Those of you who watched last night’s debate…
…(all three of you): who do you think won? And will that same person be ahead a year from now, when the nominations happen?
And speaking of the debate, doesn’t Michele Bachmann look teensy here?
But paradoxically, her diminutive size is one of the factors that helps make her stand out (not the only one, though).
[NOTE: I think the effect of petiteness is accentuated by the fact that Bachmann’s in the middle of the photo, and towards the sides the lens distorts people and makes them look bigger.]
I thought Newt did well, He smashed Chris Wallace and ground him into dust. He was also good on this stupid committee of 12. I thought the Bachmann/Pawlenty feud was narrowly won by Bachmann. She is no Sarah, that’s for sure. Herman Cain had some good lines. I like him as Commerce Secretary or something. Most of these people are running for cabinet posts, not the top job. Romney failed the Romneycare test. Hated Huntsman. Santorum was good in some areas, especially when he took after Ron Paul on Iran. But he’s not going to get any traction. Ron Paul alternates between smart and crazy so often it makes your head spin.
Without Perry and Palin present, this debate did not help decide who might be the GOP nominee; on the other hand, it showed who should not.
Pat sums it up well in my opinion.
I do not dislike MB, but never thought she could win and dislike her reliance upon her stock phrases – but I liked her consistency and that made me like her more than I thought I would. I heard she’s 5’2″ – that will not work in her favor at this stage of our evolutionary development.
I do not dislike MR, but never was sMITTen by him – but he was somewhat compelling in his ease and betterhairness- even on the Romney care answer, I thought. I resigned to him if he ends up being the winner.
I do not like Newt’s forced smile for the camera and he has no chance of winning either nomination or election, but I liked very very very much his wide swaths at the current situation of media and leadership. Glad he’s in the fray and hope he keeps having that kind of fun.
Cain – I liked that he said he was learning. Honest.
Paul – really. why? and his fan base. really. why?
Santorum – kind of felt for him, but wondering what he’s doing there.
Paw – took the low road, although he defended it well on a one-on-one with Hannity.
did I forget anyone? oh yea, Huntsman.
Sarah and Perry: they will bring some weight to the stage. That’ll be fun. People would like Sarah if they would let themselves watch her – but many have not and will not. Perry? well, I hope he works #1 on relaxation, relaxation, relaxation.
I won.
If only because I didn’t look upon any of these people and think, “Oh, not him.”
Unlike my reaction to an early call by McCain’s fundraisers in 2008.
Chris Wallace needs a new career.
And Byron York.
There was no “winner, ” IMO. Romney didn’t hurt himself, but Pawlentyand Bachmann may have lost a tad because of their little set to. Except for Paul and Huntsman, I think all the candidates could do a decent job as President. But that is compared to Obama – a low bar indeed. So far none of them give me a tingle down my leg.
I watched! Even rewound a couple of times to re-listen to something that caught my attention. Overall it didn’t change my opinion on any of them for either better or worse. I came away pretty much thinking as I did going on. With the slim possibility of newt. I think the man is truely brilliant as a ‘thinker’ but what he accomplished 25 years ago now does nothing to overcome his sheer un-electability. IMO of course. Still, I’d like to see him in some cabinet post or the other as a previous commenter said. Ron Paul? Well his totally rabid supporters were of course out in force but all the cheers in the world will never get this man the nomination. Bachman….far away from my favorite in any situation. I wish just one time she could answer a question in a normal speaking voice and not make every utterance one of the ever rising ‘campaign’ inflection ending in a ‘rousing’ sound bite. Hear her once and you’ve pretty much heard everything she has to say from now on. She is a two or three note song that I quickly get bored with. Cain I adore for his honesty and forthrightness. I can well imagine trusting the heck out of the man. Again, a sure winner….just not for this nomination. Romney…..puh-leese! Didn’t like/ trust him last go round and I do even less this time. He is the AlGore of our party…..say whatever, do whatever it takes to win. Pawlenty came across as petty and just plain mean….picking on every body else. And all the others? Well for me it was a big yawn fest. Waiting on Perry to come on down and blow some life into this party. NOT that he doesn’t have a few issues in his closet that can make me see ‘somewhat’ red but he tops my list currently as a real possibility. But as ever…..JMHO of course!
and hey…..here you’ve got all SIX of us who watched! LOL!
