Posted on 10/18/2011 7:08:00 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Bryan Preston
October 18, 2011
There were two Ricks on debate stage tonight, and both came in loaded up and ready to hunt. Rick Santorum threw a blizzard of punches at Mitt Romney early over his claim that as president, Romney, the author of RomneyCare, would repeal ObamaCare. The punches landed and the damage showed on Romney’s face. Rick Perry came in loaded up to speak aggressively for his energy plan, and spoke with an energy and conviction that has not come through in previous debates. Romney came under the most intense fire he has faced in any of the 2011 debates and while he handled it well, the criticisms of his record are legitimate and will sting. Romney’s red face as he tried to to redirect the examination over to Newt Gingrich revealed that he knew the night wasn’t going well for him.
Herman Cain also faced the toughest questioning of any debate so far, regarding his 9-9-9 tax plan, and handled it mostly with his usual humor and wit. The former talk radio host can engage in an open debate with the best of them, but his lack of depth showed in spots. He didn’t seem to know the details of his 9-9-9 plan early on. Cain did do well when discussing his ideas for reforming health care: No mandates, but focus on market-based reforms like allowing purchase across state lines. Nothing new, but nothing wrong with any of it either.
Perry also hit Romney directly for “hypocrisy” for having hired illegal aliens. Romney laughed and denied, but the story has been out there since 2007 or thereabouts. Romney lost his cool, for the second time. Perry scored another direct hit, and Mitt turned red again. The ice man melted.
Perry also did well on the question of securing the border: It’s about a fence, plus other security measures including technology and boots on the ground. Bachmann got in a jab about the president’s illegal alien relatives who keep popping up in the news, before moving on to declare that she would build a fence along the entire border. There is actually less policy daylight between most of the candidates on the border than the stage arguments suggest, but the arguments drew out some personalities, and it’s hard to see Romney benefiting from the exchange.
Tonight’s was the most lively debate, and does have the potential to change the race a bit. Perry came to fight and from tax policy to spending to funding the UN, showed that his issue knowledge is broad. Romney wasn’t prepared to take hits from so many other candidates. Romney’s packed supporters in the audience and other blogs provided some soundtrack to back their man up but I doubt it did much good. Romney’s cool broke too many times for his own good. His whining about being talked over, when he isn’t shy about interrupting others, was entertaining but revealed a thin skin. Romney probably had his best moment during the religion debate, but that’s such tired ground now and Romney has so overreached on that issue that it’s unlikely to make any difference.
This was Perry’s best night. He took control when he needed to, threw the president’s and his competitors’ words against them at opportune moments, and showed a strong and knowledgeable presence going toe to toe with Romney. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann also had good nights. Gingrich can speak brilliantly on any policy thrown at him. His brief closing statement showed that he is among the adults in the room. Santorum spoke very well on values. Cain and Romney took sustained fire and handled it unevenly. Cain was at his worst on the question of whether he would contemplate releasing terrorists held at Gitmo in exchange for an American hostage. There is simply no way to justify his answer to Wolf Blitzer, earlier today. Ron Paul was, infuriatingly, Ron Paul, capable of saying things at the edge of brilliance but coupling them with statements that make little sense or betray a hole in his moral thinking. While I admire his logical mind, I don’t admire some of the places it takes him.
The clear winner tonight was Rick Perry. He looked like a seasoned leader who has found his voice, at last. Newt Gingrich came in a strong second, Cain and Santorum follow him and Romney follows them. He was strong in spots but had trouble keeping his cool, an d had no good answers to explain his own policy history. Passion is one thing; all of the candidates brought that tonight. Edging close to revealing a Hulk moment is something else.
There was something else different about tonight’s debate. In past debates, Romney’s press team has easily outpaced all of the other campaigns combined in the number of press releases they sent out while the debate continued. Not so, tonight. The Perry press team must have rolled over the Romney team 8 to 1 or more. From the top on down, the Perry team is moving with a new energy.
I appreciate your points, but I still think it was wrong and misleading of Romney to interrupt and say, “I never hired any illegals’, when he did. Surely he knew the workers were ‘aliens’, and he could have asked if they were legal. But to emphatically deny it and then admit it, is, in my opinion, dishonest.
I don’t think Perry should interrupt, but neither should Romney. Most of Perry’s answers were brief and to the point, but not Romney’s...he has a tendency to filibuster. I suppose it is in the eye of the beholder as to whom interrupted the most. It seemed to me that when Perry and Santorum were making points against him, Romney would yell over them, “Let me speak, let me speak.” I felt he was trying to keep the audience from hearing what they were exposing about him.
I believe Nevada is a heavily populated Morman State, so I’m not surprised Perry was booed. I wish I could say the South won’t boo Romney, but, unfortunately, we have our share of those with bad manners also.
I was not suggesting you read about Romneycare, only the fact that Romney did write, referring to Romneycare, “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.” He removed this line from his book, and then denied it. He deserved to be called on it, and I’m sorry it took rudeness to get the point across, but Romney would have tried to make it appear Perry was the liar when, in fact, it was Romney! I am not saying Perry was as articulate and polished as Romney, but he was a heckuva lot more honest.
I think Newt Gingrich has won most of the debates. While I think he is the most intelligent and articulate of the candidates, I am concerned whether he can lead. He did not do too well as Speaker of the House.
Romney has a track record of strong-arming other candidates in these debates, talking over them, insulting them, and speaking loudest to shut them down. He did it to Perry in some of the past debates, he did it to Santorum last night.
If anything, Perry knew he had to counter Romney's arrogance and tried his best to do so. The Mormon crowd booed Perry and cheered Romney. Don't buy into that garbage. That hall was overpowered by Mormons for Romney. Romney blew McCain away in all the Mormon states in the last primary. Those people voted for the Mormon candidate. Check out Nevada, Utah, Idaho. Hands down for Romney. If that debate would have been in Iowa or anywhere else, the crowd would have got behind Perry and not Romney.
I think your average republican liked the way Perry took on Romney and didn't let off. Nobody else touched Romney or tried. Cain had a brief moment in defending 9-9-9 where he addressed Romney's attack. But later in the debate, they practically embraced and hugged.
I want to see Cain slip out of the limelight and let Perry continue prosecuting the anti-Romney case. Nobody else will do it because they are chickensh*ts and want to remain viable for a V.P. bid.
It has already been proven back in 2007. It is rather easy to search ‘Romney hires illegals’ and read the countless articles that have been written about it.
Romney is a worthless POS and flat out lied in last nights debate.
Those same mormons would come to the defense of the illegals Romney hired too. They were from Romney’s church and he had known him for years. Romney is a lying POS!
God, if I hear “a bakery buys wheat from..” one more time I’m going to scream!
On health care, Santorum attacked him, but he held his ground, refuted some points, and then sequeways into the need to repeal Obamacare and ends up with a solid applause line.
Newt then attacks him on health care. He seems to be doing a very effective job of criticizing Romney both on pragmatism and principle. But then Romney gets Newt to affirm that, as a member of the Heritage Foundation, he at one time advocated for an individual mandate. Newt's left looking foolish, and Romney is still commanding the debate.
Perry remains ineffectively slow, inarticulate and clumsy put up against pretty much anyone else on the stage. I continue to fast forward over most of Michelle Bachmann.
I didn't think Cain's defense of 9-9-9 was very effective. Apples and Oranges. Read OUR analysis. I think Newt effectively summarized the political problems with the concept. He did it magnanimously, but the bottom line was shitcan 9-9-9.
Ron Paul is not a commanding speaker, with his sing-song pitch, and unpolished delivery. But sometimes his 100 proof libertarianism is a welcome thing. Like his answer on the tax question. He also lambasted 9-9-9, but then gave a good quick talk about how SPENDING is the source of our woes.
I wouldn't call them "fit for office"
ROFLOL! Zogby nails it yet again! :)
“Oh...I just checked your posting history.”
Is that going to substitute for your own ideas?
“You appear to be one of those acolyte-for-one-candidate-only-trash all-of-the-others types.”
Actually I was excited about Rick Perry until he started subsidizing illegal immigration!
“I didn’t check back far enough, but likely a Palin-bathwater-drinker until a couple of weeks ago?”
You are correct in your assertion that you did not check back far enough.
“Anyway, I don’t really talk to you guys - too much like trying to reason with an irrational thirteen-year-old with a bigtime schoolgirl crush.”
I have yet to hear you reason, just make speculations about me personally. Diverting attention to me personally is in fact a valid tactic, but it doesn’t really substitute for substantive debate. It’s actually a Saul Alinsky technique and I’m a little disappointed that you went to that method right off the bat.
“I do poke fun at y’all every now and then, though.”
No objection to “poking fun”. I guess my objection is that you’ve written a lot of words and very few ideas, just observations about me personally (mostly mistaken guesses) and observations about you personally. I already know all about me, and I’m not in a position to want to know about you at this time (no offense intended).
So instead of taking that tact, how about engaging in the playing field of ideas? Just a notion.
“Have a good night!”
You too.
Yeah I think Perry hit it big last night. Keep in mind, there's a lot of people who don't like him because right now he threatens not only Romney, but Cain. Its my impression that Cain got rocked last night and had a disappointing debate, overall. People who were pulling for him probably were not happy that Perry did well. They were hoping for another poor performance by Perry to help elevate Cain. It didn't happen. You'll notice those people are either real quiet today, or kicking whatever remaining pebbles of sand they can find at Perry's anger and tone.
I hope a lot of people watched the post-debate interview with Cain and Anderson Cooper. My jaw hit the ground a couple of times. Anderson played a clip of Cain where he contradicted himself and changed his position on negotiating with terrorists and releasing prisoners from Guantanamo for hostages. That exposed Cain and was not a good moment for him. Then, Cain said he has (1) campaign member in New Hampshire, about to increase to (3). Cain looked amateurish and embarassed. He does great on a stage, but shows much vulnerability and weakness in a personal interview. Or he did last night. Big time. I'm a little shocked the media isn't running that interview today.
The post-debate panel on CNN pretty much said Cain cannot be considered a serious candidate.
Ed Rollins, former campaign manager for Bachmann, told MSNBC the same thing last night after the debate.
He’s an amazingly smart man. At the very least he should be in anyone’s cabinet.
Put a smile on my face, you did! Thanks.
Actually, you make a good point. Remember that CNN is Enemedia, and Anderson Gerbilkiller spent a lot of the evening smirking at the candidates and sniggering up his sleeve. That cannot be a good sign.
It was a sign instead, I think, that CNN's format was working its intended effect, of diminishing all these GOP candidates to the level of Jerry Springer brawlers and preventing them from getting their messages out in something more than sound bites. There was no discussion and no planning, and Obama got a free ride, because CNN turned the participants inward, on each other.
At one point I thought Rick Perry was this close to busting Willard one in the mouth -- and I'd have paid to see that, I dislike Willard that much -- but it would have been Jerry Springer antics, not presidential politics, and Perry would have lost big with many viewers, by losing his self-control. I thought CNN was abetting such a moment, by putting Perry and Romney in such close physical proximity to one another.
Well, that’s a relief! Now to find out if things like food, rent, and utilities are taxed under it as well.
See my last. I think CNN deliberately tried to set up a brawl between those two, a la Jerry Springer. Did you see Cooper smirking? You could almost see his leprous little mind thinking, "It's working! It's working! Our brillig evil is working! Bwaahahaha!!"
Newt’s a great idea man, and should definitely be a chief of staff/Presidential advisor... but I just don’t see him as being someone who can take the necessary actions to *do* what he proposes.
So here's my question: If a candidate is dumb enough to fall for it are they really qualified for President?
Perry is a demon campaigner, really relentless and very effective. His ad money will be well spent.
A Democratic consultant who faced Perry in the gubernatorial race last year warns other Democrats that Perry's debate performance is not indicative of what they should expect when he starts campaigning in earnest.
Loathesome thought, though. That would send me off to the third-party column somewhere. In Texas we can afford that luxury -- no way Obozo will ever take this State until and unless he calls in the Chinese PLA.
Which won't happen unless we lose a really stinkin' big war, first. Your basic Red Dawn scenario.
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.