5) Mitt Romney (Loser): You could tell that everyone on the stage despised Mitt because he has run such a negative campaign. In fact, a lot of the questions seemed like they were sparked by negative ads by Romney. Additionally, he came across as shifty, insincere, and smirked a lot. I really thought he came across poorly and was virtually the spitting image of the plastic, inauthentic, guy he has been attacked as through-out the campaign.
PS: Mitt seems to be getting some good reviews. I am not seeing it at all.
4) Rudy Giuliani: For whatever reason, to me, Rudy just seems to have lost his mojo. Early on, I thought he was very charismatic, but he just doesn't have the same impact anymore. He also seems to be extremely canned. It's almost as if there's nothing he has said that I haven't heard from him a half dozen times before. Not that his answers are bad, they just seem a little too pat.
3) Fred Thompson: He gave serious, thoughtful answers and at times, he seemed like the only man on stage with 4 pygmies. But, he wasn't energetic, seemed a little off-key, and got a little far into the weeds on some of his answers, although he did give one truly superb answer on illegal immigration. He had his moments, but it's hard to see this debate performance bringing any new fans onto Fred's bandwagon.
2) John McCain: He came across as outstanding on foreign policy and did a phenomenal job of highlighting his experience. He also did a much better job of communicating his disagreement with Mitt without coming across as cross and thin skinned, like he did in Saturday night's debate. However, he was, as always, awful on illegal immigration and for whatever reason, he just seemed VERY old in this debate.
PS: McCain really benefits from not having his record taken apart by the other candidates. He has departed from the conservative orthodoxy in so many ways that never get brought up in these debates.
1) Mike Huckabee (Winner): He is amazingly fast on his feet, warm, and likable. Often, you get the sense that he's making the same points as the other candidates, but in a very different way that will better appeal to regular people. Even if you're not a fan of Huckabee, you almost can't help but like the guy and I have to think that Huckabee would come across much better to the average person than anyone else on the stage.
PS #1: In my opinion, nothing in the debate tonight or in the Saturday debates is probably going to be a big momentum shifter for the New Hampshire race Tuesday.
PS #2: There has been some controversy over Ron Paul being excluded from the debate. In fact, the New Hampshire Republican Party pulled out their sponsorship of the debate over it.
So was Fox wrong to exclude Paul from the debate or was the NH Republican Party right to pull out? Actually both of them were right.
Paul has polled as high as 3rd place in New Hampshire, but he has zero chance to win overall. If you're Fox, it makes no sense to include someone who can't win at this point, but if you're the NH GOP, it's hard to sign onto a debate where someone who has polled as high as third isn't allowed to participate.
Also see,
A Short Democratic Debate Round-Up (ABC Saturday Night Debate)
Quick GOP Debate Round-Up (ABC Saturday Night Debate)
Update #1: During the debate, I was chatting on IM with Mary Katharine Ham, who was in New Hampshire watching the debate. Unlike me, she loved Mitt's performance. She had a very different take on the debate which you can read here.
(12)
(0)
Hawkins' dislike of Romney really shows in this debate review.
The focus group rated Romney through the roof - 90% plus in some areas. He really hit a home run and won this debate easily.
Hawkins needs to face reality - Thompson will not be the nominee - he doesn't even want it.
Posted by JeremyL
January 6, 2008 10:13 PM |
Is it me, or is Huckabee running for McCain's VP?
Hawkins needs to come to grips with the fact Thompson's going to drop out and endorse McCain soon.
He also needs to realize that the whole table bailed McCain out on immigration, by pointing out the rather obvious fact that some parts of his plan were going to have to be incorporated into whatever solution if you want to get something passed.
Posted by mrb
January 6, 2008 10:16 PM |
John, I think you are very far off base here. I think Romney won by a mile. He has been attacked repeatedly but he handled them pretty well - and the reason for the attacks is obvious. He is the frontrunner. The conservative viewpoint is not even represented in IA or NH - it is in places like SC and WY (which Romney won handily - regardless of who campaigned there).
I think that if Romney wins NH - and tonight makes it more likely - he has cemented himself as the lead horse. If he only comes in second, I still think he has a good shot. Most conservatives favor Romney, while the Independents/Jellyfish favor McCain/Giuliani. Huck gets most of the evangelicals and Thompson is just missing something which will hurt him badly - especially among women.
Posted by bizblogger
January 6, 2008 10:31 PM |
Most "conservatives" favor Romney? Perhaps Wall Street business conservatives, who see one of their own. But with the economy struggling and whatshisname at Blackstone unable to stop flaunting his wealth, you guys aren't the most popular right now.
Posted by mrb
January 6, 2008 10:34 PM |
Mitt Romney won the debate. And he should be our nominee.
1) He looks presidential.
2) He is articulate.
3) He commands the facts.
4) He had a successful career in the private sector;
5) He is extremely bright and well educated (Harvard MBA and JD);
6) He is a family man;
However, here are the most important things to consider:
7) He was a GOVERNOR. Presidency is an executive job, and therefore governors make presidents, not Senators. Carter - governor, Reagan - a governor, (Bush I - heir, because of VP), Clinton - governor, Bush II - governor. (Some will criticize whether one was a good/bad governor. That's not the issue. You may agree/disagree with their positions and/or governance. The issue is who gets elected, and Senators don't get elected, but governors do). So, we will have a GOVERNOR- Romney vs. a Senator (Obama or Clinton, even Edwards).
