Replies

Romney the frontrunner, clearly targeted by Stephi using Brownback's ads as proxy, deflected well. Romney got a great line in bashing Obama, made a challenge to RP's foreign policy ("What about 9/11?").
McCain did well enough, conventional Republican policies, maybe a little closer to the Maverick he used to play.
Julie-Annie did pretty well in the debate overall. He did take a few abortion/sodomy hits, otherwise emphasized governance and defense issues. I hate to say it but he did well for himself overall.
Huckabee did well enough, steady performer, but I don't see him helping his standing much today.
Senator Switchback's attack calls on Romney's changed abortion position) was hard-hitting initially but but I think Mitt deflected it reasonably well. Switchback went pro-life and whole-life. His foreign policy on a three-state solution and the failure of the Iraqi legislature was well-taken but countered by someone else pointing out that a federalism solution utilizing the 21 subdivisions of Iraq ("states") was the right solution.
Duncan Hunter did pretty well on defense but like Huckabee didn't really help himself.
Tommy Thompson didn't do well overall but had a few moments.
Tancredo was okay but made no headway. He defended his nuke-Mecca policy and pounded the State Department, then got pounded by other candidates (Thompson, I think).
I was disappointed with Ron Paul's performance. You can't turn a policy forum into a constitutional debate.

Strongest performers: Giuliani and Romney, possibly McStain

Weakest performers: everybody else.

Not watching the debates because frankly they're getting ridiculous. Did hear Dr. Paul's 'just come home' and the applause. I'll agree his problem is he's trying to teach the Constitution to masses that don't understand it in a forum that it doesn't work in. But I think there's something you may be missing. His supporters are coming out and off the internet. Look at some of his recent campaign stops since the St. Rudy flareup in May. And applause for 'just come home'?

You're right, this type of forum doesn't work well for him. But the message is still getting out. And being accepted by a growing number of supporters. At the very least there is now a middle tier. Romney, Giuliani in the top, Rep. Paul and McCain (with McCain getting ready to fall out) in the middle, and the rest in the third tier. As for Fred coming in, it may be too late.

I agree. Mitt is not my guy, but I thought he was the most impressive of them all. I also liked McCain (God help me), and his pork barrel spending answer was the closest to the truth. That bridge was not fixed because politicians had other "special" projects they wanted funded first. In the case of MN, I believe it was a light rail project. And although I know that the bridge was an interstate, I would have like someone to point out that transportation budgets are the biggest boondoggles in most State budgets. At least in Wisconsin, the road builders and the teachers unions practically control our budgets, and spending enough has never been an issue. The issue is where it is spent. Who owes the biggest favors, and who gives the most pork.

Besides Paul (who is a loon), I think Tancredo came off the worst. He hemmed and hawed through every question. He did not come off smooth. I liked Mitt the best, with Rudy and McCain coming in seconds. I just wish I could shake the feeling of a smooth politician whenever I listen to Mitt.

I loved Tommy Thompsons sneak in to Steffie about the headlines reading "GOP against Children" or something like that, and I chuckled at Steffies blatant pandering to the liberals by asking Ron Paul his opinion to every single foreign policy question. He couldn't have been more obvious that he wanted Pauls word to be the last word, even if he was in the extreme minority.

I missed the first bit, but I pretty much agree with your assessment. Frankly, these debates help show why, for good or (mostly) ill, the frontrunners are the frontrunners, and why the rest are the rest.

If I was solely going by debate performance to-date, my vote would be for Rudy. He and Romney both turn in the best performances, but Rudy just seems far more down-to-earth. Rudy's policy positions on several key issues mean I can't support him, but aside from that he seems like the best potential nominee on the floor. I'll add the caveat that I don't particularly care about his marital history, and care even less about photos of him in drag. My one real gripe with his performance was his hammering of the word "liberal Democrat" into his answers, in an MTDPTM* attempt to distinguish himself from other liberals. His answer on tax reform was just weak, too, saying that he'd go with a flat tax or the FairTax if we were just "starting out", but that it's just too big and complicated a change to do now. That's like saying the best reason to keep shooting heroin is that you're addicted to heroin.

