Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Republican Debate Round Up

In light of last night’s debate, let’s push the Rick Perry 2012 Contender article off until tomorrow morning. The debate is part of the bigger picture of choosing the right candidate and there were several interesting things last night that are absolutely worth pointing out. Observe:

Winner: The Republican Brand. The first thing to leap out about the debate was just how civil the whole debate was and how unified the contenders were. There were no attacks, no finger pointing and no cheap shots, no matter how much CNN’s moderator John King tried to bait them. Instead, all the attacking was directed at Obama and even that was kept on a professional level, i.e. not personal. At several points the candidates even noted how close they all were on the issues, and they agreed that anyone on the stage would make a better president than Obama. And that's actually how they came across -- as a group of serious, smart, hands-on professionals who are more interested in fixing Obama's mess than personal ambition. The party should be much happier with their choices after last night, and frankly, this group blows away the 2008 group.

Winner: Romney/Pawlenty. If you knew nothing about their policies, I would rate the winner as Romney with Pawlenty as a close second. Romney had a flawless and very strong performance. He came across as smooth, likeable and knowledgeable. He said all the right things and he made me want to vote for him. . . except that I doubt him based on his record.

Pawlenty was not as flawless as Romney and seemed a little less comfortable. However, he came across as having a stronger record than Romney or anyone else, and he seemed to have a better plan for what he wants to achieve. Despite not being as smooth as Romney, he too came across as professional and likeable and made me want to vote for him. Interestingly, the people I watched the debate with really were impressed with Pawlenty and saw him as the winner, though I’m sure Romney will get the headlines.

Winners: Santorum. Santorum won mainly by not losing. He came across as serious, thoughtful and credible.

Winners/Loser: Gingrich Newt came across as serious, thoughtful and credible. He also sounded like he was full of ideas -- though in truth, his ideas were just well-disguised slogans. Then he re-opened the Ryan wound by suggesting that "if you can't convince the public it's a good idea, then maybe it's not a good idea." Go home Newt.

Draw: Michelle Bachmann. Bachmann proved that she belongs on the stage and would make a credible President. I would rate her as a winner for that except for three points:

First, she was the only candidate to stumble over her words, something she did quite a lot. This stuck out by comparison.

Secondly, one of the concerns I’ve had with Bachmann is that I don’t know how much of a coherent political philosophy she has compared to simply answering issues as they come up. This was on display again in her response to the gay marriage issue. When asked if she would try to change gay marriage laws in New Hampshire, she said that she would not interfere in state decisions because she believes in the Tenth Amendment. But then the question was asked differently, i.e. whether she would push for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and she said yes. These two positions are inconsistent and that continues to leave me wondering if she has an intellectual framework or if she just answers the question of the moment without regard to conflicting prior answers?

Third, she engaged in the most scripted speaking, and it generally didn’t work, especially since much of it felt like self-promotion.

Loser: Herman Cain. I like Herman Cain and I want to support him. But he has yet to catch any sort of fire. For being a talk radio host, he seems to lack cleverness and a quick wit. He also hurts himself with his honesty because he keeps answering questions about which he lacks sufficient information by promising to look into the issue (as any businessman would). Thus for example, on Afghanistan, he said he needs to meet with the generals first before he can formulate a strategy. This is the most truthful answer anyone gave. But perversely, this comes across as him not being ready for the job because everyone else gave their opinions. I don’t know that audiences will grasp this and won’t punish him for his honesty.

Loser: Obama. Obama was not only the subject of a couple zingers -- especially one from Ron Paul when he said he couldn’t think of anything Obama had done right. But even more so, this group came across as unified in their criticisms of Obama, right down to the specifics of what he’s done wrong. Their unified responses gave this message a seriousness and believability. And their no-hostility tones will make this a hard group to demonize.

Ron Paul: Ron Paul did his usual. He gave some absolutely brilliant answers, but he mixed them with some paranoid/conspiratorial stuff. He also came across as a bit strange as his suit didn't fit and he kept getting frantic in his tone. This made him seem somewhat insane. But he is Rasputin-like in his appeal and I kid you not when I say that if Paul were 20% smoother, he would be President in a heartbeat.

