Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Grade the debate. Who do you think were the winners and losers? Why? Which ideas resonate with you or cause your blood to boil? Will this debate shake up the Republican race?
How did others see the debate? Check out online news sites to see how the debate was received by both conservative and liberal pundits.
Fact Checker
42 comments:
Hi Mr. Kirby this is Nicole Adam! Blogger wouldn't let me post my comment so I just decided to email it!
Even though it is still really early in the presidential race, the Republican debate on Thursday was pretty heated. Candidates took swings at Obama and also at each other, but there was indeed unity between them. However, what the debate really did for us was to distinguish the candidates that truly have a good chance of going up against obama. In my opinion, the winners would have to be Governors Rick Perry and Mitt Romney due to their skillful responses and already many political achievements. They spoke with great certainty and the fact that they already had many successes in their respected states gave them an advantage over many of the lesser known candidates. It was made known that Perry had created many jobs in Texas and Romney had made many too but not as much. However, his fact that every state is different was a really good point. Bachman, Cain, and Huntsman looked to me like they don’t have as great a chance in the race. Bachman came off as a little crazy especially since she has 30 kids, Huntsman came off as very arrogant, and Cain looks more like a business man than a politician.
What I remember most is the unity that they all share against Obama care. When Gingrich took a shot at the media for trying to split the Republican Party, I was very impressed with all of their determination for defeating obama and no matter who wins the nomination, their resolve that they will work together. Also, the fact that the questioner asked how Governor Perry sleeps at night knowing that executions go on made me extremely mad. How can liberals sleep at night knowing they support choice for abortion, ultimately killing babies?
It is still a little early to say how this debate will affect the race, but it did make clear who the front runners are. Also, even though it is horrible to say, the fact that everyone got to see the candidates side by side, the older ones like Paul and Gingrich looked too old to be running. The race between obama and McCain showed how the younger candidates have an advantage and Romney and Perry stood out because of their younger, more energetic looks as well. The technology of today’s day and age has brought looks into the factors unfortunately.
Republican media questioned the fairness of the questions made by NBC, but they also focused on Romney and Perry that night as well. However, liberal media focused more on how the Republican candidates “attacked” Obama more than any other topic. Obviously the presidential race still has a ways to go, but this debate was a start.
I believe that Ron Paul won The Republicans Debate Wednesday night. I loved Paul's commitment to abolish the IRS, his steadfast opposition to a national ID card, and a forthright tone. Although ABC tried to make the eight-person debate about Perry and Romney, Paul captured my attention when viewing. His passionate, determined, and bold responses made him stand out. This was seen when Paul zeroed in on the accusation that Perry tried to forcibly vaccinate12-year-old girls against HPV by executive order. Shortly after this comment, during a commercial break, Perry walked up to Paul's podium, physically grabbed Paul's wrist, and pointed at Paul's face with his other hand. This action truly made me against Perry.
Perry was consistent in the first rounds of questions, but quickly lost his stamina. His attacks on Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney record of job creation during the first few minutes of the debate were sharp. However, I lost support for Perry when he ruled Social Security unconstitutional. However, he did not propose any changes that he thinks needs to be made to the federal program. Perry says he doesn't want to change the program for older Americans, but he calls Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" and “monstrous lie” because funding problems will mean younger Americans won't receive benefits they are paying for now. However, Perry does not understand that most voters want to save social security, not abolish it. This issue made my blood boil. There are real workers, there's real wealth, that are backing Social Security. So no, it is not a Ponzi scheme, and there's a lot of money that's been set aside to help pay as you go down the road. However, Social Security over time does need some changes.
I liked how Paul advocates getting rid of minimum wage. He said, “Absolutely, and it would help the poor -- the people who need a jobs. The minimum wage is a mandate, we're against mandates, so why should we have it? No, it would be very beneficial.” I also appreciated Paul’s strong stance about the immense amount of federal regulations in America today. He does not believe in these regulations, saying that if we need detailed regulations they can be made at the state level. He goes on to say, “The federal government is not authorized to nit pick every transaction.” I, like Paul believe that the federal government should not have any role that is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, the document that governs this land. He also said that, “Mandates is what our whole society is about. Everything we do is a mandate. We don’t need the government running our lives.” Absolute and truthful statements such as this led me to support Paul, for other candidates were more hesitant in their responses. Jon Huntsman’s message of moderation will most likely do little to improve his bottom standing. Other safe responses were heard from Michele Bachmann. Instead of attacking Perry, her biggest threat, she had little fire and stuck to her broken-record talking points.
ABC’s post-debate Internet survey showed a clear victory for Paul, with the congressman taking more than 9,400 of 11,000 votes as of 12:30 p.m. Monday. I believe that as a result of online polls such as this, Ron Paul will be added with Romney and Perry as a top runner. This will therefore affect the Republican race as Paul has gained a new rival, Perry. I expect that media will now follow Paul closer as they have done with Romney and Perry.
In conclusion, this debate is the first of three over the next two weeks. The eight candidates therefore have more opportunities to gain or loose support. However, after just one debate I am a supporter of Ron Paul. His absolutist style is what is needed to run this country and get tasks done and issues resolved. I believe that with Ron Paul, America will be set back on the right track.
Jesse Eddy
This republican debate informed anyone watching very well where each of these candidates stand on the many important issues which plague the United States and the ways in which they plan to fix the problems. I do not believe this debate rendered winners and losers because all of the candidates although did fight each other on some issues used this debate as a tool to let their ideas be heard and show the people that although they are going against each other in the primaries they all have one common goal to beat the courant president Barack Obama. With that said I do believe that after this debate some candidates’ views on subjects were more popular than others and I believe Governor Romney’s views on issues were the best liked across the board. I also believe that this debate damaged the chances of candidates such as Ron Paul and Governor Perry winning the GOP bid. The ideas that best resonated with me were those of Cane who believed we should reform social security to become optional and not a mandate, because this debate will affect people my age a lot for the future and when I am being paid money I do not want that money to be taken from me unless it will be returned. This debate will definitely result in many polls showing clear leaders, and I believe because they media chose to focus on the candidates Romney and Perry more than others that Romney will be a clear leader in the polls after the debate. Other people saw the debate as a combined effort against the current president and both liberal and conservative pundits noticed the clear unity against Barack Obama.
I think this debate proved that the race for the GOP nomination is a two horse race between Mit Romney and Rick Perry. Several times throughout the debate the governors squared off attacking each other’s records. The two of them squared off in the beginning of the debate on job creation. Each countered the other’s arguments with facts form their campaign. Using the FactChecker link it became obvious that Romney soundly defeated Perry. Coming into this debate I was a fairly strong Perry supporter but at the end I am closer to Romney now. It became evident that each of the other candidates are not close enough to presidential material. I found former Utah Governor John Huntsman to be unctuous especially concerning his comments toward the other candidates. Ron Paul was the biggest looser of the debate and come off as an absolute nutcase wanting to eliminate most of what the government does. I also felt that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is running only for tactical purposes. I mean that he exists for the good of the party. For example, in this debate the only time he comes out and says firm things is to defend the party and attack the moderating for trying to cause infighting within the party. Gingrich goes on to defend the party and say that no matter who is nominated they will unite together and support whoever is to defeat Obama. This does not do a lot to support his individual candidacy. He really was there it support the party. I think this is a great tactical move by the GOP as it gets the public to support the party as a whole and not get attached to any one candidate. In conclusion, I believe this was a great debate and we were able to see some insight into what each person stance is on important issues. This debate clarified some aspects and showed how raw Perry is in comparison to the polished Romney. I am excited to be voting for the first time in this election.
Rachael Robitaille
Throughout the debate, I felt that common interests between all the candidates were to repeal “Obamacare” and increase job creation. Those issues truly unified the eight candidates and it was obvious from their determination that their main goal was to make sure that President Obama remained a one-term president. Michele Bachmann, Gov. Mitt Romney, and Gov. Rick Perry seemed to be the most enthusiastic about repealing Obamacare, and remained quite vocal about the topic throughout their time speaking, even making it a point to have that be the first thing they set into motion if they were lucky enough to take office. A majority of the debate I found to be back-and-forth, attempting to alienate the other candidate. This was especially true with Romney and Perry, going back and forth on job creation statistics, but in the end it was evident that both candidates truly care about increasing job creation.
