The Iowa Republican Primary Debate
I'm on meds that cause insomnia, and there was a debate: Y'all knew this had to be coming, right? ;)
Most of the political junkies I follow were disappointed by the questions asked, but I thought that for a debate as early as this one, they were great. Yeah, "It's the economy, stupid," but people are still getting to know the candidates. I thought the majority of questions asked were well-diversified and well-thought-out, giving us a rounded look at the candidates. It was an enjoyable two hours, and I especially loved that the moderators allowed for some actual debate to take place.
Truthfully, this early into things and with our attention spans, little snippets are all we can handle. But I do look forward to the next Fox-hosted debate. I expect the questions then will be more relevant to pressing issues rather than the entertaining smorgasbord we had tonight.
Brief impressions of the candidates in the debate below! If you haven't seen the debate, I suggest popcorn, nachos, and Dr. Pepper: you'll need it!
I'm kidding. I think. Maybe. I'm not sure. I really couldn't choose a candidate from this, but if I had to...
Bachman - Talk about grace under fire, geez! What kind of sexist, anti-Christianity crowd did Byron York think he was indirectly addressing? That was an amazing answer she gave, though. However, Bachman, like Palin, is best where she is. I like Bachman, but I just don't think she's ready to be President; I don't know that she ever will be. But she's an awesome Congresswoman. :)
Cain - I almost wish Cain had gotten more opportunity to speak, but mostly I'm glad he didn't. I like Cain. BUT. He's not ready for this. He's not informed enough to be POTUS if he's still learning about things on the campaign trail. His answers were very concise and structured: I heard his practice sessions coming through. Maybe he'll be ready one day, but not yet.
Huntsman - Throughout the debate, Bubby kept captioning his expressions along the lines of "I [insert a violent crime] somebody!" He just looked weird, and his answers were lame. But uh, hey. Did you know that Huntsman was running on his record?
Newt - Clearly the most experienced of all the candidates present, when he wasn't being a snotty crybaby about "gotcha questions" - which I thought both were valid questions nonetheless - he was awesome. That's always been the issue with Newt though, hasn't it? It's like he has it all, and yet... he's Newt. CAN you trust him?
Paul - Seriously dude, you are so right! So right about the wars and the trillions and the spending and the Fed... But am I the only person who's thinking that maybe we shouldn't wait until Iran DOES have the nuclear weapons and gasoline and air force before becoming mildly interested in what they're intending? Sure. Let's do what he says: back off the world stage. I've thought about that a lot. BUT we also don't go stick our heads in the sand and be all like, "Well yeah! Who cares if they want to blow a nation off the map and they fund/train terrorism and they actively kill American citizens? LET THEM HAVE NUKES! \o/" Gee Paul, the way you put it, I kinda feel like we should just give them the nukes so they feel better. ... <.< You crazy, man?
Pawlenty - How's that one song go...? Cry me a river! Cry me a river! Bachman so OWNED him all night.
Romney - He did a good job of touting his conservative attributes in a way that always draws that closer look. Unfortunately for him, that closer look did occur when the rest of the candidates completely hammered him on the 10th Amendment. He was very good at dodging questions: a perfect politician.
Santorum - Well, he's not gonna win, but he made some incredible points. Particularly his views on abortion and America generally being a moral country: that the 10th Amendment is not carte blanch for States to do whatever they want because we are a nation. How you want to interpret that is up to you... But I did think Paul's response to Santorum's polygamy theoretical contention was comical. It was like Paul had no idea people actually have been talking about that one, too.
If I had to choose a winner of this debate... I'd say it was either Gingrich or Paul. But Newt was PMSing, and Paul still has that tendency to go on just-shy-of-crazed ramble sessions. It's like for both of them, their minds go so much farther than just the question they were asked.
I think we need someone as radical as one of those two to bring us from the brink we face now. Newt worries me on the global warming thing, but I also can't imagine him ever doing something so destructive as Cap & Trade. Paul worries me about being too radical too fast: he embodies much of the destination, but is he capable of making the journey? So maybe together they would balance each other out? Or would it be like going, in Star Trek speak, from Warp 9 to Full Stop without the Inertial Dampeners?
I dunno. I'm still very skeptical at this point of everyone.