Some Issues: On economics, they all agreed that we need smaller government, lower taxes, and less regulation. Jobs was the number one word all night and free markets was how jobs would be created. The format did not allow for much more depth beyond that, as CNN’s John King started interrupting all answers about 20 seconds in.

The candidates differ on gay marriage. Romney, Santorum, Pawlenty and probably Bachmann want to ban gay marriage. Newt thought this was a state’s rights issue. Paul thought the federal government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

On foreign policy, there was a general sense that it’s time to reduce America’s commitments overseas and to start bringing the troops home, though most said they would confer with the generals. The two exceptions were Paul and Romney. Paul said that he would tell the generals what to do and that is to bring everybody home. Romney went the other way entirely saying he would consider bringing troops home at some point, but so long as anyone wants to kill Americans, he was going to stop them.

Several of them grasped the importance of appointing judges.

The Question No One Answered: The one question which frustrated me because none of them could answer it came from a “traditional” Republican who asked the candidates to prove that there was still room for him in the party despite the Tea Party influence. They all missed the obvious answer: the Republican Party is a big tent of different groups who share about 80% of their views. Getting that 80% would change the world, and that should be our goal. Anything after that is a matter for each group to convince the rest, i.e. build a consensus. No one group can force its will on the rest. Thus, the idea that there is no room for non-Tea Partiers is just wrong on all counts.

Those are my impressions. The field came across as a lot stronger than they seemed a month ago. Some people come across much better than their records would indicate and some disappointed -- though only slightly. They weren’t exciting, but it gave me hope watching them that this group of people is capable of saving our country from the damage wrought by Obama.

47 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

Andrew - as is so often the case, your take on last night virtually mirrors my own. I was really pleased with the group overall and nobody completely shot themselves in the foot.

I must admit, events caused me to miss the middle of the debate, so in particular, I can't comment as much on Santorum. Romney, I must say, sounded very presidential and were it not for your fine series, I admit I would be swayed.

Great analysis.

T-Rav said...

Thanks for the summary, Andrew. I hadn't yet read much about how the debate went, but this matches the little bit I had seen, namely that Cain had not done well, Bachmann had done okay, and Pawlenty hadn't done quite as well here as he did in the Fox News debate. That last may be because Romney was on hand for this one, but whatever.

I guess I should be glad that everyone kept it courteous and professional. Part of me wanted Romney and Gingrich to face shouts of "RINO!" and so on, but it's probably best none of that occurred. Meanwhile, Ron Paul still just needs to go away.

Ron Paul said...

RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!

Tam said...

I didn't catch the whole debate because I had to leave, but I agree, especially about Bachmann. She bugged me. I also though that Santorum came across as more passionate than most of the others, except for crazy Ron Paul. Newt just needs to get out of the way.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Great minds! LOL!

Yeah, I think the BIG take away from the debate for me was how pleased I felt with the whole field. I really felt that each of these people was ready to be President and was ready to take Obama down. I was not expecting that at all. What's more, they were all very likeable.

The Romney thing really interested me. He was 100% better than he was in the 2008 debates and he really did a great job last night. If I hadn't been looking into him for the 2012 series, he probably would have gone a long way to winning my support last night -- but I know better.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Paul will stay to the end because he's not planning to win. He's out there to bring up issues like the Constitution -- and that is something he does well. Like I say, he has brilliant ideas where I just nod my head saying, "yeah, that's exactly what's wrong with government." Then he veers off sharply in crazytown.

From what I've seen this morning, they are playing Bachmann up a little more than she deserves and the MSM is trying to add a bit more drama to what happened. What really struck me was that this debate felt productive, not dramatic. It was like someone brought together a team of executives who had come to brief us on what has gone wrong with the company and how we were going to fix it. That was pretty impressive. It probably won't please those who want to see blood, but it should give a lot of comfort to the rest of America that is looking for results. And frankly, if I were Obama, I would be feeling like I was in for a much bigger challenge than I had expected even a week ago.

In terms of RINO-dom, not one candidate came across as anything except deeply conservative. The only difference was some leaned state's rights on social issues and others leaned religious right. Other than that, everyone was reading from the same playbook.

That's why it's so important to do the research -- because there was no way to really tell them apart from last night politically speaking.

AndrewPrice said...

Dear Ron, Please stop borrowing other people's clothes. LOL!


Ron "T_Rav" Paul, Let me repeat -- Paul is captivating. His knowledge and ability to think through a problem are truly unparalleled within the candidate ranks. He's brilliant and honest and speaks his mind. He's got an incredible knowledge of fact and policy. And you almost always start by thinking, "wow, yeah, I wish the others would get that..." Unfortunately, he's also obsessed with returning the government to a model it never was and he's paranoid about the Fed. . . the fed. . . the fed. . . they're under my bed. So you usually end up with ".... if only he stopped talking before he reached that part."

But I am serious, if he was 20% smoother in his presentation, nothing could stop him.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Andrew
Thank you for the abstract you have provided me with a foundation to a frame work so I can start forming a choice.
We all agree any one would be better than bo which showers shame on our electorate.
Maybe common sense will prevail this time around, God willing.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I agree. Santorum was easily the most passionate except for Paul. What really struck me about Santorum last night was that he was credible. In the past, he seems to have been a single issue candidate -- abortion. I got the impression it was all he talked about 24/7. Last night, he came across as knowledgeable and credible on the whole variety of issues. I think he helped himself a lot.

On Bachmann, I think some of it was nerves and I think some of it came down to her trying to inject too many scripted lines into her speech. You really can't do that in a debate like this. You need to speak off the top of your head. I like her, but she didn't help me like her last night. One thing that did impress me though was her personal story, which I did not know -- 26 foster kids! Wow! That's not a family, that's a voting block! :-)

AndrewPrice said...

Tom, You're welcome. To me, that was the thing last night -- Obama was the BIIIIIGGGG loser. They ALL came across as a better choice than him. They were professional, knowledgeable and likeable. When I compare how I feel about this field to how I felt about the field after the first couple debates in 2008, I feel that we are much better off. Based on last night alone, I could literally see any of these people win the White House and do a great job. Last time I was struggling to find someone I could support.

Now obviously, some of last night wasn't quite real. For example, Romney's record does not match his performance last night. But his performance still gave me hope that even if he does win, he would do a decent job.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam and T-Rav, By the way, I agree about Newt. He's got to go. He did well last night in terms of answering questions (except for the Ryan thing), but he's damaged goods and that Ryan thing last night just reminded us that there is something wrong with him. Why pick at an old wound and why take another shot at Ryan after having recanted? Newt's like a petulant child who just has to keep bringing up something an old fight to prove that he still thinks he won. He needs to go.

Ed said...

Andrew, First you criticize Palin now you call Paul crazy! You love living dangerously! LOL!

Great summary though. I only saw part of the debate, but I agree with what you've said. If I hadn't read your article on Romney, I might have been sold on him last night.

On Pawlenty, the MSM is writing that he failed because he didn't deliver any knock out punches. I think that's a ridiculous standard to apply at an early debate and it tells us that the MSM is all about seeing a boxing match, not a real debate. I thought he was honest, decent and had a lot of good policies. The one thing I didn't like was his backtracking on "Obamneycare" but that's just one minor mistake.

Tam said...

Andrew, I remember once Joy Behar tried to call Michelle Bachman "anti-children" because of some legislation she either supported or opposed...I can't remember the issue, but it was an absolutely ridiculous claim, given her foster care. It comes down to what lefties say and what conservatives do.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, That probably was a mistake, but it was a small mistake because I doubt it came across to anyone who wasn't a wonk. But we'll see. The knock on him has been a lack of combativeness and that certainly played into the criticism of him. So we'll see if he gets more critical as the campaign moves forward.

Personally, I thought he should have said, "yeah, Obama designed his plan off RomneyCare and I didn't approve of the mandates, but that's the past, let's focus on fixing this mess Obama has created...."

(BTW, I thought Romney actually did a credible job of explaining why RomneyCare and ObamaCare are different... though I don't actually buy it.)

What I think the MSM is missing too is that these early debates are about introductions and targeting voters. They seem to think Pawlenty is looking to be the establishment guy, but his target last night was religious conservatives. He also did a very good job with policy types. And some of the people I know were very impressed with his union/Minnesota background too. So I think he scored an easy second place finish. And the only reason the MSM doesn't see that is because they were applying the wrong standard.

