Letterman said it best...what did Pres Obama say to Michelle after
watching the GOP debates?..."Stop packing"...Staged publicity....Glenn Beck says he is a paid entertainer and these debates
rank not very far behind him
If he garners the evangelical vote he will be golden!
Romney definitely beat out Perry at least. Perry's "ponzi scheme" is
to attack everything that comes out of Romney's mouth and not defend his own
positions. I also thought that Newt did great, though I don't see
him winning, I like him and Romney the best!
Don't know what they mean by winning an orchestrated debate to entertain the
public with. They first have to win the vote, pleaseing news media and televsion
in orchestrated chat sessions does not do it for me. All the real issues were
overlooked, like their character, thier history, and their belief in the
constitution and soverignty of the United States. Romney and Perry
and Huntsman are all anti americans who will do nothing about our borders and
fugitive foreign nationals invading the United States. Because they are
corporate America who have contempt for the American people and the prosperity
they deserve. All three of these candidates do not and will not provide job
security for the american people. Their collective private business depend on
fugitive illegals and they are not willing to give up their cheap and fraudulent
labor.The underdogs are the real americans in this fight for control
of this country, news media is discriminating and dictating public information
and desecration of character. We need a people president, not a corporate or
business lackey. We all need and deserve representation, not just wall street.
Businesses have no rights or vote but they wield all the power.
"experts" say romney and perry won...what really matters is what the
public says and judging from every poll ive seen ron paul won the debate. i
really hope mormons dont vote for romney because hes a member. listen to ron
paul with an open mind and youll see he makes the most sense
re:wandrewAgreeI would note DN doesn't give LDS member Harry Reid
good/any press. Romney isn't even a UT native. But Romney is clearly the
darling of DN and many Utahns. DN will throw Huntsman a bone once in a while.
DN carries several articles a week on Romney. Most newspaper
editors confine their endorsements and choice of candidates to the opinion
pages. re:PhillyfanaticI don't think there's a building big
enough for Newt's ego.The big question is what effect Tea Partiers will
have on the primaries. They've sent some far-right people to Congress and state
govts as of late. Romney isn't exactly their type of candidate and some have
stated they will stay home rather than vote for Romney.
wandrew, I mean no offense when I say- you can find less support of an LDS
candidate on any other non-LDS-owned paper in the country, even throughout the
world in some cases. That's a lot of options for someone not wanting to read
such headlines.If one argued that the headlines are misleading,
being a little 'too hopeful' in light of the odds of him being elected... I'd
certainly understand. But dripping with admiration? You bet I will! I like the
guy, a lot. I like him first for his responsible and capable history and
promise, I like him second because he represents the possibility of the LDS
Church being accepted, if only partially, for actual beliefs instead of what
others make lies of.
Well, Obama and the progressive Dems in state legs,both houses of Congress
...lost.And I do believe as a polysci teacher for 49 yrs, on debate stats,
presentation, Newt won all 3 debates. I would not be surprised if with his new
21st Century Contract presented in Iowa, that he moves up in the polls to almost
the top tier duo. And if Perry slips more, he , Sant. might move in to the top
with Mitt. Mitt could do worse than pick Newt for VP or vice versa. LOL
If Perry is really a patriot and cares what happens to this country, then he
should graciously bow out and give his support to Romney. Romney is obviously
the best qualified in experience, knowledge, and practical good judgement to
help our country get out of the terrible mess Obama has led it into.
I'm waiting for Chris Christie to announce. But at this moment I'll take Ron
Paul. I hate being manipulated by the media with their canned questions.
You're right about the general public being totally left out of this mess. I'm
still waiting for someone to tell me why we can't stop sending foreign aid to
our enemies, put in a flat 15% tax, require work from those we hand money to,
restore honor to the Consitution, replace everyone in Washington and go back to
being honest hard-working Americans. It's about time we ignored what the world
has to say and CTR.
The Deseret News seems to be more of a cheerleader than a reporter of the news.
Yes, I know he is the great LDS hope, but your headlines and stories drip with
admiration. Couldn't you tamp it down a bit?
Is this the face of the Republican Party?The first debate ( in CA)
Republicans cheered/applauded Perry's execution record.The second
debate Republicans shouted uninsured people should die rather than receive
medical treatment.The third debate Republicans booed a member of the
Armed Services stationed in Iraq. Did any of the presidential
candidates denounce this behavior? (This from the party that called
critics of the Iraq war unpatriotic and un American).
