Skip to comments.
Two Winners and Four Losers in CNN’s GOP Debate
Pajamas Media ^
| 09/17/2015
| Paula Bolyard
Posted on 09/17/2015 9:50:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Heres my 10-minute summary of the CNN Republican debate (which should have been renamed the CNN-Pssst-did-you-hear-that-nasty-thing-one-Republican-said-about-another-Republican debate):
The Winners:
Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina were the two standouts in Wednesdays debate.
Rubio brought an appealing mix of the common touch and tough talk on foreign policy to the debate stage. Unlike some other candidates, he didnt seem like he was elbowing his way into the debate, so it “felt” like he was a featured speaker. He sounded like the grownup in the room when he tussled with Trump on foreign policy. Trump grimaced and rolled his eyes, but offered no substantive rebuttal. Rubio has a nice way of dispensing with an opponent without sounding angry.
Fiorina was smart and scrappy. Her Planned Parenthood screed was fantastic. She rightly redirected the focus away from the faux womens healthcare straw man (straw woman?) to the real issue of Planned Parenthood selling chopped-up babies. Other candidates ought to take note. Carly does need to soften her edges a bit because she tends to dial it up to harsh and stay there.
Middle of the Pack:
Ted Cruz was brilliant and in command of the facts (despite the fact that Jake Tapper cut him off at nearly every pass). It occurred to me that Mike Huckabee could do a great service to his country by dropping out of the race and coaching Cruz on the common touch. Cruzs talking points are spot on, but he is missing warmth and the ability to connect on a personal level.
Mike Huckabees shining moment was his defense of religious liberty. He noted that GITMO prisoners are afforded more religious accommodations than county clerks in Kentucky. He has a point.
Chris Christie also had a good night and he landed some solid blows in Trumps direction. But he was crowded out by Carly and Rubio, so viewers will likely only remember his You kids stop fighting or Ill pull this debate over! moment when he told Carly and Trump to knock it off.
Walker had some good moments, but not enough of them. I honestly do not remember one thing he said.
Jeb Bush didn’t do anything to help himself in this debate, but he wasn’t as terrible as he could have been and didn’t cede any of his (already shaky) ground. That business about his wife was really cringeworthy. Rule #1: Dont dare Donald Trump to do something in a debate youre not 100% sure hell agree to. Basically, that rules out pretty much anything except asking him to mug for the camera. There was also way too much, Nuh uh. Yes huh! I realize he needed to punch back at Trump and defend his record, but his personality doesnt lend well to those types of exchanges, mostly because hes not quick enough with the rhetorical retorts.
The Losers:
Ben Carson was out of his element. Completely. And it was almost uncomfortable. His quip about Trump being an okay doctor was clever, but you got the sense that he had been waiting the entire debate to use it.
Donald Trump, as usual, was boorish and didn’t give substantive answers to important questions. From his patronizing attempt to salvage his remarks about Carlys face to his strange comments about Rand Pauls looks, Trump demonstrated once again that he is not a man of character. Over and over again he deflected serious policy question with clever laugh lines and insults.
Rand Paul tried to salvage his floundering campaign with appeals to the hardcore libertarians who supported his father, but he was too wonky and not likable.
John Kasich’s answers on foreign policy were bizarre. He seriously defended Obama’s Iran deal. And then he didn’t. Or did he? Who knows? He said two things that are in conflict: a) We shouldn’t trust the Iranians and b) if they cheat, the sanctions should be lifted. That’s Obama’s position, right? I also didn’t like his lecture about the American people not wanting to hear about these policy debates. That’s another line from Obama’s playbook…shut your opponents up by crying about how partisan they are while doing the exact same thing in another sentence.
Also in the Loser Category:
Add CNN to the list of losers. The debate format was terrible. Some candidates disappeared for 15-20 minutes at a time — as did moderators Dana Bash and Hugh Hewitt. A disproportionate number of questions focused on Donald Trump — who said what about whom and what did Donald Trump think about that? Granted, viewers were tuned in to watch the Trump sideshow, but one would hope to see some civic responsibility on CNN’s part (I know, I’m dreaming). Instead, they chose to pour gas on the Trump bonfire — burn, baby, burn. Dana Lash played the role of debate partisan Candy Crowley, injecting Planned Parenthood’s agenda into her questions, and Hugh Hewitt had an odd, flirty Trump swoon that was disappointing.
Also in the Winner Category:
The Reagan Library. The debate platform with Reagan’s plane in the background was fantastic.
Which candidates did you think were the winners and losers?
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: California; US: Florida; US: Kentucky; US: New Jersey; US: New York; US: Ohio; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 2016election; bencarson; candycrowley; carlyfiorina; chrischristie; cnn; debate; debatetranscipt; donaldtrump; election2016; gop; hughhewitt; jaketapper; jebbush; johnkasich; marcorubio; mikehuckabee; plannedparenthood; randpaul; reaganlibrary; tedcruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-106 next last
To: Fiddlstix
They like people for sale to run the country.
