Mesa Arizona Republican Debate Just Some Notes

[Tarheel]

Thought that I'd post some thoughts on this last debate for consideration, rumination, and digestion...or indigestion.

One odd question that still stands out to me this morning is, if you could describe yourself in one word what would that word be?  This seemed strange and light-hearted at the time but the answers were telling and what's more interesting is that not one of the candidates used the word "Conservative".

Romney:  "Resolute"
Gingrich:  "Cheerful"
Paul:  "Consistent"
Santorum: "Courage"

Another question that stands out to me is the question regarding what is your biggest misconception.  All but one candidate gave very frank answers regarding this issue; Mitt Romney didn't; he then got quite defensive when challenged on it and still did not answer the question.  This did not sit well with me.

Santorum looked and sounded like a man on the defensive the entire time.  He looked weak.  Romney looked somewhat confident but came across as arrogant.  And both of them looked like Washington Insiders to me.  I think that Gingrich and Paul did the best with, in my opinion, Gingrich looking more like the adult at the table.

Just my 2 cents anyway.

[AUTiger1]

Thought that I'd post some thoughts on this last debate for consideration, rumination, and digestion...or indigestion.

One odd question that still stands out to me this morning is, if you could describe yourself in one word what would that word be?  This seemed strange and light-hearted at the time but the answers were telling and what's more interesting is that not one of the candidates used the word "Conservative".

Romney:  "Resolute"
Gingrich:  "Cheerful"
Paul:  "Consistent"
Santorum: "Courage"

Another question that stands out to me is the question regarding what is your biggest misconception.  All but one candidate gave very frank answers regarding this issue; Mitt Romney didn't; he then got quite defensive when challenged on it and still did not answer the question.  This did not sit well with me.

Santorum looked and sounded like a man on the defensive the entire time.  He looked weak.  Romney looked somewhat confident but came across as arrogant.  And both of them looked like Washington Insiders to me.  I think that Gingrich and Paul did the best with, in my opinion, Gingrich looking more like the adult at the table.

Just my 2 cents anyway.

I haven't watched or been keeping up here lately.  Romney is going to get the nomination, so why bother?

[Tarheel]

I haven't watched or been keeping up here lately.  Romney is going to get the nomination, so why bother?

I used to think that but the top-tier numbers are looking too morphic right now.  We may well see a convention with no candidate with enough delegates to win out-right.  Super Tuesday I, 6 Mar, will be the big tell on this question.  Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming will all hold Primaries on that day.  Newt is bound to win several of those states; Romney is not going to run away with it in my opinion.  And, I think, that Ron Paul is going to win some delegates that day too; he might even win Idaho and Vermont.  Santorum is looking good in Ohio.

And next Tuesday is a big day for Romney; Michigan is almost a must-win for him; it's too close to call for anybody in the polling; that cannot be good for him.  Arizona is the same day; I think he's going to win the McCain voters...and there's a lot of them there obviously.

Only time will tell I suppose.

[GH2001]

Thought that I'd post some thoughts on this last debate for consideration, rumination, and digestion...or indigestion.

One odd question that still stands out to me this morning is, if you could describe yourself in one word what would that word be?  This seemed strange and light-hearted at the time but the answers were telling and what's more interesting is that not one of the candidates used the word "Conservative".

Romney:  "Resolute"
Gingrich:  "Cheerful"
Paul:  "Consistent"
Santorum: "Courage"

Another question that stands out to me is the question regarding what is your biggest misconception.  All but one candidate gave very frank answers regarding this issue; Mitt Romney didn't; he then got quite defensive when challenged on it and still did not answer the question.  This did not sit well with me.

Santorum looked and sounded like a man on the defensive the entire time.  He looked weak.  Romney looked somewhat confident but came across as arrogant.  And both of them looked like Washington Insiders to me.  I think that Gingrich and Paul did the best with, in my opinion, Gingrich looking more like the adult at the table.

Just my 2 cents anyway.

