Fox showed the other cable outlets how to stage a debate last night. I thought the format was excellent. The candidates got adequate time allocated pretty fairly. The moderators were firm but respectful. There was none of the hostile "have you stopped beating your wife" tone from the MSNBC or CNN debates. There were no transparent efforts to provoke quarreling between the candidates. The youtube questions were actually pretty thoughtful and not the idiotic stuff the other nets seem to come up with. There really was not a lot to choose between the candidates. If you had no idea who any of them were or where they stood in the polls, I doubt you would have picked Perry as the frontrunner. Romney is showing the effects of a lot of practice and coaching no doubt. He is warm but firm, a reassuring figure you would trust with your 401k or wife. He is beginning to employ some Reaganesque touches, harkening back to Reagan's famous "there you go again" rejoinder to Jimmy Carter. Herman Cain was clearly a crowd favorite. He is inspirational, even if some of his ideas seem to lack practicality. Ron Paul was Ron Paul, the most genuine person on the stage. I thought Hunstman handled himself very well. He is beginning to get noticed. I would tag him as a solid VP pick if he were from a larger state or one that is in play. Michelle Bachmann was adroit as usual. She handled the vaccine question truthfully by saying she was repeating what a woman had said to her. She again went after Perry on the fact that his former aide was a lobbyist for Merck when he mandated the vaccine. I thought Perry stumbled. He is locked to the state DREAM Act which is unbelievably unpopular among republican primary voters. His defense of it--it's preferable for iilegals to get an education rather than be on welfare--sounded even more lame this time, and Santorum among others called him on it. It's not about getting an education, it's about giving illegals preference over tax paying US citizens. His and Romney's jabs and counter jabs are also getting old. Move on. Perry's best moment was when he answered Bachmann by saying he had been lobbied on the vaccine issue by a young woman dying of cervical cancer. The only problem is she apparently met Perry after he had issued the order. He is increasingly reminding me of a scary mixture of George Bush and Bill Clinton. Newt and Santorum were pretty solid, although i certainly disagree with Santorum's argument that we should keep troops all over the place forever. Did he miss the past ten years? The prize for best line goes to Gary Johnson, who said his neighbor's two dogs had produced more "shovel ready jobs" than Obama. I actually like Johnson a lot. He has a ton of innovative ideas and is not afraid to present them, even if they challenge republican orthodoxy, like cutting 40% of the defense budget. Wouldn't you like to see some combination of him, Ron Paul and Herman Cain running things? I think the fallout from the debate will be a bump for Romney, some loss of momentum for Perry and more fawing mainstream media coverage for Hunstman. I think we can safely say Michelle Bachmann is not on Rick Perry's shortlist of VP possibilities.
I tend to disagree and here's why....a breakdown of speaking opportunities per candidate: Romneyâ 16 Perryâ 11 Bachmannâ 9 Huntsmanâ 9 Santorumâ 9 Gingritchâ 7 Cainâ 7 Paulâ 6 Johnsonâ 5 What methodology did Fox utilize to allocate this time? It could not have been polling because Ron Paul's numbers consistently place him third nationally, ahead of Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum, Gingrich, and Cain who all received more speaking opportunities. This was true in the tea party debate as well where they asked everyone except Ron Paul a question on the Federal Reserve. A fair format would afford each candidate an opportunity to answer each question. This format seems to be geared towards a different purpose.
it doesnt matter if perry stumbles. he is the republican candidate. he has just the right mixture of crazy and religion to appeal the uneducated rednecks in the red states. romney or huntsman would be better for the country but forget about it. to bible thumping rednecks mormans are a cult.
If anything I'd say the wind has shifted to Romney. Perry's conservative bona fides are in doubt as evidenced by the beating he took over tuition for illegal immigrants.
if most republicans were sane that should be true. i dont think a morman can get past the bible belt primaries. time will tell i guess.
I agree that Romney will have major difficulties in the primaries, which is why the GOP has been reluctant to embrace him. They keep trying to prop up others (Bachmann, then Perry) to no avail. Now they are back to Romney. If they keep this up they will guarantee a second Obama term. They need to get behind the only candidate that can beat Obama, and imho, that candidate is Ron Paul.
perry is getting poor reviews: Kristol Slams Perry's Debate As "Close To Disqualifying" In a special editorial published by The Weekly Standard, editor Bill Kristol called Gov. Rick Perryâs performance âclose to disqualifying,â and stated that âno presidential field, has ever, we imagine, had as weak a showing as Rick Perry.â He went on to quote an email received from a young conservative during the broadcast. âIâm watching my first GOP debate,â the viewer said. âAnd WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!â The title of the editorial? âYikes.â 11:01 AM | | # Erickson: Perry A 'Train Wreck' In a post on RedState, Erick Erickson calls last nightâs GOP debate the âworst debateâ¦Iâve ever watched.â "Rick Perry was a train wreck in this debate. He flubbed his response on Romney flip-flopping. he got the first question tonight and stumbled. Good grief. Romney did so much better than Perry. So much better." Erickson concludes that Cain, not Romney, won the debate by providing the most memorable lines. 10:48 AM | | # Malkin Slams Perry In a post on her blog today, conservative commentator Michelle Malkin calls Gov. Rick Perryâs misfired attack on Romneyâs flip-flopping the most cringe-worthy moment of last nightâs debate. Referring to Perryâs mangled attempt at uttering his attack, Malkin wrote: âPerry said heâs in favor of making English the official language of the U.S. Perhaps he should concentrate on mastering it before the next debate.â 10:38 AM | | # Lowry: Perry The Loser In Debate In an opinion piece published on FoxNews.com, National Review Editor Rich Lowry bashes Gov. Rick Perryâs performance in last nightâs debate and notes the huge advantage that challenger Mitt Romney seems to have in verbal acuity. âItâs become clear that Romney has an advantage over Perry in these forums simply because heâs more articulate, detailed and authoritative-sounding in his answers; heâs like a boxer with a reach advantage,â Lowry writes. Lowry concludes with a dire warning for the Perry campaign. âA few weeks ago, the question was how far and fast he would ascend; now, after his third debate, itâs how much heâll drop.â
Yeah, I think Perry, based on last night's debate performance, has just been told by the GOP to have a seat in the corner.
Thoughts from last night's debate- 1) Perry sucks. F him and his free tuition and benefits for ILLEGALS! 2) Cain was the clear winner last night. 3) Perry/Romney bickering is getting old. Both of them suck and I don't think either can beat Obama. 4) Newt is a crafty old man and a great political quote machine, but let's face it, he has no chance. 5) Paul and Johnson have great ideas, it's a shame they don't look/act more presidential. Johnson's hands were fidgeting while he was answering questions and his voice is so weak. Right now I would vote for Cain, but he needs to do a lot more before he has a chance to beat the douchebag in the white house.
One rule they had was that if a candidate was mentioned, he got to respond. I think that elevated both Perry and Romney's chances to speak because of all the back and forth between them. It's not a bad rule, but it could also easily be gamed by a couple of second tier candidates. For example, they could agree to mention each other in every answer, thus giving each a chance to speak. I don't think it is a terrible idea to give somewhat more emphasis to the clear frontrunners, but it has to be fair. Last night struck me as pretty fair. I believe it was the last debate that struck me as totally unfair.