Republican Debate in Reagan Library

Well… I just finished watching the Republican debate… and I gotta say, I’m not impressed.  Seriously not impressed. My take?

Santorum is much better on issues than anyone will grant him time for, so MSNBC will NOT grant any time for him… he loses due to moderator.

Bachmann is trying too hard and she isn’t getting a fair take on questions or time.  Loses due to moderator.

Perry obviously is the whipping-boy for the media and for the candidates in the race right now. He also doesn’t debate well, and it is obvious. The media is testing him as he appears to be a front-runner, pressing him hard- looking for weakness.  Loses due to moderator and lack of debate poise.

Romney is being played off Perry and Huntsman by MSNBC, and he takes the bait only part of the time. Shamelessly promotes himself and his experience, refers to massive plan he released…  massive.  Lose due to moderator and tone.

Huntsman,  what can I say…  (Full disclaimer: In my opinion, the best thing he did for Utah, which he talked about a lot for his allotted time, was leave and go to China. I don’t believe him a true conservative, but an active progressive. My disclaimer is made)   …he took the bait to be played-off of Perry and Romney every time but once, when he was pressed to name people, face-to-face,  on his own comments.  Divisive moderator and ridiculous questions designed to make him either look good one moment, and weak the next. Lose due to moderator.

Herman Cain,  did extremely well. He did not fight, he did differentiate himself. He butted-in to offer solutions, plans, points.   He was denied much time by the moderator, and was never confronted with race questions peppered at the other candidates.  (wonder why, huh?  blasted racist MSNBC… give those questions to all!) questions directed to him were short and fairly inconsequential  due to answers already given.  Lose due to moderator.

Ron Paul did well… for the five minutes they let him actually talk over the massive time the thing ran… his points were all his strong points, the moderator played into his hands often, due to the fact that he’s already debated all those points and was ready. It seemed like throw-away time for Paul.  Not sure why they did that. Favortism via MSNBC in the middle of a debate is fishy.  They avoided his hot-button points I disagree with him on, namely foreign policy, drug policy, (though they flirted with it), education, and trade issues.   Due to the relatively soft treatment, I’m hesitant. It smells like a setup for later.  I still say ‘loss due to moderator’.   All the internet polls will show him with an insurmountable lead, of course… due to his extremely active and lobotomized-loyal internet following.   Sometimes it is just creepy, you know?

Newt Gingrich; I just don’t know what to make of that man. Moderator’s didn’t give him enough time due to the face that Gingrich didn’t play the moderator’s game, chose what he wanted to talk about regardless of question… he killed the moderator’s advantage.  Gingrich called-out the moderator in the beginning for trying to make the republican’s fight, as well as near the end for harping on a topic that they all agreed on. He stood with confidence and never used filler-words or special rhetoric talking points that others did.  He debated very, very well, as he has in the past.

but still, lose, due to moderator.
The moderator, MSNBC was the only one who ‘won’ in this situation. Seriously.  Focusing on issues where they all agree, when it is a candidates job to  differentiate themselves from the field, instead of looking at the things that really are different; the details on the important issues.
MSNBC held the debate for the ratings, there is no doubt about it. The only question I have is why they decided to when their viewership is so left-wing that there are likely very, very few conservatives who would be willing to watch.  That being said…
<deep breath>.. here’s my immediate response:

MSNBC was a joke as host. The candidates did the best with the rhetoric questions that they could. All of the questions were slanted to force candidates to either fight with each or accept an implied premise and pressure designed to fracture and damage the base.  It was a ‘debate’ right out of a sadistic, hard-left, Obama and democrat socialist/communist worshiping cretin’s wet-dream.  Seriously, what the heck was that?  Having the Huffington Post do “Fact Check” on the candidates and having Telemundo ask questions on immigration?? Yeah, that’s what I said, MSNBC ‘outsourced’ the fact check to the Huffington Post.  Yeah…  I’ll trust that one. Then they bring up and criticizing capital punishment after implying that if we don’t take out dictators, we’re a bad nation…  It was a slander machine, a plastering before anyone even emerges from a primary.  What kind of hypocrites ran this show? Reagan, the ‘great communicator’ who got that name by bypassing the media specifically to avoid this kind of ‘filter’, this exact kind of bias and propoganda machine, is rolling in his grave.

 If Hillary or Obama were there, the questions they would have been asked would have been more along the lines of:  “Shouldn’t cute cuddly kittens, like this one here, be allowed to live, shouldn’t little Suzie, again, standing here holding the kitten, be allowed to eat? Don’t your poilcies provide their food and welfare out of thin air?  How can you stand your own greatness? I just had a thrill up my leg when you deigned to acknowledged my existence!! Can I get an autograph? You’re so hip!”

 And then as a follow-up to the republican candidates: “Isn’t it true that your policies will force little Suzie to strangle this cute kitten with her bare hands and eat it raw in order to survive, only to die of starvation later? How do you justify breathing? Is your soul that black that you would kill the little girl and cute cuddly kitten that Obama/Hillary would save? Everyone knows conservatives and republicans want to starve the world and kill children…  if someone, like yourself were determined to kill as many people as possible, shouldn’t we work as a society to stop them? Why shouldn’t we just hang you now?”

 Bottom line? This was not a debate, this was a tribunal show-trial where MSNBC and the media demanded that the candidates play their game, by their rules, on their time. Gingrich was right, the media is trying to make them fight. I’m waiting for conservatives to wake-up and realize the documented bias of the media. The media isn’t going to give ANY of these candidates a fair show!

Some good solutions and details were bandied about. I liked Herman Cain and Ron Paul on states rights and the economy. I liked Santorum on foreign policy. I liked Gingrich for his candor, his proposed solutions, and his honest challenge of the real threat in the room, the ones bear-baiting; the media. I Liked Perry’s stance to not excuse his own actions and words in the past. I liked Romney’s effort at peace-making, at being Presidential. (Gingrich did it as well, but his came off as more demeaning to the”moderators” than as suggestions to the American people.  I liked Bachman on energy policy, (as well as Gingrich, Perry, Romeny, etc…)  Huntsman was a fairly steady disappointment across the board, but I am biased, so take that with a grain of salt. I liked all of them on fiscal policy. All of them.  Heathcare?  Cain Perry, and Gingrich were allowed to talk about it. THe focus of the moderators on welfare for Santorum was  anear throw-away.

Come to think of it, I should have thrown it out as soon as I saw the ‘moderators’.

Brice Bitter

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.