Friday, May 04, 2007

About Last Night... Republican Candidates, MSNBC

I thought all 10 candidates did well in representing the large tent aspects of the Republican Party.

Unlike others, whose comments I read immediately afterwards, I was not upset by MSNBC's selection of the (spitting) Chris Matthews as moderator nor was I upset or bothered by the largely nonsubstantial questions posted to the Candidates. In shortform, each candidate had only a very small time in which to respond to questions.

And indeed, most all the questions had a liberal flair of attack versus serious questioning. I figured this to be round one in the Presidential Candidate Debates to determine how well a Republican Candidate showed restraint in not reaching out and slapping the moderator silly. In this matter, all 10 passed the test.

But I do disagree with
John Tabin's assessment that Rudy Giuliani did not do well, in specific with regard to the "abortion question". Quite the opposite, I think Mr. Giuliani showed he had long since understood the question and where responsibility for this type of decision lay. His instant breadth of numerous subjects was perfectly contained within his short response time. Further, his responses in re President Bush's handling of the WOT, and on the WOT itself, were the best.

Mitt Romney is a handsome man as well as he is knowledgeable and decent. He did very well. He's very likable.

These were the two big winners, IMHO of last night's debate. And of course, they were flanked by some wonderful fellow Republicans who scored good points themselves. Sam Brownback did a marvelous job being the mid tent Emcee, in my assessment.

In this writer's final analysis, Rudy Giuliani was the fittest, most clearly and immediately ready to assume the position of POTUS.

Scouring the net afterwards, I was able to determine that females on both sides of the aisle thought Mitt Romney was best.

So, let's cut to the chase: Of the two-herein-named GOP Candidates -- would Americans vote for a decent, knowledgeable man versus a pro-Bush, pro-Victory Candidate: The Dem Anti-Corruption and Anti-Victory personifications of two GOP Candidates.

And I witnessed (both aisle) females in support of the anti-corruption candidate over the pro-Victory Candidate.

Of the two issues, WOT and Corruption, the former is real whereas the latter has been largely imaginary -- and both issues were the creation of the Democrat party.

Do we have the will to win this war, I ask myself again this morning, after reviewing much criterion?

On the hopeful side, however, this was only the first round. Allegedly TownHall will be featuring another GOP panel interview on May 15.

1 comment:

MataHarley said...

Oh my, Alia... you actually could sit thru that? I *really* gave it my best shot. Truly. Then I switched over to get Michael Savage "radio subtitles" for amusement. Still couldn't handle it.

Turned on some blues music instead... LOL

Two thoughts about this so-called Presidential debate.


First, amazing that the Dem candidates refused to be questioned by any, or in any venue, except that under the liberal umbrella.

It's also amazing that only Dems question the GOP candidates... from Softball Matthews to the cyber audience questions.

ummm... so how come GOP'ers can't question their own and get to the nitty gritty? Why is it only liberals doing the asking? We had nothing of substance from this debate, rendering it informationally useless.

Under these circumstances, what we *did* learn about the candidates was who was less nervous as a speaker in the public forum. And even that will change as they gain experience. yawn... zzzzzz


Second, being as the liberal press has obviously taken control of all Presidential debates, most of us will not watch these shams. And, considering that all too many Americans can't even name who the Senate leader is, or who is third in line to the President, it's going to come down to who has the most sound bites in the press and thereby remembered by voters.

So I think it's nothing more than a three man race unless Thompson enters. McCain, Guiliani and Romney. I don't think McCain will get the nod... too iffy historical performance and support. And I have my doubts they will entrust this to Guiliani.

At this point, I'd wager it's a Romney vs Clinton in 2008. And I'm not sure Romney is as common a household word as Clinton. But he may get the "anyone but Hillary" vote.