I would change the headline to read "Obama wins again" I have said
all along the Republicans do not have any candidate except Jon Huntsman who can
beat Obama. They are all except Huntsman pandering to the T party. The T party
are too far to the right. If the republican candidate is center right - he or
she can beat Obama. They can not win with a far right candidate or one who talks
far right (Romney) but is not convincing. He lost when he moved from a moderate
republican to trying to be a far right candidate. No body knows where he will
end up. Changes to meet the situation. So sad for the Republicans. My twobits
Romney:"President Obama "went around the world and apologized
for America," Politifact: Obama's speeches contained some
criticisms of past U.S. Actions, he also praised the United States and its
ideals, and he frequently mentioned how other countries have erred. We found
not a single, full-throated apology in the bunch. Romney added -- that the trips
were intended to offer the president a forum to apologize to other countries --
its a ridiculous charge. Theres a clear difference between changing policies and
apologizing, and Obama didnt do the latter. So we rate Romneys statement Pants
on Fire (blatantly false). Romney: "He addressed the United
Nations and chastised our friend, Israel, for building settlements and said
nothing about Hamas launching rockets into Israel." Obama:
Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have
facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of
these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow.
But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end
incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not
accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.
Well, well, well....'ol Romney wins THREE in a row, eh?That's gotta tick off all the liberals!Go Romney, go!
Pac Man,"A voice of Reason: I have no idea what you are talking
about though I probably agree with you 99%. To say that there is no pressure is
a little naive."lol, well I wouldn't call it naive... but I
would agree that there is probably pressure from being in the spotlight and not
wanting to mess something up. I'll hand that to them... I only mean that if we
are contrasting a unprepared statement, a prepared argument is hardly nerve
racking in comparison.In the end, I'm really only arguing for the
people to have control over the debates and for more people to engage in those
debates. I think most people would agree with that. At least the people who
aren't cookoo for cocoa puffs... or people like me, who think they're not. :)-------If you want an intelligent debater... I'd watch some
of Alan Keyes debates. I don't agree with a good deal he believes. But I
absolutely think he's a great debater in politics. He's one that, despite my not
wanting more people agreeing with him, I wish a LOT more argued like him. To be
fair though, I do agree with him sometimes.
It is good to see how the candidates do under pressure.It is interesting
to see how all of the "conservative" radio talk show hosts run to
Perry's defense the day after the debate. I have just about had a belly full
from hearing about how genuine Rick Perry is and how phony Mitt Romney is. Mr. Perry has so much baggage that there is no way he will ever be able to do
well in a debate. Do you really want someone that bumbles around like that in
the White House?Also, I would like to know where all of the Jobs in Texas
are. 3 years ago, my company employed 18 people. Today it employs 1 and most
everyone I know is in the same boat.
I watched the debate from beginning to end. I'm not a registered Republican and
will not likely vote for any of the candidates. The
"experts" are not analyzing as much as they are projecting their
agendas Fox included.I thought Paul was the most impressive. He is
principled, consistent and steadfast in the face of media opposition. Romney was well-prepared with canned responses and pre-tested jabs but he just
doesn't come across to me as very credible. Great for a beauty pageant but not
terribly convincing as a leader. I read his book...the first version. Those who
claim he knows how to create jobs are simply refusing to look at his record as
Governor where he ranked 48th.Perry seems to me to be getting
stronger but he brings some hard to shed baggage with his vaccine,immigration
issues and his book. All are hurdles in the primaries but will be non-issues in
the general.Herman Cain made giant strides and got a
mini-endorsement from Huntsman. I'd give him 2nd place in the debate. Besides
some punchlines, Gingrich, Bachmann, Johnson, Santorum are non-factors. Huntsman
can't differentiate himself and is getting zero traction.
Perry seemed somewhat distracted and seemed to have a hard time finding his
words. Think the press had a field day with Bush's blunders? Just wait. Cain
had a good night and sparked this thought: A Romney/Cain ticket would rock!
libertarian: I agree. Did any of them talk about the war?
A voice of Reason: I have no idea what you are talking about though I probably
agree with you 99%. To say that there is no pressure is a little naive.
The establishment's "man" is being groomed to "win" the
nomination in order to ensure politics as usual in Washington. Alloted time was
"tipped" greatly in Perry/Romney's favor and major issues like the
Federal Reserve and Income tax were given only momentery mention. My impression
was that the "stage" was being set by the media.