Romney — for better or for worse — has got the nomination in the bag.
Who won?
China and Russia, of course!
and thats a television camera, it does not distort out to the sides like a cheap lense or an ultrawide on a slr..
The optics on such cameras is incredible for just that reason… their ability to go from close to far and have a 12 to 1 ratio… or more… without warping
look at the banner behind them… it does not get wider or change proportions…
they actually take three images and put them together, while your other cameras use a grid and interpolate colors (foveon is a odd exception)
the distortion is caused by using a short focal length lens… however professional cameras have the money, cash, and dolly to not have to compromise on this.
the way a camera man handles this, AND as you can see in the image its been handled, is they move the camera back!!!!!!!!!!
rather than have it up close and wide
they have it farther back, and tighter
its the same image on the sensor, except that its a long focal length, and so the image doesnt warp.
now you know why there is almost as much space if not more around a television or film set!
the sad point and one that is important is that we NATURALLY pick the taller as the leader.
go ahead look at the record.
i would say they displayed her standing to cut her out
and they displayed FDR a certain way to keep him in
Guiliani is like fdr in this way..
he would come off bad in such a group shot too
Artfldgr: if that was their aim, I think it backfired. I think she stands out because of it.
Romey gained nothing. Neither did Bachmann. Paw probably did not help himself much in the straw poll. He did present some good points and gained from the Obamaneycare answer, but his failure to actually address Bachmann’s charges on supporting the mandate probably made it a wash. Santorum did not help himself in the straw poll, but probably gained some traction with those in the rest of the nation. Cain speaks well, but has yet to put meat on the bones of his generalities. Newt gained some ground. He spoke forcefully and his insistence that action should occur now not in 2012 range true, but I think that is probably a dead cat bounce.
Huntsman may as well have stayed home. Paul fiscal wisdom was more than offset by his foreign policy insanity.
I have a hunch that the future Republican nominee was not on that stage.
I thought Newt set himself apart from the pack. He thinks outside the box and has some genuinely good ideas. I’m surprised I’m typing this because I’m not inclined to like him much and generally consider him a washed up has been from another era.
I was most disappointed with Ron Paul. Not because I want him to be the nominee, but my libertarian side wanted him to do well to advance the cause of libertarianism. Instead, he comes off as an angry, old, borderline crazy, isolationist, which is counter-productive to the libertarian cause. 🙁
The best thing I can say about Romney is that he has the best hair and looks presidential. But he didn’t distinguish himself. On the other hand, he he didn’t say anything to hurt himself either. So he probably remains the frontrunner. But I’d have to say Newt won in the sense he came off as different from the others, but he’s not so different that he’s on the fringe like Ron Paul.
Chris Wallace definitely lost. If the audience had been given the opportunity to recommend questions, nobody would have asked the questions he asked. He embarrassed himself and FOX.
Angry Mob Tries To Kick Down Door at Boehner’s Office
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lue-wrWqK5k&feature=player_embedded
Artfldgr: if that was their aim, I think it backfired. I think she stands out because of it.
its not who stands out, its who stands tall
ie… we dont see diminutive as a leader…
despite napoleon
standing out – while something the left says is great, in and of itself is nothing great… any more than a knife only cuts one way
they showed her as tiny, diminutive, small..
you know.. a “little woman”, weak, ineffectual, etc
if that is what standing out implies in proportions, then no, its not good..
not that it matters… the way its moving we wont have much choice… external elements are moving too
Regarding the photo, not only does it seem to distory relative heights but notice that Bachman looks like a twig while Santorum and Gingrich look more like 300+ behemouths!
The debate was a yawner. Newt did well and RP came off like an incredible flake. Probably on one on that stage last night will be the nominee next year. The straw poll is irrelevant and probably Iowa, too. No point in wasting any time or money there. Palin and Perry seem to get that.
Geez, the questions were stupid. Anyone in that audience would have asked better questions.
The only one who stands a chance of being the eventual nominee is Romney. He didn’t hurt himself and he has an aura of substance. It will be very interesting to see how Rick Perry stands up as a candidate. I, personally, am receptive to someone other than Romney but no one else on the stage convinced me they would be a better winning bet against Obama.
I was deeply disappointed in the questions posed by the panel. And, why did Fox choose to be a slave to the 1 minute answer format?
