for 5 minutes for the channel it was on. I gave up...what channel was it on so I can see a re-run?
I think Newt won. I think all the rest held their own, though Romney had 4 times as much air time as anyone else, except Huntsman who had 3 times as much air time as everyone else.
newt and cain won.
My apologies. My post was too strong and was not directed at you. My bad.
Newt is simply the best choice to actually RUN this country, but Mitt has the best hair.
Ron Paul is a whack job and Santorim is a whining little school boy.
Newt was spot on, and Perry was the only one that said there would be no trade war with China argument if we get America back to work.
Didn’t care at all for the format. Romney got more time than anyone to say his piece and it was clear he has answers, not necessarily the right ones.
Cain is still my man...
999 upside down is 666...999 upside down is 666...999 upside down is 666...
Man, I used to like her but she's gone way past credible after her mindless, useless and idiotic comment to Cain. WTH...why attack a fellow conservative with something that infantile?
Romney LOST. He was a coward and did not answer anything.
Always hiding behind his skirt.
Winner: Mr. Cain and the Speaker A+++
Perry: flubbed it again.
Gingrich......Cain/Romney
Isn’t Mark a red doper diaper baby?
Cain: A Gingrich: A Santorum: B+ Bachman: B Huntsman: B- Romney: B- Perry: C Paul: C-
I don’t think this kind of format makes it possible to say who “won”. It was good in showing more personality and interaction, just not a win/lose thing. The moderator/questioners somewhat to my surprise were decent, the older woman from WaPo seemed fair, the younger chippie was clearly wishing she was hanging with a bunch of libs where it could be all smiles and softballs.
Newt is certainly opening the kimono and seems to not care what anyone thinks about his answers, which is refreshing.
Winner: Gingrich (if it wasn’t for his baggage and Pelosi loving he’d be a legitimate contender)
Other winners: Cain, Santorum, Romney (to the uninformed who don’t know his record)
Treading water: Bachmann, Santorum, Paul
Losers: Perry, Huntsman
Cain=President
Palin=VP
Newt=Chief of Staff
GSElevator GS Elevator Gossip
#1: Ron Paul strikes me as the kind of guy that would be a fan of autoerotic asphyxiation.
http://twitter.com/#!/GSElevator
IMHO...
Bachmann has the best stances on issues and represents the best bet for a President that would cut whole departments.
C-Span is an excellent place to see her speak on the House floor. I can tell that many people who are conservative in their views but seem very turned off by her have not heard her speak at length on the House floor or on the campaign trail. A review of her Congressional record bears out that she is uncompromising and always on the right side of issues - she has never in 5 years voted to increase government control of citizens’ lives, expand the government’s role, allow government to needlessly interfere in business or in citizen’s lives, etc., etc.
Cain is the next best thing, followed closely by Santorum and Newt. If one gets into the details of Paul one finds quite a few surprisingly sensible stances, but of course he does not project that he would be a President comfortable with kicking butt militarily.
Therefore I’m hoping for Cain/Bachmann for 8 years then Bachmann/someone else for 8 years.
That, combined with a solidly conservative Senate and House is the best combination with which to achieve a permanent end to all this “green” scam, bailouts, government spending of borrowed money that must be someday paid back through future taxes, government-sanctioned promotion of immorality, etc., etc. In short, a return to Constitutional government.
As long as Mr. Cain sees the light on cutting departments and cutting the government by 90% being far more important that what tax scheme we use, and as long as he sees nothing good coming out of appointing liberal judges to “balance things out”, etc., he would hopefully bring back responsibility and duty, faithfully executed, to the office.
I think he does see the light on this and is simply touting his 9-9-9 plan as a “simple” marketing campaign to gain traction. He can always amend that down the road, but it is important for candidates to establish in voter’s minds that they do in fact have some sort of plan other than to simply occupy (cough, cough) the White House.
I believe Bachmann is 100% ready to be President. I favor Cain for President because of two main reasons, a) a conservative woman in the lead role would not be as easy an election to win, though quite probable, and b) having the ticket be Bachmann/Cain makes no sense because of his age and the unlikeliness of Cain being up for 8 years of VP followed by 8 years of President, where Bachmann’s age makes that scenario much more realistic. The VP, of course, is always usually selected based on their ability to take the reins and run again as President, since they are then making use of political capital gained as VP, instead of a new candidate having to start from scratch.
Mitt Romney did everything that he had to do to advance his nomination tonight. He was good on the issues. He cited facts and figures without appearing to be just a policy wonk. He reminded people that he is a leader. He has some haters, but they are fewer and fewer and have no place to go.
Newt Gingrich is great in debates. We all know that he can't win the nomination because he's always been weak as an executive. He's not even strong running his own campaign except when he's debating. He gave another great performance, but few people have forgotten his weakness.
Herman Cain is staking too much on 9-9-9. That plan will never get through the Senate. Even if we had 60 Republicans, a few of them would side with the Democrats to filibuster that kind of change. He's a good man, but he needs to show that he's more than just a one-dimensional candidate. He answered attacks on 9-9-9 well, but people aren't going to remember that they have more money when they are paying federal sales tax on food and medicine.
Michele Bachmann looked good. The 6-6-6 joke didn't work, but the point she made was good. Otherwise, she was solid in every part of the debate.
Rick Santorum knows the issues well, and he has some good things to say. His big problem comes when he appears to be too much of a religious authoritarian. His rant about the family wasn't necessarily bad, but he seemed a bit too desperate to make that point. He, Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman all showed themselves unable to ask a coherent question. That failure hurt his performance.
Ron Paul doesn't do that badly when he's not on foreign policy, but his meandering question gives him a bad grade.
Rick Perry's whole debate seemed to be "ah, um, uh, Texas." He had one question where he was clear and coherent. He's simply not doing what he must do in these debates.
Jon Huntsman was incoherent on nearly everything. The only value to having him in the debates is that he reminds us how good our other candidates are and gives us a one-minute period to go to the refrigerator.