The debate was definitely successful in making the views of the candidates vying for the primary seat known, and even shedding light on the more unfamiliar candidates such as Cain, Paul, and Santorum. I do not believe that this debate changed anything indefinitely, but it did highlight the frontrunners of the race, those being Romney and Perry. Cain and Paul both presented rather radical views, and therefore I do not believe they have a plausible chance at getting the primary nomination.
I thought it profound of Representative Gingrich to make the point that all eight candidates were fighting for the same values and principles, and that they were not to be vilified against each other for sake of debate. I was also very impressed with Huntsman, whom I had not heard much about prior to this debate. I felt that his credentials and experience in foreign government to be impressive, and more than qualify him for the nomination.
I was quite appalled at the question concerning how Gov. Perry could sleep at night with execution being legal. I found that question to be extremely premature in that it was primarily a liberal vs. conservative issue. The jury is still out on how this debate will have affected the race, but it definitely will have a positive effect for many if not all of the candidates, due to the exposure that their views finally received. One thing is for sure, they are all determined to have their party prevail rather than have President Obama back in the White House.
Sooriya Sundaram
The Republican debate was essential in displaying the true front-runners of the upcoming Presidential race. There is no doubt that anyone who was on the fence about a certain candidate was able to make a more solid choice as to their favorite.
Before the debate, I thought that Michele Bachmann would be among the top debaters, seeing as she wasn't far behind in the public poles and she was so highly publicized. However, I wasn't impressed with her potential political reforms. I thought her promise to lower gas prices to $2 was certainly an overestimation and I was surprised that she thought she was qualified to make that prediction. The promise almost sounded too good to be true.
As I was watching the debate, the only two candidates I ended up caring about were Perry and Romney. Perry made it clear that he despised some of Washington’s current policies, including Social Security and Medicare. In my opinion, he was setting himself up for Democrats to hate him and convince voters not to vote for him because of his somewhat radical outlook on certain things.
In my opinion, Herman Cain showed through his debating skills that he was under qualified to be the President of the United States. His lack of knowledge on foreign policy definitely made me come to this decision, and I don’t think he can pull the race card and re-write history.
I think Romney sounded more presidential and more moderate, which would attract more voters, for sure. He spoke eloquently, unlike Perry, who sounded very thick and somewhat narrow minded. Many people are correct in believing that Mitt Romney rightfully won the debate. He didn’t make any controversial radical statements, and mainly tread water with his more liberal view of politics.
Thursday’s republican debate showed that it is still quite early to determine which of the candidates will excel ahead to be the republican candidate. But one thing that I know will be a huge point in determining the Republican candidate later on is their view on Obamacare. All of the candidates commented on their extreme dislike of Obamacare. Each and every one of them stated that if they became president, they would immediately propose to get rid of it. I think a major determining factor will be their plan on how to do so, though. Despite the fact that they all stated they wanted it out as soon as possible, but they were pretty vague on how they would get it done and obtain the democratic support to do so.
In my opinion, I would say that the winners of the republican debate were definitely Mitt Romney and Governor Rick Perry. I noted that the debate mainly focused on these two candidates. All of the questions posed to them could definitely account for their thriving in the debate because they had so much to comment and rebut on. Anyways, these two candidates mainly focused on how important it was to create more jobs and boost the economy in return. I thought that it was a bit funny in the beginning with them going back and forth with the “I created more jobs than you” type of thing. But both of them were very poised with their responses and extremely prepared. To me, they sounded like they knew what they were talking about.
The loser of the debate from my point of view was Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann. I felt that her two dollar gas thing was a bit ridiculous and impossible to achieve. Her rebuttal to Romney's comment on it though showed she wasn't very smart about it in the first place. I agreed with Romney when he said that it was pretty much impossible for a president to control gas prices completely. She also stated the Obama was to blame for the high prices. If I do recall correctly, gas prices were at the highest ever when Bush was president just a couple months before Obama took office.
When checking to see how other critics viewed the debate, I noted that the \conservative’s felt that it was very poorly run. They were unhappy with the questions posed to the candidates and unhappy with the questions not posed as well. Very few questions were asked about foreign policies. Liberal’s were upset at the constant put downs to Obama and Obamacare. But after all, this was a Republican debate. Of course the candidates aren’t going to side with the current democratic president and agree with his running of our country.
Maggie Senft
The Republican debate on Thursday September 8, 2011, was a very intense dispute amongst the eight candidates. I think that all of the candidates were winners in the sense that they won against current President Barack Obama. There was a great amount of criticism of the Obama administration’s recent handling of the economy. They all agreed that “Obamacare” needed to be repealed for the good of the nation. Governors Rick Perry and Mitt Romney stood the most to me throughout the debate. They attacked each other’s qualifications many times, but both responded with very witty comebacks which had the audience laughing. I think that Herman Cain was a very ridiculous candidate who does not have a chance of winning the nomination. His background was laughable and I feel he should not even be wasting his time running for the Republican nomination. I also feel that Ron Paul is a bit of a loose cannon and would not be trustworthy as the Republican nominee. He seemed very crazy and many of his ideas were confusing and hard to follow.
I think that it is still too early to say that this debate will shake up the Republican race. The debate mainly educated the viewers on the possible Republican candidates and their stance on the current situation of the nation. There is still a great amount of time for the candidates to help or destroy their shot at becoming the Republican candidate for President.
A poll on msnbc.com showed that Ron Paul won the debate at the Reagan library with a result of 58.8%. Romney and Perry came up in 2nd and 3rd, with results of 14% and 11.8% respectively. Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum rounded up the last two places, Bachmann receiving 1.8% of votes and Santorum receiving a slim 0.9%.
Paul, Romney, and Perry are now the top three Republican candidates for nomination. Many liberals felt that the debate was focused on bashing President Obama and could place worry on his re-election. Whatever the viewpoint, this debate is just one step closer to the intense election of 2012.
This Republican Debate has definitely changed the candidacy race. Michelle Bachmann, who had been a frontrunner, seemed to lag behind in the debate; she didn’t receive her first question until twenty minutes into the event while Romney and Perry were already heatedly debating. The two governors, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Rick Perry of Texas came out of the Republican debate at the Regan Library as the frontrunners in the race for the Republican candidacy. The other candidates there had some airtime, but would be deemed more as background noise than spotlight action. Almost all of the candidates emphasized job creation in their state. Employment will clearly be a topic that will dominate future debates for both the Republican and Democratic nominees. Many of the candidates at the debate were throwing out numbers concerning job creation; now whether all the statistics are true is another issue. Mitt Romney’s claims that there was more job growth in Massachusetts than the in United States put together during his term as governor. If this is true, then his term as governor was quite impressive. His background in the public sector has granted him knowledge and understanding of the global market which is extremely useful in today’s globalized world. Romney’s rebuttals to Perry’s consistent attacks were also impressive; Romney did not flounder in the debates or hesitate in his responses. He appeared prepared for the issues that were addressed in the debate. Both candidates had fiery responses, but the one that stuck out the most was Perry’s comparison of the social security to a Ponzi scheme was extreme. A statement like that will have certainly hurt his chances with voters who are left leaning. The Washington Post blogger, Chris Crillizza commends Perry for his first forty-five minutes for “delivering a solid answer on jobs and showing a willingness to mix it up with Romney.” Although conservative Washington Post blogger, Jennifer Rubin says that Perry’s lost for words in his responses concerning foreign policy and global warming did not represent a solid performance for the governor. Whatever the opinion of the conservative and liberal side is, the clear frontrunners of the Republican candidacy race are Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.
Tiffany Wang
Thursday night’s Republican Debate was a key event to see where the eight candidates were in the presidential race. I think Mitt Romney came off strong in this debate against front runner, Rick Perry. The media directed a lot of attention to Perry and Romney who were standing next to each other by firing a lot of questions to those two and making a lot of rebuttals against each other. Perry claims that social security is a ponzi scheme and made his position clear that he wanted to abolish social security. However, Romney said that the system is flawed; but people still depend on social security to survive in the worst situations, so it needs to be changed, not abolished. Romney was also asked questions about his health insurance proposition, Romneycare. He said that it should be up to the states to choose the best healthcare plan instead of nationwide like Obama’s plans.
On the other hand, I thought Michele Bachmann was not on par with the rest of thee candidates. Every time she was asked a question, she responded with her thoughts on obamacare and how it’s a complete failure. The Republicans have one clear goal, to take down Obama. Newt Gingrich was received by a loud applause from the audience when he claimed that the media was trying to split the Republican Party.
