I listened to some of the post debate discussion since this was Fox. The pollster, Luntz, had a group that reacted to the debates. They really liked Romney. That surprised me as I thought they all sounded good.
In the first round of Fox dialog, Fred Barnes made a negative comment about Thompson. Kristol took good natured offense and called the remark a cheap shot from a pundit (or something to that effect). Kristol thought no one’s mind would be changed by the debate (my opinion too). Kondracke (mild liberal) thought that Huckabee was the only one who felt the pain of the middle class and that the Republicans had better wise up on that in order to take on Obamma. Liberals are always claiming that our capitalist nation is going down the tubes unless government steps in. Is it any more true of this year than others?
Fred is growing on me. Mitt is O.K. but keeps lapsing back into his latest speech. He did seem to have a control of facts. Mitt can’t keep up with Huckabee in a debate, but can anyone else really follow that (southern) fast talker? Giulianni seems to have some valid accomplishments under his belt. I think McCain may claim too much credit for the surge strategy. He deserves credit, but maybe not so much as he claims. Still, exaggerated claims are to be expected and probably all parties are guilty to some degree. I’d have to say that I liked Fred best. At one point, I was hoping that Romney would credit Hunter. But I don’t think Romney is that “quick” or would consider that smart.
It seemed to me that Wallace gave most of the time to Romney, Huckabee, and McCain, in line with expected results through New Hampshire. Still, the others were slighted.
Agree, McCain harps too much on his fake claim to have invented the surge strategy, stealing thunder from Petraeus. Slimy McCain.
Fred is winning me over, too. I like that he is calm and thoughtful, and not given over to the excesses of the other potential nominees.
It's called "staying on message." It is, or at least can be, a good thing.