I think Hunter won the first half of the debate. Romney probably won the debate overall (I know people are upset about his lawyer comment but it didn’t really bother me in context). Giuliani probably came in third.
I think the main difference though is the way that we view the economy. I agree with Hunter that we need to protect our industries from countries like China that manipulate their currency, and allow the equivalent of slave labor. So, I listened to Thompson and heard the same platitudes about free trade that I hear from many of my republican friends - and was not impressed. You listened to Hunter and thought his ideas on trade were radical and socialistic. I guess at the end of the day our views probably had a lot to do with the way we saw the debate. That said, I think you would have to agree that both Hunter and Romney came off as more presidential and in control than Thompson did.
I am more or less with you rignt up to your conclusion. I agree that Hunter’s demeanor is Presidential, but Romney’s demeanor certainly was not in my view.
Romney was the big loser in this debate. The polling numbers since debate bear this out as he is giving back all the gain he made during September. I’d say the polling gives the debate to Giuliani and Thompson, as they have seen the largest boosts in their numbers. (Giuliani and Thompson plus 1% each, Romney minus 2% since the debate.)
Notwithstanding these numbers, which are small beans, I’d say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I thought Thompson did great, even with his first answer, which so many have panned. I thought Romney stunk up the place, and I thought Giulini was his usual practiced self.
By the way, my beef with Hunter’s economics has nothing to do with protecting our economy from predatory trade practices. Of course we should do that. Nobody disagrees about that.
What I don’t like is his insistence on government control over disposition of private assets. That is socialism, pure and simple.