I liked Ron Paul’s proposal on lowering gas prices. Bachmann said earlier that once she is in office, she could get gas prices down to $2/gallon. Paul outshined her when he said he could get gas for a dime. A silver dime to be specific, which is worth $3.50 today. He said it’s all about inflation.
According to a poll from msnbc.com, 58.8% of the voters thought that Ron Paul won the Republican debate at the Reagan Library. I would like to see Paul talk more next time, seeing that he was only asked a few questions throughout the entire debate.
Finally, I think Mitt Romney did well in this debate, while Perry was a little shaken up after being attacked so much. Bachmann did not speak up enough to set herself out from the back, which is a little disappointing because there IS a double standard for women. If a man speaks out, he comes out strong, but when a woman rebuts, she comes out as shrill.
I think Mitt Romney stood out as a winner in this debate. He was clear in his effort to rid Obama-care by explaining how some people are receiving free health care who could afford to pay for it themselves. He made points off of Bachmann’s idea that the development of energy within the United States would be a good opportunity to create jobs. Romney also made the good point that different states have different situations. The economy in Texas, for example (Perry’s state), was doing better than Massachusetts, and it is not realistic to compare the numbers of employed workers when the situations are entirely different. All in all, I think Romney performed very well and made good points.
There were many other candidates, however, who I did not agree with. I did not agree with what Ron Paul said about removing minimum wage. I don’t think this would be good for the economy, or help the job situation at all. His point that a gallon of gas could be bought for a silver dime (because it’s worth $3.25) was unimportant and unhelpful. He didn’t have any ideas that I really agreed with, and he seemed to be “all over the place” with his answers. Huntsman started with some good ideas about having a good relationship with China, which was something Romney didn’t seem to support, but when he started talking about speaking in Chinese, I would have hoped a president would spend more time and energy on the national issues. Perry stood out negatively, as well. According to the fact checker, he said incorrect statements when arguing with Romney. His answers were not appealing and he seemed too focused on making the other candidates look bad than displaying his ideas.
Overall, I think the debate changed many opinions. Although there were those that benefited from the debate and others who did not, it is still unclear who the Republican Nominee will be. Candidates such as Paul and Cain turned off many viewers and supporters, while Romney might have gained some. However, there are still more debates to come, and the race is certainly not over.
THAT WAS KAYLEIGH TOROK SORRY I FORGOT MY NAME
Although there were 8 candidates debating, America was only really watching two: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Since their announcements for presidency, they have been leading the Republican Party. However, this does not mean that the other candidates’ voices have not been heard. Michele Bachmann has certainly been creating title waves in the news this past summer. During this debate however, she did not seem to overtake Perry and Romney like one would have expected. The other candidates were also overshadowed by the two governors as they tore at each other. Herman Cain was definitely an interesting candidate to watch as he introduced his 9-9-9 plan. He was very passionate about this, almost a little too passionate. Quoting a familiar country song, Cain proposed a taxing for corporate, personal and retail income at 9%. After his notion, he too fell under the shadow of Perry and Romney. Being former speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich was definitely a candidate that people were looking forward to hearing. However, after he accused Obama of class warfare and called him a socialist without backing it up support or his own proposals, he bit the dust. Figuratively speaking. Ron Paul was definitely an eager candidate as he took hold of the camera many times, a few of them even breaking the debate rules. This was a candidate unlike the others because instead of simply stating how his entire life is anti-Obama administration, he actually proposed new ideas such as new government regulations on regulating drugs. The bottom line is this debate was about Romney and Perry and how the two would face off. At the end, I believe Perry to have won the debate because he was able to answer the questions to his own agenda and he won over the audience at the end. Take the very first question for example, Perry was asked why he has the 8th highest poverty rate in the country and the most people working for minimum wage. He side steps this by blaming Obama and saying that he did create 1 million jobs. I believe that the winner of a debate is the one that earns the most votes in the end. Looking at the audience’s reaction, it seemed they were all in favor of Perry. The one thing about this debate that frustrated me more than anything was the fact that when Perry was questioned about the 234 deaths row inmates who were killed, the audience started cheering. Forgive my obnoxious writing, but WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT?! I understand Americans cheering for justice, but when it is for the death of 234 people, it is not commendable at all. Especially when one of the men was believed to be innocent. I believe this is sick and if Rick Perry earns the presidency, even republicans will come to regret it.
Eric Price,
The Republican debate presented itself as starting point in narrowing down the potential candidates for the 2012 election. In my opinion there weren't really any clear winners or losers for the GOP because they all had their own strong and weak points. All the candidates focused mainly on repealing Obamacare and creating more jobs to the masses, also maintaining the goal to make sure Obama is a one-term President. Ron Paul in my opinion seemed to change the subject during his time to speak and tried to target Romney for siding with Hilarycare. While Cain spoke of his 999 plan which seemed to take shape of a business oriented plan, which seems to present itself in a lot of his ideas since he is the CEO of Godfater's Pizza. I believe this debate did set forth some front runners such as Romney and Perry for the 2012 race, since they were very enthusiastic with their speaking and set a clear point while some others, like Paul and Cain, will fall off in the race out of the weak performance presented in the debate.
The one issue that seemed to really get under my skin was when Perry was asked about the death penalty in Texas, the crowd started cheering and Perry told us that he has no problem sleeping at night. The fact that he could be killing innocent people for no reason, although its "what the people want." I believe even for whatever act it is, no penalty should be death. I feel that it would be much better to just lock someone away for the rest of their lives because they are losing all the freedoms already.
Many Liberals and Conservatives had different reactions to the debate. Liberals took the debate as direct attack against Obama and his plans. While conservatives felt it was a step forward in to a new president and creating new jobs through the candidates many Jobs plans presented in the debate.
Emily Smith Period 6
I would grade this debate with a solid B+. This is because the candidates made some good points, but on the other hand tended to gravitate towards one particular topic: ObamaCare. Also, a few of the candidates decided to focus a lot of their energies on trying to one up their opponent based on their histories as mayors of, oh I don’t know, Texas and Massachussets? Aka Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. They kept going at each other about how many jobs they created for their states and comparing them to Obama and other people. Frankly, I don’t care what your statistics have to prove about your state, I want to know what you’re opinion is about job creation and what you are going to do to make it happen if you were to be elected President of our country. Now, although I would not say these two candidates were “winners” or the debate, they did make a few solid points. For instance, Perry and Romney both made it clear that if they were elected that they would put a strict end to ObamaCare. Their reasoning being that people who can afford their own healthcare are getting free healthcare and should not be. On the other hand, those who need healthcare should receive it but also contribute to it in some way instead of having it handed to them on a silver platter. This idea resonates very much with me and I fully support repealing ObamaCare. Also, Michelle Bachmann felt very strongly about getting rid of ObamaCare and went as far as to say it was “killing jobs”. Which, again, I agree with. Oh, and let’s not forget about the 9 9 9 plan and all the other “ideas” from some of the lower rated candidates. Newt Gingrich made a strong statement comparing Obama to Reagan which I thought was accurate but not too necessary. Then, of course, we had Ron Paul who suggested we get rid of minimum wage…Needless to say I did not agree with Mr. Paul on this one. Therefore, I would say the candidates such as these were the losers of the debate.
Finally, one of the most important topics to me in the debate was the oil crises. My favorite candidate after watching the debate, is Mitt Romney, solely for what he had to say on this topic; stop buying oil from other countries and develop our own resources of energy/oil (I know, crazy right?) instead of allowing Obama to block offshore drilling. Also, Michelle Bachmann made an excellent point by saying that if the government stripped federal regulations on energy production, 1.2 million jobs would be created and over 50% more energy would be produced. But, clearly, this solution would be much too easy for our country, alas we are stuck with $4 a gallon gas. Overall, I thought the debate was successful, and apparently so did many other Republicans in our country. But, there are reporters and analysts (aka haters) in the media who had to rip apart and twist every word and statistic the candidates provided. Many people said that the statistics and other claims made by the candidates were either bias or just flat out lies. Regardless of the evidence those in the media have backing up their claims, the candidates still made several significant claims and shed light on various topics that are dictating today’s politics.
There was certainly no shortage of interesting talking points from the Republican Debate on Thursday. Although there were no clear winners or losers, certain candidates stood out much more than others. Going into the debate, many were anticipating the Mitt Romney vs. Rick Perry showdown, and those people were not disappointed. Of the two, I believe that Mitt Romney had a much better debate than Perry. This was Perry’s first debate, and he did not do as well as many expected him to. Before the debate, Ron Paul’s commercial aired showing Perry’s former ties to the Democratic Party and throughout the debate Perry seemed to attempt to bully the other candidates around, which did not work. Romney, on the other hand, appeared very well prepared for the debate, and was handled himself well. Even when asked about his healthcare plan in Massachusetts, something most Republicans are strongly against, he was confident and did not divert the question. Overall, I believe that Romney is the debate winner.
