A few notes on the CNN New Hampshire debate

I just finished watching the debate and I have one major complaint.  What was the point in asking so many questions?  By asking so many question, the candidates were forced to give the most perfunctory answers.  It was really stupid to ask questions like; "what would you specifically do to fix entitlements" and then expect a decent answer in 30 seconds or less. For future debates, I really wish moderators would learn that the quality of the questions is far more important than the quantity on the questions.

Oh and those completely asinine questions from John King like Coke or Pepsi?  Our nation is three steps from going to hell in a hand basket and this dumb MoFo wants to know who likes Coke or Pepsi! American journalism is dead, dead, dead!

Here are my notes on each individual's performance.

Mitt Romney:  Was it just me or did Romney seem a little tired tonight.  He did not come off as the man to beat to me. I thought he got a little hung up on the auto bailout question.  He certainly got off easy on the RomneyCare questions.  Despite CNN's over abundance of questions, they totally did not ask Mitt about climate change.

Tim Pawlenty:  I think Tim did himself a lot of favors tonight.  He seemed more like the front runner than Romney. If I were an establishment type, I would be switching from Romney to T-Paw now. Pawlenty totally wimped out on ObamneyCare.  If he is unwilling to clean Romney's clock, how is this guy going to mix it up with Obama and his leftist minions?

Newt Gingrich: Newt looked like a little boy who just found out his dog died.  What was up with that?  Despite the depressed look, he did give some very solid answers on the need to build majorities in Congress next year and fighting false assumptions on immigration.  Did he do enough to undo his self inflicted wounds?  I don't know.

Rick Santorum: Someone really needs to tell Santorum that every answer does not require an angry forceful answer.  The key to getting looking passionate is allowing your natural emotions to temper your response.  You cannot be angry and forceful over everything.  I think Santorum was clearly lost in this crowd and did not really distinguish himself in anyway, especially against his true rivals Cain and Bachmann.

Ron Paul: New Hampshire might not be Ron Paul country.  None of his Fed Reserve, or anti war rhetoric seem to have resonated with the audience like in past debates.  Perhaps CNN screened the Ron Paul supporters at the door.  Tonight, Paul seemed like nothing more than the crazy old man in the corner.

Michele Bachmann:  The gal stood out.  Aside from making her presidential bid formal at the debate, Bachmann came off very crisp, polished and sharp.  Dare I say first tier quality?  Again, despite CNN's flurry of questions they failed to ask Bachmann about her campaign manager's remarks about Palin.  They actually gave Pawlenty a Palin question.  Did her performance overcome Rollin's damage?  Time will tell, but sooner rather than later Bachmann needs to address that.

Herman Cain:  I was really hoping to see Cain run away with this thing like he did the last time.  However, Cain seem to fade to behind Bachmann.  Perhaps it was the questioned he got or perhaps at this stage of the game people are looking for deeper answers.  Whatever the case, I don't feel Cain held court. Cain had better start getting really tight on the Muslim question, because judging from how much time CNN spent on that issue, the left smells blood in the water.

Winners:  Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty.  I feel they both came off better than their poll numbers suggest.  Pawlenty came off much more aggressively than Romney.  Clearly, Pawlenty was working on not being dull.  Bachmann out shined her two conservative rivals Santorum and Cain. Her current Congressional experience easily trumped Santorum's past deeds and provided the details that Herman Cain lacks.

Losers:  Mitt Romney and Herman Cain.  Romney allowed Pawlenty to look far more aggressive than he did. As the supposed front runner and the  establishment's choice, that was a bad thing.  Herman Cain failed to build on the momentum he had from the last debate and allowed Bachmann to look more substantive.  Time to hit the books Herman, more details will be required.

What are your thoughts?  Who did you think were the winners and losers?


NOTE:  If you missed the debate, Left Coast Rebel has the full video up on his site.

The New Hampshire Debates - What will you be looking for?

Tonight CNN is hosting the Republican debate in Manchester New Hampshire.  The field will include Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann,  Ron Paul,  and Rick Santorum.


Here is what I will be looking for:


Herman Cain:  I want to see how Cain handles himself with Bachmann and Romney in the mix.  Right now Cain is the strongest declared conservative.  He is way out ahead of both Bachmann and Santorum.  In the last debate, Cain easily out shined Santorum and establishment favorite Pawlenty.  Can Herman do it again with Romney and Bachmann in the field?


