I did not see the New Hampshire debate last night because I was traveling, but the various news reports, including from mainstream conservative blogs, seem to indicate that Romney appeared presidential and in command, Bachmann got attention and likely name recognition, Pawlenty missed an opportunity, and the others on stage were sideshows.
The narrative implicitly is that the race pretty much is over before it started, Romney is the nominee. As much as you may not like the narrative, is it valid?
Is there anyone who was not on stage who could change that narrative?
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The media's narrative on the Republican nominee should be ignored completely.
They have an interest in promoting a weak candidate.
I like Bob Dole's idea of drafting Gen. David Petraeus. I'm looking for someone to tell BHO to pack up his stuff and get out. I believe that was the Trump fascination. He made a big deal out of an insignificant issue. It wasn't the birth certificate, it was the fact that he called BHO out. Any candidate who takes that approach (Perry? Christie?) should do well. That's the anti-Romney. We don't need another good looking, smooth talking, not-a-hair-out-of-place bureaucrat, we need someone who will kick butt and take names. Certainly Petraeus would meet the criteria. Plus he's a graduate of West Point, Princeton and Georgetown….a couple rungs higher than Occidental.
Nope. Romney wasn't bad, but really none of them were. What can you do w/ a 30 second response to what in some cases were fallacious binary questions?
I figure they like Romney because he's least likely to overturn Obamacare.
Bachmann could destroy Palin in a debate. The amount of effort Palin has spent to be even half as competent as Bachmann is telling.
Bachmann has a solid record as a public servant, opposed to the media personality that Palin has become. Bachmann makes it look effortless, something Palin has a much harder time doing.
Romney was good too. I'd like to see what both he and Bachmann do down the line.
Romney is out of the question for me. I am tired of those who think because they lost last time, the nomination is owed to them. And Romney doesn't have the fire to take Obama on. Remember, there was a reason that deep blue Massachussetts voted for Romney, just as there was a reason it voted for Scott Brown.
Newt is old news, and old styled Republican. He's a brilliant man, but I want someone who is fresh and can bring new ideas to the table.
Ron Paul will always be Ron Paul. Another person who runs as a spoiler.
Pawlenty, Bachmann and Cain are running because they think it is the right thing to do to save our country from the harm that Obama has done to it (FBI now going through our trash? Where's the ACLU?), not because they think the office is owed to them. But none of them can fire up a crowd, with excitement that remains, like Obama, and that is a negative.
I would ignore what Rich Lowrey has to say. He is a beltway insider who has lost some of his "Buckley" spunk. And media pundits are going to pick the person they think Obama can beat and pump them up, just like the NYSlimes did with McCain until McCain took the nomination, then BANG! they turned on him. So don't trust the media.
If I had to pick today from the current crop, I would have to pick Backmann or Cain. I was not happy with Pawlenty's answer to the question "What would you do about all the illegal immigration" asked by a popular Houston talk show host. It was the one question Pawlenty tried to dodge, although another Houston police office had just been murdered by an illegal Mexican.
@Retire05
You going after Scott Brown, now? Watch it, Jacobson is likely to trounce you.
What's wrong with Brown? Is he too reasonable for you?
First of all, that was not a debate but a showcase of who is running. Everyone got their best lines off and dished out red meat. But if last night changed your mind on any of them, you just haven't been paying attention.
I'll give everyone high scores on presentation and style but the questions were very predictable and soft.
The most glaring observation to come from last night was that the ONLY candidate who was arguing for smaller government was Ron Paul. Everyone else? Our problems were due to the government doing the wrong things, primarily the lack of leadership by Obama.
That is a very important point and explains plenty about why no one took on Romney. If there was one big olser, it was Pawlenty for demurring when asked about ObamneyCare. Lame, lame, lame. And my favorite candidate, Herman Cain, looked bad too.
It really was a complete waste of time. So the GOP is presenting at least 7 nice people who generally agree on everything. Y-a-w-n-n-n-n-n.
99, Brown is just another Republican in progressive sheep's skin. There is really nothing conservative about him. Look at his voting record.
And why should I worry about Professor Jacobson's opinion on Brown? Can he vote for Brown? No, no more than I can. And since I am an informed adult, I am allowed to have my own opinion, which I am sure the good professor would advocate.
In a few months' time, no one will even remember this debate. Reagan didn't declare his candidacy for 1980 until November, 1979. This is all way too early.
I'm mostly with Pasadena Phil on this. We now know who the lamestream is pushing on the GOP, and the trolls think MB can beat SP. Big news. Ignore the RINOs, trolls and media and keep thinking "who is best positioned to turn this gu-mint around?" It will certainly not be Romney.
49erDweet said…. We now know who the lamestream is pushing on the GOP,…
Did you notice that Romney was given center stage and got the most face time on camera by far? It seems the camera angles usually allowed him to be included in the frame even when others were answering. Last night was more like the "CNN Loves Mitt Show!" than anything resembling a debate.
And Pawlenty, after starting in with ObamneyCare yesterday, proved why he is seen as such a weanie. Completely wimped out when given the chance to make the point stick. Don't start something you can't finish Timmy!
Agree that the NH "debate" was lame and a non-starter.
Like many here, I have been casting a wide net, looking for someone who is true to Conservative principles, yet has not yet been noticed by the Corporate Media.
Thad McCotter, from Michigan, is someone that has recently caught my attention.
He is intellectual, witty, and gets the "big picture" issues. McCotter represents a district in a state that is experiencing tough times (Michigan; auto industry, rust belt, socialist failed policies of Granholm) and remains connected to the heartland of American and the needs and concerns of working families.
Thad also genuinely supports the troops, donating his time and talent to entertain them in the spirit of Lt Dan's band. (McCotter's band is "The Second Amendments").
He is also a strong, non-wavering supporter of Israel.
While everyone's attention was focused on the debate in NH and Weinergate, McCotter was at the Eagle Forum in San Diego this past weekend, where he was the Guest Speaker, and received an enthusiastic reception.
http://www.eagleforum.org/
Rather than have the Corporate Media pick the nominee for us, it is up to us to look for people who can represent our values and our concerns. I think he's worth at least more than a cursory glance.
http://www.mccotterrocks.com/issues/
@Wayne:
What, do you work for OFA?
Petraeus is a corrupt sell-out, a lapdog of the Council on Foreign Relations, and would be a disaster for working families. Nothing like Obama 2.0
No. Thanks.
Romney is poison.
Who can change things? Paul Ryan. He's the only one who can take down Obama (and not turn into him).
I also wouldn't mind hearing more from/about Thad McCotter.
What were CNN's ratings last night? Aside from political junkies, how many people actually watched that debate? (I didn't, and I am a political junkie)
And how many people WOULD have watched that debate if She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was in it?
And how crazy-like-a-fox was it for her NOT to lend her celebrity power to her rivals for the nomination?
At this time in 2007, everyone knew Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee, and that the Republicans would never nominate John McCain.
The old saying about papal elections often applies to US presidential nominations too: "He who enters the conclave as Pope, leaves it as a cardinal." It's still way too far out to declare any of the candidates a "sure thing" or "no way."
Petraeus? Not after the contempt he showed for the first amendment a month or so ago.
Restore America Palin 2012… if she can be persuaded to run, of course…
others I personally like:
Allen West (kick a&&, right on foreign policies and an awesome leader & speaker0
Paul Ryan (FISCALLY SOUND principles)
Rand Paul (why does Rand always makes but his dad does not?)
but what do I know… are all the hats in the ring yet? nope… let's see what happens when they are…
Here's a thing about people "not on stage last night": the only one who has a chance is Jon Huntsman. That is to say, no one who is not currently running for president can win.
Governors Perry and Palin are both very popular, but they are months (and millions) behind everyone who was at the debate. The only way they could compete at this point is by competing together, as an established ticket (with Perry at the top of it; seriously). Their organizations are practically nonexistent, the top fundraisers and staffers have already chosen sides (and been chosen), and despite personal popularity, and there's simply not that much time left to catch up to those who are already in the field in terms of introducing yourselves to primary and caucus voters (literally). Palin is well-known, but not really that well-liked. She could play kingmaker for Perry, help him make up his deficit in terms of introduction, endorsement, and money, but she couldn't do it for herself; and he can't do it without her, quite frankly.
As for Huntsman, I hate to belabor this, but anyone who would vote for Huntsman would do so because they want to vote for Mitt Romney without actually voting for him. Their candidacies are very similar, but Romney has the edge in both conservatism and overall job creation in his lifetime. The only reason to pick Huntsman over him (as opposed to, say, Michele Bachmann over him) is because you want to say you voted for someone other than Romney and still got everything that Romney had to offer. Huntsman may run a good campaign, but he, like Tim Pawlenty, is simply the "other choice". And that's not a good position to inhabit.
Yes, Romney won the debate by not losing it. Yes, Pawlenty had an opportunity to hang Romney with the "ObamneyCare" label and instead hung himself with it. Yes, Bachmann beat all expectations, as microscopic as they were, and presented herself as a credible Tea Party candidate, unlike Herman Cain and Ron Paul. Everything you heard is true. This is also true: the next president of the United States was on that stage that night; not somewhere waiting in the wings.
By the way, I'm not sure why everyone, including Rich Lowry, seems to think a Constitutional amendment defining marriage would be an infringement of state's rights. The 10th Amendment says any powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. An amendment such as this would grant that power to the federal government, and therefore not be an infringement. Plus, it's one that a "supermajority" of states would need to approve, anyway. It's not like you can just pass an amendment by fiat.
Is it?
The MSM has declared the Republican primaries to be over:
"Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has surged into a clear lead in the race for the Republican presidential nomination…."
— WSJ (subscription required), reprinted for free by Morningstar at:
http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/markets/newsfeeditem.aspx?id=146256521401584
And, btw, "…but his attacks on President Barack Obama's economic stewardship have yet to shake the president's lead over the GOP…."
We can pack it up and go home, and call off the rest of the campaign and the election; the geniuses in the MSM have made the selection for us. [just a little sarcasm there]
Hmmm….
Very interesting polling techniques. That WSJ (and NBC) poll showing that "Romney has surged into a clear lead" was a "…poll of 1,000 adults, conducted between June 9 and 13…." (Note: that was BEFORE the "debate.")
If you search for the details of the poll (found here, at MSNBC no less):
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/11236%20JUNE%20NBC-WSJ%20Final%20Filled-in.pdf
you find that the questions about the Republican primaries were only asked of approximately 29% of the sample (or about 290 people).
That just goes to show that there are 3 kinds of lies:
1) lies,
2) damn lies, and
3) statistics.