There were also many losers in the debate. One of which is Ron Paul, who got the least amount of speaking time in the debate by a significant margin. In the first debate, Ron Paul gained a large amount of support, but much of that was lost in this debate. His strong libertarian views appeared too extreme for most of the public. Even though many see him as a loser, the MSNBC online poll for the winner of the debate says differently. Paul is leading with 60% of the vote; those Paul supporters are certainly very vocal. I believe this debate should take away from Perry’s lead, and make it a much tighter race. I believe that Romney appeals to the independents much more, which could help him get the nomination. After this debate, my vote has gone from Ron Paul to Mitt Romney.
Taylor Frazier
Rick Perry seemed to be one of the front runners of the debate but I thought he looked very unsure of himself and had a harder time answering some of the questions posed to him throughout the debate. While he may have entered the debate as the leader of the polls, this debate will definiately take its toll.
I believe Mitt Romney was the strongest of the candidates and was the winner of this debate. he was steady throughout the entire debate and was able to respond to all attacks made towards him. He clearly advocated his dislike for Obama-care and made good points about job opportunities. When Perry tried to attack Romney concerning job creation he made valid statements concerning the different situations within each state.
it seemed like many of the other candidates were simply observing rather than participating in the debate. Although some questions were possed and directed towards them, most of the debating seemed to take place between Romney and Perry.
I would have liked to hear more of Michele Bachmann because her key points seemed to be Obamacare and jobs. Although she seemed to be ignored through most of the debate, I though she made a great line about leading the fight to repeal Obamacare and wish she was a more prominent candidate. I also liked Herman Cain's 999 plan to reduce income taxes, corporate rates, and a national sales tax each of 9%. it showed that Cain, unlike other candiates, had a specific plan in mind.
Overall i thought the debate went well but more questions need to be directed at candidates other than Perry and Romney. i think that this debate set Romney a few steps ahead of Perry and that the two will continue to prevail in upcoming debates.
I think that this debate really didn't separate the GOP candidates all that much. If my life depended on it, I would not be able to pick a winner or loser because, in reality the candidates did not really take individual stands- they all basically said the same things.
Mainly focused around job creation and their dislike of Obamacare, the debate did not involve individual platforms. Personally what I found to be the high point of the debate was when one candidate said they were all out to get Obama… shocker there.
Despite that, I agree with many of my other classmates that Perry and Romney seem to be the forerunners. If I HAD to vote it would probably be Romney though. They spent much of the debate attacking each other track records and seem to be the most vocal throughout the debate. I do think that Romney is the most ready to become president based on his confidence in his platform and I think that he will be at the top of the polls.
No matter what I will always think Bachmann loses. For me, she doesn’t have the mental capacity to ever run this country, and I think he gas comment proves that.
I think that the most important debate to me is about entitlements because that affects my future as an elder citizen of America the most (I actually agree with Jesse on something).
Responses to this debate range from the Republicans need a front runner to not having a front runner yet is good because it means more of a general support. While liberals obviously did not like the constant bashing of Obamacare, there was obviously no avoiding it.
Trace Lange
The republican debate of last week was very interesting, I felt that there was no clear winner of this debate but it was clear that there are two front runners for the GOP nomination. Those two candidates being Mit Romney and Rick Perry. Although all of the members in the debate talked a lot there was little said about anything relevant to the current united States debt crisis, increasing job lose or a health care reform. Most of the debaters did state that they strongly disagreed with "Obamacare" but they also failed to mention a new plan or way to improve on the current plan. Another topic touched by the debate was the current job situation Romney and Perry as well as the over members of this debate did a lot of talking about how they created jobs in the states they currently represent, or in the private industry were they work. Again the pattern of lots of words and little talking going on. the republicans speaking talked about what they have done in the past, but said very little about what they will do to improve cutter conditions in the United States job market. The third major topic struck by the debate was the debt crisis. This was my favorite part of this entire campaign. This is where the debt got very interesting, it was quite comical listening to the ideas of Mr.Ron Paul. Although I don't see any of what he said in anyway helpful to the current situation at hand. Cutting basically all government programs such as the FAA or the food and drug administration is um well probably not a republicans best idea ever. A for effort though Mr.Pual was one of the only to state what he or she was going to do to fix the problems on hand. So over all I did enjoy this debate and feel that although there was not a clear winner we did see who are the two front runners in this foot race for the GOP nomination.
Miranda Scaramozza
The Republican Debate on Wednesday night was very heated. Each candidate had a point they wanted to express in a short amount of time. While some chose to focus on their personal thoughts, ideas, and accomplishments, other candidates chose to take shots at each other. There was also a fair amount of the canidates tooting their own horns and trying to one up each other on every issue, especially unemployment and healthcare. Some points that were made during the Republican Debate were not exactly accurate. Perry and Romney both twisted their statistics in attempts to make it sound like they both.
Mitt Romney and Rick Perry were the clear winners in this debate. Both of these candidates came across as very confident and prepared. Both had strong ideas and plans based on what they saw work on a smaller scale in their states. Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul were the losers in my opinion. These two candidates had ideas that weren’t as strong as the other candidates. Bachman and Paul didn’t focus enough on what Americans were most concerned about, instead they presented ideas on smaller matters that held no interest for their audience.
One pattern I noticed that angered me was the emphasis all the candidates put on undoing everything Obama has done and finally removing him. It upset me that the common goal they had was “defeating Obama”. Each candidate chose to target Obama rather than the Democratic Party as a whole. The president alone cannot be responsible for all the problems they highlighted during the debate. Pointing a finger at Obama rather than saying the Democrats have made poor choices was something I found to be petty.
Nicole Kowalczyk
In my opinion, the Republican debate earns a B+. The candidates brought up their own points, although some were overshadowed because of their weak ideas. I think it is blatantly obvious that the two candidates in the lead are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Not only did they have the most to discuss, they spoke with sharp confidence that made the other potential candidates seem weak. It was rather unconvincing that Romney believes he can repeal Obama care or create “real jobs” on day one in office. Our country is at a true crisis and with our economy down, those actions should not be promised by Romney. But what makes him a strong candidate is his voice throughout the debate. His ideology may not be completely realistic, but he portrays leadership and is confident in his role. He has been through this experience before; he was a primary candidate for the Republican Party in the 2008 elections before he stepped down from his campaign and McCain became the top runner.
Perry is also on top for the Republican Party. I observed that him and Romney have a lot of tension while discussing jobs. Romney claimed that he created jobs in his representative state, Massachusetts, and decreased unemployment rates. He states that Massachusetts was in trouble and that he has helped tremendously. Perry then fires back that Romney did not in fact create jobs at a fast rate. Romney simply replied by saying that Bush and his predecessors made jobs faster than Perry did. In my mind, Romney was correct, but Perry did have some very good points. One comment that really stuck with me was when Perry stated he has the desire for an economy that works to help reassure the public of the true value of their jobs. It seems as though people in this country are unsure of their jobs because so many are unemployed or being laid off with the constant downslide in the economy. Rates are being cut, wages and salary are decreasing, and it doesn’t seem to be improving. Perry wants people to know that they can go to work and feel secure that they will be financially successful.
It made me angry when Huntsman said that America is a “blue-sky optimistic” country. I thought there was no sense behind it because our country should not be represented by that statement. Yes, we have many advantages, such as some of the best medicine and technology, and our country is definitely more “well-off” than others, but we have just as many struggles. The fact that he believes we are able to find solutions to every problem and have optimism behind it just doesn’t make sense, especially when we have so many issues that must be fixed financially and economically. Other comments that I did not like came from Bachmann. I feel like she thinks she can be a leader because she is a mom to almost 30 children. She mentions this, but for me, there is no correlation. Being a mom gives you leadership, but it does not translate to the job of a president. She had some very weird comments and she is not convincing. The same goes for Cain. His “9, 9, 9” plan would not work in our country; we need federal tax. As much as people do not like paying taxes every year, they are needed in support of our country.
