Posted on 08/11/2011 8:19:24 PM PDT by DeskCaptain
"The third primary debate was held tonight. Which candidates helped themselves, and who ended the night in a worse position?
Tonight was Jon Huntsman's first appearance at a primary debate. Unlike Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, who offered "red meat to the base" during their first appearances, Huntsman just fit in. Being a firebrand is simply not in Huntsman's personality, and he never attacked Mitt Romney, the man standing in his way in New Hampshire. Huntsman also suffered from receiving few questions. It's still unclear whether Huntsman is willing to do what's necessary to make a genuine run for the presidency...."
(Excerpt) Read more at elephantwatcher.com ...
***Shrugs***
Couldn’t watch it.
Newt was a little fired up tonight. I liked that!
Huntsman, Pawlenty, Paul...no thanks.
Romney has a great speaking voice. That’s it. I just can’t trust him.
I thought everybody else did well. Bachmann has the patience of Job.
Newt won—he seemed to be the most logical—second best was Romney, third was Cane, others didn’t do well with Huntsman dead last.
Cain, Santorum, Newt, not necessarily in that order. That Huntsman guy didn’t do much for me and Pawlenty was just awful. Also didn’t think Michelle Bachmann was as good as she was in the first debate. I think Romney doesn’t have any cojones, I can see the vile ultra left completely rolling over him. Ron Paul can be brilliant every once in a while but he misses the boat on foreign policy. Anybody who thinks that Iran is not a huge threat and can be trusted with a nuke or two scares the dickens out of me.
Thinking about who could win or who I favor? I’m not sure who can win, I’m so out of touch with what people think about personalities. I don’t have to like the best person, just not important to me so long as he gets the job done without being hard work.
Gingrich = Best qualified, most knowledgeable, would tear any opponent up in a debate on the issues, personal problems but I don’t really care. Everything he said in the Hannity interview sings with me but it is about right now and things that can’t be done because o-POS won’t let them happen and his henchman reed won’t let them reach that point. How I wish these things could happen now.
Cain = Plainest spoken, slow starter in politics, would be flayed in Washington, we need someone who knows the way around more than I think he does, made some very good points about elimination of uncertainty for business but steps on his toes sometimes. He is very realistic and very adult. Best for us? Not sure yet. I’m being truthful here, once burned twice shy. Hannity needs to learn not to interrupt people answering questions.
Santorum = Likable but they intentionally stayed away from him. Knows a lot, passionate about America, not enough to say
Bachman = Nice lady, passionate, light weight. As much of a Republican ideologue as o-POS is a Marxist.
Paul = As loopy as ever, some good points like slaying the Fed, good points on minding our own business but too extreme, just goes to far, too absolute
Pawlenty = Insincere, not likable, too much “I”
Romney = Not Trustworthy, media favorite but is he really the people’s favorite. Romney is an ambitious hack who is all about Romney. I’ve seen his type many times.
Huntsman = Few good points, opportunist, don’t know his record in Utah but he is not a winner
The young woman was the best of the three interviewers. She was best prepared, most objective and most professional. Bravo.
I thought Wallace was characteristicly rude and partisan, pretty much a smart ass. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in his case.
The guy from the Examiner was OK but also a bit of a smart ass.
Agreed, Gingrich made the others look like pikers every time they let him talk.
They let Paul go on waaaaay toooooo long. Why?
Newt won the debate — no one else came close. When asked serious questions he gave serious answers. When asked gotcha questions he smacked the smarmy smiles off the moderators.
Pawlenty was the biggest loser.
The rest of the pack remained buried in the pack.
Ron Paul brought his kooky to a whole new level tonight. It provided entertainment, if nothing else.
When I saw the thread title, I knew I wouldn't be the only one thinking the very same thing!
Ah! Good catch!
I thought the whole debate was handled very unprofessionally. Bret Baier went down another notch with me.
They must have been pikers if Newtered made them look that way . I swear the Republicrats want to lose !
Bachman doesn’t have much more to say than “fight”. She is an nice, gutsy lady, smart but limited message.
Not one of them has a chance in hell against Obama .
Winner winner chicken dinner.
She outsmarted them again.
No smartass gotcha questions for her tonight.
What’s up with her hands?
As said before, Wallace is a smart ass, thinks he is cute and isn’t. He is snarky, blunt, hateful, offensive, impolite. He is what my mother calls despisable.
Byron York is a four eyed smart alec who also thinks he is clever but is just blunt.
Wallace’s question to Cain was like Gingrich said, an offensive gotcha. Cain did VERY well answering, VERY well.
As said, Baier went down notches in my eyes. He is getting too big for his britches.
He actually did well. I’m watching it again, painful though much of it is. I just don’t like Romney. The grey at the temples is just a little scripted isn’t it? He looks like an aging Ken doll.
Newt for wrapping his questions around Chris Wallace's neck.
Cheers!
Yup...the Bamster's a regular Ronald Reagan.
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.