Originally posted by dadudemon
Watched the debate from the 7th.I was impressed with Newt and Cain.
I was irritated with Paul's stuttering and he could have done better. One of his worst, imo.
I don't like Perry or Santorum. Romney had a few good points but came off as weak or 'more of the same'. Bachmann is such a rehearsed and "rote" person that she is painful to watch: stiff, wooden, and not even acting out her lines like Santorum tried to do.
Anyway, the most impressive line of the night is when one of the moderators tried to get Newt to rip Perry (and some other dude...Romney?) a new one over their argument. He flat out said, "I'm not intersted in your attempts to divide the party to put Obama in a better position" or something like that. It was very spot on and I enjoyed him calling it out. We needed an "oooooohhhhhh" sitcom sound effect. lol
Edit - Huntsman had a few good moments and he seems to be a bit "nicer" than the others. He also smacks of being a dmeocrat, at times, to me. He mostly reminds me of a Christian Evangelical. 😐
i think i heard ron paul is actually starting off stronger (numbers wise) this time around than he was in 08, though it's a bit early to make any real predictions. ultimately i think his campaign is going nowhere. he's not nearly as fired up as he was in 08, and is noticeably less identifiable from his opponents. i think that's cause the debate has shifted dramatically from foreign policy to economic austerity measures, and so paul's rhetoric is not nearly as interesting here. it's still popular with republicans because of its extreme free market emphasis but i think ultimately republicans don't want or need to go that far to the right. they don't wanna abolish the fed, they don't want to return to the gold standard, etc. they just want someone who's going to cut taxes for the rich, deregulate the markets for the banks/corporations, and slash social programs to help pay for the tax cuts. and while paul would probably do all of those things, they would probably prefer someone a little less crazy. also his craving to slash military spending is a no-go. i'm actually really surprised nobody has brought up the fact that he said he wouldn't have issued the direct order to go get osama in pakistan had he been president. i'll say the same thing about paul i said in 08: if he's not gearing up to launch an independent campaign from the buzz and publicity he generates during the republican primary process, then he's wasting his time.
in watching the last 2 debates i have to say newt is easily the smartest one in the bunch, and seemingly has the strongest grasp of the republican ideology and is the best at conveying it in an intellectually palpable manner. that said, he clearly has not a chance in hell, which is interesting. he's not really much of a political personality. he's much more effective as an ideas man.
hermain cain also has no chance at a nomination. i think that's probably a good thing, to be perfectly honest. his 999 plan is the mark of the beast, literally. we need a stronger middle/lower class, we need consumers with cash in their pockets. replacing income tax with increased sales tax goes in exactly the wrong direction imo. to add insult to injury, there's this:
YouTube video
santorum is a typical neo-con douchebag with nothing particularily unique or interesting about him. luckily also no chance at winning, at this point i have to wonder if he's campaigning for vice president.
huntsman is seemingly trying to play the role of the 'balanced moderate.' that's a strategy that is bound to fail. first of all it would be much more effective in the general election than in the republican primary, problem being you have to go through the one to get to the other. second of all if anybody has proven the point that americans are tired of the cult of centrism, of the feigned appearance of balance and compromise, that person would be obama. americans don't want to hear about compromise. they want real answers.
bachmann is a religious fanatic who went to a law school based on balancing american law with biblical law (with biblical law taking precedence), is part of a christian movement to seize control of big evil govt, and would be a very genuinely scary person had perry not come in and stole the bitches thunder. she's losing traction, wouldn't expect to see her win.
obviously its down to romney or perry at this point.
i think romney is the gop's best bet at taking on obama, if only he can get the primary vote. his biggest obstacle will probably be the tea party movement and the fact that the far-right has been roused by fox news and republican politicians for the past 4 years not to trust big government types, to rebel against the establishment. he is the establishment, and they realize that. also they're all pissed off that his healthcare plan actually works, and of course being mormon doesn't help.
rick perry has a pretty impressive swagger going on right now, and is obviously the candidate that is resonating the most with real republican voters. the biggest obstacles he will face are gaining the trust/support of the republican establishment, answering for all the crooked shit he's done in texas over the past decade or so, and differentiating himself as a personality from g w bush (which so far i think he's done a pretty good job at). perry i think is sort of like bush in that he is a lot smarter than people want to give him credit for, but plays up the role of the folksy cowboy hero for right wing support. that said, he's crooked as hell and i think it would be a disaster for america to elect him president.