According to an ABC news poll, Perry is in the lead for the race with 27%, followed closely by Romney at 22%. And CNN states that even though they are on top, the two candidates that rocked it were Gingrich and Huntsman. Gingrich did have applause when he said that media was trying to turn the Republican Party against themselves and separating the candidates, which I do agree with. CNN also claims that Perry should have considered more thought into Social Security and how the younger population is in effect for the future with their jobs when they already pay huge taxes.
The winners and losers of this debate are for the most part pretty clear. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry dominated the stage while the other candidates lacked the fire needed to make much of an impact. At the start Perry immediately separated himself from the pack. In the first rounds of questions he immediately set his agenda and jumped on the first question referring to job creation. He was sharp on his attack on Romney’s record of job creation in Massachusetts but when put on the defensive, his performance dropped a grade. Romney on the other hand was confident and stood firm throughout the debate. He focused on his strongpoints in the areas of jobs and the economy and was able to avoid healthcare, his weak points. The other candidates were clearly overshadowed by the two forerunners.
Despite a strong performance by Ron Paul whom I believed to have made very valid points he was still pushed aside not only by the candidates but by the debate itself. As the only physician on the stage, the question of healthcare was not even directed at him. This decision left me very puzzled. Of all the candidates Paul has the most credentials to answer that question but they instead chose to “blockade” him. Personally I feel that the other candidates should just drop out. Michele Bachmann is already been left in the dust. Despite being the main candidate people have been focusing on for a while now her general lack of knowledge has caused her to fade away and become, in essence, a joke for the candidacy. Not once did she attack Perry or Romney but instead is just running another “Palin” campaign. I had initially thought that Gingrich would be a very prominent figure in the debate. He’s had is widely renowned and has had an incredible amount of experience under his belt. However he spent too much of the debate pointing out what he think Obama is doing wrong but not enough on what he would do differently if he were to be in office. Yet another figure that will without a doubt not be a forerunner is Jon Huntsman. The prime arguments he had for his candidacy were all relating to relations with the Chinese and the fact that is an ambassador to China. At this point domestic issues in the U.S. should be the top priority and Huntsman’s foundation is lacking in that department. Much like Bachmann, Cain is yet another joke of a candidate. He has one plan, the 9-9-9 plan, and he made that very clear during the debate. As for his plans for other problems such as healthcare and job creation? It was not clear whatsoever. And last and certainly least was Rick Santorum. After watching the debate, he left a very little impression for the audience and his ideas were not anything drastically different or better than the other candidates.
The constant bashing on Obama’s healthcare bill was very unnecessary. For example Rick Perry criticizes the Obamacare yet his state is among the highest in amount of uninsured people. Yes it does take more the tax money from the wealthy but with the amount of uninsured people in the United States it is crucial we help those in need. After this debate, the fate of the candidates seem for the most part set in stone. Romney and Perry have emerged as the party leaders while the others are quite a distance behind them. This debate set the stage for what should be a very exciting election.
Jeff Lee
I believe that the debate was very strong. All candidates of this republican debate were staunch supporters of the repeal of Obama care. They had a sense of unity despite having heated discussions on topics such as healthcare, America’s debt, jobs in America, the illegal immigrants, and the view of social security as a Ponzi scheme. Right now it is pretty early in the race for the GOP nomination to decide who is most likely to win, but I think the clear front runners are Governor Perry and Romney. I believe that Governors Perry and Romney were the apparent winners because they had the most heated debates, criticizing each other’s records on major topics like job creation. The ideas of Ron Paul, Cain, and Gingrich did resonate with me. I thought that Ron Paul was too absolutist for my taste. Herman Cain seemed as though he was very experienced as a business men but I felt he be better suited as an entrepreneur than the president of United States. Gingrich actually would have my vote, because I thought he words were very supportive. Examples of this would be his statement that the candidates would all be supportive of the GOP candidate elected. He goes on to saying that the candidates all have the same purpose, getting rid of Obama. This valorous effort to me evinces that he should be the winner of the GOP nomination. The losers in my point view would be congresswomen Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Because they spoke rarely and spoke unconvincingly, it is shown by polls that they lost their chances at this debate. They answers were weak and after this debate it is improbable that they will win the GOP nomination. It will be interesting to see who clutches the GOP nomination.
As usual, like most political debates, the Republican debate this past Thursday was pretty heated for so early in the presidential race. This debate allowed viewers to begin to see who will become leading contenders in the presidential race. Of course, each candidate threw in their own two cents about Obama and his term. However, the real question is who won and who lost this debate? It seemed more of a debate between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney then anything. However, in my opinion, Romney won. He is clearly a very smooth debater and seems eager to respond to criticisms. His preparation, poise, and rhetoric skills also put him as a frontrunner. He showed his experience and seemed steady throughout repeatedly giving answers that sounded more reasonable than the other candidates. Romney seemed to be avoiding back and forth rivals with the other Republican candidates. On the other hand, Perry did not present himself as well. He immediately jumped into the debate by throwing jabs at his opponents and critics. Perry’s rebuttals and defenses did not seem well prepared or focused. The other opponents seemed to only be sprinkled in here or there to speak. Most surprising, is how little Michelle Bachmann talked and when she did how non-rememberable what she said was. Her responses were just ok on the debt deal and tax increases for someone who needs to do well to stop slipping in the poles. She needs to figure out how to include herself in the heated debates between Perry and Romney or else she will continue to be in an awkward position. However, they all seemed to fully be able to attack Obama, which is slightly annoying. The Republican candidates focus so much on what Obama has done wrong rather than what would make them a better candidate or what their plans are. NBC News poll states that of a total 220,118 votes, 58.8% of voters believed Ron Paul won the debate. I found this quite surprising. Many of the voters argued that he made use of the little air time he was given on the debate and that he is the most consistent.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library
Monica DiLeo
While the GOP debate was definitely interesting, I don’t think any candidate made particularly strong headway in it. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney seemed to dominate more than other candidates, with things heating up right off the bat. However, Perry’s arguments for the great things that he’s done in Texas are kind of empty seeing as Texas is 42nd in poverty and last for high school graduation in the country…not exactly the best state to be living in. And the fact that Perry made up a statistic that 95% of jobs he created in Texas were at or above minimum wage also discredits him, and I think its ridiculous that a candidate for president should have to make up statistics to assert himself in a debate. I personally haven’t followed Jon Huntsman too closely, but just from the debate I think that out of all the candidates I liked the confident yet respectful and assertive way that he answered the questions, and I appreciate his foreign experience. After seeing Michelle Bachmann’s name in headlines for weeks I was shocked at her performance in the debate. I think it really shows that she is completely incompetent even to be a Congresswoman, let alone run the country. All of the candidates in the debate, especially her, seemed to be in a constant competition to out-Republican each other. It’s a complete circus. They try to compete with each other for who has rebelled against President Obama and who hates his policy the most. It seemed like many times the candidates did not even answer the actual questions asked by the moderators, they instead just responded with a “We hate Obama and we’re going to change things!” But the thing that I really wanted to know was how. With the exception of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, not one candidate proposed a plan with how they wanted to change what President Obama has done in running the United States other than echoing a typical, generic Republican agenda that I’ve been hearing ever since I can remember. And to be perfectly honest, Cain’s plan isn’t exactly realistic. Although, in my personal opinion President Obama should continue on the same track he’s on. To comment on the other candidates, I thought Ron Paul’s platform was a bit extreme, but at least he picked a specific direction to go in. Saying that the F.A.A. was unnecessary and that drug companies should be regulated privately was ridiculous. Even though lobbyists for drug companies do have an influence on policy it’s just an influence. If regulation was handed over to a private company the drug companies would be doing whatever they pleased and whatever would make them the largest profits, regardless of what is best for the public. In addition, Newt Gingrich discussed how in his time as Speaker of the House the country had a balanced budget. However he failed to mention that Bill Clinton was president, and that this was before George W. Bush dragged the country into astounding amounts of debt. Finally, Mitt Romney was getting quite beaten up for his policies in Massachusetts on an individual mandate for healthcare because it was a more liberal policy. Rick Perry’s state of Texas is quite the opposite from Massachusetts when it comes to healthcare policy, and has a much more conservative policy. However, Massachusetts has some of the best healthcare in the country and Texas is in last place in that category. I think this really illustrates the point that an individual mandate is the way to go, despite Romney getting attacked for it in the debate. In summation, I don’t think I’d be comfortable with any of these candidates running the country. I’d be packing my bags for Canada.
