U.S. & World

Experts: Mitt Romney wins debate ... again


Return To Article
  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Sept. 25, 2011 10:24 p.m.

    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

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 24, 2011 10:47 a.m.

    If he garners the evangelical vote he will be golden!

  • Tyler Ray Taylorsville, UT
    Sept. 24, 2011 9:11 a.m.

    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!

  • AmPatriot Taylorsville, UT
    Sept. 24, 2011 5:55 a.m.

    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.

  • comeonman PAYSON, UT
    Sept. 24, 2011 2:11 a.m.

    "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

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 23, 2011 9:41 p.m.

    I 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.

    I 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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 8:59 p.m.

    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.

  • phillyfanatic LONG BEACH, CA
    Sept. 23, 2011 8:13 p.m.

    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

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Sept. 23, 2011 8:02 p.m.

    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.

  • JRJ Pocatello, ID
    Sept. 23, 2011 7:53 p.m.

    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.

  • wandrew Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 7:27 p.m.

    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?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 23, 2011 7:08 p.m.

    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).

  • Well Read SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 6:27 p.m.

    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 worth.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 23, 2011 6:09 p.m.

    "President Obama "went around the world and apologized for America,"

    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.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Sept. 23, 2011 5:35 p.m.

    Well, well, well....

    'ol Romney wins THREE in a row, eh?

    That's gotta tick off all the liberals!

    Go Romney, go!

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 5:15 p.m.

    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.

    Sept. 23, 2011 4:55 p.m.

    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.

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 4:45 p.m.

    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.

  • bluejean Farmington, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 4:22 p.m.

    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!

  • mattrick78 Cedar City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 4:06 p.m.

    libertarian: I agree. Did any of them talk about the war?

  • Pac_Man Pittsburgh, PA
    Sept. 23, 2011 4:00 p.m.

    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.

  • libertarian Cedar City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 3:48 p.m.

    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.

  • Kouger Lehi, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 3:40 p.m.

    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 candidate standing.

  • Pac_Man Pittsburgh, PA
    Sept. 23, 2011 3:38 p.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 3:37 p.m.


    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.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Sept. 23, 2011 3:21 p.m.

    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 Order.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Sept. 23, 2011 3:11 p.m.

    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.

  • Pac_Man Pittsburgh, PA
    Sept. 23, 2011 3:09 p.m.

    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).

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Sept. 23, 2011 3:06 p.m.

    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 they won.

  • regis Murray, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 3:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Pac_Man Pittsburgh, PA
    Sept. 23, 2011 2:49 p.m.

    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.

  • MonkeySpider Lindon, ut
    Sept. 23, 2011 2:46 p.m.

    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!

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 2:30 p.m.

    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 us.'

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 2:11 p.m.

    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 moment.

  • David King Layton, UT
    Sept. 23, 2011 12:21 p.m.

    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.