81
posted on
09/17/2015 11:22:46 AM PDT
by
Darroll
To: Resettozero
This summary/analysis sounds as if it were written by a silly girl. ****
Actually - other than the pro-Fiorina slant - this analysis is spot on.
Fiorina's response to the Trump/face thing was handled well, but it was rehearsed and contrived. It reeked of playing the "female" card.
And while I approved of Fiorina's impassioned take on the Planned Parenthood videos, I'm not sure if it was authentic. She was not this agressively pro-life during her dismal Senate campaign. And after playing the female card re: Trump/face, I don't trust Fiorina on Planned Parenthood. It felt focus-grouped.
I did like Fiorina's view on marijuana legalization and sharing her perspective as a parent of someone who died as a result of their drug addiction. That felt authentic.
What really bugged me about Fiorina was her self-absorbed, name-dropping ("Steve Jobs called me...") screed on her business acomplishments and firings. She sounded like Trump in drag. I actually stood up and cheered when RINO Christie ripped her & Trump and said "No one cares about your resume in business."
I would have ranked Fiorina's debate content & performance near the top...of the bottom half (ahead of debate losers Carson, Bush, Trump, Kasich and Paul).
Again, other than the Fiorina GOPe spin, the author's analysis is pretty good.
To: napscoordinator
“Some of what is written is true though......Cruz really doesnt show any warmth when he talks....hes sorta a robot”
His thoughts and positions are great. His delivery has too much polish. Too smooth a delivery. I work in corporate America and know some people like this. I wonder if it’s just a “business face” or that’s how they really are. Same here with Cruz. Is the way he speaks about Iran the same way he talks to his wife about what’s for dinner?
To: SeekAndFind
I think the whole idea of “you get to respond if someone mentions your name” was abused. It left the opportunity for someone like Fiorina and Christie to agree ahead of time to keep mentioning each others’ names so they could keep talking and steal all the time. The moderators should have only allowed ONE reply back, not another reply to a reply.
Not one question was asked of all participants. The fair way to structure this is to ask a single question that all 11 get to answer in a row. That way they all get equal time. But then the moderator has to wait for 11 rounds before asking a question, making them wait much longer to be on camera again, and that’s why those attention whores won’t do it.
What was terrible was that the 4 people in the first debate probably got much more time on average than the 11 in the top debate. Trump was right that they should’ve bumped out Rand Paul into the junior debate to keep it even on time. Twice as many people with twice as much time in the prime time debate. Instead they got less.
84
posted on
09/17/2015 11:36:34 AM PDT
by
JediJones
(The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
To: Personal Responsibility
You mean when he says if she cooks meatloaf again that he’s going to double up on the sanctions?
85
posted on
09/17/2015 11:37:57 AM PDT
by
JediJones
(The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
To: JediJones
To: MrEdd
An unscientific internet “poll” is not “accurate” in any way, shape or form.
87
posted on
09/17/2015 11:42:11 AM PDT
by
JediJones
(The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
To: SeekAndFind
Overall, I think the author's assessment of the various candidates' performances last night is pretty much on target, although I would move Cruz and Huckabee up to the "Winners" circle, i.e., those who improved their standing. How I saw it:
Winners: Cruz, Fiorina, Huckabee, Rubio
Middle: Bush, Christie, Walker
Losers: Carson, Kasich, Paul, Trump
88
posted on
09/17/2015 11:50:17 AM PDT
by
Charles Henrickson
(Social and constitutional conservative)
To: Sideshow Bob
Again, other than the Fiorina GOPe spin, the author's analysis is pretty good.
Thank you for your opinion, Sideshow Bob, even though I'm not acquainted with your FReepership. Hard to know who to listen to, isn't it.
Okay, as you say, this chatty article is spot on. That's a good thing for you. But it's still not believable or useful to me.
To: RiseUpPatriots
"...putting Trump in the loser category is wrong. His miscue was the casino thing, he was dead on with the other stuff." ****
While I would agree that Trump held up against a multi-front attack, Trump had MANY, MANY miscues.
Trump clearly misunderstood AND had no knowledge of Syria crossing Obama's line in the sand in Syria. Trump misconstrued it to Obama crossing a line. Trump also bizarrely blamed the 3 senators onstage for not doing their job in Syria. It was Obama's line!!!
Trump also suggested that he would be better than Obama or his GOP competitors on foreign policy because he could get along better with Putin or China or whomever because that's what he does -- he gets along with everybody. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! The US is in a weak foregin policy position because Obama wants to get along with everybody (except Israel).
There were several other Trump miscues, but most glaring was Trump's repeat of using a Democrat talking points memo to attack Scott Walker on the Wisconsin state budget. After the last debate, Trump was admonished in print and other media that there was no budget deficit in Wisconsin and that Trump's source was a Democrat memo. Trump doubled down and repeated the LIE last night.
Trump survived the assault, but was a clear loser last night. Only Kasich and Paul performed worse.