Courtney McQuade
I don’t know for sure if this debate showed any clear winners or losers per se, but it did make some things clear to me. I have always thought that in our world today, nobody who is too extreme is going to win the nomination for president. Some people may argue that President Obama is extreme but there was a whole other set of factors that played into his being elected. Anyway, listening to the republican debate, I, in my mind, pinpointed who I think has a chance of winning and who, in my opinion, clearly does not. I think most of my classmates agree with what I came up with. I think there is a consensus that Mitt Romney seems like the most likely contender at the moment, especially after seeing the behavior of some of the other candidates in this recent debate. First of, I would like to say that if for some strange reason Bachmann is elected president, I will be on the first plane to Sweden, but that’s besides the point since she has a snowball’s chance in hell of actually winning. Perry on the other hand, may have a chance at winning the nomination, but I still think he is too extreme to be elected president. From talking to fellow citizens in the recent weeks I have gathered that people are generally displeased with his religion being such a big part of his politics; our forefather’s made a note about the importance of the separation of church and state, in fact, that is why many of them came to America in the first place, to escape religious persecution and start their own country free of religious ties. Also, I think Ron Paul is way too extreme to ever even be considered a valid candidate for president, he almost sounds like an anarchist rather than a republican. I think it is childish that all of the candidates continually focus on bickering with each other and lashing out against the current president, as most politicians enjoy doing when they get together. As for me, I would vote for someone who focuses on promoting him or herself instead of demoting their opponents, it makes them all seem like they feel threatened, and if they aren’t confident in themselves then how am I (and the rest of America) expected to be confident in them?
This debate served as little more than an excuse to vilify and bash the democratic party. Although it is necessary for the candidates to discuss and point out one administration's "failings" it is an entirely different issue to do so at the cost of ignoring the point at hand. Almost every candidate was guilty of this at one point or another when asked a question they, unable to answer with solidarity, would revert to attacking the president. Other issues which particularly struck me were Perry's unwavering support of the death penalty, even when prompted on the possibility of killing an innocent man, claiming he sleeps easily at night when it comes to the issue. The way the debate was run also was an issue of concern in my opinion, as it was clearly set up in a manner to highlight the "important" candidates. Some, such as Santorum and Huntsman, were stationed very far away from the center of the debate stage, and the actual debates as well. The debate primarily focused on Perry and Romney, with some occasional quips from Paul, Gingrich,and Bachmann.
As far as winners go, I'd say the matter is completely subjective. Any person with differing viewpoints could argue for any candidate. General consensus oddly enough was for Ron Paul, which in the long run won't matter much, as Paul's extremist views would never ally the support of the party and will keep him away from any nomination. the two realistic front-runners in this debate and in the campaign as a whole are Romney and Perry. Both went back and forth and served as a central pivot in the debate, and between the two Romney clearly prevailed. Overall he appeared well prepared, defined, and eloquent in his speech while Perry faltered on numerous occasions, weakening his arguments. If you had to ask my personal opinion I'd say Huntsman was the most moderate and logical and his thought, and my personal favorite. He recognized the foolishness of pledging unobtainable goals so early in the race, and recognized the importance of the free market economy and gas prices. Huntsman clearly has a level head with ideas that aren't too radical, which sadly is why he would never win a nomination, assuming the trend of increasingly extreme comments and ideologies continues. As far as grading goes? What, a C+? This debate could have been much more of what it's name suggests, a debate: a form of reasonable discussion on a person's beliefs and ideals, rather than an attack on the opposite party and other candidates themselves. It did something, but not much.
I personally believe that the Republican Debate did not set a very good example or image of the candidates interviewed. The questions raised were relevant and needed answers, but most of the answers weren’t very sound. Regarding the debate on the economy and how to handle it, most of the responses consisted of criticism on Obama’s policies regarding the economy and job creation, a display of their own experiences which they believe would qualify them in taking control i.e. private sector experience and employment rates in their respectful states. Then after showing their credentials, they revert back to Obama Care and promise to repeal it. This disappoints me, because they all agree on the same thing, that what we have now is not working and that it needs to be reformed, but everybody knows that. What people want, what I want, is to hear solutions or ideas that can be acted upon and are well formulated, by experts. But instead we are given facts of the past, promises that aren’t reliable and complaints against the President. Concerning the healthcare debate the same thing happens all over again. The candidates emphasize the strengths of their state’s healthcare and when mentioned the weaknesses, they avoid confronting them and instead go back again to criticizing Obama. It’s disappointing to see that we will have to vote on people who answer problems and questions by avoiding them and instead shift the topic to blame another for the troubles of today and unite to kick that person out. And unfortunately the ones who did this best looked like the best speakers, and those would be Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum.
Let me start off by saying that it is quite palpable that certain leaders on that stage are not going to win the nomination.
Let’s start with the radicals. The restaurant owner Cain,with his 9-9-9 plan, is proposing to base our nation’s tax policy on a catchy slogan. Never mind that there are severe differences between corporations, the middle class and unemployed single mothers, never mind that there are others debating every detail of the tax code, never mind that there are groups like hard pressed farmers and green energy startups need government aid; let’s have 9-9-9! Some of his other comments on fixing FEMA and adapting the Chilean model of social security seemed reasonable, but I doubt if any rational citizens will be voting for this demagogue when his opening statement is “9-9-9!”
Bachman too, with her promise of $2.00 a gallon gas, seems to consider Americans still gullible enough to believe every word of their politicians. Oh, I know that by saying, “politicians can’t be trusted”, she’s trying to paint herself as a politician that can be trusted, but I predict her image and her lead over Jon Huntsman is about to take the flight path of the Hindenburg. A candidate that thinks the president can arbitrarily cut the price of gas by one half seems to be oblivious to the fact that if such a feat were at all close to possible, gas would still be a few pennies a gallon. Also, did anyone else catch that she completely ignored the question on how she would treat the 11 million illegal immigrants in America after she builds her thousand mile long fence? The only skill she’s well versed in is in bashing Obama-care.
Then there are the incompetent incumbents. I had no idea how to spell “Santorum”, and when I googled the word, the leading results were about sexual froth. MSNBC’s internet poll on who won the debate showed him to be dead last with 1%. At first look, I thought the Republican Party was trying to humor a mentally handicapped man’s dream of being on stage with prominent politicians. His drooping jaw and dazed countenance completely obscured any insightful comments he made. When he was discussing lowering corporate tax to draw businesses to America and repatriate outsourced jobs, all I could think about was that 5 seconds earlier, he had been listening to the question with the expression of a confounded 3rd grader. Sending that man to be the face of America would be akin to asking Rain Man to lead our nation. He might be a political genius, but until he learns some presentation skills I guarantee he will remain behind sexual froth in google search results.
Although Ron Paul made a better appearance than Santorum, his answers were every bit as challenged-seeming as Santorum’s looks. Perhaps he is unaware that bandying phrases like “I don’t like”, “probably”, “I would assume that”, and “I don’t know for sure” is political suicide. Even Michele Bachman’s complete avoidance of hard questions seemed to provide a better countenance. His backing of states rights though, was sustained and will no doubt draw some conservative votes. His ability to interrupt questioning to get his opinions in also shows more assertiveness than the docile Santorum.
The real candidates according to my opinion would be Perry, Romney, and Huntsman. All three have some records to play, like Utah’s number one place in job creation, Texas’s number one place in air pollution reduction, and private sector success. Perry’s history of creating more jobs seemed impressive too, and Romney’s plans to empower small businesses will no doubt gain numerous votes. Huntsman’s working healthcare system in Utah and his experience with China will no doubt place him high up on the list of men who can solve America’s pressing problems. They seem committed to the real issues; Romney didn’t go on a tirade about his Tea Party involvement, and Huntsman got the debate back on track to jobs after it became a discourse on the Department of Homeland Security and TSA. Perry’s rejection of the reality of global warming though, made him to appear a stronger proponent of Texas’s natural resource industries than of world health. But that’s damage he can afford to take in an America that seems to have put climate change in the back of its mind.
And finally, there was Gingrich. He was conciliatory and made an effort to seem like a leader that would unite the Republican Party, but that’s all I remember of him. I review my notes and see that he bashed Obama, Obama’s Bernanke, and Obama’s healthcare a few times too. There’s nothing to criticize, but no oratorical fireworks either. However, if he remains this lackluster the rest of the Primaries, that would be something to criticize.
The race will go on, and as the radicals and the incompetents drop out, the race should also become less entertaining to watch. But that’s not a bad thing; we need politicians that highlight reasoned policy ideas and budget and medical care plans more than we need a humorous political farce. Lets see what wonders the Republican Party gives us down the road!