Anybody but Obama…… A real conservative will not get the nomination, because a real conservative doesn’t have a chance. We don’t have a chance! Anyone who gets in there will be consumed by the politics the way Bush was. We need someone who is willing to give up their life and political future to do the right things. No one standing up there would do that except Ron Paul and he will never be given the chance by mainstream republican voters. We are doomed to continue this path of half heartily fighting off socialism.
“”A real conservative will not get the nomination, because a real conservative doesn’t have a chance. “”
Rattso
I haven’t seen a better chance for a real conservative since 1980. The media wants to portray its impossibility. But remember they are the same people saying the earth has a fever.
If a real conservative doesn’t win in 2012, America as we have known it is finished.
Barring a black swan event, it’s all about the economy.
If the economy is perceived as on the way to recovery–Warren Buffett is volubly optimistic about the long term–, Obama will win. Period. I see no point to discussing that scenario.
If the economy continues to falter, a Republican has a better shot than Obama unless:
a) people like the Tea Party or social conservatives get overconfident and nominate someone repellent to swing voters, or
b) a third-party candidate drains off Republican votes. IMO the worst outcome for the country would be if Obama loses the popular vote by a landslide but is reelected because the conservative vote is split. I’d rather see Nanny Bloomberg win than have that happen.
If a real conservative wins the Republican nomination, I think it is highly likely for an independent like Trump or Bloomberg to run as a “reasonable moderate” and split the Republican vote. That of course would guarantee Obama’s re-election.
That would not be a true “third-party” run since Trump and Bloomberg represent no one but themselves. They have no party behind them.
In my opinion, a much less likely scenario is for a conservative/Tea Party candidate to run if the Republicans nominate a RINO. However, that would be a true third-party challenge. And there is no question that I would vote for such a candidate over the RINO.
“Trump and Bloomberg represent no one but themselves. They have no party behind them.”
I agree. Trump is not a conservative or a RINO, Trump is simply weird. Bloomberg is a definite RINO. Trump does what Trump does for attention because he is as narcissistic as BHO. Bloomberg would like the GOP nomination but is smart enough to know he has not a chance to win it. Neither of them will have much appeal to the 20% who identify as ‘independent’. IMO, neither will run as an independent.
“In my opinion, a much less likely scenario is for a conservative/Tea Party candidate to run if the Republicans nominate a RINO. However, that would be a true third-party challenge. And there is no question that I would vote for such a candidate over the RINO.”
If the GOP nominates Romney they are asking for a thrashing. The Chicago boys and the MSM will tear him apart for all of his flip-flops and over ‘Romney care’. From my perspective, Romney is Obama-lite. The disaster of another 4 years of BHO is terrible to contemplate, but I think Romney would be nearly as dangerous. Lets face it, Romney is less a conservative than Dubya and Dubya was no conservative.
Drastic times call for drastic measures. We need a leader who will explain the nitty gritty to the people: we’re up caca creek, the rising waters are filled with alligators, and we hocked the paddles to the Chinese pawn broker.
“”If a real conservative doesn’t win in 2012, America as we have known it is finished.””
Rickl
Isn’t that the story of America? It doesn’t matter who wins. We will not be the same country. We’re always in a perpetual becoming stage. And what’s coming is the good old days for a lot of people.
You all speak the truth, but it’s not enough. Only Ron Paul has admitted that everyone of these proposals, including Ryan’s increased the debt and only reduced the expected increases. We live in an upside doen world, my friends! I will vote for the candidate who believes AGW is a total farce! That will be my litmus test. Anybody that buys into it, is a nitwit!
Parker – I’m with you on Romney, and I might even be more severe, since I just flat dislike the man.
Intensely. Let me explain why.
He’s a political weasel, he’s cynical, he lives off of his supposed “aura” (notice how everyone says he “looks presidential” but no one says he actually says anything substantial – for good reason), and worst of all, he’s thoroughly unpersuasive. This is strictly at the PR level. I’ll get to the moral level later.
The only reason any even remotely conservative voter would have to support him is the possibility that he might, maybe, conceivably win. Yet he can’t even sell his pathetic excuse for his pathetic excuse of a health care bill convincingly in a debate with people on his own side of the aisle.