Romney's just as polished as he has been, and, like you said, made the most politically adroit statements designed to please the base. He probably helped himself here.

McCain did well enough, and showed some humor, as he needed to do. He seemed a bit shaky on some questions, though, and went back to the "make them famous" line he's already overused. He did well enough to stay a frontrunner if he still was one, but not well enough to keep his campaign from continuing to bleed to death.

You're pretty much right on the rest. Though I think Huckabee did better than you say. He seems the most natural of the "rest", and seemed like he was talking to the audience rather than at them. That's a great skill to have, and hey, it might even mean you're being honest, though it is a skill shared by another former Arkansas Governor. Evidently Fox News' focus group shared my opinion, since I see that Huckabee was the winner there.

Brownback just comes off as a spaced-out phony to me, and I wish he'd just make himself scarce as Gilmore has done. I actually didn't notice Gilmore wasn't there and had to check the roster.

Maybe I missed one of Hunter's better answers, but frankly, I've been very disappointed with him in the debates. He seems more even and direct than the other candidates, but when you've seen more than one debate or TV appearance, you realize it's because he's spouting the same soundbites every time. Now, I know he can do better than this, since I've heard him on the radio, but this is getting embarrassing. Maybe he's assuming no one would actually watch more than one debate, but I expect more out of a candidate so many Freepers seem to love.

Tancredo is the opposite. He's shaky in just about every answer, but at least he seems to think about and answer every question. You don't hear him reusing many lines. As much as I sympathise with the Jack Wheeler "Nuke Mecca" solution sometimes, it's not going to help Tom's chances much.

Tommy Thompson really isn't cut out for the television era, and it's not just because of his looks. Ron Paul pleased his core constituency, but isn't going to win over any fence-sitters with this performance. We like to hear about the Constitution, but we also want to hear about what you're actually going to do as President. The last I heard, the Constitution doesn't allow the President to unilaterally eliminate large portions of the Federal government. He loves to cite Bob Taft, who sounded great right up until December 7, 1941.

Anyway, long-story-short, this debate will do nothing but reinforce the current status quo vis-a-vis the polls, save maybe bump Huckabee out of the toilet where he is now.

* Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much

* Romney the frontrunner, clearly targeted by Stephi using Brownback's ads as proxy, deflected well. Romney got a great line in bashing Obama, made a challenge to RP's foreign policy ("What about 9/11?").
* McCain did well enough, conventional Republican policies, maybe a little closer to the Maverick he used to play.
* Julie-Annie did pretty well in the debate overall. He did take a few abortion/sodomy hits, otherwise emphasized governance and defense issues. I hate to say it but he did well for himself overall.
* Huckabee did well enough, steady performer, but I don't see him helping his standing much today.
* Senator Switchback's attack calls on Romney's changed abortion position) was hard-hitting initially but but I think Mitt deflected it reasonably well. Switchback went pro-life and whole-life. His foreign policy on a three-state solution and the failure of the Iraqi legislature was well-taken but countered by someone else pointing out that a federalism solution utilizing the 21 subdivisions of Iraq ("states") was the right solution.
* Duncan Hunter did pretty well on defense but like Huckabee didn't really help himself.
* Tommy Thompson didn't do well overall but had a few moments.
* Tancredo was okay but made no headway. He defended his nuke-Mecca policy and pounded the State Department, then got pounded by other candidates (Thompson, I think).
I was disappointed with Ron Paul's performance. You can't turn a policy forum into a constitutional debate.
Strongest performers: Giuliani and Romney, possibly McStain

Very good summary. I think the view of McCrazy depended on whether one has seen his previous performances. Those who did may have felt some of his comments were his usual rehearsed lines and been less impressed. With Brownback, I just think there is something nonverbal about the guy that says not ready for prime time. Can't quite put my finger on what it is, but have sensed it before and it was there again this morning. I'd say best performers were Mitt, Rudy and Duncan.