In general, it does not seem as though this debate had very distinguished winners and losers. There was no one who really seemed to take the most leadership and run the debate, and be “winning”. Likewise, I do not feel that there was anyone who completely fell flat on their faces and failed. However, there were some key points which will affect the Republican race.
The only definitive outcome of this race is that Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are rivals; they were at each others throats, flinging insults at one another and their states. Perhaps this makes it seem as though they are more distinguished contenders for the Republican seat, because they are the most zealous to prove they are more qualified and will do a better job.
Major topics were health care and job creation. Neither of these subjects caused my “blood to boil” since I can’t say I strongly support “Obamacare” or his job creation policies. All of the candidates at the debate vehemently declared the first thing they would do is get rid of “Obamacare”. And they also tried to toot their own horns about job creation in their states, and slammed others for failure to create as many jobs as they did.
The good thing about this debate was that all of the candidates were finally introduced, and some spoke to the American people for the first time. Some candidates, such as Bacchman, Romney, and Perry have gotten a lot of media attention lately, and now was a good time to actually hear their views, but also to see if their competitors are worth attention as well.
A tea party activist, Dana Loesch noted that Bacchman did not aggressively assert herself in the debate as she has other times, and lingered on the outskirts without making a significant impression. A non-partisan, Ron Brownstein commented that while Perry was strong in some areas, he was quite shaky when it came to topics such as social security and climate change. A former advisor to G.W. Bush believes that Rick Perry was the front-runner going into the debate, and was the front-runner coming out of it.
I do recognize that it was challenging for other candidates to really get into the debate, with Perry and Romney seeming to monopolize it, and making the most jabs. This will definitely keep them at the front of the race.
Julie C says,
The much-heated Republican Debate at the Reagan Library on Thursday night has changed the course of the candidacy race. Two governors, Romney of MA and Perry of TX, seemed to be the show of the night, while other candidates served as background music. The two was questioned the first to start off the debate, and received much attention during the whole debate. The two squared off and attacked each other heatedly. Overall I thought Romney, the new meat, is ahead of Perry, although the media says otherwise. The confidence and smoothness he displayed at the Republican debate surprised and delighted me. Bachmann was highly publicized and seemed to be catching up on the public poles up, that is, until this debate. While other candidates voice their memorable opinions, I only remember the one thing she said, and that is to lower the gas prices to $2. I was surprised as many others at her bold prediction. I don’t think anyone can fulfill the $2 gas promise anytime soon, let alone Bachmann. An interesting new candidate, Cain, caught my attention. I liked his 999 plan to reduce income taxes, corporate rates, and a national sales tax to 9%. However, I don’t think he will stand any chance against Romney and Perry. Another candidate, Huntsman, also made a positive impression on me. He stood out as a reasonable candidate and delivered a forceful performance. He has set himself apart from Romney and Perry as a governor and ambassador to China for many years, and challenged them by saying Utah, had in fact, beat both of them in creating jobs. I looked forward to hearing Gingrich speak, since he was the former Speaker of the House. However, he was done after he accused Obama of class warfare and called him a socialist. Ron Paul, although ignored during most of the debate, was another interesting candidate. Being the only medical doctor on stage, I thought it was good to hear his opinions on health care. I was disturbed though, when Perry was questioned on the 234 inmates that died of the death penalty, and the crowd cheered on. 234 deaths, some may even be innocent, does not deserve a cheer form the audience. . Overall, the candidates united on the Republican home front against the Obamacare and all were for increased job creation, shocker there…And I don’t think there is a clear winner of the debate.
David D....
The Republican debate seemed an effective and welcome way for each candidate to make their positions and campaigns known. While each candidate supported his own position, and although there was some sparring between the forerunners Governor Romney and Governor Perry, the Republicans remained fairly united in their opposition to the Obama administration. Newt Gingrich expressed this well when he accused the questioner of trying to incite the Republican candidates to fight amongst each other, when they should be standing together against the incumbent president.
Despite the degrees of party unity, this was a debate between the candidates. The second questioner (who acted completely unprofessionally in his obvious side-taking, excessive talking, and clear efforts to get noticed) called on some candidates more than others, and with eight hopefuls on stage some got comparatively ignored. Rep. Michelle Bachmann was frequently glanced over, as were ex-Senator Rick Santorum, ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Ron Paul, and Herman Cain. ex-Governor John Huntsman received some attention, but the focus was largely on Perry and Romney, the two strongest polling candidates so far. Gov. Romney, at this point an experienced man in running for office, debated safely but well. I noticed no major slip-ups in his performance, and his bouts with Gov. Perry rarely ended up being entirely embarrassing for him. Gov. Perry took strong stances, but encountered some hurdles. He took some heat from the less professional questioner and from the strategic Gov. Romney about the quality of his prized job creation record, as well as some other aspects of his home state of Texas, such as education, taxes, and the death penalty. But what may be the most important part of the debate was Social Security. Gov. Romney took a discreet middle road here, but Gov. Perry called it a "Ponzi scheme" with impunity; this may have been to cater to the Republicans from which he will seek nomination, but will undoubtedly alienate many voters from the middle or dissatisfied liberals. Another major topic was that of Obamacare, which every candidate opposed. When Governors Perry and Romney promised a Day One Executive Order overriding it, however, Rep. Bachmann pointed out from her political experience that things wouldn't be that simple, showing perhaps more forethought in regards to this matter. The candidates pledged no new taxes, Republican style, with the exception of ex-Gov. Huntsman, who mysteriously avoided the question.
DD Part Deux
To analyze each debater: Herman Cain has some good ideas, but is a businessman competing against politicians and doesn't seem to be a strong contender. ex-Speaker Gingrich, who has been failing in the polls, made admirable movements to encourage party unity and supported his fellow candidates; to be sure, something I appreciated, but also an indicator that his personal race is almost up. To be honest, I occasionally forgot ex-Senator Santorum was there; he played too quietly in an occasionally boisterous debate. ex-Governor Huntsman seemed to be taking a stance of moderation, which led to a dwindling involvement in the debate. Rep. Paul took a solid stance against excessive government involvement, and held up well under questions about his opposition to points in the Reagan administration, but it seemed the other candidates, and questioners, were pretending he wasn't present. Rep. Bachmann seemed uncharacteristically silent, and it cost her the attention she needs with Gov. Perry appealing to such a similar brand of conservatives. Gov. Perry took a strong stance on what he thought was right, but encountered a few potentially damaging hurdles. Gov. Romney, acting more moderately, strategically, and thoughtfully, seems to me to be the winner. He avoided alienating any particular political groups, and some of Gov. Perry's stumbling certainly made him look good by contrast. Were I to pick a winner, I would select Rep. Ron Paul. Were I to guess who most people, including liberals and moderates, would favor, I would admit Gov. Romney.
Thomas Ferry
9/11/11
Period 8
AP Gov
Blog Response on the Republican Debate
Overall, although I did not completely agree with everything that was said, I believe that some candidates did make some good points. Hence, I would give it a B. I thought that Jon Huntsman was the winner because when it came to the discussion of the economy, he told that he was in the private sector so he therefore knows about business and how to improve the economy. He also went on to explain how Utah was first in creating jobs when he was governor. I thought that his accomplishments were demonstrated very well throughout the debate. In addition, I liked that he was the ambassador to China, so he obviously has experience with other nations, which is absolutely vital for being president. Rick Perry, in my opinion, was the loser because of his constant shots at the other candidates. It seemed that every moment he got, he would say something bad about anyone but himself. What Bachman said about Obama Care was a bit irritating. She stated that it was killing jobs for teenagers, while most teenagers I know have jobs. I strongly believe that everyone should be able to have health care if they are not able to afford it, and Bachman shouldn’t be making accusations about a lack of teenage jobs that are not even true. I believe that this will shake up the race for Republican candidate because people all over the nation were able to see everyone interacting with their rivals, so people’s true personalities were seen. Candidates were also able to show what they have to offer to the public, so opinions have been formed as a result. Others also had mixed feelings about the debate. From the liberal side, MSNBC reported that no one said anything about President Obama, which was as expected. It also discussed the negatives of the debate with the going after one another. Even though MSNBC did tell about the debate from a somewhat moderate position, they did not seize to include the aspects that make the Republicans look bad. On the other hand, the conservative Fox News seemed to praise many candidates, especially Romney and Perry. Fox also made sure to tell that Obama was not talked about in a positive manner. Versus the view by MSNBC, Fox News dealt much less with the arguments, and more on what they believe should happen for the country. In the end, I think that this debate did do a good job to inform the public about who the possibilities are for the next president of the United States. Even though I do not necessarily agree with all of their ideas, it was nice to see another side of the issues in our nation today.
