Much to gain, lose for Gingrich, rivals in debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
The Republican presidential candidates face off Tuesday night just a few blocks from the place they all hope to call home: the White House. The debate is the 11th major showdown between the Republican candidates and the first in 10 days. It’s also the first in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is firmly among the front-runners in national surveys, deadlocked with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the top spot in the nomination race.
Full story
 
Gingrich Now Leads GOP Field in Positive Intensity

PRINCETON, NJ – Newt Gingrich now leads all of his Republican presidential rivals in garnering positive image ratings from Republicans and Republican leaners nationwide – marking a first for 2011. His +20 Positive Intensity Score gives Gingrich a sizable lead over Herman Cain, in second with +14, and Mitt Romney, in third with +11.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/sctsh-mm_0iyhcmypxpnrq.gif

gallup.com/poll/150926/Gingrich-Leads-GOP-Field-Positive-Intensity.aspx

… Remarkable
 
Why or why is no one getting behind John Huntsman? Of all the candidates, he seems to be the most statesman-like, the most genuine in his beliefs (when he speaks on issues, it seems to be what he really believes and not calculated toward manipulating opinions)…but sadly, the least like a politician. That seems a pity - he’s my pick of the field.
 
seekerz said:
Why or why is no one getting behind John Huntsman? Of all the candidates, he seems to be the most statesman-like, the most genuine in his beliefs (when he speaks on issues, it to be what he really believes and not calculated toward manipulating opinions)…but sadly the least like a politician. That seems a pity - he’s my pick of the field.
Click to expand...
I think it is because he is unknown and a bit boring. Also someone who wants us to cut and run out of Afghanistan isn’t going to shoot to the top of the Republican ticket. Ron Paul already has that small Republican constituency sewn up with the added plus to those folks that Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs. At least that’s my 2-cents.
 
I thought they all did well. I’m definitely convinced that any one of them would be a far superior president than Pres. Obama.

I liked Bachman’s comment about our interest money is going to build up the Chinese military. I liked Perry’s comment that amnesty talk is worthless unless we control our borders. I loved Gingrich’s comment about if we were serious we would obtain more oil, offer it to the world and drive oil prices down and control Iran. I liked Bachman’s comment to Paul that Iran has said it would attack Israel and us. I liked Paul’s comments about the budget, and the war on drugs. I liked Santorum’s positive attitudes, and that he wasn’t tricked by Wolf into saying he’d increase taxes; he gave a good answer. I liked Huntsman’s concern for our economy. I liked Cain’s comments on profiling. I liked Romney’s clear distinction between war law and criminal law.

I’m sure I’ll remember more answers that impressed me. It was hard to keep my full attention after the first hour. I think it’s really important that second hour to keep the answers clear and concise, because I daydreamed through a few of them.
 
I was waiting for Gingrich to criticize Wolf’s questions, since Rush made such a big deal today that he was practicing comebacks. Instead, he congratulated him on his questions. That was great!
 
gilliam said:
I thought they all did very well
Click to expand...
My personal preference for Gingrich aside, I thought that the only two people who did poorly were Rick Perry and Herman Cain. I’m not saying that generally they were laughable, but personally I found their performances to be laughable. They simply don’t have the a substantive grasp of the issues… so their answers are instead attempts to use rhetoric and other generalities. They don’t ever talk about specific policies, and when they do it’s at the end of their answer… as if they’re grasping for it or even coming up with it on the spot. Policy and substance is NEVER the first thing out of their mouth.

I say “attempts”, because their efforts certainly aren’t fooling me.

Anyways, why did these 2 candidates lead the field for 2-3 months together? They showed the LEAST grasp of foreign policy tonight, and were clearly the least specific. I bet no one is going to say that they won the debate tonight. [At least who weren’t already fans of them].

This segways to Gingrich, because I would contend he is a substantive challenger to Romney (unlike Perry and Cain), and he’s used to the national spotlight a lot more than Bachmann is. I think after tonight, he’s weathered a lot of the personal attacks… and the media is going to have to talk about his substance and policies over the next week.
P.S.
40.png
incense:
I was waiting for Gingrich to criticize Wolf’s questions, since Rush made such a big deal today that he was practicing comebacks. Instead, he congratulated him on his questions. That was great!
Click to expand...
That was INDEED great!
I think it only shows more, that Newt had legitimate beefs with how the other debates were run. He wasn’t being contrived to appeal to people. He complimented how this and the other CNN debate were run. [CNN ran the very first debate, and tonights… the 11th so far]*
 
Semper_Zelare said:
My personal preference for Gingrich aside, I thought that the only two people who did poorly were Rick Perry and Herman Cain.
Click to expand...
I agree they didn’t do what they had to do. Probably out of their league on the subject.

Ron Paul, whereas he did well in expressing his views and got MUCH more air time than usual, simply showed how out of touch he is with main stream Republican thought. I could be wrong but I think his extremist views will hurt him. We will see in the future polls. There is an old adage in show business any air time is good air time, and get got a LOT of it tonight.
 
