Some Thoughts On the Debate Last Night and Candidates for Republican Nomination
Carly won. However, if you remember last go around, Gingrich also blew it away-yet he was not the nominee
2. Most of the candidates come off somewhat hapless and unPresidential
3. Paul and Carly were the only two I remember mentioning rights
4. Cruz and Trump were the only ones to call out Congress
5. No real questions about fixing/building the economy
6. Too much emphasis on the Border. I mean it's not a big plan issue. Just say you'll secure it. why get into details? BUT, the economy and wealth creation need to have a plan to sell to voters. One of my favorite comedies, Modern Family has a character who is always asking her ADD husband-"What's the PLAN PHIL?" that is my question for them. Hermann Cain did that well with his 9-9-9 plan. At first I thought it hokey, but it got people thinking and it was simple and covered the major bases. To be a successful front runner, I think you need a plan kinda like that. Regulation killing, agency checking, tax overhaul (abolish the IRS) and wealth creation-those can be articulated fairly simply. Foreign policy is harder and more controversial, so I would not make it my cornerstone(as Rand is currently doing).
What did I miss and what are your thoughts on what the candidates need to do in order to stand apart from the pack?
2. Most of the candidates come off somewhat hapless and unPresidential
3. Paul and Carly were the only two I remember mentioning rights
4. Cruz and Trump were the only ones to call out Congress
5. No real questions about fixing/building the economy
6. Too much emphasis on the Border. I mean it's not a big plan issue. Just say you'll secure it. why get into details? BUT, the economy and wealth creation need to have a plan to sell to voters. One of my favorite comedies, Modern Family has a character who is always asking her ADD husband-"What's the PLAN PHIL?" that is my question for them. Hermann Cain did that well with his 9-9-9 plan. At first I thought it hokey, but it got people thinking and it was simple and covered the major bases. To be a successful front runner, I think you need a plan kinda like that. Regulation killing, agency checking, tax overhaul (abolish the IRS) and wealth creation-those can be articulated fairly simply. Foreign policy is harder and more controversial, so I would not make it my cornerstone(as Rand is currently doing).
What did I miss and what are your thoughts on what the candidates need to do in order to stand apart from the pack?
I enjoyed what Trump had to say. Rand Paul is my favorite but there's no way he'll get elected, let alone nominated by the party. He speaks of things way beyond the grasp of the average American - freedom, rights, the Constitution. People don't want to hear that stuff. They want their social security, and spicy sound bites.
Oh, and this is the first time I every really listened to Ben Carson. I was favorably impressed.
(Not that there was a lot of competition on that in particular.)
Don't feel bad.
When I first wrote of her h\in the Gulch, I wrote "Megan."
Think I mentioned her being hot and a mother of three.
Republican,he should have asked her when
did she divorce her first husband? Most if not
all of her questions were better suited to the
National Enquirer than to this debate.
I was not at all impressed with how he handled himself with Kelly.
Kelly is not the one running for POTUS.
NOT running for POTUS; her eyelashes alone
would get in the way! Ironic how your descrip-
tion of her is something you'd MIGHT expect the Donald to say, eh?
I may never get up.
Fiorino as a politcal outsider is an unknown but as one comment went ruled the stage.
Jindal the only one I had much prior information about I see was listed with Ms Carly and #1 and #2
Another comment was too many people on the stage. Just the opposite were any registered candidates not there? That would be cause for complaint.
I doubt anyone changed their mind finding excuses for even the most lack luster RINOS but having started out at zero and picked the same two in advance I should start paying some attention at least to see how they are destroyed by the left.
As far as Paul is concerned he didn't sound pro Constitutional enough to offer an bill in Congress to reclaim the Bill of Rights. Lots of milage lacking in tread. unless I missed something in the commentaries.
Right time for the Night of the Long Knives. We'll see whose throats the DNC cut this time as they choose their Republican candidate. That's what being lapdogs is all about.
So... still not candidates besides left wing of the left and right wing of the left?
1) I dream of a nation where success is rewarded instead of vilified.
2) I dream of a nation where the rights of the individual a respected and inviolate.
3) I dream of a nation where the right to the profits of your work is guaranteed.
4) I dream of a nation where personal responsibility is the norm.
Obama used the concept of "vision" with great success in both elections.
I only see Ben Carson and Trump as the only two who can really do that...and have PROOF they do it all the time.
Pediatric Neurosurgeon has to do that before during and after every surgery...Trump has to do that from concept to fulfillment of the concept...
There were three non-politicians in the two debates and I thought Carson and Fiorina did well. Trump is a blow-hard, uncouth, narcissistic nut job but he accomplished two things in drawing a huge audience of comic book reading, video gaming Americans to view the debate and he was so un-PC that others could be more open about their views on delicate issues.
I didn't like the exchanges between Paul, Trump and Christie. I think he has an important message and he wasted his time tangling with louts. I think Rubio is too young this time but unless he screws up, big time, will eventually be President. Carly Fiorina was super and should make future debates very interesting. She impressed me with her knowledge and poise. I thought I liked Walker but can't take his religious rhetoric along with Huckabee, Cruz and Kasich, to some degree.
Then he should have pointed out the promises of the "professional political class" next to him on stage and asked the audience, "can you, should you, trust anything they have said tonight?"
I like your analysis. Yes a good start; like an introduction... good for first impressions. Now we need some in depth specificity. I know from today's media analysis we are more interested in substance, actual policies and plans than the shallow talking heads and ignorant masses. I am hoping this time around it will be more than a popularity contest... Well I can hope, but I will not hold my breath. Wouldn't it would be nice if more of the electorate thought these decisions through and used reason instead of emotion for such an important decision?
Regards,
O.A.
Don't see how you can call anyone a 'winner'.
The questions challanged the candidates giving the 'moderators' [?] time to show off their knowledge and desire to 'lead' the voters.
I would much perfer single issue debates with each candidate speaking to that issue with rebuttals. You know. An actual 'debate'.
Now that it is over I would like someone edit videos of each candidate's respoonse to the questions as asked.
I'll end up studying the candidates written positions in order to compare them more accurately.
In the end, I always Vote Libertarian and follow Rand's advice "If it increases Liberty, it is a good thing."
Who was running for office? The ten on stage or Megyn, Wallace and Baer?
The sooner people wake up to this GOP con game and revolt against the GOP, the better the chance that a less peaceful revolt won't be required to recover liberty from the ravenous jaws of the GOP and Democrats.
--------------------------------------------------
"Paul received just under 5 minutes of talking time, the least of any of the 10 participants in the debate. According to NPR’s Domenico Montanaro, the time totals were as follows:
From Reason: http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/07/ran...
1 Trump 10:30
2 Bush 8:33
3 Huck 6:32
4 Carsn/Crz 6:28
6 Kasch 6:25
7 Rubio 6:22
8 Chrste 6:03
9 Walkr 5:43
10 Paul 4:51"
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul has released a tax plan of a straight 14%(?) and abolish IRS.
I agree. Too many candidates and not enough time... I look forward to later debates when the candidates are fewer and hope the format changes to allow more elaboration. Not everything can be explained in short soundbites. This "debate" was really just a food fight, with appetizers only. Where's the beef?
It was entertaining, but not very instructive.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I long for the old days of the classic Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Let's take each issue and hash it out for everyone to see. Let the candidates get 10-15 minutes to stake out their views and support, then five minutes for a rebuttal, and five more for closing arguments. Add in a couple of five minute commercial slots and you've got your hour.
Have the debates last for a week - one topic per evening. Here are the five I would start with:
International diplomacy - how would you go about dealing with rogue states like Iran? Which country right now is the biggest threat to international peace?
Monetary policy - Will you continue to support the Fed's program of inflation and easing?
Employment - What is causing the slow-down in hiring (duh - government regulation!) and what do you plan to do about it?
Government oversight - Describe your view of the current rash of scandals involving power-plays by government bureaucrats from Obamacare to the EPA to the IRS to the Department of Justice to the State Department. Tell us what you would do.
Government spending - Our current debt is set to top $20 trillion by the time our current President leaves office. The CBO has stated that our social spending programs are all bankrupt and that our debt-fueled spending is unsustainable. Please outline your program for dealing with this situation.
I'm sure everyone here could chip in several more.
Not to a Texan it isn't ;) They are a huge voting bloc and control at least 2/3 of the entire border. Their state is getting ravaged by illegals.
You are correct in that it isn't the issue that will win the Presidency, however.
Trump blew it. After the debate, in fact this morning, I just read about how they turned Kelly's question about women around and blamed her for asking it because it was that time of the month. I agree with my wife, "We've already got one asshole in the White House, do we need another one?" Sorry, but I didn't know how to word it, that's how I feel too. Trump is just like Obama, only he doesn't try to disguise it.
And, speaking of turning things around take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP6S3...
I did like the much of the responses Carson, Rubio and Walker, but no one hit it out. Busch hd to keep denying what he had said earlier, and did not seem very impressive.
I did not care for the approach of the Fox crew, it was more like a tlak show. No questions about the Federal Reserve, UN Agenda 21, thinks that will impact our lives in a big way. Not much on education and the dept. of. Nothing on Hillary's call for windfall profit tax. Nothing on climate change: manmade vs government weather control intallations, both HAARP and in Puerto Rico. Huckabee's ending comment on Hillary, which could have been for Trump was clever.
Given those challenging tests, Trump lost, by choosing to take Megan Kelly's "war on women" question as a personal attack, and engaging in an attack on her in response. In contrast, Fiorina, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, and Huckabee handled the personal challenges with grace and intelligent answers. Kasich had the best responses and leveraged his positive achievements as governor as well as Bush, but like Bush, came across as whiny and irritating. Cruz was unflappable and won every exchange with the moderators, but his preachy demeanor is irritating.
I also think the Fox moderators were sort of throwing down the gauntlet to later debate teams on CNN and CNBC. After the near-outrageous gotcha questions they threw at the candidates, it's nearly impossible for later questioners to top them without sounding unacceptably biased, and may even force them to appear more reasonable and unbiased.
She is great at selling herself. She pushes all the right patriotic buttons. She has graduated from a failure CEO to a politician. All the answers are simplistic and lacking in realism (albeit the format of the debate doesn't allow much realism.)
One question to ask her at the next debate:
What would you do differently as POTUS to avoid the abject failure that you had at HP?
Anyone remember:
Data General
Digital Equipment Corp
Prime Computer
Apollo
Tandem Computers
Wang Labs
even
Sun Microsystems
and dozens of smaller firms.
It is a tough challenge selling horse buggy's during the introduction of the automobile - along with a wholesale change of dealerships...
HP survived the collapse in their core computer industry (so far..). I do not recall that any other manufacture of mini-computer has (outside of previous/existing "mainframe" manufacturers).
Compaq and the German CEO had previous arrangements with Digital for the buyout years before as the major stockholders and founders wanted to "cash-out" instead of leaving their legacy to their pathetic kids and relatives. I can go into great detail on how Digital was eventually sold to Compaq.
Eckardt Pheifer the CEO of Compaq made a major bonehead move in Buying Digital because he was a German Citizen and Digital (DEC's) portfolio consisted mainly of Government contracts, and by law the German CEO could not be head of a company that had Sensitive US government contracts.
Next he made the mistake of not calculating the Compaq Service centers and the Service centers destroyed Compaq with lawsuits since DEC has a massive internal and global servicing arm, that went into direct conflict with these Compaq Service Centers, and violated their paid territories.
BTW, Carly obviously NEVER paid attention to that and made the SAME bonehead mistake when she bought Compaq, which tanks BECAUSE of the Digital Buyout, coupled with all the server and storage lines that directly competed with each other.
So you see. DEC, Compaq and HP suffered their issues NOT because of the DOT com crash but because of stupid Sr. Level Management.
I worked for HP at the time, and during her entire tenure AND during the Compaq purchase.
I can detail from the inside of HP her complete and total incompetence. But keep this in mind.
HP board coughed up 25 million in cash and 75 million in stock to FIRE HER ASS.
Normally a stock would go down with that kind of capital expenditure to fire someone.
On the news she was fired, and with NO new CEO named. HP Stock went up. THAT IS FACT!
I would not want that self-serving incompetent broad anywhere near the white-house.
No doubt she did well in the debate. HOWEVER. This candidate, when she was CEO took a 100 year old VERY stable, Company, and practically destroyed it in a few years. I KNOW I WAS THERE!!! She was SO bad she was fired by the board of directors.
When the news came out she was being fired, and without a new CEO named, and AFTER clearing out 25 million in cash and 75 million in stock options, THE STOCK WENT UP!!! That is how bad she was.
Carly used the HP internal resources just like Obama uses AF1 to take vacations. Carly had an internal HP ad for "several" flight attendants who were experts on fine wines and cigars. Not like I care she smokes, but she was exploiting the company resources for her own pleasure.
Ask anyone who worked for HP then....all of us suffered with her horrid management and her policies that actually spawned internal corruption by creating dozens of HR departments and placing the HR department directly under control of the people who were guilty of fraudulantly cooking numbers, leaving NO REAL recourse to "whistleblow."
NOT somebody I want in the Whitehouse...
Normally a Company stock does noy go up when they have to payout 100 million to FIRE someone that bad...
HP STOCK WENT UP ON THE NEWS... THAT IS FACT!!!
That means that EVERY financial player, EVERY tech investor applauded her ousting because she was HORRIBLE. and they gained confidence even with NO named CEO.
I personally worked at HP during her ENTIRE tenure as CEO. I challenge yo to find ONE person who worked at HP other than a couple suck-up executives who would even remotely agree with you. I do not know one single person who worked at HP that I know, knew or worked with that would agree with anything positive about Fiorina. She was a DISASTER, she ruined moral, she chased away hundreds of millions in revenue by ignoring any customer that did not cough up at least 100 million dollar contracts. I can go on and on about her, because I WAS THERE!!!
She is easily blamed for all the internal HP policies that led to miserable personnel moral, the chasing away of customers, rapid decline of HP's marketshare. And before you can say...gee that was the beginning of the tech bubble crash and she cannot be blamed the HP's problems.
OH YES SHE CAN BE BLAMED. Carly made a miserable purchase of Compaq, and had no clue the problems that would cause because she was more interested in trying to build an empire and make a name for herself. So here is some HP internal info you.
When Carly bought Compaq, her stupidity and unknowing direction was to "merge" all the IT systems using the project codenamed "Fusion". She put Peter Blackmoore in charge, and directed him to MERGE completely incompatible systems which failed miserably because there were INCOMPATIBLE. This led to almost 1 year of missed shipments, pissed off customers, projects that missed deadlines, lost equipment, we had 4 months of triage just trying to get crap shipped to customers, and there were many customers that recieved penalty payments FROM HP because of missed deadlines. This had nothing to do with a tech bubble collapse.
Then she decided to move major amounts of Project management to Costa Rica. That was a terrible failure and cost HP hundreds of millions again from pissed off customers who could not understand let alone communicate with people who were always on Siesta. HP is still trying to recover from THAT debacle. Again nothing to do with a tech bubble collapse.
That also does not count the complete confusion customers had between HP Storage and Compaq storage, multiple internally competing product lines, and the lawsuits filed by the Compaq authorized service centers, where Carly and HP breached contracts because they did not do their research into the conflicts....Carly had no clue on M&A, and how to actually merge to very different companies. Again nothing at all to do with a tech bubble collapse.
HP would have weathered the storm fine had she exercizes simple management 101, but she was to incompetant to do that. She was more interested in flying around on the HP jet smoking cigars and driking $1,000.00 dollar bottles of wine while she hobnobbed with kings and princes in saudi arabia, trying to act like a rock star.
Fact is way stranger than fiction.
Carly put huge dents in the "HP Way" - ruffling feathers on many employees (and the some of her board - especially old Hewlett) - perhaps EXACTLY the kind of approach one should want from the next Top Executive on the US government. Some dents, real policy changes, firing of execs, consolidations of operating units (at HP from 83 to 4), etc. seems like a perfect for what is needed in DC.
It is not surprising she was fired - most people hired in to do major fixes end up being removed when the heavy lifting is done.
(Although the HPA stock, starting in July 2004, was a well on the way back up).
It would be interesting to see a real financial case study on HPQ from around 1996 (or perhaps a bit
earlier) through 2007 or so, especially compared to it's rivals. I think HP ends up being the only company with any employees.
Still - not my candidate. How about as Sec. of State...
Yup, and the ONLY reason id did is because people cheered when a Female was named CEO of a fortune 50 company.
Boy were their cheers misplaced. They cheered an idiot
But I would say that intelligence, rationality and the right principled stance on key issues is all that should be considered for the nomination.
Clinton- It's time for a woman president! Vote for me! (Applause)
Fiorina- I'm a woman, too. What other reasons do you have for people to vote for you?
Clinton- Um... (Crickets chirping)
Survival. I don't find that a reason to praise Fiorina, who misused $25 billion on acquiring Compaq, imo. Yes, the next POTUS will have a very difficult job, but mere survival isn't good enough. She had no clue how to run a company like HP and it showed. Ditto for the US presidency. She is a very competent promoter of herself, and if she wants to serve the sovereign people (the essence of all elective government jobs) she should recognize her limitations and do a job that doesn't exceed her level of incompetence.
If faced with the question I posed in the previous post, she would probably say she wouldn't change a thing, since she did such an exemplary job assuring survival of HP.
OTOH, if she presents a business plan that looks like it was devised by Ron Paul, e.g., dismantles the federal reserve, describes practical way for closing and promises to close numerous agencies of the fedgov, establishes severe punishment for offenses against the Bill of Rights by government, orders the NSA to cease wholesale spying on Americans, and closes the DHS (returning transportation security to the private sector). I could change my mind.
It is not clear to me that given how screwed up HP's market and market position was in 1999 that HP / Carly missed any great opportunities. At least she walked away from the Price-Waterhouse acquisition attempt!
Doesn't the "HP Way" remind anyone of how government employment typically works? Carly taking that on is at least similar to what is needed throughout the executive branch. Of course many HPQ employees hated it - how do you think the fed employees would feel with Ron Paul implementing the plan above.
It would be (theoretically) great for Carly to implement the Ron Paul (or even Rand Paul) plan above - but getting elected first would help.
Got to pick your battles to make some progress.
However - still not sure her or other Republican candidate (like Rand Paul, most likely) is worth voting for vs. the typical Libertarian option.
I think their view would also be distorted.
I am not bitter at HP only Carly...
I'd rather not repeat that debacle on a larger scale, thanks. (Although it appears that O-racist and GWBush already beat Carly to it, paraphrasing Ben Carson ;^)
Being a good salesman is part of the job, but it isn't enough.
I completely agree with you, kh, on the paucity of details from candidates.
(At least that was my perception of your comment;^)
Part of that (maybe most) is due to the design of the "debate", which imo is designed to deliver sound bites, and prevent any substantial discussion.
From an earlier post: Candidates should be required to put forth a complete business plan for their presidency in order to get on the stage, and the contents of those business plans should be a substantial part of the discussion. I still think the debates should be one on one, head to head double elimination with ad hominem attacks banned with two infractions causing forfeiture of the debate.
(Being "eliminated" would not remove the candidate from the race, but would exclude the candidate from the rest of the playoffs.)
If I was running, my slogan might be: "It's The Corruption, Stupid"
Stop pretending to fix 3rd world countries' corrupt governments and fix ours.
Why is Jim Gilmore completely off the radar screen? He seemed confidant, articulate and with a very impressive resume.
gainst abortion, EVEN in cases of rape; that is an
outrage. On the point of saving the mother's life, he
tried to say her life could be saved in some other
way, which looks to me like trying to impose his
own wishes on reality, instead of confronting it.
Perhaps I should have realized some of this be-
fore.
Trump was a blowhard, and seemed to be
brazen and bragging about being unprincipled
and willing to bribe politicians.
Perhaps I will vote for Cruz.--Carson seemed
to be unpretentious, but didn't say all that much.
Cruz showed his debating skills, not much content.
Rubio is cute.
Paul is too real and honest to get elected.
Carson is a good man, but too sweet.
Trump was too Trumpish.
Christy is another Trump but without the money.
Bush looked like he needed a nap.
I thought that the questioners did a good job considering that they only had 2 hours to question 10 people. I didn't expect that there would be many break-throughs. There were a few heated discussions but nothing to put in your diary. If nothing else, you got a look at their faces and attitudes.
All I hear is deflection and talking points. All a comedy.
Why isn't the happy hour debate online to view? Have to have Cable. Go figure...
- Kudos to Fox for somehow making this 10-person format work. It did, the questions were solid (no softballs), and it felt as if everyone had a chance to fully express themselves.
- My scorecard (on a scale of 1 – 10) and comments on each candidate:
‒ Marco Rubio – really handled himself well, gave good answers, and projected a great “likeability.” 9.5. Watch this clip http://video.foxnews.com/v/4404489371...
‒ Jeb Bush – surprised me with a bit more personality than I have seen before, and does have a good grasp of the issues. 7.5
‒ Ben Carson – for being a rookie, he really distinguished himself, providing good answers and some quiet humor that really resonated. His relatively understated approach projects as quiet confidence. He did give solid proof that he belongs in this race. 8.5
‒ Chris Christie – made some strong points, but allowed himself to get entangled in a nonsensical argument with Rand Paul. Seemed a little more combative that confident. 6.5
‒ Rand Paul – see above relative to an argument with Christie. Did score good points on the budget he has proposed over the past several sessions in the senate and by taking on the NSA issue 7
‒ Donald Trump – was Trump…funny, irreverent, and combative. Spoke too much in generalities, and did not show a really good grasp of the issues. And it really seemed that the Fox panelists were out to get him. 6.5
‒ Mike Huckabee – to me, Huckabee was the surprise star of the debate. He make a good case for his fair tax plan (consumption, not income derived), showed a good command of international issues, and avoided looking too much like a bible thumper. He also came across as confident, and statesman like. 9.5
‒ John Kasich – enjoyed the support of the home crowd, and did a pretty good job promoting his resume and what he has done in Ohio. However, hearing that is father was a postman three times was tedious, and he turned out to be the biggest bible thumper of the group. 4.5
‒ Scott Walker – like Kasich, he did a really good job detailing his accomplishments as Governor of Wisconsin. At the same time, he projected rather poorly (compared to the other candidates). 7
‒ Ted Cruz – he is a great story, and obviously has an amazing intellect and grasp of the issues. His delivery is a little too tight, and he comes off a bit more angry than sure. However, he made some great points, and could very well be a long-term contender. 8
All-in all, other than Kasich, no one really hurt themselves. At the same time, Rubio, Carson, and Huckabee (again, a huge surprise) helped themselves.
Rand Paul - Everything he said made me want to find ways to support him. He exposed Christie's argument that the answer to a bad problem is more gov't powers. I like how he said he's the only one who actually has a proposed budget that balances.
Bush - Seemed like he'd be a great chief of staff with Paul setting the vision. He talked about "hope" a lot, which I generally like.
Trump - My expectations were low. He didn't make as much of an ass of himself as he could have. I like that he raises the issue of campaign finance.
Huckabee - I disagreed with every word he said. He seems like the personficiation of everything I disagree with. I can't imagine any Democrats voting for him in the general.
Walker - I find his pro-life stuff and general demeanor embarassing to my state.
Carlson: Couldn't stand him.
There was one person talking with a distinct Southern accent, carrying on about religion. I found that very annoying.
Moderators - They appeared to be trying to goad Trump into wigging out. What bogus questions about the "war on women" and about an entity he owned filing BK. Was the premise that all owners should personally guaranattee debt instruments issued by businesses they own. It doesn't even make sense.
Bush might be the most likely candidate to get swing voters. The trouble is the mention of the name "Bush" causes many Democrats to lose their cool and become idiots, in the same way President Obama or Hillary Clinton does for Republicans.
All this makes me think it's shaping up to be Bush vs Clinton. We already did that in '92, though. So maybe the Republicans will nominate Rand Paul, and it can be a ideas-person vs.old-school establishment Clinton. Many Democrats have an anti-establishment streak, so I could see this leading to a Presidenet Paul.
Not sure why you disliked Dr. Ben Carson, as he's intelligent and well-spoken. Please don't tell me he irritates you because you can't imagine a black Republican.
Ted Cruz was the winner, by collegial debate rules (which didn't surprise me, as he was the best debater on the Harvard debate team), but he did sound irritatingly pious. The heavy reference to religion plays well with evangelical Christians, who make up a significant portion of the Republican base, so I'm sure he plays on that.
I'd like to see a shootout between Carly Fiorina and Elizabeth Warren, as that would neutralize the "vote for me, because I have a vagina" element Clinton likes to play on, and would be a battle of ideas.
You apparently didn't watch the "prebate", because Carly Fiorina blew away every other candidate on the stage. I suspect she would have outdone any of the "top ten" as well, but maybe this works in her favor, as she will certainly be in the upper tier in any subsequent debates, when no one is going to want to try to top the gotcha questions of the Fox moderators. The early debate was a better show of the policy positions of the candidates, without the hysteria of the upper tier sideshow.
My opinion:
Walker - went too far on abortion.
Paul - gotta go, bad foreign policy. And I think that has to be a key issue given Hillary and the world as it is today.
Kasich - should move up, at least a bit moderate on the social issues. But not the personality.
Trump - on borrowed time
Bush - too blah & "Bush"
Christie - too feisty, albeit with some strengths.
Huckabee - too altruistic
Carson - looked good but not likely for the L-T
Cruz - Ditto
Fiorino - very good, probably not electable; clearly the best of the 1st debate.
Rubio - looked good, presidential - most likely to win the nomination.
Load more comments...