Patti said...

the younger generation embraces ron paul, and it makes me wonder if they're able to get past his kookiness because they tend to be a more liberal group to begin with. not that those who support him are liberal (but maybe more so leaning than traditionally reps). i like so many of his ideas, but when he comes in with the paranoia/conspiratorial stuff, i'm reminded of thanksgiving dinner with the brilliant but crazy uncle.

i agree with you andrew, if he could polish his delivery, he COULD be president.

and i'm with tam: go away newt.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, Isn't that the truth! Not only are leftist policies so obviously destructive to the things they claim to be helping, but then they get self righteous about it and attack anyone who disagrees with them as anti-child, anti-woman, anti-black, etc. Behar is fool and a disgrace.

That's something that always annoys me with the left. They act all smug because they demand that the government steal from its citizens to give to some cause the leftist wants to help.... without actually giving anything personally. Then they turn around and attack everyone else for lacking their sense of charity even though everyone else is actually donating their own money and time to these kinds of causes. It's hypocrisy of the highest order. And I have to wonder, if there is an afterlife and you are called upon to account for the good deeds you've done, does anyone really think they will let you get away with "I voted to have the government take money from Peter to pay Paul"? Call me crazy, but I'm thinking not. So I wonder how this can satisfy their consciences?

Tennessee Jed said...

You know, Andrew, your last comment about Romney made me realize that he is a classic politician. He is certainly not an ideologue so what he is going to do is behave like Clintom e.g. take the most popular choice.

As long as the country moves in a conservative direction, he will be fine. It may, however, prevent him from LEADING on tough political choices regarding entitlements, If Republicans get strong majorities in both houses of Congress, Romney can be effective by appearing to be the moderate voice. However, if public opinion begins to sway back the other way, he will look to his own hide, particularly in a first term.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, The brilliant but crazy uncle is the perfect analogy. If Paul could remake the country, 90% of what he would do would make this country so much better that people would be amazed..... but then the other 10% would probably destroy the country.

I think people follow him precisely because of the conspiratorial stuff. People like conspiracies because it makes the world make sense. In other words, it helps to explain the world. Suddenly, the world isn't a complex place with lots of problems and no easy answers, it all becomes the fault of a small conspiracy of people. And if we could stop them, then all of our problems go away. That's the appeal to what he's saying. It's wrong, but it's also comforting to a lot of people.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I agree with your assessment. I think that Romney would be an effective "leader" if the country is unified in its desire for a conservative solution. But once people start to split, I think he will gravitate back toward the center and is likely to triangulate at the expense of all the Republican reformers.

One of the things that has impressed me about Pawlenty (to keep beating that drum) is that he has acted like a deep-red-state governor even though he ran a dark-blue state. Romney, by comparison (and Christie) has instead acted like a light blue governor and he's used the "I'm from a blue state" excuse. To me, that's a key difference. I think Romney will aim for light whatever is currently fashionable. And if he had a Democratic congress sending him Democratic bills, he would make a verbal fuss but would then sign them and claim credit for them after claiming he "moderated" them. By comparison, I have a good deal of faith that a guy with Pawlenty's record will try to be dark-red no matter what, even if that makes him unpopular.

I think that's a critical distinction and that makes me leery of Romney.

Writer X said...

Thanks for the summary. Life has been crazy lately and I wasn't able to catch the debate, unfortunately.

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, You're welcome!

Hopefully, crazy in a good way! :-)

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: All factors considered, I saw Pawlenty as the best of the field so far. His combination of experience and lack of deviousness showed clearly. And he's working on developing his low-key Midwest sense of humor. Outside the debate, Chris Wallace interviewed him and asked him what he thought of Bill O'Reilly calling him "the vanilla candidate." Pawlenty grinned and asked Wallace if O'Reilly was playing the race card. Now that was funny.

I was truly disappointed by Cain, though I will continue to admire him. Like you, I was pleasantly surprised to see how well Santorum handled issues other than abortion (even though I agree with him about 99% on that issue). Perhaps he can overcome his image as solely a social conservative.

As for Paul, any praise of him for me would be like saying that Obama is a great President, except for the socialism thing. Paul's flaws, like Obama's, are so deep and apparent that the rest of his ideas are rendered meaningless.

The best comments on Romney revolve around the difficulty with believing in his commitment to conservatism. There have been many times that we could survive a President who would go along with a conservative Congress. As several of our readers have stated here, that's not good enough this time. We need a leader, not a follower.