I think - and I hope - that this is the context in which Romney misspoke the
incomplete thought:"There are a lot of reasons not to elect me
in some other time; but at this critical time in our nations history when so
much is on the line with our economy and the need to make America strong,
respectable and prosperous again, there are a lot more reasons to elect me as
your next President and leader of this, the greatest of all nations.In fact, when all else seem insignificant in 2012, and experience, character
and qualifications are the remaining determinants for POTUS, Romney will be last
regis, I agree that votes like humility etc but the look on Romney's face showed
that he wished he had framed it another way. The soundbite will be on an
anti-Romney ad. just wait and see.
Pac_Man,A 'pre-programmed show' isn't really the problem. It's 'who
is programming' that is. Pre-programmed inherently means 1- that one may avoid
the strawman fallacy, giving more accurate, honest, less 'pressured' answers. 2-
that one may craft even more divisive and misleading answers. (a two-sided
coin)So in regards to 'pressure' there really is none. In regards to
their value, pre-programmed comes with good and bad equally and nothing is
really changed by that. We could have that in written, but 'open for public
inquiry' debate all the same.So why is the 'who programs debates?'
the real concern?I had a political professor who showed us a
criticism of televised debates when they first aired. I was initially surprised
that some people were against it. However, their criticism was so incredibly
valid, if not prophetic of debates today. I was also shocked that they argued
that one could create entirely fictitious candidates. But before televised-
candidates debated in the newspapers, where citizens could slowly examine and
reply- reaching candidates with intelligent inquiry and thenpublished rebuttals.
Televised took debate away from the people; instead, programmed by others.The voice of the governed grows ever silent.
Oh brother! People are looking at this debate like it's a football game.
"He blew them away when he mentioned this." "This guy is a
serious contender." This is PROPOGANDA. I don't think Goebbels could've
done a better job at getting people riled up with this kind of rhetoric. Romney,
Perry, and the like except Ron Paul are shills for the controlling Banking
Establishment. You vote a person like this in, and you will be getting Obama on
steroids. They will repackage every single one of his policies and label them as
"conservative". Healthcare reform will not be repealled by anyone
except for Paul. Obamacare just makes the ruling class richer just like any
other policy that comes out of Washington. Establishment Republicans
= Obama. They are one in the same on the inside. But on the outside, they look
different and say different things but have the same goal in mind. New World
Romney and Perry are who the controlling establishment wants us to vote for.
They are not nessecarily who the people want to vote for unless these guy are
crammed down their throats.
Romney's only mistake was saying that there were many good reasons not to vote
for him. I bet money that that sound bite is going to appear on a campaign ad
for Perry or Obama (if he gets that far).
What?? I'm not so sure these "experts were even watching the debate. Romney
or Perry didn't win anything. Just because they got the most time doesn't mean
So Romney admitted there are reasons not to elect him. I took that to mean he
knew he wasn't the perfect candidate - and neither is anyone else. I think
voters kind of like an admission of humility and imperfection from a candidate.
And I don't think a comment like that will hurt. In fact, I kind of liked it,
particularly in its context.
Voice: I agree with you but I also think these debates have value. Yes, they
are contrived political stagecraft but at the core they demonstrate to the
public what these candidates can do under pressure. Romney was cool
and prepared and Perry was the direct opposite.I don't care either
way. I will probably vote for Obama but it is still fun to watch.
Whoa, from every poll I have seen, Ron Paul won the debate. Fox news had a poll
out earlier where Ron Paul had 27,573 votes or 39% and Romney had 16,073 or 22%.
Fox has removed this poll but if you search for it you can find a screenshot of
the poll. Ron Paul won this debate hands down, he is the best choice for this
country, Dr. Ron Paul 2012!
This notice should head every last article or mention of the U.S. presidential
debates:'The Commission on Presidential Debates puts on a show, not
a debate. Until the people have direct access to ask intelligent questions and
have access to refute their answers, these debates can only properly be taken as
'a show' and not intelligible public discourse regarding those who will govern
Forget Perry, Romney is the man with the most real world experience and the
smartest. Which is to take away nothing from the others on the panel. They are
all outstandingly more able than the person we have leading the country at the
Amazing. All the media said this would be a fight between Romney and Perry and
it happened just like they predicted! Coincidentally they were standing next to
each other, asked questions about the other, and given more time to speak than
the "sideshows". The wild predictions came true. They did go back and
forth! After watching the debate I had erroneously thought that some of the
"sideshow" candidates had given good, substantive answers on how to
deal with the economy, education, and foreign policy, instead of just trying to
be better than Rick Perry and reminding us how much we don't like Obama. I even
brazenly thought some had better nights than Romney. Boy was I wrong! How do I
know? The experts say so! I don't have to worry about anyone but Romney and
Perry! That is a load off my mind.