Posted on 12/16/2011 8:15:18 AM PST by americanophile
There have been so many debates during the Republican preseason that it was hard to believe the one hosted by Fox News in Sioux City, Iowa, was the last one before the voting begins. Ratings have been strong, and commentary has been endless: You can imagine a network trying to squeeze in just one more--are you free on Christmas Eve, Governor?
It has been a thrilling debate run: Pawlenty crashed; Perry blanked; Romney confronted Perry; Gingrich shined; 9-9-9; Perry blanked. But the Sioux City debate was not an epic contest. It was like the primary race itself: no dominant figure but with something for Republicans to like in each of the candidates. In a recent New York Times/CBS poll, 66 percent of Iowans said they are still undecided about their final choice. This debate didn't make their job any easier for them.
But Iowans must choose, so in that spirit: The winner of the evening was Mitt Romney. His performance was solid and his defense of his flip-flops was better than his chief rival Newt Gingrich's explanation about his work for Freddie Mac. Most importantly, all the other candidates were effective, and Romney benefits more than Gingrich from a broad strong field that splits the vote.
Romney regained the form he showed in the early debates, commanding and at ease. Romney made fun of mistakes he made in the private sector (He thought Jet Blue wouldn't work), and he talked about how he learned from his errors. Maybe it's a good thing Gingrich has challenged him. He picked up his game.
Gingrich acquitted himself well, too: He was a pugilist, bashing judges, lawyers, Obama's decision on the Keystone pipeline. And he was even self-deprecating, saying at one point that he was "editing himself" in his...
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Bachmann definitely had her veep kneepads on last night...
She out and out LIED to us, the American people, last night with her twice told statement about how politifact said that she was correct in everything she said in the previous debate. That was at best a non sequitur and at worst a bald lie.
They agreed that one thing she said was partially true but rated the other thing she said as Pants on Fire, and neither were related to the subject at hand in last night’s debate. I had respect for her until read that.
All of these are unbiased sources who will give me the straight news.
You kidding? Romney got 100% softballs until Wallace SHREDDED him on abortion and homos. Santorum followed up by totally exposing Mittens' lies on 'gay marriage'. My wife thought Romney would escape unscathed, but he did not.
Here you go!
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/
Ditto that. I want a real conservative at the top of the ticket. I don’t want a Big Government Republican who will not try to roll back the welfare state, but rather, try to make it run more efficiently. Romney and Gingrich still see government as the solution to our problems, not the cause of them.
They said this has come down to a four-person race, Newt, Romney, Paul and Perry.
If so, that means Santorum isn't going to make it and that got me to asking why would Perry make it and Santorum not make it.
I think there's a big answer in here as to how voter decide who will get their vote.
We've heard a lot about the likeability factor. This may be where likeability is a huge factor. Rick Perry is just plain likeable. Who would we rather look at on the TV as our president?
Could be likeability, but it could also be that Perry has a lot of money. Money gets you advertising and a better and larger campaign staff, which can get you better recognition and more consideration.
I think Bachman did more harm to herself than Gingrich, she was out of bounds and shallow in her attacks. Throughout the debate it was noticeable that Newt was discussing the topics with much more depth and understanding than the others. Meanwhile all the ankle-biters are trying to score points by exposing how Newt made the sausage en route to his amazing accomplishments. So here is Newt, aggressively trying to get a majority in Congress for the first time in 40yrs, and here are his defeatist peers wanting to abandon RINOs and concede their seats to democrats because of a single issue. That whole list of accomplishments would have NEVER happened without having the majority.
Very true, but then you have to ask why does he have more money? I like Santorum and think he’s solid but for some reason, he isn’t getting the traction to which he’s probably entitled.
I think that comment had NOTHING to do with evangelicals. He was likening himself to Tebow in that Tebow has a history of a slow start and then finishing with a bang.
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.