Iowa Republican Debate

[rdret1]

I just caught the last half of the Iowa Debates. My impressions are:

Ron Paul: He appeared feeble, weak and a little squirrely. He almost came off as a nut case when he started talking about allowing Iran to have nukes. He seems isolationist to the extreme and basically wants to let anyone do pretty much anything they want. My main question was; why is he running as a republican?

Rick Santorum: He seemed confident, but a little snide at times. I definitely didn't agree with his position on NO allowable abortions at all; even for rape and incest. He said why victimize the child twice. I don't agree with abortion. I think it is abhorent. In the cases of rape or incest though, which is worse? If a woman can handle the emotional toll of having a child born of those circumstances, so much the better. If they can't, I think it would be worse to force them to. He had strong opinions and seemed to stand by them though.

Herman Cain: On matter of foreign policy, he seemed a little confused and ill informed. When it came to the economy, I think his past as a CEO and his business experience shone through. His confidence level rose considerably. He came off as a little too pastoral though.

Michelle Bachmann: She appeared confident and calm. When asked, what I thought an unfair question, about being submissive to her husband, I thought she answered with dignity and poise. Her priorities on the economy made sense.

Newt Gingrich: Of course Newt is a long time political insider. He was knowledgeable, confident, strong and experienced. He appeared in charge if not a little condescending.

Mitt Romney: He got caught in some circumstances that made him appear to waffle a bit, especially when his healtcare law was compared to Obamacare. He beat around the bush and went for the soundbites. He seemed to have a kiss up, pretty boy attitude.

Tim Pawlenty: He seemed relatively knowledgeable, but not really confident. He came off weaker than I would have expected.

Jon Huntsman: He did not appear confident at all. His body language seemed defensive and he got slammed with his company hiring record, when it was stated that of the 12,000 jobs he claimed to have created; 10,000 of them were overseas. He pretty much dodged the question and changed track.

IMO; Bachmann, Gingrich and Santorum came out ahead with Cain a little behind that field. Romney gives me the impression of Obama-Lite. The rest are wasting their time.

YMMV

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by rdret1

Ron Paul: He appeared feeble, weak and a little squirrely. He almost came off as a nut case when he started talking about allowing Iran to have nukes. He seems isolationist to the extreme and basically wants to let anyone do pretty much anything they want. My main question was; why is he running as a republican?

QP rdret1--

FWIW, I very much appreciated your capsules on the debate's participants.

Ron Paul's brand of isolationism was, at one time, a mainstay of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Stephen Ambrose argued that Eisenhower ran as a Republican so that he could temper/subdue this wing. (At that time, this wing was led by Senator Robert A. Taft [R-OH.])

[ZonieDiver]

rdret1 wrote:

Ron Paul: He appeared feeble, weak and a little squirrely.

In other words, Ron Paul was Ron Paul!

Rick Santorum: He seemed confident, but a little snide at times.

Santorum was Santorum.

On matter of foreign policy, he seemed a little confused and ill informed.

Cain was Cain.

Michelle Bachmann: She appeared confident and calm. When asked, what I thought an unfair question

While I agree she handled the question well, and it was delivered in his usual "wiseass" style (got that from his dad, he can't help it), I think the question was a valid one, and that she was not totally truthful in her response. I've lived among and around fundamentalist, evangelical Christians for most of my life. "Submissive" is not the equivalent of "Respect" alone. And she knows it.

Newt Gingrich: Of course Newt is a long time political insider. He was knowledgeable, confident, strong and experienced. He appeared in charge if not a little condescending.

Newt was Newt! I liked his comment taking the MSM to task. I hope he realizes he will NOT be the candidate and uses the platform to bring up those issues others will not... and to continue to fault the MSM for their lack of seriousness and objectivity.

Tim Pawlenty: He seemed relatively knowledgeable, but not really confident.

I won't say "Pawlenty was Pawlenty" because I'm still trying to figure this guy out. He does seem to lack "ooomph" and charisma. After our current POTUS, maybe that's a good thing.

Jon Huntsman: He did not appear confident at all.

I kept wondering, "What the hell is he doing here?"

IMO; Bachmann, Gingrich and Santorum came out ahead with Cain a little behind that field. Romney gives me the impression of Obama-Lite. The rest are wasting their time.

MOO, IF these "debates" continue as that one, I think they are all wasting their time. They'll just give BHO ammunition to use on whomever is finally selected (and help re-elect him), unless a "caudillo" as yet unknown comes riding the the rescue at the Republican convention.

Thanks for the insightful comments! A great summary!