CNN/YouTube Debate Evaluation
UPDATE II: Anderson Cooper and CNN may be the big loser of the debate rather than winners. Stories are breaking out all over about how many of the questioners, including the homosexual general who misled the military about his status during his career, were actually plants from democratic campaigns. When CNN re-broadcast the debate, it cut out the part with the homosexual former general.
Here is an accounting of the air time given each candidate:
************************************
As for the candidates: Here is how I rate them.
Huckabee and McCain were tied for first. Huckabee got a great assist from both McCain and Guiliani in the sense that they knocked Romney down a lot.
Guiliani lost a lot, but he also gained because of his excessive time on camera.
Thompson had some good moments but also some bad ones, and I would rate him just under or even with Guiliani. Paul also had good moments, but he did not have enough time to explain his position on the war, and the others piled on.
Tancredo and Hunter were weaker. Romney's "I'd consult everyone and I don't want to commit now" on almost every question got old. Unlike Hunter and Tancredo, Romney had a lot to lose and I think he lost some.
Here is an accounting of the air time given each candidate:
Giuliani — 16:38, during 20 times
Romney — 13:18, during 19 times
Thompson — 12:16, during 12 times
McCain — 11:00, during 12 times
Huckabee — 10:00, during 11 times
Paul — 7:43, during 9 times
Hunter — 5:06, during 7 times
Tancredo — 3:49, during 7 times
************************************
As for the candidates: Here is how I rate them.
Huckabee and McCain were tied for first. Huckabee got a great assist from both McCain and Guiliani in the sense that they knocked Romney down a lot.
Guiliani lost a lot, but he also gained because of his excessive time on camera.
Thompson had some good moments but also some bad ones, and I would rate him just under or even with Guiliani. Paul also had good moments, but he did not have enough time to explain his position on the war, and the others piled on.
Tancredo and Hunter were weaker. Romney's "I'd consult everyone and I don't want to commit now" on almost every question got old. Unlike Hunter and Tancredo, Romney had a lot to lose and I think he lost some.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Wednesday, November 28, 2007
26 Comments:
I am constantly dissappointed by the venue of these debates, it seems that the 4 "top tier" canidates are the only ones that get to answer. I would really encourage everyone (meaning all AMERICANS) to google and explore Ron Paul. He is in my opinion the only American choice
I agree. They practically ignored everyone but Giuliromnihuckabee. And Paul is awesome.
Pretty dirty of Cooper to invite a Hillary campaign worker (the fag general) to ask a follow up in person.
What stood out the most to me was how bad a night Romney had.
Although he fared pretty well in his early battle with Guiliani, he stumbled bad on a couple of questions. His stuttering response to whether he believes the bible was telling & when asked about his past position on gays in the military, his deer-in-the-headlights look quickly slid into one of his usual little pat answers that completely dodged the question....twice.
I thought Romney had the best night by winning early on the battle with Rudy.
Big loser was Giuliani. The way he answered the Bible question along with illigal immigration and abortion, I can no longer hold my nose and vote for the guy.
Huckabee did well and increased his chances of winning Iowa.
Highlight of the night: Ron Paul's "blame America first" reaction to the war on terror was smacked down by Tancrado.
I thought Romney had the best night by winning early on the battle with Rudy.
Big loser was Giuliani. The way he answered the Bible question along with illigal immigration and abortion, I can no longer hold my nose and vote for the guy.
Huckabee did well and increased his chances of winning Iowa.
Highlight of the night: Ron Paul's "blame America first" reaction to the war on terror was smacked down by Tancrado.
Paul made excellent points, but was constantly cut short. My guess is that the candidates were given time in proportion to their poll numbers. Bad idea.
Rudy is all but finished. His pathetic debate performance is compounded with today's NY Post story detailing how he charged his city half a million dollars to pay for trips to his then mistress Judith Nathan. Bye bye, Rooody Tooty!
Rick,
Yes, Romney's answers on those questions where more tuned to tickle our ears by saying the right things, while Rudy's answers were not what we want to hear.