Obama will wipe the floor with him in debate, and we will find ourselves yet again shaking our heads, teeth-clenched, steam shooting out of our ears, wishing the man would just get down to brass, exactly as we did with McCain. And at least McCain was capable of it. Romney is not, precisely because he’s simultaneously dug into about ten holes, and it’s impossible for him to stop digging. He is nowhere near rhetorically savvy enough to not only climb out of his holes but go on offense afterwards.
If I saw some cast-iron evidence that Romney was commanding an awesome advantage over Obama in the polls, I’d feel much less alarm about him. But he’s the kind of guy that the more one learns about him, the more one distrusts him – exactly what a Republican must NOT be in 2012. To nominate Romney is to adopt a Maginot-line strategy, a sign that we conservatives are not confident in our principles or their power to prevail in head-to-head combat with the socialists.
And we will learn more about Romney – and more and more and more. David Axelrod will make sure of that. And here is what the inattentive American centrist will hear: Flip. Flop. Evasion. Equivocation. Dodging. Stuff and nonsense. Romneycare = Obamacare.
We underestimate how lethal that last equation is at our peril. It may seem like nothing big when Romney is allowed to slither out of it with noises about the 10th Amendment among people who are not inclined to press the issue. Just wait, however, until it’s seized upon by Obama and the media. What conservative will be able to stand up to them and argue on principle? WE don’t even buy Romney’s crap, so his miasma contaminates us and he winds up putting us in the position of having to be (at best) disingenuous in our attempt to fight a clean battle against Obama.
I can give a bunch of B.S. excuses for Romneycare. I believe none of them, because Romney can’t honestly deny that he was to his health care bill as Chris Matthews’ leg was to Obama’s speeches. He tingled with delight at his brilliant technocratic accomplishment.
To hear him today say that “it was right for Massachusetts” is infuriating – how can we possibly defend that in good conscience? The 10th Amendment doesn’t make it right. It makes it Constitutional. A spineless pseudo-conservative not even caving into but ADORING an odious socialist experiment in health care is indefensible, whether it takes place in a state or not.
Would Scott Walker have acted that way? Question answers itself. So Romney’s implied begging for indulgence on account of his having been a red governor of a blue state cuts no ice at all. What if he becomes the red governor of a blue congress? Can we expect more “prudence”?
This is why I get so heated when I talk about Romney. I don’t think the upper atmosphere of conservative opinionators at the blogs and elsewhere (the Wall Street Journal excepted) have fully come to terms the demoralizing effect Romney will necessarily have on conservatives. I don’t want to lie for him. I don’t want to excuse the inexcusable. I don’t want to turn into a mini-Romney spouting his stupid talking point du jour. We need our troops engaged, inspirited, and ready to put it all on the line – to, as we say, fight the GOOD fight. We are supposed to do our best while our opponents do their worst. Romney goes some way to forcing us down to his level, and theirs.
For that matter, even when Romney is supposedly “attacking” Obama it still sounds like an automated series of one-liners generated by yanking a string on his back. There’s no passion. There’s no conviction. There’s nothing but lukewarm wind – a Potemkin demeanor with Potemkin ideas capable of inspiring exactly no one. The man simply vanishes into his “aura,” which in any case is just the light refracting off of his hairspray. No Indies will think twice because of anything Romney says. He is hardcore Establishment. Hardcore mush.
I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee, or rather I’ll vote against Obama whoever his opponent is. I also think he will lose.
P.S. – I’m fairly sure Nanny Bloomberg is not a RINO anymore. He went the Crist route and became an Independent. Meaning a Democrat. Who calls himself an Independent. Whatever.
kolnai,
Your post is full of insight and detail. I’m a much more simple person. Romney is burnt toast and no amount of butter can change that fact.
“… it still sounds like an automated series of one-liners generated by yanking a string on his back. There’s no passion. There’s no conviction. There’s nothing but lukewarm wind — a Potemkin demeanor with Potemkin ideas capable of inspiring exactly no one.”
Great prose and dead on target. Mitt needs to find a barber in Iowa that will give him a $7 crew cut. 😉
Rattso says, “Only Ron Paul has admitted that everyone of these proposals, including Ryan’s increased the debt and only reduced the expected increases. ”
That I can say I agree with. When it comes to fiscal/monetary policy RP is 80% on target. But when it comes to illegal immigration and national security RP is in the wacko category.
