I have decided to start actually using this blog for something.
This means that there will probably be at least two more posts in the next year and a half.
Seriously, I am thinking about using this blog primarily to catalog my thoughts on the 2012 presidential race. In particular, the campaign for the Republican nomination. This should be fun.
I promise I won't completely limit my posts to political topics. I'll also be sure to feature other, equally dull topics, so don't worry!
First up are my comments on the recent debate amongst most of the Republican candidates. The debate included Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Herman Cain.
As of right now, it looks like the entire debate is still viewable on CNN's website.
What is most interesting to me is how quickly the media declares a winner, and how different the analysis is from my immediate impressions of the debate.
Having heard of Bachmann, but not having seen or heard much of her myself, I was not really all that impressed with her debate performance. In particular, she seemed to contradict herself (at least in my mind). First, she said that while she opposes recognizing "same-sex marriage", she would not wage a campaign as president to repeal a law that established recognition for it in a particular state, such as New Hampshire. A few moments later, she asserted her support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Interestingly, much of the analysis available in the media declared Bachmann the winner or co-winner of the debate (See this report from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and note that both Bachmann and Pawlenty are from Minnesota).
Another point of view can be found here.
Personally, I thought Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum all did well.
I agree that Pawlenty missed an opportunity on the whole "Obamneycare" thing. There would have been nothing wrong with pointing out mechanisms of the Massachusetts health care system, such as the mandate to buy insurance, that (a) are similar to components of Obamacare and that (b) Mitt Romney continues to defend. Pawlenty did fine other than this. The problem is that this moment was the most anticipated of the debate, and even if his response reflected an already planned strategy, Pawlenty appeared to choke.
Gingrich was strong, and the grief he's getting over his comments about determining the loyalty of people who might be in his administration is totally ridiculous. He makes so much sense, it frustrates me, because deep down I feel like I know he can't possibly win.
Santorum was good, but he didn't get enough questions.
Cain was somewhat disappointing after doing so well in the first debate (that didn't feature Romney, Gingrich, or Bachmann). He was strong on some questions, and pretty sad on others.
Ron Paul is really quite spectacular. He is also almost always right. The problem is the "almost". He is a total isolationist, and I just can't go along with him on that.
Finally, there's Romney. He really did turn in a nice performance (my favorite summation of his performace is from MSNBC.com: "Tonight the Rombot was programmed to be Mr. Nice Guy").
This means that there will probably be at least two more posts in the next year and a half.
Seriously, I am thinking about using this blog primarily to catalog my thoughts on the 2012 presidential race. In particular, the campaign for the Republican nomination. This should be fun.
I promise I won't completely limit my posts to political topics. I'll also be sure to feature other, equally dull topics, so don't worry!
First up are my comments on the recent debate amongst most of the Republican candidates. The debate included Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Herman Cain.
As of right now, it looks like the entire debate is still viewable on CNN's website.
What is most interesting to me is how quickly the media declares a winner, and how different the analysis is from my immediate impressions of the debate.
Having heard of Bachmann, but not having seen or heard much of her myself, I was not really all that impressed with her debate performance. In particular, she seemed to contradict herself (at least in my mind). First, she said that while she opposes recognizing "same-sex marriage", she would not wage a campaign as president to repeal a law that established recognition for it in a particular state, such as New Hampshire. A few moments later, she asserted her support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Interestingly, much of the analysis available in the media declared Bachmann the winner or co-winner of the debate (See this report from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and note that both Bachmann and Pawlenty are from Minnesota).
Another point of view can be found here.
Personally, I thought Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum all did well.
I agree that Pawlenty missed an opportunity on the whole "Obamneycare" thing. There would have been nothing wrong with pointing out mechanisms of the Massachusetts health care system, such as the mandate to buy insurance, that (a) are similar to components of Obamacare and that (b) Mitt Romney continues to defend. Pawlenty did fine other than this. The problem is that this moment was the most anticipated of the debate, and even if his response reflected an already planned strategy, Pawlenty appeared to choke.
Gingrich was strong, and the grief he's getting over his comments about determining the loyalty of people who might be in his administration is totally ridiculous. He makes so much sense, it frustrates me, because deep down I feel like I know he can't possibly win.
Santorum was good, but he didn't get enough questions.
Cain was somewhat disappointing after doing so well in the first debate (that didn't feature Romney, Gingrich, or Bachmann). He was strong on some questions, and pretty sad on others.
Ron Paul is really quite spectacular. He is also almost always right. The problem is the "almost". He is a total isolationist, and I just can't go along with him on that.
Finally, there's Romney. He really did turn in a nice performance (my favorite summation of his performace is from MSNBC.com: "Tonight the Rombot was programmed to be Mr. Nice Guy").
The reason for this, however, is that there was nobody who ever got under his skin. When Romney gets attacked, he goes insane with irritation. I can all but guarantee you that Huckabee would have gleefully performed this function had he been on that stage.
After the debate, I have no clue whom I will end up supporting (by this time in 2007, I had already picked Huckabee), but I am confident in saying that any of these candidates (or Jon Huntsman or Rick Perry) would represent a huge improvement.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...SNORT...wha?
ReplyDelete