Michele Bachmann:  I want to see how she handles the debate and matches up against Herman Cain.  Of course I am dying to see how she will handle the inevitable Palin/ Rollins debacle. Her response will be quite telling.


Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty: This should be the source of all the friction in this debate.  Romney is the front runner thus far so all the others will try to knock him down.  Pawlenty has a lot to gain by knocking off Romney so I expect he will be throwing the most elbows.


CNN's behavior:  CNN is no friend to conservatives.  They have had plants in some of their past debates.  I suspect they will be extra unfriendly to both Cain and Bachmann.  Let's watch and see just how much bias CNN  exhibits tonight.


Newt Gingrich: I will be watch this clown purely for entertainment value.  I cannot imagine him saying anything that could resurrect his disastrous campaign.  Look for CNN to ask Newt all the ugly questions.


What will you be watching for in this debate?  Sound out.


Via: Memeorandum
Via: CNN

Notes on the South Carolina GOP debate

I just got through watching the debate.  I think this debate was Fox News' attempt to kick start the nomination process early. From a political standpoint, there really isn't a good reason to start early.  Starting the process early increases the chance of a candidate tripping up and giving Obama and the left their much needed distraction issues.


I tuned in mostly to watch Herman Cain's performance to finally see Gary Johnson speak publicly (I know his record, but never seen him speak).  Below are some of the notes I jotted down while watching.


Pawlenty's opening greeting and thanks seems so typically politico and tiresome.  I liked how the other just answered the question put forth without all the fanfare.


Fox has decided to do "The Hand Show"?  I thought Fred Thompson killed The Hand Show back in 2008.  I hate The Hand Show, because it leaves you clueless as to why a candidate does or does not support an issue.  Case in point, I would have love to have heard why Herman Cain would not release the Osama Bin Ladin photo.


Ron Paul is getting wild applause for getting out of Afghanistan.  Is that truly Republicans coming around to his position or did Ron Paul pack the house with his supporters.  My money is on the latter, especially after Ron Paul's answer to close Gitmo.


Gary Johnson finally speaks, my first impression -"mousy" ,"pipsqueak", "geeky", not good.  Johnson whines (rightfully) about the distribution of questions.  Seems like Pawlenty is getting the lion's share.


Santorum not apologizing for "English Only" stance, instead gives a very strong explanation and example.  Kudos.


Gary Johnson on giving out work visas easily.  With jobs drying up in this country, do we really want to hand out work visas like Halloween candy?  That certainly seems at odd with his believe that we are headed for economic collapse. If the economy collapses, wouldn't Americans want every possible job available even the menial ones?


Pawlenty busted for his enthusiastic support for Cap and Trade! Pawlenty fesses up and admits a mistake. Seems like a smarter way to go than what Romney is trying to pull with RomneyCare.


Lightning Round on absent candidates - this is Fox News indulging itself. Very bad idea, this could lead to nasty sound bites that the left would surely use.  Thankfully, none of them stepped in it. Gary Johnson tries a little bit of a Palin dig.  Foolish, she could eat his lunch while making breakfast for her family.


Here is my overall impressions of the various candidates.


Tim Pawlenty - He was the perfect first tier candidate - if this was 2008.  His style seemed so typically scripted from the faux aggressive tone to the robotic hand gestures.  This may have been the standard back in the day, but for 2012 we need authenticity.


Rick Santorum - The perfect 2008 second tier candidate.  Aside from his refusal to back track on his English Only comments, I wasn't really impressed.


Herman Cain - In this field of candidates, I expected Cain to completely blow these guys out the water.  Maybe I have seen too many of his speeches, but I was expecting a tad more. Judging from the focus group after the debate, Cain ran way with the show, so maybe I am being too critical.  He is still on my short list.


Ron Paul - Ron Paul was Ron Paul. The only thing new here, is that I think Republicans have moved a little closer to where Ron Paul has always been.


Gary Johnson - This guy will never do.  I have repeatedly warned on this blog that the GOP nominee is going to get the full Palin Treatment.  Does anyone think for one hot second that Gary Johnson could stand up to 10 minutes of that?  Hopeless! Pack it in Gary.


