I don't know how many of these Republican debates I will comment on here but it's still fascinating. Here are my impressions of the candidates and coverage.
CNN - bad job. Two debates, with roughly half in each, would have been far superior. The four in the B event got to talk more than many in the A debate. Ridiculous. It was the Trump show. Sure, he's the front runner, but, it's not fair and it's not as good.
Trump. I don't mean to hurt his feelings (as if he is reading this) but he can be a clown. He is a megalomaniac. He is not ready on day 1. It's embarrassing that he keeps saying he will know this or that or he will do the best job without any specifics. He needs to be able to admit mistakes.
Carly Fiorina. I wrote in my first pre-debate blog that I was rooting for her. And she killed. This time, she did even better. She may climb the polls. If not, then the debates mean little. She was clearly the most prepared person to answer questions and also clearly the best on her feet. I really could care that she knows Bibi or Putin. But, I do like her intelligence, class and spirit.
Kasich. I put him up here because I was also rooting for him in the first debate and thought he did well here to despite getting no time. I see him and Bush as competing for the same voters. However, we know, we know, you balanced a budget. Move on now. I would prefer he or Carly won right now and picked the other for VP, but, I doubt Republican voters will feel the same way.
Carson. Everyone noticed he barely spoke. However, that was true on the first debate and his polls soared. And it may not matter. Because people who like him like his temperament, dignity and intelligence, not his knowledge. However, he is someone I can admire but not expect much of as president. He would be too reliant on advisors.
Paul. I don't see him as having a constituency. He has some areas he is unique in the field, but not enough people care. And, his foreign policy is not what most Republicans or people will want. Isolationism or interventionism are not the issue. Intervening or restraint are called for in appropriate situations. I also don't think he has the personality that can prevail. Though early on I took a hard look at him as a possibility, I don't think he has a chance and I prefer a number of others to him.
Christie. He actually did well in the debate for his limited chances. But, I'm already sick of hearing about his fight against terrorism. Without Trump in the field his brashness might help him a lot. I actually thought his comment to Fiorina and Trump to stop fighting was unfair as they were asked a question. What should they do, not answer it?
Huckabee. He should get out. He has no chance anymore. His day has passed, even if he does well in Iowa. I actually thought he made a good defense of Kim Davis (Kentucky clerk for whom he held a rally) although I completely disagree with him and no candidate who opposes same sex marriage will have a chance.
Rubio. Nice young impressive man. You think, some day, but not to day. Too young. He does do well in the debates, and actually tries to talk about policy, but I don't see him as having a chance.
Cruz. No change in my view of him. He does not have the personality to do this. Though he is obviously talented, and he is actually very personable in an interview, he is very flat and even fake when he is in a debate. I reject that he is a polished debater. He almost always loses them.
Walker. He had a chance early on but did nothing in response to the Summer of Trump and lost all of his support to Carson. I kept forgetting he was on the stage and I can remember not a single thing he said.
Bush. He did okay, but he is now being measured as the lock who was beaten off the top of the hill by Trump and is seen mostly in comparison to him. Given a choice of the two, I'd take Bush in a heart beat. But, he has done little for himself. He should (they all should) be looking at Fiorina for tips.
By the way, did anyone else think it a little strange that Trump and Bush "slapped five" like they were playing a video game together rather than engaging in an important debate where Bush was supposedly offended on behalf of his wife and Trump refused to apologize?
Trump offered the palm up and Bush emphatically responded. Earlier, Carson refused a fist bump (I think that's what it was), responding with some kind of awkward contact, but obviously he wasn't comfortable with it for whatever reason. I wouldn't have been. I know that the propriety with which politicians act has been relaxed and I'm generally glad for it. I don't care if they emote or wear jeans or even shorts. And they go on tv and make silly jokes, hoping to seem more human. But, slapping five? What next? And end zone dance when they win the election or score a debating point. That silly finger waggle young men do at each other? I just hope he doesn't try to hug Fiorina. Or chest bump anyone.
As for the B group, obviously Graham woke from his slumber and dominated. And ISIS is important and I generally agree with him on it. But, it is not the only issue. George Pataki has some appeal to me, but he is not able to mix it up any more and when the moderator says stop, he stops, which is admirable and fare, but in the strange world of political debates, makes you seem week. I seriously do not know what the four of them are doing, but I do not see this as helping them at all. Even Graham.
As with last time, my opinion clearly will not reflect the Republican opinion. I have already seen Trump this morning and the instant polls show him winning by another slaughter.
