One of the worst jobs of moderating a debate I’ve ever seen (heard). John King was so concerned that a candidate might go over 30 seconds that for most of the answer you could hear him grunting, egh, re, ri, righ, ugh, ooh, all, um, allr, righ, allrigh, o, ok, oh, allri… ad nauseam. A great example of why maybe handheld mics are better for moderators.
It was very distracting, horribly so. I much prefer the green, yellow and red lights.
I’m not saying a candidate should be able to bloviate but many times the grunting started after the first sentence and continued..
In their attempt to be trendy questions were taken from Facebook, and the web as well as the audience. Too many questions! …furthermore most were directed so each candidate didn’t get to respond.
During each answer the candidate was rushed so they could get to the next “voters question”. I just wish these guys would figure out “it’s the answers that are important”. If the media truly cared to inform the public I would suggest having a few issues per debate and let the candidates truly debate. Unfortunately this will not happen because the networks want to show-off.
The only problem with that approach is so many of these problems overlap, so maybe a debate strictly on governing philosophy and how they arrived at those decisions with examples would be a good start for the debating season.
OK, enough ranting and on to the debate.
Basically they all did a good job but only two stand out to me.
Pawlenty continues to look weak.
Romney continues to look slick. Perhaps too pragmatic, doesn’t display the core convictions that I would like to see in a President.
Santorum continues to look like a good senator.
Cain continues to state basic common sense. Refreshing and I know he has swam with the sharks in the private sector but he’s in a new fish-bowl now.
Paul remains a libritarian who makes more sense the more we hear.
Newt Gingrich – I thought he pulled himself out of the negative news he’s been getting the last couple of weeks. The media wants a “sound-byte” not an answer. A headline, not a solution. If you don’t intimately know Newt than you owe it to yourself to listen to at least one of his speechs in it’s entirity on C-SPAN or a location near you if possible.
The great thing about Newt is he speaks with such great knowledge. Either he was there or he’s spent years studying the issue. He is, without doubt the best man for the job. The media has done a pretty good job of marginalizing him and, as such, many Republicans may not think he’s electable but I promise, a debate between Gingrich and Obama would be historic.
A debate between a true American statesman and a man who is and wants to “fundementally transform” this great country would be starkly contrasted and I don’t see how Newt could lose.
Michele Bachmann – Has consistenly demonstated clear American principals and values and did so again with authority, especially considering her position in congress.
So I’m liking Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann.
BUT, any person on that stage would make a huge positive difference compared to Obama and his philosophy.
If Newt was given the chance to spend time talking to the American people nationally at length they would be blown away. He has given his life to the study of America and it’s system of governance. And was extremely successful as Speaker of The House despite a Democrat President.
He has been a history professor who has continued to write books and create documentaries to illuminate American History.
He has been a statesman who has proven he can navigate the political waters while remaining true to his conservative principles based on the Constitution and the founders intent.
He has worked within the private sector, more recently and dramatically with his involvement and creation of “American Solutions”.
If you’ve ever seen Newt on C-SPAN testifying in front of a congressional committee then you’ve seen a teacher speaking to his class. It’s pretty amazing really.
Michele Bachmann is such a clear person. She has a fundamental grasp of the Constitution and the founders intent. She is a highly intelligent woman who gets “America” and the free enterprise system. She is strongly principled and sticks to her guns. Talks the talk and walks the walk.
So a Gingrich/Bachmann ticket would be my first choice with my second choice being Bachmann/Gingrich.
