What is the most obvious thing about tonight's GOP debate?
No, the answers-whille often good for all of the candidates--are now predictable. If you have followed the debates, and the race, you will NOT find anything in tonight's debatge to change yoyour mind. Mitt Romney, at this point is not gong to convince me--and should not be able to convince anyone--that he is as conservative as Rick Santourm. And his ansewrs tonight have NOT been that "convincing"--although hardly bad. This is why I don't think, absent some dramatic moment, I will be able to declare a 'wineer" in tonight's debate. It is all to familiar. All of the candidates have learned how they want to do these debats, and they are unlikely to make major mistakes.
Yet, and I assure you I am right on this, the audience APPLAUSE tonight was obviusly ORCHESTRATED. By that, I mean that, from question 1, there was WILD applause for Mitt Romney asnswers, out of all proprotion to the merit of the answer. In other words, there was not ev vven any distinction between good Romney answers and not so good Romney answers. Therefore, my "analysis" of this debeat is that you MUST ignore the audience reacitn It ws SET UP.
Is that because the debate was in John McCain's Arizona, where llMcCain supports Romney (one of the BEST reasons to oppose Romney)? I don't know. I jsut know it is a fact. Now there is nothing "wrong" with getting your supporters in a debate audience to try to HELP you by cheering wildy. I jsut hinnk that this particular debate was filled with more INAPPROPRIATE appluase--even what I would call uninformed applause.
John King, by the way, was the other OBVIOUS flaw in toonight's debate (to be expectred, of course, ffom the despicable John King and CNN). Whenever there was ANY opportunity at all, King phrased each question in a way to SUPPORET the positin of President Obama. It was the MOST biased of all of the CCNN debates. King's other agenda was to go after Santourm at every opportunity. It was almsot EXCLUSIVELY Santourm who was fquoted uunfaborabliyy by King as a "introdcduction" to a question (that is,m qutoing a CRITICISM of Santourm as the introduction to questioins) This was a clear CNNAGENDA.
Otherwise, the candidates did well. CNN should be unhappy. I have beenn honest is assessing these debates. I have told you when Gingrich won (most of the early deabates) and when he LOST (in Florida) . I told you that Santourm won those debates in Florida (as he did),. lSantourm ddi wll in this Arizona debate, but so did Dignrich, Romeny and Paul I would call a winner if there was one. I don't think there was.
At this point you need to vote based on the REAL (where you NOW these candidatges stand). Romney has ALWAYS bewenn the choice of the GOP establuishment, AND of the left. RickSantourm is OBVIUSLY the onldy credible CONSERVATIVE candidate left (as this blog tolld you BEFPRE the Iowa caucus vote). Gingrich will not win. Paul will not win. Between Romney and Santorum, Santourm is the ONLY choice for a conservati ve.. Yes, Santourm has "Washington baggage"--what Romney WOULD have, except Romney LOST his bid to be in the United States Seante. Still, Romney KEEPS talknin g in the LANGUAGE of Obama and the left, and I can't stand it.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).