CNN - bad job. Two debates, with roughly half in each, would have been far superior. The four in the B event got to talk more than many in the A debate. Ridiculous. It was the Trump show. Sure, he's the front runner, but, it's not fair and it's not as good.
Trump. I don't mean to hurt his feelings (as if he is reading this) but he can be a clown. He is a megalomaniac. He is not ready on day 1. It's embarrassing that he keeps saying he will know this or that or he will do the best job without any specifics. He needs to be able to admit mistakes.
Carly Fiorina. I wrote in my first pre-debate blog that I was rooting for her. And she killed. This time, she did even better. She may climb the polls. If not, then the debates mean little. She was clearly the most prepared person to answer questions and also clearly the best on her feet. I really could care that she knows Bibi or Putin. But, I do like her intelligence, class and spirit.
Kasich. I put him up here because I was also rooting for him in the first debate and thought he did well here to despite getting no time. I see him and Bush as competing for the same voters. However, we know, we know, you balanced a budget. Move on now. I would prefer he or Carly won right now and picked the other for VP, but, I doubt Republican voters will feel the same way.
Carson. Everyone noticed he barely spoke. However, that was true on the first debate and his polls soared. And it may not matter. Because people who like him like his temperament, dignity and intelligence, not his knowledge. However, he is someone I can admire but not expect much of as president. He would be too reliant on advisors.
Paul. I don't see him as having a constituency. He has some areas he is unique in the field, but not enough people care. And, his foreign policy is not what most Republicans or people will want. Isolationism or interventionism are not the issue. Intervening or restraint are called for in appropriate situations. I also don't think he has the personality that can prevail. Though early on I took a hard look at him as a possibility, I don't think he has a chance and I prefer a number of others to him.
Christie. He actually did well in the debate for his limited chances. But, I'm already sick of hearing about his fight against terrorism. Without Trump in the field his brashness might help him a lot. I actually thought his comment to Fiorina and Trump to stop fighting was unfair as they were asked a question. What should they do, not answer it?
Huckabee. He should get out. He has no chance anymore. His day has passed, even if he does well in Iowa. I actually thought he made a good defense of Kim Davis (Kentucky clerk for whom he held a rally) although I completely disagree with him and no candidate who opposes same sex marriage will have a chance.
Rubio. Nice young impressive man. You think, some day, but not to day. Too young. He does do well in the debates, and actually tries to talk about policy, but I don't see him as having a chance.
Cruz. No change in my view of him. He does not have the personality to do this. Though he is obviously talented, and he is actually very personable in an interview, he is very flat and even fake when he is in a debate. I reject that he is a polished debater. He almost always loses them.
Walker. He had a chance early on but did nothing in response to the Summer of Trump and lost all of his support to Carson. I kept forgetting he was on the stage and I can remember not a single thing he said.
Bush. He did okay, but he is now being measured as the lock who was beaten off the top of the hill by Trump and is seen mostly in comparison to him. Given a choice of the two, I'd take Bush in a heart beat. But, he has done little for himself. He should (they all should) be looking at Fiorina for tips.
By the way, did anyone else think it a little strange that Trump and Bush "slapped five" like they were playing a video game together rather than engaging in an important debate where Bush was supposedly offended on behalf of his wife and Trump refused to apologize?
Trump offered the palm up and Bush emphatically responded. Earlier, Carson refused a fist bump (I think that's what it was), responding with some kind of awkward contact, but obviously he wasn't comfortable with it for whatever reason. I wouldn't have been. I know that the propriety with which politicians act has been relaxed and I'm generally glad for it. I don't care if they emote or wear jeans or even shorts. And they go on tv and make silly jokes, hoping to seem more human. But, slapping five? What next? And end zone dance when they win the election or score a debating point. That silly finger waggle young men do at each other? I just hope he doesn't try to hug Fiorina. Or chest bump anyone.
As for the B group, obviously Graham woke from his slumber and dominated. And ISIS is important and I generally agree with him on it. But, it is not the only issue. George Pataki has some appeal to me, but he is not able to mix it up any more and when the moderator says stop, he stops, which is admirable and fare, but in the strange world of political debates, makes you seem week. I seriously do not know what the four of them are doing, but I do not see this as helping them at all. Even Graham.
As with last time, my opinion clearly will not reflect the Republican opinion. I have already seen Trump this morning and the instant polls show him winning by another slaughter.
I think you are correct in your assessment of all of them. I wish Paul had more of a constituency because I'm in it.
ReplyDeleteDon