More Impressions on Last Night's Debate
Here are a few more thoughts on last night's debate:
***The questions were inane -- and the worst ones were inadvertantly revealing of Democratic preoccupations. In an age when Iran is working to obtain nuclear weapons and the Democrats are working to force a major US defeat in the war on terror, is there anyone who really cares about candidates' personal views on evolution or a Scooter Libby pardon? Of course not.
In some ways, the questions (and the moderator) weren't "fair." But however irritating that fact might be, it's nonetheless not necessarily a bad thing. Because anyone who thinks things are "unfair" toward Republicans now should just wait until the general election debates.
It's also worth pointing out that in an era when Democrats refuse even to partiicpate in a Fox News debate, Republicans had the obviously-unhinged Keith Olbermann moderating the pre- and post-debate shows. Again, a good warmup.
***Given the format, it was hard for any one candidate to distinguish himself. That being said, Giuliani didn't bring his best game last night. His stumbling in the Sunni/Shia question and his obvious discomfort with the abortion issue were puzzing. Even so, he did well enough to avoid any real damage to his campaign, even as he has managed to worry some of his partisans.
Perhaps the most interesting contrast was between McCain and Romney. McCain obviously was trying to position himself as a tough guy, no doubt aware that this quality endears Rudy to Republicans. For a while (maybe the first half of the debate), it worked OK. Then it started to come off as angry, and decidedly unattractive. In contrast, Mitt Romney came off as a happy warrior with an engaging personality. In effect, he "gave it the light tough" -- that is, treating serious topics in a serious way, but not getting dragged into a heavy, grumpy persona. Of the top three, it seems to me his debate performance was the best, and that opinion isn't an isolated one (see here and here and here).
***As for the lower tier candidates, none of them broke out of the pack. If anyone managed to hurt himself, it was Tommy Thompson, who has long enjoyed elevated status in Republican circles for some of his creative reforms when he was Governor of Wisconsin. Last night, his answers (especially about the right to fire gay workers), his style and even his appearance belied the fact that he has been mentioned as a possible Republican contender for years. Very unimpressive. As for the rest of the pack, again, the constraints of the format made it very difficult to make a lasting impression.
***The questions were inane -- and the worst ones were inadvertantly revealing of Democratic preoccupations. In an age when Iran is working to obtain nuclear weapons and the Democrats are working to force a major US defeat in the war on terror, is there anyone who really cares about candidates' personal views on evolution or a Scooter Libby pardon? Of course not.
In some ways, the questions (and the moderator) weren't "fair." But however irritating that fact might be, it's nonetheless not necessarily a bad thing. Because anyone who thinks things are "unfair" toward Republicans now should just wait until the general election debates.
It's also worth pointing out that in an era when Democrats refuse even to partiicpate in a Fox News debate, Republicans had the obviously-unhinged Keith Olbermann moderating the pre- and post-debate shows. Again, a good warmup.
***Given the format, it was hard for any one candidate to distinguish himself. That being said, Giuliani didn't bring his best game last night. His stumbling in the Sunni/Shia question and his obvious discomfort with the abortion issue were puzzing. Even so, he did well enough to avoid any real damage to his campaign, even as he has managed to worry some of his partisans.
Perhaps the most interesting contrast was between McCain and Romney. McCain obviously was trying to position himself as a tough guy, no doubt aware that this quality endears Rudy to Republicans. For a while (maybe the first half of the debate), it worked OK. Then it started to come off as angry, and decidedly unattractive. In contrast, Mitt Romney came off as a happy warrior with an engaging personality. In effect, he "gave it the light tough" -- that is, treating serious topics in a serious way, but not getting dragged into a heavy, grumpy persona. Of the top three, it seems to me his debate performance was the best, and that opinion isn't an isolated one (see here and here and here).
***As for the lower tier candidates, none of them broke out of the pack. If anyone managed to hurt himself, it was Tommy Thompson, who has long enjoyed elevated status in Republican circles for some of his creative reforms when he was Governor of Wisconsin. Last night, his answers (especially about the right to fire gay workers), his style and even his appearance belied the fact that he has been mentioned as a possible Republican contender for years. Very unimpressive. As for the rest of the pack, again, the constraints of the format made it very difficult to make a lasting impression.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home