lying again. He said he opposed TARP.
Milt Romney (The Magic RINO and Poser):
Posted on 06/14/2011 8:21:17 AM PDT by libertarian neocon
So a miracle happened last night and somehow I was able to actually watch the GOP debate while it was going on and neither Ben10 (my kids' favorite) nor So You Think You Can Dance (my wife's favorite, as is just about any reality show that is on) entered into the picture at all. This is something that happens about as often as a full solar eclipse so I'm grateful, especially because I really did enjoy watching the debate last night, which was unexpected. Anyway, I thought I'd jot down some of my thoughts of how the different candidates fared in the debate and my general impression of them as candidates. Just so you know, my critique will be based solely on impressions of the candidates at the debate and will not draw on any of my preconceived notions (of which, I have many). Also, many of my comments may be highly superficial in nature as, for the most part, there was little difference between what the candidates said. After all, they are all gunning for the same electorate, the conservative activists who tend to vote in primaries.
Romney: The clear winner of the debate. His style was the most Presidential and I could see him going toe to toe with Obama in a debate and wiping the floor with him. The only issue I had with him, and it was minor, was that he looked like he not only aged in the last few years, but it looked like he rotted. It was as if he were Dorian Grey and someone accidentally damaged his portrait. Am I being too mean? Don't we all age? Yes, we do. But it's important that we don't come across as a bunch of senior citizens looking to battle the youthful Obama, like we did last election. Youthful vigor wins elections and has for much of the last 50 years (Obama over McCain, Clinton over Dole, Clinton over Bush, etc.). You might think Reagan was an exception but given how wimpy Carter came off as, Reagan actually seemed more vigorous despite being older.
Pawlenty: A bit of a letdown early on. As many others have noted, he should have gone in for the kill earlier on, in a sincere and principled way. I think he probably had too much advice earlier on about not going too negative and how people might be put off by that. Unfortunately, his Rube Goldergesque explanation of his Obamneycare comment (which he was implying was only a criticism of Obama) made him seem insincere and wimpy. And I now he could have done so much better with just a few tweaks as he did have a much better debate later on when he had warmed up a little and killed some of the butterflies in his stomach. The only other issue I had with him was that I kept wondering if he had a spray tan. He is from Minnesota, he doesn't have to be tan!
Bachmann: She is definitely a star and her debate performance was great. She was much more polished and confident than anyone else on the stage other than Romney. I liked it when she said she was running for President of the United States so wouldn't try to meddle in state affairs. The only thing I didn't like was when she kept saying she took in 23 foster kids. I know she is trying to sound generous, which I am sure she is. But for me and other east coasters, I think it just comes across as weird and perhaps a bit creepy. I don't know why but it does. I also wasn't a huge fan of the hair, which looked like it had 10 cans of hairspray and seemed hard enough to repel bullets. I was also surprised by the giant crows feet around her eyes, that might be a function though of the 6 inches of makeup she was wearing for the debate as I've seen her before and they weren't so pronounced (hey I said some of my comments would be highly superficial)
Paul: I normally don't like Ron Paul, but I did enjoy his performance at the debate. He, of course, focused on the fundamental problems with big government. Of course, the National Journal said he continued to be a fringe candidate because he was bringing obscure topics like "monetary policy" into the debate. I'm sorry, monetary policy is obscure? Maybe for you English major reporters but not for anyone who cares if the government is printing money and continuously devaluing the dollar for the last ten years. Anyhoo, the only critique I have for Paul's performance was that he kept referring to the "church" as a substitute for government. Couldn't he have said non-profit community organizations or something? Maybe try to be a little more inclusive? Libertarians are a small enough minority, now he has to bring religion into it?
Santorum: He did okay in the debate but I couldn't get over a couple of things. First, his nose looks way too small for his face. Did he have some sort of weirdo nosejob? He kind of has this Michael Jackson thing going on, at least to my eyes. Also, he always looked like he was in pain every time he said something. I mean, if he can't answer a fluff question like "Leno or Conan" without looking extremely constipated, he has a problem.