Now, be it far from me to try to convince you to consider Rudy(you know how I feel about him), but at least he, for the most part, will tell you something you don't want to hear.
Do me a favor, go to youtube & watch the Bible question & the Gays-in-the-military question again. Watch Romney's responses.
What you will see is one of the first times his facade has cracked. While he normally gives his perfect answers targeting the base, he obviously struggled to find a way to avoid exposing his true thoughts.
Romney has continually reminded me of the proverbial snakeoil salesman & I think this performance revealed that when the pressure is really on he can't always keep up the act.
c.b.,
Rudy's honesty has always been a plus with me. I agree with Rudy on everything but social issues. I think he and McCain are the best at fighting the war on terror. But when I listened to Rudy last night and his answers on social issues really bothered me.
The question for me is this, Is the war more important than social issues?
Mike Huckabee is getting plenty of post-debate attention -- GOOD, BAD and UGLY -- following last night's CNN-YouTube Debate between Republican presidential candidates.
First, the GOOD -- Michael Goodwin at the New York Daily News recognizes what’s going on. The headline of his article this morning, Don’t look now, but Mike Huckabee is comin’ on strong, was accurate, and his opening paragraphs reinforce it:
-- Huck is rising, and now we know why. News reports that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is sprinting toward the front of the Republican pack have provoked lots of head-scratching and questions of "Who?" But anyone who watched Wednesday night's debate now understands much better who he is and why he is suddenly the GOP man to watch.
Now, the BAD -- Jason Tuohey appeared to know what's going on. He began his Boston Globe piece this morning this way:
-- Mike Huckabee’s campaign is surging, and he may have won the “Mr. Congeniality” award from last night’s debate, but some political analysts think the former Arkansas governor needs to start taking his candidacy more seriously.
In the next two paragraphs, however, he offered a counter-punch:
-- Conservative columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan commented on Huckabee’s performance:
“(Huckabee) is easily the most appealing candidate for the current big-spending, evangelical, Southern Republican party. I don't find his religious schtick in any way appealing. It's glib in one area where glibness really is inappropriate. To say something like ‘Jesus was far too smart to seek public office’ may have a superficial appeal, but it is also a cheapening of Jesus' radical injunction to forswear worldly power and wealth.”
Tuohey failed to take into account that Sullivan is openly gay -- a fact that might have something to do with his reluctance to embrace Huckabee.
Finally, the UGLY -- It took three paragraphs to get there, but writer Liz Mair finally reached the misguided point behind the headline of her American Spectator article, Huckabee’s Religion Problem, today:
-- But the real question is, will his strategy of pushing religion to the forefront benefit him elsewhere, or is he taking a risk in employing it, so far as other early primary states are concerned?
-- If Liz had only paid attention to some of the latest poll results, she would have learned presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has taken the lead over his Republican opponents in Iowa and is closing the gap in several other states. So maybe, Liz, his religion is NOT a problem.
Attention like this "comes with the territory," they say, and it will be interesting to see how writers in the mainstream news media treat the former Arkansas governor from this point. More importantly, it will be interesting to see how many voters become HUCKABEELIEVERS™.
Please forgo the Huckabee campaign spam thinly disguised as a news piece.
Ric,
Listen, the big news story for me and AW is YOU and that you can no longer support "the lesser of two evils"in Guiliani. I am relieved to hear that, I have been along with you on a journey in this process.
I guess you also heard about the charges to NY to see his mistress while married, so I guess there are some other parts of the Bible he should have applied more literally.
Mark,
The big problem now is who do I support. I took an online question test on policies a couple months back to see which candidate I best matched up with. Number one was Duncan Hunter. I really like Duncan but he has no chance at winning. Out of the top 4 there are no greats, so we will see.
I've still got this Cookie..........
Hunter and Tancredo are not even on the Arkansas ballot. If you vote for Paul, I will never tell....
Mark,
Sorry, but I could never support Ron Paul. I will probably go Huckabee or Romney. How are those choices? I know c.b. likes the Huck choice. Think I could talk c.b. out of a steak dinner?