I agree that only Perry and Cain showed their weakness in foreign policy knowledge without, however, any really major gaffe. The others were generally good; but I must admit I don’t believe anything Romney says and have felt that way about him from the start. Moreover, I don’t think HE believes anything he says either. I was impressed by Bachmann, for a change, especially during her slight sparring with Romney concerning aid to Pakistan. Somehow, Paul sounded to me a little naive regarding his strict isolationist policy. Still, he made some good points, and one can tell that he–unlike Romney–is sincere in what he is saying. And unlike Charlie Rose–whom I ordinarily admire–Wolf Blitzer was a superb moderator.
 
meltzerboy said:
I agree that only Perry and Cain showed their weakness in foreign policy knowledge without, however, any really major gaffe. The others were generally good; but I must admit I don’t believe anything Romney says and have felt that way about him from the start. Moreover, I don’t think HE believes anything he says either. I was impressed by Bachmann, for a change, especially during her slight sparring with Romney concerning aid to Pakistan. Somehow, Paul sounded to me a little naive regarding his strict isolationist policy. Still, he made some good points, and one can tell that he–unlike Romney–is sincere in what he is saying. And unlike Charlie Rose–whom I ordinarily admire–Wolf Blitzer was a superb moderator.
Click to expand...
Pretty much how I feel.

Cain? Aide to africa? How he handled the Blitzer flub? I just don’t see it. Week by week he is self-destructing before our eyes

Bachmann caught Perry off guard with the weapons in Pakistan. Michele Bachmann, I have remained reserved on, yet the Water-Boarding comment a few days ago. If she had commented with a little reserve to the negative? That I could have accepted. But that resounding, positive response the other night? A bit much when talking torture IMHO. It reverberates in my mind. I believe she should clarify that, though in truth she night have already?

The dialogue between Newt and Paul? To me thats like stating the police are going to prevent a crime before it happens. Its an untruth. And you cannot wage a ten-year war over a terrorist. Especially while the Super Commitee will result in 4-major military cuts. and a severe loss of US jobs. That sounded great by Newt, however think it through.

Pauls affirmation on life is real. In this time of social economic tragedy. I see no-one with as sound of an economic plan. His stance on life and religion as a Dr. are without question. What you see with him is what you get. With Newt its a facade which will result in disappointment. Its just not realistic to continue in war, continue to spend and defend against terror, here and over in the ME. Then at the same time cut the 4-major needs of our military right now, along with jobs. Which is the result of our super-commitee.

The real horror show is what we are doing now with the continued war on terror, and systematically draining our economy while crippling our military. The seperation from wants and needs is backwards IMHO.

I also agree that Huntsman ought to be looked at more closely as mentioned above. Which in truth I haven’t done, but will.

While all this makes for good conversation, truth is it means little until January rolls around. Its going to be a long year. Though we do see the seperation of those who in truth are not viable candidates. Its not that they are not liked or respected, they simply do-not have the required experience, especially with the mess we are in.

Newt and Romney? The question with both is their inconsistant stance on important issues over the years. IMHO it would go a long way, at least for me to clarify the change in thinking.

Peace
 
seekerz said:
Why or why is no one getting behind John Huntsman? Of all the candidates, he seems to be the most statesman-like, the most genuine in his beliefs (when he speaks on issues, it seems to be what he really believes and not calculated toward manipulating opinions)…but sadly, the least like a politician. That seems a pity - he’s my pick of the field.
Click to expand...
He’s the most moderate in the field, and thus, is not going to be popular among the majority on the right.

That was why people held their nose voting for McCain in many cases. It was more a vote against Obama than a vote for McCain. His views on gay-marriage scare off a lot of people as well.
 
Semper_Zelare said:
My personal preference for Gingrich aside, I thought that the only two people who did poorly were Rick Perry and Herman Cain. I’m not saying that generally they were laughable, but personally I found their performances to be laughable. They simply don’t have the a substantive grasp of the issues… so their answers are instead attempts to use rhetoric and other generalities. They don’t ever talk about specific policies, and when they do it’s at the end of their answer… as if they’re grasping for it or even coming up with it on the spot. Policy and substance is NEVER the first thing out of their mouth.
Click to expand...
I completely agree, and this is one reason I’d have a hard time voting Republican if either of them were nominated. Both of them were struggling just to remember the statistics and talking points they had probably memorized a couple of hours before the debate.

I’m thrilled Ron Paul had much more time to speak. If people don’t agree with him, fine, but at least you know he’s consistent and unafraid to say what he thinks. Personally I agree with him and am tired of seeing presidents act like emperors when it comes to how we interact with the rest of the world. Not to mention the tremendous financial costs and unsustainability of multiple wars. Every time Ron Paul speaks about war, he ALWAYS mentions the approval of Congress. I don’t know why the other candidates can’t pick up on this really simple point.

I also enjoyed seeing Paul get to “smuggle in” a line about the failed drug war, and I’m always surprised at how much applause that line gets.

Gingrich did great. (I don’t think anyone expected him to do poorly.) Then again, he didn’t have to deal with nearly as much criticism as he might have to in the coming debates if he continues to poll high. I’ll be interested to see how he handles that if it comes.

If Cain, Perry and Bachmann would drop out, we could see even better, in-depth discussions in these debates. This one was good all-round.
 
I think they all did well, but I think Gingrich is going to lose support over his illegal immigration stance.
 
Judged solely on foreign policy, if either Romney or Gingrich becomes the nominee, Obama did very well last night.
 
gnjsdad said:
Judged solely on foreign policy, if either Romney or Gingrich becomes the nominee, Obama did very well last night.
Click to expand...
Because all three essentially follow the Bush Doctrine?

I thought Gingrich was the winner, simply because he was not the loser. We’ve seen a trend of “pile on” at the debates on the frontrunner (and Perry). This debate was a refreshing deviation from that trend.

I haven’t had a favorite of the candidates, yet. I would probably vote for any of them (with less enthusiasm for some), but Gingrich may become my favorite.
 
Newt brought me around to his stance on the proper treatment of illegal aliens and not even members of the clergy have been able to do that. Newt is so intelligent, experienced, and thoughful that it makes up for his heavy baggage.
 
'Tis a pity your poll did not include “none of the above”, which would have been my choice. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top