8) He can unite the three wings of the party - (a) social conservatives, (b) economic conservatives, (c) national security conservatives.
John McCain cannot do that. He was against the Bush tax cuts (twice) and recently told the National Review he will oppose, again, any tax cuts.
9) If the narrative is "CHANGE" - you don't want a 72 yo , and that's OLDDDD, McCain running against 45 yo young, strong, athletic guy (Obama)
Again, if the storyline is "CHANGE" - McCain has been in Washington all his life - he is the ultimate insider and the insiders don't change things.
10) If McCain-Kennedy (our best liberal friend) passed, the country would be unrecognizable. The 12-20 million illegals will, eventually, become citizens, register Democrat and for 3 generations the Dems will run and ruin this country. The Republicans will become the minority party. THANK YOU John McCain.
Posted by John_Smith
January 6, 2008 10:38 PM |
8)(a) See above. McCain called the evangelical Christians - the "Agents of intolerance." This is a false and personal attack against millions of evangelicals. You can't build a coalition by FALSE and PERSONAL attacks.
8) (b) McCain comes across as arrogant. For example, he called Sen. Cornyn "F*** you," when the distinguished Senator from TX disagreed with him on his Amnesty bill. For example, he made fun of Dr. Ron Paul (who has incredible fund raising ability and gets 14% polling in NH, and represents a lot of libertarians and/or new and/or independent voters) because Dr. Paul will not be invited to Fox News debate. He is a little and ungracious man. You can see his anger and arrogance.
11) The New Republic had an article about McCain, stating that "he singlehandedly co-sponsored every Democratic bill." McCain Feingold (another left wing liberal, ala Kennedy) attacked the Free Speech and is used against conservative groups in their advocacy.
Posted by John_Smith
January 6, 2008 10:46 PM |
Governors make Presidents? I think we've had enough of the statehouse trained "executive leadership" in foreign policy in the last 16 years. How about we elect someone who doesn't have to learn about the world on the job for once?
Cheney comes across as arrogant - did you run him down for dropping the F word?
Why is it a given Hispanics will vote Democratic? Other than that morons like Tom Tancredo are in the Republican party? They're pro-family, hard working, generally Catholic. Sound like Reagan Republicans to me.
How does a guy who was pro-abortion, pro-gay rights attract the social conservatives Huckabee is drawing? Looking at Iowa, it appears he is repelling them.
Posted by mrb
January 6, 2008 10:54 PM |
Why is it a given Hispanics will vote Democratic? Other than that morons like Tom Tancredo are in the Republican party?
Hispanics have been voting Democratic since long before Tom Tancredo was a gleam in his mom's eye.
They vote Democratic because they are poor and because the Democratic party is the party that offers government aid to the poor. It's not a big mystery. Back when Reagan was carrying every state in the Union, he was losing the Hispanic vote by a significant margin.
Reality sucks, doesn't it?
Posted by Jon_Sandor
January 6, 2008 11:01 PM |
"Thompson will not be the nominee - he doesn't even want it."
What makes you think he doesn't even want it? Or are you just repeating what the media tells you?
Seems to me the question is what we want, not what the candidates want.
Posted by Jon_Sandor
January 6, 2008 11:04 PM |
First, I apologize, but I didn't realize I posted three times. For some reason, it was giving me a note that the post was not successful.
Second, you write "Governors make Presidents?" -Yes they do. The facts are facts. You may not like them, but the facts remain.
1) Presidency is an executive job, and therefore governors make presidents, not Senators. Governors run a (smaller) government, Presidents run (a bigger, and overbloated) government. Senators run nothing. Albeit they talk a lot.
2) Here are the undisputed facts: Carter - governor, Reagan - a governor, (Bush I - heir, because of VP), Clinton - governor, Bush II - governor. If we want a Republican President in 2009, we better have a nominee who was a governor.
Let's remember Sen. Dole (an honorable man, a war veteran, a decent guy). But he didn't become a president.
Posted by John_Smith
January 6, 2008 11:04 PM |
I've been rooting for Romney for about a month or 2 now and I didn't really come out with the impression that Mitt had won. I thought he did well for the cards that he was dealt, but I thought the cards kept him on D too often to have him emerge as the winner. Maybe the focus group after the debate took this into account? I don't know.
"Your twisted your ads"
"Lets watch your NEGATIVE, ATTACK ads"
"You said it wasn't amnesty (and then a quote comes up on screen that seems to agree with McCain's accusation)"
"Romney was looking at his feet during the Iraq war"
From Huck "Your not the moderator Mitt"
If everyone else thinks he did great than that's fine with me though. I thought he did about as well as he could have given the situation.
Also, If I could pick a guy to stick in the White House right now I'd probably pick Fred, but I think the people that are still sticking with him and voting for him are just throwing away their votes at this point. He needs more energy to win. I agree with the guy in the focus group that said something like "I just wanted to go in there and shake him to wake him up". You need to come over to the dark side here John. I think you should give Romney another look. He's not perfect but I think he's a better candidate than you've made him out to be these last months.
Posted by Belwar
January 6, 2008 11:15 PM |
John, your surveys, readers' comments, the undecided voters focus group, and consensus in general confirm that Mitt Romney won the debate. How you managed to rank him 5th is unbelievable. Apparently you just see what you want to.
Posted by billlava
January 6, 2008 11:16 PM |