To: Bubba Ho-Tep
And he looks like a kid in his dad’s borrowed suit. Some kind of weird combination of wide shoulders and a small head. The guy might be right on everything, but he doesn’t come off well on television.
...
I remember reading Reagan’s autobiography. He mentioned that early in his acting career he got tailored shirts to compensate for his neck and shoulders making his head look small. He got the tip from James Cagney who had the same problem. Reagan also wore tailored suits as president.
Somebody should give Cruz the hint.
91
posted on
09/17/2015 11:53:04 AM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
To: Resettozero
Thank you for your opinion, Sideshow Bob, even though I'm not acquainted with your FReepership. Hard to know who to listen to, isn't it. Okay, as you say, this chatty article is spot on. That's a good thing for you. But it's still not believable or useful to me.
****
It's really not too hard to know whom to listen to (sic). The GOPe is now hedging their bets. Bush is floundering, Kasich took 17 different positions on the Iran deal last night, Christie is still an Obama hugger and Pataki and Linda Graham can't even reach the adult table. That leaves Fiorina as their next best hope. The GOPe is hoping that most primary voters don't know about or won't remember her losing RINO Senate effort.
As long as you filter out the GOPe spin, this article is extremely useful as a brief summary of an 11 candidate, 3+ hour debate. Not sure what you find to be chatty or unbelievable. I'd be happy to provide a footnoted, 14 page intellectual analysis, but no one would read it.
To: Sideshow Bob
It's really not too hard to know whom to listen to (sic).
I meant also on FR, the posters, such as yourself, Bob. You know yourself well, I suppose. I don't know you at all. No real connection made yet. Perhaps in time.
Not sure what you find to be chatty or unbelievable. I'd be happy to provide a footnoted, 14 page intellectual analysis, but no one would read it.
It really isn't necessary that you do, Bob.
To: SeekAndFind
To me, Trump seemed like the big loser. When Paul said that he would be uncomfortable giving someone with Donald Trump’s temperament nuclear launch codes, Paul said that Trump’s tendency to insult people and disparage their appearance reminded him of junior high school behavior.
It was an ironic gem that Trump’s next comment was that he had yet to say anything about Rand Paul’s appearance even though there was a lot to criticize.
Carly’s low key irony in response to Trump’s dig on her face demonstrated that Trump was a lightweight alongside his opponents. Trump’s only plus was bringing up North Korea.
Jeb lost me with his contrived/feigned outrage over his wife and his repeated demand for an apology from Trump. That was very Sharptonesque.
If Trump gains from this debate, I’ll be disappointed. His business empire of hotels, casinos and golf courses aren’t the same sort businesses that we need to increase to “make America great again” I’ve seen the show “Apprentice” and every task he assigned as tests of his people were far removed from anything resembling real economic activity.
Anybody but Trump or a democrat.
To: Resettozero
I meant also on FR, the posters, such as yourself, Bob. You know yourself well, I suppose. I don't know you at all. No real connection made yet. Perhaps in time. ****
FYI - I am semi-active at FR. I have been at FR as a poster since 1998 and a lurker for years before that.
I think my best FR piece was a vanity article/thread I wrote in January 2008 titled The Death of Conservatism? - 43 Mistakes and the GOP's Dobson's Choice.
That article and the 487 responses should tell you all you need to know about my FR street cred.
To: Sideshow Bob
That article and the 487 responses should tell you all you need to know about my FR street cred.
You are well-known and long-established on FR, and draw many responses to your posts. I can begin to understand how that might be.
No further information from you posted directly to me is needed or requested. I'll see you around the FR playground.
To: Sideshow Bob
Maybe you are correct of Syria. I will give you that out of laziness to look it up.
I think that you are in the wrong with Foreign policy and Trump.
It is a different mindset from politician and businessman. Trump is used to going into a potential deal, knowing what he wants and to be able to walk away if it is not coming. He can say to heck with it, and find a resolution elsewhere.
Obummer does want to appease all of everyone and will not play hardball whereas Trump would say BYE! and move on.
While he was wrong with Walker in essence, he is not wrong that Walker is a DISASTER as a politician. He is using the wrong way to point it out.
97
posted on
09/17/2015 3:01:55 PM PDT
by
RiseUpPatriots
(Trump/whoever, the country wins.)
To: SeekAndFind
I thought Rubio did too much speechifiying.
To: TexasFreeper2009
"Cruz was to deferential with the moderator. He needed to be more assertive which cost him valuable talking time. I am guessing its because of his long law"
I only saw the last hour, but Cruz was the only one who IGNORED the moderator for any length of time. On one occasion, he kept talking for about 20-25 seconds after the moderator told him his time was up.
To: wbill
Trump has a plan? Saying that he’ll make America proud again, that we’ll suddenly have millions of new middle class jobs, is a plan? It is rhetoric, not supported by any concrete plan. Anyone who believes that, in the absence of any concrete policy proposals, is guilty of wishful thinking, of buying-in to the snake-oil salesman.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-106 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson