GOP First Debate

#6
#6
Giuliani did not fair well. He came across as too skittish and not commanding. Brownback sounded like some snake oil salesman. Romney did as well but not quite as fake. McCain looked like he was constipated. Honestly I thought Tancredo came across the best and he has a snowball's chance.
 
#7
#7
I agree on Giuliani, he wasn't commanding. He danced a little bit on the Sooneys/Shiites question...but he got through it. I think, though, that he's the front runner out of the group we watched last night.

Romney was solid last night. McCain was horrible.

And, although he's a bit too cartoonish for me, I think Ron Paul had a good night.
 
#8
#8
I just find it amusing that the guy who a few years ago tried to be to the Left of Ted Kennedy now is trying to be to the right of Ronald Reagan. Not sure how he's not being called out on that but whatever.
 
#9
#9
vader said:
Who does that leave? Is there a viable 3rd party candidate?
Click to expand...

It leaves no one...

I voted 3rd party in 2000 in protest. But in the end, I came to the conclusion that voting out of protest is no different than not voting at all.

I still can vote for the lesser dogcatcher local elections, though.
 
#10
#10
CSpindizzy said:
Giuliani did not fair well. He came across as too skittish and not commanding. Brownback sounded like some snake oil salesman. Romney did as well but not quite as fake. McCain looked like he was constipated. Honestly I thought Tancredo came across the best and he has a snowball's chance.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I've never understood how grading a person on how well they perform in a debate has anything to do with how well they lead. Bush II being the only person I can think of where it may have been a slight indicator. Clinton and Carter were great debaters, but lead totally corrupt or inept presidencies.

Just because someone has camera presence or has been coached well before the debate, that doesn't make them presidential.
 
#11
#11
Tenn_Vol_Authority said:
Honestly, I've never understood how grading a person on how well they perform in a debate has anything to do with how well they lead. Bush II being the only person I can think of where it may have been a slight indicator. Clinton and Carter were great debaters, but lead totally corrupt or inept presidencies.

Just because someone has camera presence or has been coached well before the debate, that doesn't make them presidential.
Click to expand...

Add to that the softballs tossed to them and the chance to 'clarify' earlier statements when they have a chance to hear others' answers....
 
#12
#12
I really have no clue who to vote for. I doubt I will ever vote for a Dem. and the Repubs are giving me nothing to work with. There has got to be an honest man that cares about our country with deep pockets somewhere.

I can't see Rudy being the next pres though it would be fun to chant Rudy all the time. McCain is weird to me and other than that I don't know much about the other guys.

All I know is I don't want Hillary or Obama in office- things aren't looking good.
 
#14
#14
I think Gingrich and Thompson are still likely candidates to enter the running later this summer...we'll see, I guess.
 
#15
#15
I think Thompson will jump in. If he does, Newt will have to wait it out. Too many key players are already drooling over the prospects of Thompson jumping in. If Newt wants in he better make the first move.
 
#16
#16
i wasn't impressed with any of them really.....

lots of sidestepping, lots of chaging the subject, and no one really took a hard stance on anything.

and i'm with you TVA.....the post debate analysis had more to do with stage presence than the issues themselves....while i want our president to be able to speak well, his grade in debate skills matters less to me than what the guy will actually do and what he believes in doing.

and one more thing that bugged me......how many times did we hear last night about God and faith being a part of their decision making process, and then we heard them turn right around and talk about church and state being separate???

and the use of the word "debate" for this last night should be loose at best.....it was little more than a multiple target platform.

i've voted republican since i've been able to vote, but if these are the guys that we have to choose from........ugh. for a long time i've liked John McCain, but honestly, last night he did more to change my opinion of him than to strengthen it.

all i can say is good luck.........we're all going to need it.
 
#17
#17
CSpindizzy said:
I think Thompson will jump in. If he does, Newt will have to wait it out. Too many key players are already drooling over the prospects of Thompson jumping in. If Newt wants in he better make the first move.
Click to expand...

Then Thompson won the debate. He sat out while all the other candidates bored or aggravated the voters to death. They will celebrate someone like Thompson as a "savior" once he jumps in.
 
#18
#18
He's already seen as the savior...read Peggy Noonan's column today. I'm sure Fred could be nominated without ever even announcing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top