The devil you know I guess.
You may have to go Chinese on the grounds that the meal ends with a cookie.
A bio caveat-I'm undecided in fact and publicly neutral (party official) but two comments for my Razorback bretheren.
1. Huck did rock last night. He clearly is now a top tier candidate. Now he has to start talking some more serious foreign policy and something more detailed than the mere flat tax (which is a good start for him). He is clearly the most likeable candidate and that counts for a lot.
2. Rudy, for all his faults, is not merely the lesser of two evils. There is no way that on foreign policy and economic issues could Rudy be much more conservative and still fit within the mainstream of American thought.
The difference between Rudy and a Democrat presidency on even social issues would be vast. For example, the kinds of judges that agree with Rudy on federalism issues would agree with social conservatives on Roe v. Wade (in fact, pre Roe abortion was a small f federal issue.) Same would be true on a host of other issues.
So the choice is Dem justices that will never reverse Roe against Wade or a Republican justices that probably would.
A life amendment would probably pass in my state.
Social conservative victory in the real world.
Mark,
All jokes aside, I meant to say kudos to Paul on the conspiracy question in this debate.
Their big question intended to make him look like kook & he answered it like a champ. I thought he handled it very well.
I put that one for Paul right up there with Huckabee's turning the tables on Blitzer on the evolution question.
Something else I noticed was when Ron began answering the question, the camera switched to a side shot. In the background I couldn't help but notice the other candidates looking down at their notes and/or looking very uncomfortable. I got the distinct impression that all of those CFR members were not looking forward to being asked into that question!
CB,
Yes, he did well on every question he got except Iraq. Too bad he got so little time compared to the others. The truth is that it is a part of human nature to be conspiratorial. Why people act like their can't be any conspiracies is beyond me. They would not have a word for it if it never happened.
Real Sporer-
In a tough spot, giving in to false hope is a real temptation. There is ZERO chance Rooty will appoint judges that will overturn Roe.
Rudy's foreign policy will be a lot like Hitlery's because they are both CFR globalists who like to use force to resolve problems around the world. The GOP hated it when Clinton nation-built in Kosovo, now the Dems hate it when Bush does it in Iraq. There is no principle beyond either sides objections.
As far as economic policy goes, you have a point. Still, both have fascists leanings and so both will gravitate toward huge government. Rudy was in a position to shrink NY government only because it was so humongous in the first place, not because he is against ham-fisted government solutions.
I do admit that Hillary is the champ at ham-fisted government solutions, so let's call that a difference of degree in Rudy's favor.
To Real Sporer=
PS- I am related by marriage to the Penn. National Committeeman, so I guess you will see him in Milwalkee this Sept.
Mark,
I disagree with the statement Rudy will not appoint conservative judges. If you look at his judicial committee and the conservatives who are on there, they support Rudy because they believe he will do what he said, appoint judges like Alito, Roberts and Scalia. Has he fooled these guys also? I don't think so.
Rudy is very much a Federalist. I thought you would like that about him.
Rick,
I thought you turned away from the dark side? Anyway, if those guys are sincere then yes, he has fooled them.
I am constantly amazed that pro-life people continue to count Alito and Roberts as "pro-life" judges. Where is the evidence? There is none. They just say they are "strict constructionists" out of one side of their mouth while saying Roe is "super precedent" from the other.
They had a perfect chance to overturn Roe a few months ago and they took a pass on it (Scalia wanted to). OTOH, they are more than willing to go along with expanded police-state powers, which was what Bush (and Rudy also I think) are really interested in.
Rudy says he is a federalist, but how can we trust him on that anymore than his ex-wife can trust him? If Federalism is a big issue for you (and it is to me) then Thompson at least has a track record on it which is second only to that of Ron Paul.
Mark,
I have turned away from the dark side. It will be pleasing to c.b. that I am strongly leaning Huckabee.
Get that cookie ready c.b.
Three cheers!
Post a Comment
<< Home