Romney, Bachmann dominate gracious GOP debate

YahooNews/NationalJournal ^ | 6/14/2011

[Diogenesis]

This debate was fashioned, the questions selected,
even the chairs positioned, to HELP the MSM’s, CNN’s,
candidate: The RINO Romney.

Why?

The RINO Romney makes Obama’s ineligibility,
support of the 911 victory mosque, endless taxing,
Obamacare, and love of TARP and Sharia, all moot.

[ballplayer]

Romney said Obamacare was a Mistake and that he Believes the State should run your Health Care,I want to go to the DOCTOR when I am sick not the DMV or the Post Office thank you,the Politicians have screwed up the Doctor Patient relationship and they should get the Hell out of it and that includes Mitt Romney

[aruanan]

Romney said Obamacare was a Mistake and that he Believes the State should run your Health Care,I want to go to the DOCTOR when I am sick not the DMV or the Post Office thank you,the Politicians have screwed up the Doctor Patient relationship and they should get the Hell out of it and that includes Mitt Romney

The three groups of people in the U.S.:

1. Those who want to live off the labor of others.
2. Those who want to control the lives of others.
3. Those who are productive and want to be left the hell alone.

Romney and Barry are the number 2 kind of people (well, since they're in government, they're also a version of number 1). Number 3 people need to throw all the number 2 kind of people out on their asses and tell the number 1 folks to start working or they're going to join the number 2s.

[presently no screen name]

Too bad. Wish these guys would speak up and call them on it right away. Why tip toe around the obvious. They act subservient to the media - doesn’t show strength, IMO.

[presently no screen name]

Good analysis.

CNN set this up to suppress personalities.

But if the candidates allowed it....

[ASouthernGrl]

My thoughts EXACTLY! I was totally UNimpressed.

[so_real]

Sorry, but Romney came off as just another sleazy politician.

Bachmann was campaigning.

Cain was pretty ineffective.

Newt nailed a few salient historical points but it was obvious he was trying not to sound like a politician.

Pawlenty was pretty boring.

Ron Paul was adamant about liberty, free enterprise, the Constitution, border security and my wife' favorite.

Santorum was sincere, well prepared and had the best balance.



I had to repeat your post, because your impression was so very close to my own after watching the debate.

Romney didn't dominate diddley. That plastic grin did nothing but irritate me. It's still too fresh in my memory from 2008. The moment he got on the soapbox about repealing Obamacare, I tuned the hypocrite out.

Bachmann was clear and concise all the way through. She gets brownie points for declaring her candidacy on the stage. She also got the sound bite of the evening indicating Obama is a one-term president.

I like Cain a great deal, but he was ineffective. He had the golden opportunity to "harumph" his way into the "repatriating foreign jobs and money" question and remind everyone the FairTax would repatriate more than 10 trillion dollars. But he sat on his heels.

Newt did think outside the box. He nailed it when he indicated that legislative elections in 2012 were even more important than the executive election. Still, he had about as much energy as John McCain in 2008.

Pawlenty ... boring ... what else do you say.

If only the RNC had put their money into Ron Paul in 2008, and he had made that same perfect decision about Sarah Palin that McCain's team did. He'd be president right now and we wouldn't be suffering with a British subject pres__ent. He knows his facts and figures. Every statement is aligned with the Constitution. If only he would encourage stability in family and government through the social issues, he'd be perfect.

Santorum had perfect balance -- but America is looking for an aggressor right now. I'd have to look long and hard to find an issue I disagree with Santorum on. He's a strong candidate -- I just wish he had a righteous indignation burning in the pit of his stomach to fuel our fires.

In summary, I'd say Bachmann was the only candidate to really advance herself in this debate. The rest of the pack I felt is best measured by their ability to maintain their position, because most of them slid. Despite what the media would like us to believe, I think Romney slid back by a large margin. Pawlenty slid quite a bit too. And even Cain, whom I personally favor, slid back a little. To their credit, Gingrich, Santorum, and Ron Paul didn't budge an inch, though I think Gingrich really needed to generate some heat in that debate in order to restart his campaign and I don't think he accomplished that this time around.

[flaglady47]

I thought they all did pretty well, but if I had to rank them, it would be Romney, Bachman, and Pwelenty that came off the best. Cain was only so so, Newt always pontificates, Santorum was just plain vanilla and boring, and Ron Paul was Ron Paul, he’s always the same.

[ilgipper]

That is 180 degrees opposite of every other Person I have seen comment. The candidates went after Obama, not each other; and the moderator has been universally panned.

[Caipirabob]

The "Latina" observation in our house last night on Mitt Romney:

"That guy is BAD..."

"He sounds like he's made of wood"

"I don't like him..."

There's no way Romney is getting widespread support amongst republicans. We are being lied to, and badly.

[Scanian]

Romney is leading in every single poll.

Polls of likely voters are pretty damn accurate, so wake up and smell the coffee and don’t start the ball busting with me.

Anybody who thinks Scott Rasmussen publishes lying polls is delusional. He is the most honest man in the business and has the best methodology.

All the candidates and campaign managers base their plans and spending on reliable polls like Rasmussen. They wouldn’t base serious and costly decisions on polls if they were all no good.

I don’t like commie Obama OR Romney-—Willard is two-faced and untrustworthy-—but he IS the poll leader, probably based on name recognition alone.

I believe that he will top out at 25% but only if the other candidates expose his flip flops on abortion and homo marriage as well as his refusal to abandon global warming or apologize for Romneycare.

[ClearCase_guy]

Romney is leading in the polls. Can't deny that. However, he is a manufactured candidate. NPR this morning was falling all over itself to declare that he was the big winner. They barely mentioned anyone else in the debate last night. As far as NPR was concerned, it was "The Mitt Romney Show".

So, he gets name recognition and he shows up well in polls.

But the thing is, very few people like him, they won't vote for him, and he isn't going to be president. Which is basically why NPR loves to promote him.

[C. Edmund Wright]

>> CNN set this up to suppress personalities.<<

Spot on! Debates are only somewhat important, because they are set up to keep the candidates from really showing you their vision for the country. Being a President is not some “this or that’ world where you have to make decisions in between John King’s throat clearings. Being the President is a job of setting a course and inspiring the American people and picking a great team.

[Scanian]

Yes, which is why I believe he has topped out already while name recognition is still a prime element.

The other candidates need to show more gumption against him. John King teed up a shot against Romney for Pawlenty but Mr. “Minnesota Nice” wimped right out.

[newzjunkey]

Mitt's support in those polls is only on name recognition. We're in a "get to know you" phase with these candidates.

Now is the time to show you can take on Obama rather than give Romney added attention. That time will come in the fall after a few months of these candidates testing their fundraising and organizational prowess. You want people to like and trust you before you get the long knives out for your primary opponents.

[Friendofgeorge]

HEADLINE SHOULD READ....MSM and Rep Establishment team up to push Romney and Bachmann.

CNN/National review team up for Rep debate. Main goal of both outfits is to push Romney and Bachmann, this was decided prior to the debate taking place.

National Review helped CNN what does that tell you?? They are Rep Establishment, their main goal is shared with CNN, and it is/was to try and diminish Sarah Palin. They believe the key to this is to push MB, to eventually end Palin possible Presidential run (shared goal) and to help Romney at the same time.

Michelle Bachmann is just a tool for the MSM/Rep establishment.

And we read this in the “NON PARTISAN” (what a joke) National Journal. Ron Brownstain and Chucky Todd are just a sample of some of the “non partisan” people they hire