Via: Memeorandum
Via: Fox News
Via: The Other McCain

Debate at Reagan Library moved to September 14

The Republican primary debate scheduled for May 2 at the Reagan Library has been moved to September 14. This is the debate that will be cosponsored by Politico and NBC.

Politico: The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation has postponed its debate for Republican candidates from May 2 to September 14.

The move, announced Wednesday in conjunction with cosponsors NBC and POLITICO, follows an unexpectedly slow start to the Republican presidential nominating contest.Organizers worried that the May 2 debate, which was announced shortly after the midterm elections last November, would not attract candidates who will eventually get into the race but are delaying announcements for legal and political reasons. Only one top-tier candidate, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, has officially created an exploratory committee.

Even with a new date set, Republicans should really consider skipping this debate all together. Since 2008, both Politico and NBC have shown themselves to be less than impartial. Since scores of Democrats flatly refuse to go on Fox News cause they find it biased, why can't Republicans flatly refuse to deal with the likes of Politico or NBC?

I think skipping this debate could be a way for the right to finally call out some of the biggest hacks in the media. I am not going to hold my breath for it though. As Sarah Palin has said, some Republicans have the fighting instinct of sheep.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Politico

Full Video: Lt. Col. Allen West – Ron Klein Debate

As far as debate formats go, this one really stinks.  There is absolutely no back and forth between West and Klein.  How can anyone call this a debate without the two candidates engaging on the issues?  The moderators stank too.  They seemed not to ask any really controversial or tough questions to either candidate and did not follow up on anything. Given Ron Klein’s high support of the very unpopular Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda, these moderators did very little to get Klein to explain those votes.

If the Ron Klein’s plan was to paint West as some rightwing whacko extremist, West’s appearance here certainly throws that out the window.  West comes off well informed, principled and serious. Given that the room was packed with supporters from both sides, it is hard to tell just how effective each candidate was.

Watch the debate and share your thoughts.

Video h/t: The Right Scoop

Video: Rand Paul – Jack Conway Debate

The full video to the very contentious Rand Paul – Jack Conway Debate can be found here.  Sorry I could not embed the video here, but CSPAN is being stingy

The first few minutes of this debate is really hot stuff.  I would love to know who told Jack Conway to go down this road with Rand Paul.  It seems like such a stupid idea to me.  Rand Paul is a strong libertarian, as such; it would be relatively easy to corner Paul in a hard right position and then try to make him look “extreme”.  Instead, Conway goes for these so called allegations from way back in the day.

Kudos to Rand Paul for making Conway look extremely stupid pursuing the issue and double kudos to Rand Paul for refusing to shake Conway’s hand. Conway stooped to the gutter and did not deserve to be treated with respect. We all claim to hate gutter politics, but we seldom punish those who practice it.  Rand Paul’s refusal of a handshake is a good start at punishing those who practice dirty politics.

Overall, I think Conway came off as a walking talking attack ad. Conway leveled an attack on Rand Paul with every question he answered. Paul chose only to attack Conway just a tiny amount of times. Throughout the debate I could not help but think of the theme old vs. new. On one hand you had Jack Conway, the old style politician and guardian of the status quo. In the case of Rand Paul we had a glimpse of the new style politician who is willing to challenge everything about the status quo.

Via: CSPAN

Video h/t: Gateway Pundit

Video: The Christine O’Donnell – Chris Coons Debate

I am playing catch up and have just finished watching the Coons-O’Donnell debate. Good Lord, this was a long debate.  Basically this was a three on one debate, Chris Coon, Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Karibjanian vs. Christine O’Donnell. I am hard pressed to think of a more lopsidedly moderated debate.  Again Blitzer and Karibjanian should take note of how Mitch Fox moderated the Reid-Angle debate. Mitch Fox was only in the tank for the people of Nevada and not for any candidate.

The moderators seem to constantly nudge Coons to go after O’Donnell’s statements. They repeatedly reminded him that this was the “discussion portion” and he could discuss (i.e. attack) what O’Donnell just said.

Chris Coons could not have been more condescending and dismissive of O’Donnell if he tried. Just look at the 52 minute mark to see what I am talking about. Ouch, how rude!