In response to your post, I thought this was a good article: (good points in bold)

Downer debate winner: Newt

posted at 8:40 am on February 23, 2012

Perhaps it's fitting that the last debate of the season - we all hope and pray - ended up in the hands of the one candidate who mastered the format during the entire cycle.  Newt Gingrich learned his lesson in Florida that his formula for debates was what worked, and that means staying positive, remaining "cheerful" rather than angry, and attacking only Barack Obama and the media.  That formula allowed Gingrich to mostly steer clear of the internecine arguments that cropped up between Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul, while speaking at length to the little in substance that actually came up at the depressingly repetitive debate.

That's the trouble with holding 20 debates; they tend to look like repeats.  The only topic of actual substance for the 2012 cycle that got discussed at any length was Iran, and it was a replay of the 15 or so arguments between Ron Paul and everyone else.  Otherwise, the debate mainly focused on what everyone else has said about each other, and who voted for what in 1992 or 2001 or 2006. No one discussed Fast and Furious, no mention was made of Solyndra or LightSquared as examples of corruption in the current administration.  Bare mention was made of anyone's economic plans.

Some of the review was rather fresh, though, since this was Rick Santorum's first debate as a solid frontrunner.  Unfortunately Santorum seemed almost overprepared for the fight.  Instead of providing a brief response and refocusing attention on current issues like the economy, Santorum kept explaining, and explaining, and explaining, and added an apology or two along the way.  There is an axiom in politics: Explaining is not winning. Save the explanations for your web page, not for debates.  Santorum came across as measured, honest, and open, but ended up sounding defensive almost all night long.

Mitt Romney didn't do much better.  While he scored points against Santorum, he had to twist himself in knots to do it.  Santorum pointed out, for instance, that while Romney attacked him on earmarks as wasteful spending, Romney balanced his RomneyCare budget on the backs of federal taxpayers to the tune of $400 million, and that Romney certainly liked earmarks enough to ask Congress for a few during his Olympics rescue.  It fell to Gingrich, though, to concisely slap Romney by noting that his position seemed to be that Romney opposed earmarks he didn't like but supported the earmarks that he himself got. Romney never got around to discussing his new tax plan in any detailvand ended up on the defensive himself a few times, especially on RomneyCare.  He seemed almost desperate to get into a fight with Santorum all night long, and desperation is as much a political aphrodisiac as explaining is.

Ron Paul joined in the attack on Santorum, which prompted Santorum to imply that Paul and Romney are colluding to some degree:

Rick Santorum suspects something is up between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  Santorum had a tough night at the 20th, and likely last, Republican debate, held here at the Mesa Arts Center. He took a lot of attacks from Romney and a few from Paul, and he noticed that Paul and Romney didn't seem to go after each other.  When it was all over, and Santorum met reporters, he didn't try to hide what he was thinking.

"You have to ask Congressman Paul and Gov. Romney what they've got going together," Santorum said.  "Their commercials look a lot alike, and so do their attacks."

"They've got something going on?" a reporter asked Santorum.

"You tell me," Santorum said.

Romney spent the night attacking his opponents rather than talking about himself, which is exactly the complaint that Republican voters have had about his entire campaign.  His line, "I don't mean to be critical," was a laugh line for all the wrong reasons, and it encapsulates Romney's insincerity about his campaign style in six easy words.

[GH2001]

I used to think that but the top-tier numbers are looking too morphic right now.  We may well see a convention with no candidate with enough delegates to win out-right.  Super Tuesday I, 6 Mar, will be the big tell on this question.  Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming will all hold Primaries on that day.  Newt is bound to win several of those states; Romney is not going to run away with it in my opinion.  And, I think, that Ron Paul is going to win some delegates that day too; he might even win Idaho and Vermont.  Santorum is looking good in Ohio.

And next Tuesday is a big day for Romney; Michigan is almost a must-win for him; it's too close to call for anybody in the polling; that cannot be good for him.  Arizona is the same day; I think he's going to win the McCain voters...and there's a lot of them there obviously.

Only time will tell I suppose.

Brokered convention - it's coming.