freecounterpoint: Perry's not too good. W would've ate his lunch.

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Perry's not too good. W would've ate his lunch.

8 comments:

Tecumseh said...: Missed the beginning (some of us work, you know -- still remember what it means to be in the salt mines, Mr Rot?), but I caught the rest.

Cannot really tell who was better -- almost all seemed at least OK, except Ron Paul, who was real annoying and rather embarrassing at times (he looked more reasonable back in 2007-2008, now he seems to be mostly a crank).

Gingrich had a real good line when he attacked the questioner for trying so hard to manufacture a food fight among RWNs.

Mitt sounded on message -- nothing flashy, but solid. And he had done his homework by putting on the table a concrete and detailed jobs plan just before coming to the debate.

Huntsman was better that I thought most of the time, except at then end, when he got into Goreball Warming shtick, and I lost him.

Perry got bogged down in that stuff about cervical vaccination or whatever -- I was surprised by that line of attack, he didn't seem to have a good canned answer for that. Also, although I agreed on substance on his death penalty response, my impression is that he came off a tad too harsh. Not sure what else he could or should have said, but this could be a line of attack where he can get demagogued if he gets to the general. Also, he sounded kind of shifty on the isolationism question (yes, W woulda swatted that kind of answer), and he coulda done better on the education question. And, although he was quite good on the Goreball warming question, he wasn't as trenchant as he coulda been, eg, by turning the tables on the pinko MSM guys, and mentioning all the statistica da puta shenanigans.

Well, that's it in terms of running comments for now. What did you guys think? Did miss anything important?; 9/07/2011 10:54 PM
Tecumseh said...: Out on a limb with that (Social Security)==(Ponzi scheme) talk. He's partly right, but it would be very easy to get demagogued on such a platform during the general election.; 9/08/2011 12:00 AM
Tecumseh said...: Ace sums it up pretty well. Yes, Mitt kind of demagogued Perry on Social Security, but so would Obama, if it gets to that (is anyone doubting that?)
And clearly, Mitt is the more experienced debater (well, so was Bachmann, and even Santorum) -- it pays off to have some experience with these things.

Perry has time to get better at this. But he needs to find better answers to some of those questions, and to pick his fights more carefully. Eg, what's the point on bringing up Social Security now? Just stay focused on message (jobs, regulations, energy, Obamacare, whatevah). Not rocket science.; 9/08/2011 12:13 AM
Tecumseh said...: Pinko analysis. Surely biased, but pretty rational. Not too far from Ace's.; 9/08/2011 12:21 AM
Tecumseh said...: Best back-and-forth:

“Those are wonderful things,” Romney said, “but Gov. Perry doesn’t believe that he created those things. If he tried to say that, well, it would be like Al Gore saying he invented the Internet.”

“Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt,” Perry shot back.

“Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, Governor,” responded Romney.; 9/08/2011 12:43 AM
Tecumseh said...: Jennifer Rubin not impressed. Exit quote:

Contrary to the hysterics in the blogosphere [she talking to Rot?], this race is far from over. In fact, I think they are just warming up.; 9/08/2011 12:59 AM
Mr roT said...: The race is over modulo $\mathbb Z_2$. It will be Perry/Romney or Romney/Perry.

I prefer the second ticket if I could be assured that Romney won't go full Massachusetts fucking pinko.

This is always a danger since there's a lot of lead in the tap water in Cambridge.; 9/08/2011 7:54 AM
Tecumseh said...: What about Rubio as VP? You with WND on that one? He's been in the 30s at Intrade for a month now.; 9/08/2011 9:50 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)