AndrewPrice said...

Ok, this series of headlines from Drudge is just too good not to mention.

1. Obama plays to half empty hall in Miami.

2. Obama says his happy would be fine if he was just a 1 term president.

3. Delusional Michelle claims that Obama never takes a day off. Either she thinks massive numbers of vacations and golf trips are all part of the job. Or she's got a very different definition of "day off" than the rest of us.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Agreed, this time it's not good enough to have someone who is a good follower. We need someone who can dig into the job, eliminate the damage Obama has done, reform the very structure of the executive and revise a million pages of regulations, and propose necessary changes to a Congress that often refuses to do the right thing. I can't say that Romney is that guy.

What? I thought you were a Paul supporter! ;-)

I heard that quote from Pawlenty and I laughed out loud when he said it. He does have a good sense of humor and it's starting to come across in his public speaking -- it's not there yet, but it's coming.

DUQ said...

I hear a lot of complaining that the candidates were too nice, but I think that was the perfect approach. This election is about Obama's record. The best thing the Republicans can do is to point out how bad his record is and show that they're ready to step in and fix the things he's done. Throwing around insults just to please the peanut gallery is not the way to do that.

Tam said...

Andrew: those Drudge headlines are dee-lish! I especially like the one about his family being fine if he were just a one term president. That's LOSER talk! Every time a competitor in any contest starts making excuses or justifications for not winning before the game starts, you may as well call it! It is over!

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I didn't mention Michelle Bachmann, but that was unintentional. I can sum up my view of her appearance as "I love her, but she's not ready." Too much trying to fit her talking-points (good ones, by the way) into an answer that wasn't quite related to the question. But given my strong feelings and past posts about the EPA, one comment of hers stands out above all the others: "The Environmental Protection Agency ought to be renamed the 'Agency of Job Killers'."

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I've been reading comments from paid "strategists" who all say "nobody threw enough punches" and "they didn't attack enough." But that's thinking that's been corrupted by the television culture -- they wanted to score a boxing match and that's not what this was.

Early debates are about selling yourself to "early adapters," people who make up their minds first and then become your salesmen/women with the rest of the public. Those people tend to be much more serious and much more interested in who the candidates are -- they are no interested in seeing fireworks because fireworks are usually style without substance.

You've got to keep in mind what the objectives are, and I think these strategists aren't doing that.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I agree! I love these headlines, especially the one about being happy with being a one-term President. And you're absolutely right, when someone starts offering excuses or other pride-saving measures before a race has even been run, you know that they think they're finished!

Let's hope this demoralizes his supporters and donors! :-)

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I like Bachmann a lot too and I thought she came across as credible and ready to be President, but she didn't come across as the best candidate last night. I know the headlines today are screaming that she tied Romney or even won the debate, but I just don't see that.

She struck me as the most nervous and the least "together" candidate last night. I like much of what she said, but she wasn't comfortable enough saying it, which made her seem like a weaker candidate than the rest. Moreover, her Congressional record just didn't seem comparable to the two governors.

I'm not writing her off, I just think she didn't help herself much last night.

Again, to repeat the point I made with DUQ, think about who the audience was last night. She scored some great TV points (good soundbites), but did she do anything to make the early adapters think "now, this is the candidate I have been waiting for!" I don't think she did. She didn't hurt herself, but she didn't make the sale either.

BevfromNYC said...

Jon Huntsman just announce he's running too.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, He's the insider's favorite, but I can't see him gaining traction. He really should have been there last night, but such is life.

The really interesting question at the moment is will Rick Perry jump in. There are more signs building and I think he would become the instant front runner, but we'll see.

Ron Paul! said...

If you conduct a poll you will see that I won the debate last night.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Good rundown Andrew.

I think Romneycare will be the albatross that sinks Romney's run.
If he had admitted it was a mistake early that would've freed him to fool more folks on the rest of his record and appear more conservative (appear being the operative word here).

Personally, I'm glad he's standing behind it because I don't wanna see him get the nomination.

AndrewPrice said...

Ron, We would, but the Federal Reserve won't let us. They've threatened to take away our stimulus money if we conduct a poll. Very sad. :-(

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ben,

I agree. He made a big mistake sticking with RomneyCare. He should have said, "it seemed like a good idea, but man did it not work and ObamaCare won't work either." Sticking with it was a bad move that keeps the issue alive.

