Not going to be “live blogging” it, but will make some observations.
Your comments are welcome.
Update 8:40 p.m. – at the first break, I can’t say there are any clear winners or losers. Romney is doing well, dealing with his “issues” without any real problem. Perry is, as someone who has never really seen him before, okay; I can’t say great, but adequate. Newt had the lines of the night so far, refusing to take Politico’s attempt to play Republican against Republican and declaring universal solidarity in the goal of removing Obama. John Huntsman is a positive surprise, but it doesn’t matter. Herman Cain is good as usual. The moderators are not focusing on Bachmann, so she’s not getting the airtime and prominence of prior appearances. Santorum, Perry didn’t appear to know his name, referred to him as “the prior individual.” Did I leave anyone out?
Update 9:18: Rick Perry stood fast on social security being a Ponzi scheme; that’s his position, and he’s sticking to it. The context he said was promises made to young people that cannot be met unless there is reform. Perry also took a shot (back) at Karl Rove, saying he’s not responsible for Rove anymore. He was blunt throughout the night: ““For Obama to come to TX and say border is more secure than ever, either he has worst intel in history or he’s an abject liar.” Newt was good, a glimpse of what he can be. Romney was less of a presence, but no damage done. The others were non-events. BUT – Ron Paul fell off the rails saying a border fence may be used to keep people in.
Added: How liberal. MSNBC brought in a Hispanic journalist to ask quesitons about immigration, leading to what is the likely Tweet of the Night:
Final Update: Final segment was a bit tired. So were the candidates.
All in all I think it was a good night for Romney, he came across as presidential, poised and conservative. He was good on the Tea Party refusing to play the game of whether he was a Tea Party “member,” he said there is no card carrying involved but that he supports the goals of the Tea Party, smaller government and fiscal responsibility.
I don’t think it was a stellar night for Perry. He was okay, but expectations were high, and I don’t think he met them. I can see Romney decimating Obama in a debate; based on tonight’s performance Perry has a ways to go. And just as I wrote those lines, he came in with a forceful defense of capital punishment — if you come into our state and kill our children or citizens, you will pay the ultimate price; his best of the night.
Newt was very good. Forceful, on point, commanding. Could he be the comeback kid?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
oh man, I have to watch MSNBC to watch this debate? YUCK.
[…] This debate matters and might even prove more fun than the last one. Share HillaryIs44: […]
Having Perry talking about the border makes me smirk and roll the eyes. For a guy who givs in-state to children of illegals, is against the fence/e-verify and likes talking to La Raza he makes Romney look good (sheesh).
I thought Perry did alright, I just wanted to see if he completely fell apart, and he didn’t, did pretty ok. Its basically down to Perry or Romney for me, and I think I’m going with Perry, he looks like more of a fighter.
If Romney becomes the nominee, ok, fine, I’ll vote for him.
My vote is going 100% against Obama, Perry is who I’m voting for for the repub primaries, but if Perry doens’t make it, that vote will go to whoever the eventual repub nominee is.
I did not get to see it all, just the last hour. Perry’s answer was good on the death penalty.
What stood out to me was the question: Brian Williams asked Perry on the number of people executed, “How do you sleep at night?” What kind of #%$%#%$ question is that?!?! And the other guy, from Media Matters, all his liberal-premises-up-front loaded questions were horrrid – to the point where it was not possible to answer ANYTHING without taking a defensive position.
Losers at NBC/MSNBC. They were not moderators.
I did like one thing Ron Paul said, at the end, his not accepting the premise that handing out federal dollars hand and fist is the only way to be “compassionate.” All the other things he said were a fail, IMHO.
Newt had some great points! I see him as a Chief of Staff or Secretary of State. So knowledgeable, and so capable of keeping our nation on the Constitutional path. But not the president; there isn’t enough drive, or something.
Michele Bachmann had some excellent points, especially on our national security and on energy production. Excellent.
Huntsman’s performance was sad. His liberal RINO views were all too obvious.
Herman Cain was good, but not quite as good as he has been in the past, from what I saw.
Santorum was flat. He looked like he was in pain. And, unfortunately, none of his points seemed to hit the mark. I predict he will drop out next.
Romney was solid, but was a bit too polished – he kept going back to “my plan” even when it had no direct connection to the issue per se. But good. Solid. I also liked his “no member card” needed to agree with the TEA Party.
I didn’t hear it all, but I hope someone said the obvious: the TEA Party is just average, hard-working, normal, everyday Americans who are SICK OF THE SPENDING, the out of control government growth and invasion into every crevice of our lives. Did I miss that?
Leave a Comment