Gingrich: He did a wonderful job I thought, other than his wishy washy response to the Ryan plan question. He was generally confident and highly intelligent. Based on the debate by itself, I'd say he has a shot. But based on the fact he is kind of a whacko and extremley inconsistent, I don't think so.
Cain: A cartoon character of a candidate. I really could make no sense of his answers to the "will you have a Muslim in your cabinet" question, they would make sense for a little bit and then he would contradict himself. I think he could get the nomination of the Rent is Too Damn High Party. I think I liked the idea of him much more than what I saw last night.
At this point, I think Romney looks like he will be very tough to beat in New Hampshire. I also think that unless Pawlenty can become more confident I think he might lose Iowa to Bachmann, who is a much more exciting speaker. Anyway, we'll see what happens at the Ames Straw Poll in a couple of months, it should be interesting! Other than these three, I don't see anyone escaping the single digit range in primaries.
Milt Romney (The Magic RINO and Poser):
Really dude? Where you on Chrystal Meth? Romney looked old and spoke in canned sound bites. And you opinion of Santorum's solid Conservative performance being off because his nose is too small? You are a horses ass or a silly hack troll.
Either way, IBTZ.
You only have one television? What year is it—1956? :)
You can buy a second one for less than it costs to fill up the car with gas.
IBTZ!!
Dittos to everything. Yes, Romney DID look older (that may also be WISER!). Bachman did ‘clean up’. Maybe she’s trying to out shine the missing Palin? Gingrinch did sound strong (we have a deep bench, eh?) but does anybody really think he has a shot? Paul and Cain sounded ‘kooky’, (step aside, please.) Santorum must have hemmoroids. He looks like he’s hurting.
Why do you say that? He's been on FreeRepublic for almost a week.
Duly noted.
Paul came off as an ‘old crank’. He seemed to ramble his answers.
We have ourselves a Noob Troll here. Making fun of Santorum and Cain, but thinking Romney and Gingrich were great. Some solid posting history too. 5 whole posts.
Please report to the JimRob re-education camp ... /sarc
libertarian neocon: "Pawlenty: A bit of a letdown early on."
Wrong. Pawlenty praised Gov. Palin. Up two for him.
libertarian neocon: "Bachmann: She is definitely a star and her debate performance was great.
She was much more polished and confident than anyone else on the stage other than Romney."
Wrong again. Romney's and Rollin's RINO-Wench Bachmann
exposed herself last week as a weak
GOP backstabber, like her honey-pot Romney.
libertarian neocon is an salient RomneyBOT. 
Romney had his rearend handed to him when his response to Afghanistan was to “let the Generals on the ground” decide when we pull out, and whoever it was - retorted that this was not ‘leadership’ worthy of a “Commander in Chief”.
There was a debate last night?
Who was there?
Anyone important? didn’t think so....
Everybody watched the “debate” through their own prism. Trolling many sights the comments were similar and as expected. Many said Romney is a Mormon and untrustworthy. Gingrich, a historian that likes to cheat on women. Cain, a nice polite gentleman but with no ability to govern. Bachman, a pretty woman but no real experience. Pawlenty, too mundane. Paul, a guy that hates anything that goes against the Constitution. Santorum, what is he doing there. Most of these comments came from people that probably didn’t even watch the “debate.” Their opinions have been forged by the careful crafting of each candidate by the Old Media. As far as I’m concerned all the candidates had good points and the worse one of the bunch, whoever that may be, would be 100 times a better President than the incumbent.
Did you also notice how King would start trying to interrupt the candidates 20 seconds into their answers?
Sorry, but Romney’s perpetual smirk turned me off. Cain was a disappointment, Paul comes off as somewhat crazy, and Newtie slithered around a bit. And, yes, Santorum’s nose is crooked. I wonder if that was an old injury?
The big loser, however, was CNN for that stupid format and the cutsie-pie questions.
“neocon”
The name fits.
Thanks for wasting 10 seconds of my time.
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.