I agree too about him only "appearing" conservative. As I laid out in his record, there's little conservative in his record. And the excuse that he was the governor of a blue state just doesn't hold up. I think he has little to no chance to win much conservative support. The question is, can he win enough middle of the road support (or front runner support) to hold on and win this thing. I doubt it.

But that all depends on who steps up and takes front runner status from him?

BevfromNYC said...

Perry will probably enter soon. And there's Palin and Christie too. Though after last night, Christie may decide that when he said that he definitely would not enter, he may go back to meaning it again.

BevfromNYC said...

Ron Paul is our H.R. Perot. He makes many brilliant points , but he is also a special issues candidate. At least he is not forming a third party spoiler candidacy (yet).

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I concur, Andrew.
It's still early, and in light of that perhaps Pawlenty was wise in not goin' for Romney's jugular on Romneycare before setting the right Obama is a disaster tone.

Nonetheless, Pawlenty does need to be more aggressive and his wit will serve him well if he uses it in conjuction with pointing out Romney's lack of conservative credentials.

I LOL'ed at his race card joke, which was a very funny yet accurate attack on Obama's (and the MSM's) non-stop use of it to avoid the issues and demonize anyone who dares disagree with them. :^)

Reagan used humor well to get his messages across but it was also authentic and I think Pawlenty's is as well.

I'm with everyone else concerning Newt. Newt is a moot point to everyone but his die hard fans and Newt himself.

As for uncle Ron, a little bit of a lot of crazy goes a long way so it's difficult to even listen to his non crazy talk.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Bev:

"Special issues candidate," lol!

I'm waiting for someone to say to Paul:

"I see you're off your meds again."

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I'd forget Christie. He seems to have gone silent, which is a pretty good indication that he's serious. Perry, on the other hand, seems to have bought a megaphone.

I still don't know what to make of Palin running or not. If Perry gets in, I suspect that she won't. Whether she comes in otherwise I think will depend on how quickly a true front runner emerges. I don't think she wants a genuine fight.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev and Ben, I actually read that as "special needs candidate" at first and almost spilled my drink! LOL!

But yeah, Paul's role is very limited -- talk about the Constitution.... and rant about the Fed.

I hope he doesn't form a third party.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I do think Pawlenty made a mistake by backing off the ObamneyCare statement. He should have stuck with it, particularly since the knock on him is that he's too nice to attack anyone. So that was a mistake.

BUT, I think it was a minor mistake done very early in the race and he can recover from it. Plus, I think he did such a good job after that, that his mistake wasn't that big of a deal. But he will need to start showing that he has the ability to strike to kill.

I agree about his sense of humor, it sounds genuine -- it doesn't sound like he's reading pre-written jokes or telling the same stories he's told a million times. Humor can be a great weapon.

At this point, I would say that Pawlenty continues to impress in terms of policy and knowledge, but still needs to prove that he's a stronger debater than he's shown.

I have to admit, I like listening to Paul. I find him entertaining. :-)

BevfromNYC said...

I am not sure whether Palin is going to run either, but she sure is entertaining! The NYT just got their bee-hinds handed back to them by Palin with the 24,000 email debacle. No "gotcha" emails. Sadly for them, she actually sounded like a competent and engaged Governor. They couldn't get her on content, so they tried deducting points for grammar and punctuation.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, What's funny is seeing even leftist hacks like Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore and Jon Stewart attacking the media for their behavior regarding the e-mails. The media has once again embarrassed themselves and flushed what little credibility they had left down the obsession-toilet.

And in truth, who in their right mind would expect to find anything in official e-mails? I've looked through thousands of e-mails in my time and with rare exceptions, people don't use work e-mails for anything stupid.... though I have seen a couple, but that's another matter. LOL!

rlaWTX said...

"moot Newt" - I wish HE knew that...

I didn't get to see all of it - and the parts I caught were dumb - like the pizza question - so thanks for the short version!

AndrewPrice said...

You're welcome rlaWTX! Yeah, the "get to know the candidate" questions were kind of dumb. But that's what you get these days. They are trying to find ways to engage younger audiences, so expect more of this.

Post a Comment