What I thought was funny was that Coons, Blitzer and Karibjanian treated O’Donnell like she was some crazy space alien, even when she continually turned in a sane and thoughtful performance. If they were banking on everyone thinking she is nothing more than a rightwing wacko, they will be mistaken, because O’Donnell was nothing but credible and sane.

Despite, O’Donnell being able to hold her own and come off as a credible candidate, I think what was needed here was for to eviscerate Coons with a killer sound bite or set him back with a series of awkward moments. That did not happen, so it will be interesting to see how if O’Donnell improves her numbers between now and November 2.

I do have to ask, who picked those God awful student questions? Those student questions were so far behind the times it was ridiculous. Are we to believe that college students who are just about to enter the job market are more concerned about stem cell research than the economy?  Puleeeeeze!

I think O’Donnell’s best moment came when she answered the education question (see the 36:30 mark).  O’Donnell gave a well delivered jab at Coons and a clear explanation of what is wrong with the system.

Second best O’Donnell moment was this:

“I would argue there are more people who support my Catholic faith than his Marxist belief.”

So very feisty!

I also think O’Donnell did a better job than Sharron Angle at delivering charges against her opponent. Clearly, O’Donnell was not afraid to go at Chris Coons.

Video h/t: Breitbart TV

Video: The Harry Reid – Sharron Angle Debate

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

I just got through watching the Harry Reid and Sharron Angle debate.  I agree with the consensus that Harry Reid lost this one. I think Reid lost it because he was up against two challengers.  First was Sharron Angle who despite not being a polished debater, appear sane and competent and spoke with conviction. The other opponent was Reid himself.  For someone who has been in Washington for 30 years, Reid turned in a very armature performance. From convoluted answers to shuffling papers, Harry Reid did little to make the case for the status quo in a year where people are looking for real change.

Reid poor performance was evident from the get go. His opening statement was an awkward combination of his personal history and a questionable laundry list of Democratic accomplishments. Compare and contrast with Sharron Angle whose opening statement was smoothly delivered by identifying with the everyday man.

I think after this debate, thing will start moving in Angle’s direction.  Reid and the Democrats spent a lot of time and money trying to paint Angle as a crazy extremist.  There was nothing in her performance that lends credence to that. Reid on the other hand, did very little to showcase his experience and thus left Nevada voters little reason not to change senators.

Below are some notes I jotted down throughout the debate. They are in no particular order.

Man up: Did Angle say this in reference to Reid’s opening remarks that he was not as big a man as his father? If so, that was very slick on Angle’s part.

Angle’s performance:  My major criticism of Angle is the smiling.  I understand she might have been nervous, but some of the things she discusses are dead serious and a smile is so inappropriate. I am glad she addressed this in her closing remarks.  My other criticism is more of a nitpick; Angle seemed to struggle to deliver some of her remarks almost like she had committed some of it to memory.  I suspect as she gains more experience she won’t have that problem again.

Reid’s poor performance: I think the reason Reid did so poorly is because he had the harder job.  He had to defend policies that the American public is forcefully rejecting. As such, he had to pick and choose his words and was forced to make arguments for a define set of parameters. Angle on the other hand could speak much more freely and forcefully because she is working with simple commonsense solutions that the public has been asking for.

Moderator Mitch Fox: All the major networks should take note of this guy. Fox knows how to moderate a debate.  He pressed both Reid and Angle hard when they tried to avoid answering questions.  I got the distinct feeling that Mitch Fox was on the side of all Nevadans rather than a party hack masquerading as a newsman.  Too bad Christine O’Donnell did not have a moderator like Fox for her debate.

Palin Red?  Have any of you notice that a slew of female Republican candidates are now sporting red jackets like Sarah Palin did in 2008?  Is Angle sending a Mama Grizzle message?

Another Reid gaffe: Reid called the Department of Education the Department of Energy (see 42:45 mark)

About those Benjamins, Harry: To me this was Sharron Angle’s best moment (see 51:30 mark).  Every politician on the public dime, who has a huge increase in their line 23, should be asked this question.  How did you get so rich on the government dime?

Closing statements: Reid digging for papers? Are you kidding me? Angle’s use of the word “angle” was rather cute.

Via: Memeorandum

Video h/t: Left Coast Rebel