Both would totally school Obama in a debate, though. I'd SO pay to see that!
Most of the political junkies I follow were disappointed by the questions asked, but I thought that for a debate as early as this one, they were great. Yeah, "It's the economy, stupid," but people are still getting to know the candidates. I thought the majority of questions asked were well-diversified and well-thought-out, giving us a rounded look at the candidates. It was an enjoyable two hours, and I especially loved that the moderators allowed for some actual debate to take place.
Truthfully, this early into things and with our attention spans, little snippets are all we can handle. But I do look forward to the next Fox-hosted debate. I expect the questions then will be more relevant to pressing issues rather than the entertaining smorgasbord we had tonight.
Brief impressions of the candidates in the debate below! If you haven't seen the debate, I suggest popcorn, nachos, and Dr. Pepper: you'll need it!
I'm kidding. I think. Maybe. I'm not sure. I really couldn't choose a candidate from this, but if I had to...
Bachman - Talk about grace under fire, geez! What kind of sexist, anti-Christianity crowd did Byron York think he was indirectly addressing? That was an amazing answer she gave, though. However, Bachman, like Palin, is best where she is. I like Bachman, but I just don't think she's ready to be President; I don't know that she ever will be. But she's an awesome Congresswoman. :)
Cain - I almost wish Cain had gotten more opportunity to speak, but mostly I'm glad he didn't. I like Cain. BUT. He's not ready for this. He's not informed enough to be POTUS if he's still learning about things on the campaign trail. His answers were very concise and structured: I heard his practice sessions coming through. Maybe he'll be ready one day, but not yet.
Huntsman - Throughout the debate, Bubby kept captioning his expressions along the lines of "I [insert a violent crime] somebody!" He just looked weird, and his answers were lame. But uh, hey. Did you know that Huntsman was running on his record?
Newt - Clearly the most experienced of all the candidates present, when he wasn't being a snotty crybaby about "gotcha questions" - which I thought both were valid questions nonetheless - he was awesome. That's always been the issue with Newt though, hasn't it? It's like he has it all, and yet... he's Newt. CAN you trust him?
Paul - Seriously dude, you are so right! So right about the wars and the trillions and the spending and the Fed... But am I the only person who's thinking that maybe we shouldn't wait until Iran DOES have the nuclear weapons and gasoline and air force before becoming mildly interested in what they're intending? Sure. Let's do what he says: back off the world stage. I've thought about that a lot. BUT we also don't go stick our heads in the sand and be all like, "Well yeah! Who cares if they want to blow a nation off the map and they fund/train terrorism and they actively kill American citizens? LET THEM HAVE NUKES! \o/" Gee Paul, the way you put it, I kinda feel like we should just give them the nukes so they feel better. ... <.< You crazy, man?
Pawlenty - How's that one song go...? Cry me a river! Cry me a river! Bachman so OWNED him all night.
Romney - He did a good job of touting his conservative attributes in a way that always draws that closer look. Unfortunately for him, that closer look did occur when the rest of the candidates completely hammered him on the 10th Amendment. He was very good at dodging questions: a perfect politician.
Santorum - Well, he's not gonna win, but he made some incredible points. Particularly his views on abortion and America generally being a moral country: that the 10th Amendment is not carte blanch for States to do whatever they want because we are a nation. How you want to interpret that is up to you... But I did think Paul's response to Santorum's polygamy theoretical contention was comical. It was like Paul had no idea people actually have been talking about that one, too.
If I had to choose a winner of this debate... I'd say it was either Gingrich or Paul. But Newt was PMSing, and Paul still has that tendency to go on just-shy-of-crazed ramble sessions. It's like for both of them, their minds go so much farther than just the question they were asked.
I think we need someone as radical as one of those two to bring us from the brink we face now. Newt worries me on the global warming thing, but I also can't imagine him ever doing something so destructive as Cap & Trade. Paul worries me about being too radical too fast: he embodies much of the destination, but is he capable of making the journey? So maybe together they would balance each other out? Or would it be like going, in Star Trek speak, from Warp 9 to Full Stop without the Inertial Dampeners?
I dunno. I'm still very skeptical at this point of everyone.
Both would totally school Obama in a debate, though. I'd SO pay to see that!