Shucks, just when I was warming to the idea of getting enthusiastic about Rick Perry, I ran into: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/40924/hamas-cair-netwk-in-love-with-rick-perry/#more-40924
hmmmmm….it IS Schlussel writing about a CAIR article and that combined gives me pause. There is likely some iota of truth in it and as I said in a much earlier post Perry does indeed have some skeletons in that big closet that give me pause. However given the source of the piece I question it’s veracity. Read some of her other pieces and one can surmise (I believe) that she is rather far reaching in her assertions sometimes. But I do agree that Perry has some ‘splaining to do about a number of things. As for his being AlGore’s manager….heck, many of us including me were Dems for years and years before also seeing the light! 🙂
Yea, it’s a hit piece by Salon.commi.
Perhaps, and after all politicians will be politicians….
what kolnai said!
Perry gave a dynamite speech for his announcement.
“Rick Perry wins debate he doesn’t even attend.” Ah’m lovin’ me some #rickperryfacts.
kolnai in 2012! Outstanding comment.
About the numbers that show the taller candidate usually wins . . . those were all men. I wonder if this applies at all if a woman is added to the mix. In general, a woman candidate will be shorter than the men, won’t she?
Great comment about Romney, kolnai. You put into words much better than I could why I flatly distrust the man.
He’s a political chameleon, almost as bad as Obama. He’s a statist through and through. There is absolutely zero chance that he would roll back the Almighty State. You may as well expect water to flow uphill.
You had me up until your last paragraph:
I’m not at all sure I could choke down a vote for Romney in that scenario. Not at all.
rickl – You certainly must vote your conscience, and (again here’s the problem with Romney) I personally can’t blame you for feeling too disgusted to cast a vote for Mittens.
Here’s what I can say in extenuation:
First, there is one advantage in having someone who is a pure opportunist as opposed to an Alinskyite such as Obama, who is an opportunist in pursuit of his long-term goals. The advantage is that if enough pressure is put on him to go one way, he will probably go that way. Consequently I do believe there is a decent chance that Romney will at least try to repeal Obamacare. If he doesn’t, then I’m done with him. This will depend on us – the Tea Party and Congress.
Second, he will almost certainly be an improvement over Obama in foreign policy, if for no other reason than it’s hard to conceive of being worse. Romney won’t be bowing to foreign autocrats or apologizing for America before fawning French audiences.
The rest is a question-mark. I can’t argue passionately in favor Romney, so I’ll be a church mouse during the campaign (unless I’m attacking Obama, which is different), but I think there are enough areas where Romney will be an improvement over Obama that I could silently pull the lever for him.
Also, my dislike for Obama is so intense that it makes my dislike for Romney seem like playful needling. If I feel that I’ve in any way contributed to an Obama second term, I would feel more than rotten.
Of course, I don’t think Romney can beat Obama, because his problems as detailed are so enormous that it’s impossible for him to run against anyone except himself. Obama’s strategy in the event that he faces Romney is so obvious that it blueprints itself: Guide Romnay into fighting Romney, and then coast to victory by actually addressing the American people. Let Romney stew in his own cesspool trying to rebut every stupid thing he’s ever done or said – his hubris prevents him from simply admitting he made mistakes and apologizing – and then bask in the smell of roses by contrast.
Romney has no business being the front-runner. He has no business being the nominee, and no business being President. But Obama has less business still being President, and in view of that I can vote for Romney. As my nose shatters between my fingers.
I agree. Mitt Romney’s prospects in the 2012 election remind me more and more of Bob Dole — a guy who technically had the necessary qualifications, but inspired no enthusiasm.
In re height: I would submit that we don’t know how her height will affect her chances. Yes, Americans have traditionally favored a taller man for President… when running against another man.
Bachmann is 5’2″; Hillary Clinton is 5’8″; Sarah Palin is 5’6″. Imagine them sharing a stage; how much do you see relative height as a factor? For that matter, President Obama is 6’1″, nearly a foot taller than Bachmann; now imagine them debating on a level stage, with him looking down his nose at her and her glaring steely-eyed at him, and wiping up the floor with him in debate. How much will height figure into your feelings about that?
In more ways than one, the 2012 election will be one for the books.