In my opinion, the Republican Debate went off as expected. Although they had minor disagreements throughout the night, one goal certainly remained clear to all republican candidates in the debate: defeat the current president in the upcoming election. I would like to point out that I believe the best quote from the debate came from Gingrich when he stated he wouldn’t play into the media’s game of seeing them put each other down, which this would certainly hurt them in the long run when one of them runs against Obama in a year.
One really interesting thing that was pointed out to me during the debate was between the two front-runners Romney and Perry. It was about Social Security and Perry’s position on it to remove it all together. I am not sure this would be a good idea seeing how we already have so many Americans relying on this payment, although I do agree with him that something needs to be done about paying so much into it seeing how many Americans would never benefit from it because of their occupations and yet they still have to pay into it. Doesn’t make sense and who knows if there will be money still in the Soc. Sec. once the next generation comes to collect it seeing how they would deserve it because they pay so much into it a week.
Personally, I don’t think it will shake up the republican race all that much, although I do believe that it will get Americans looking at another way from Obama. I believe that they all brought up interesting points during the debate and it would be impossible to name a winner and loser in the debate. I do think they all hit their high points and certainly after viewing Gingrich’s comments I believe he had a very strong debate for himself.
Mike Thomas
Jack S....
There was certainly no shortage of interesting talking points from the Republican Debate on Thursday. Although there were no clear winners or losers, certain candidates stood out much more than others. Going into the debate, many were anticipating the Mitt Romney vs. Rick Perry showdown, and those people were not disappointed. Of the two, I believe that Mitt Romney had a much better debate than Perry. This was Perry’s first debate, and he did not do as well as many expected him to. Before the debate, Ron Paul’s commercial aired showing Perry’s former ties to the Democratic Party and throughout the debate Perry seemed to attempt to bully the other candidates around, which did not work. Romney, on the other hand, appeared very well prepared for the debate, and was handled himself well. Even when asked about his healthcare plan in Massachusetts, something most Republicans are strongly against, he was confident and did not divert the question. Overall, I believe that Romney is the debate winner.
There were also many losers in the debate. One of which is Ron Paul, who got the least amount of speaking time in the debate by a significant margin. In the first debate, Ron Paul gained a large amount of support, but much of that was lost in this debate. His strong libertarian views appeared too extreme for most of the public. Even though many see him as a loser, the MSNBC online poll for the winner of the debate says differently. Paul is leading with 60% of the vote; those Paul supporters are certainly very vocal. I believe this debate should take away from Perry’s lead, and make it a much tighter race. I believe that Romney appeals to the independents much more, which could help him get the nomination. After this debate, my vote has gone from Ron Paul to Mitt Romney.
Matt Mendonca
In my opinion there wasn’t a significant candidate in the Republican debate that expressed an overwhelming argument persuasive enough to secure them a spot in the 2012 election. The heated debate seemed long and repetitive with candidates trying to point out all of the successful things they’ve done in the past. Spokesmen who this applied to the most included Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, both who took countless shots at each other. The two exclaimed how they had saved their home states a certain amount of money in tax cuts in an extended amount of time. Although this is a beneficial achievement on both their parts, it’s a whole different story when in the white house. Having the responsibility of one state does not compare to the pressure you face when the whole country is looking up to you to reverse our 14 trillion dollars of debt that continues to build up.
I noticed that despite being all republicans, this debate was very heated and candidates aimed at pointing out the flaws in others plans for the future if president and even past achievements. Candidates would contradict the previous speaker when it became their chance to talk if they thought that what they successfully done were more efficient. This became apparent especially when Michele Bachman and Ron Paul confidently stated that they could lower gas prices to two dollars or even just a dime. When I heard this I agreed with other candidates responses. With the way the economy has been this is easily comprehended as an impossible goal. Gas prices reach above four dollars per gallon currently in some areas and one person I can confidently say will not change that price so drastically. The other politicians just as I saw how irrational this statement was so that put Bachman and Paul lower in my standards for winning this race. Another very significant thing I noticed was how many candidates took multiple shots at current President Obama pointing out flaws that he has made. But lets be honest, there has never been a perfect president and there never will be. With the amount of trust put in you it is hard to please everyone especially with a two party system. There will always be someone who disagrees with you and I don’t think these candidates see that. They’re so blinded with wanting the title of President of the United States that I don’t think they know what awaits them if they arrive in office. Once elected the new president will have to deal with all the problems that Obama has to deal with now and if they cannot drastically turn this countries track around and put us back on top, like it was expected of Obama to do, the citizens will be just as upset with the new president. There is too much expected of one person as president.
It seemed as though through this debate, the candidates weren’t even very united in this cause of beating Obama. It was stated a couple of times but the truth is, they are fighting their fellow republicans for the presidency just as much as Obama. Candidates running for president will say anything to get the public to like them which means promising things that can’t truly be promised. All of these candidates talked about little things that won’t affect the big scheme of things. Things that fall under this category are Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 deal as well as Ron Paul’s goal to abolish the IRS. America needs an intervention or a miracle to get out of its current situation with job loss and debt. None of these little plans will create that change. In all honesty thus far I feel that none of the GOP candidates showed excellence and President Obama is still the best one for the spot. After 4 years he can look back on his mistakes and use them to his advantage. He already has dealt with the country’ issues and has the experience of being president already. With another term in office I feel he can do more good than any of these new candidates who would most likely be overwhelmed with the job.
Bella Guo (Songshan)
In my opinion, I think both Romney and Perry came out of the debate on top, because they both had some sort of experience with creating new jobs, have ideas as to how to get the American economy back on track, and are trying to help the ordinary American people. Perry wants to lower taxes and regulations, so that small businesses can grow, while Romney thinks that his experience in the private sector will help tremendously when creating jobs. Perry seemed like he spoke more than Romney did, so he does appear as earning a slightly higher grade than Romney. Perry's main point is that he wants the people off of welfare, and in well paying jobs. Another thing that set Perry apart from the rest is that he was able to come up with ideas on how to fix the economy, rather than just go up there and say all the things that Obama did wrong, like Bachmann. All I really got from her was that ObamaCare is bad, and that she will work really hard to get rid of it. She doesn't address the issue of "What now?" Santorum wanted to criminalize not having a job for long periods of time, which I find absolutely ridiculous, because it'll end up just like the last time the US decided to criminalize being jobless- the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Cain seemed to have done not too well, but not too poorly either, because while he did want to reform the private sector instead of a completely new plan, he did want to throw out the existing tax code and create a new one. This idea seems a little unattainable, seeing as Congress has trouble agreeing on how to not default on a debt. Huntsman was able to create jobs in a small area, but no one knows how he'll do when given a much larger arena. He's not totally against a government run health care plan, but rather wants to give the American people more choices. Paul's theory on how to create jobs is to deregulate and privatize. Unfortunately, the Democrats are pretty likely to be against this.
However, the winner of the debate really isn't that important at this stage. I find it significant that the party is so united against ObamaCare. Like Gingrich pointed out, they're all running for pretty much the same cause- to dethrone Obama. This debate separated the people who are really in the running from those who are far from it.
Alfred Kroqi
In my opinion there was no clear winner of the Republican debate. Mitt Romney and Perry are both obviously the leading Republican candidates but neither holds an advantage on the other. Romney holds more experience in the private sector, which he pointed to countless times and he believes can help him create jobs in these tough economic times. Opposition to Romney's private sector debate pointed out that Romney's company cost more jobs then it created. Perry is a favorite in the poles but his background may cause him some headaches. As Ron Paul pointed out, Perry has a democratic past which could turn some republican voters off. Despite this he has helped the state of Texas decrease unemployment. Not all of the employment was above minimum wage but at least people were working. Romney also helped decrease Massachusetts' unemployment rate. Huntsman gained favor with me in his debate. I simply like the guy and feel his experience in Utah could help him run the country. Opposition to that would be that Utah is only a small region and how would he do with a much lager area, the United States? I would like to find out. Herman Cain does not belong in this race. His 9 9 9 plan sounds more like a pizza deal then a plan to reboot the economy. At the end of this debate it is clear that Romney and Perry are clear leaders
with everyone else just as a formality, although I must admit I do like Huntsman.
Dan Chen needs to contribute a bit more next time!
Post a Comment