1st GOP Debate

[Dan H]

My initial stack ranking:

Maybe:
Carson (shaky start, noticeably nervous, but knocked it out of the park at the end)
Cruz (never said uh, even without a teleprompter)
Walker (strangely sounds like Sam Rockwell)

Mixed:
Trump
Rubio (moving up from meh)
Rand (work on the facial expressions)

Meh:

Kasich (did you know his father was a mailman? He only mentioned it 62 times)
Bush (just DIAF already, you twerpy looking HW clone)
Huckabee (Obvious makeup is obvious.)
Christie

Honorable mention:

I think Fiorina will be moving up after her performance and follow-up interview with Chris Matthews.

[Nodack]

Only caught the last 15 minutes.

[carey]

Watched TDS instead. I'm not a Republican & most of these candidates are out of touch with reality imho anyway.

[Indy]

These debates would mean so much more if they weren't rigged. There are never any hard questions and nobody answers the questions asked. It's all just an excuse to try their sound bites.

[Dan H]

Watched TDS instead. I'm not a Republican & most of these candidates are out of touch with reality imho anyway.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/07/media/g ... index.html

These debates would mean so much more if they weren't rigged. There are never any hard questions and nobody answers the questions asked. It's all just an excuse to try their sound bites.

Did you watch it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/opini ... ebate.html

This wasn’t a debate, at least not like most of those I’ve seen.

This was an inquisition.

On Thursday night in Cleveland, the Fox News moderators did what only Fox News moderators could have done, because the representatives of any other network would have been accused of pro-Democratic partisanship.

They took each of the 10 Republicans onstage to task. They held each of them to account. They made each address the most prominent blemishes on his record, the most profound apprehensions that voters feel about him, the greatest vulnerability that he has.

It was riveting. It was admirable. It compels me to write a cluster of words I never imagined writing: hooray for Fox News.

[Indy]

Watched TDS instead. I'm not a Republican & most of these candidates are out of touch with reality imho anyway.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/07/media/g ... index.html

These debates would mean so much more if they weren't rigged. There are never any hard questions and nobody answers the questions asked. It's all just an excuse to try their sound bites.

Did you watch it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/opini ... ebate.html

This wasn’t a debate, at least not like most of those I’ve seen.

This was an inquisition.

On Thursday night in Cleveland, the Fox News moderators did what only Fox News moderators could have done, because the representatives of any other network would have been accused of pro-Democratic partisanship.

They took each of the 10 Republicans onstage to task. They held each of them to account. They made each address the most prominent blemishes on his record, the most profound apprehensions that voters feel about him, the greatest vulnerability that he has.

It was riveting. It was admirable. It compels me to write a cluster of words I never imagined writing: hooray for Fox News.

I did watch it, and I can't for the life of me agree with those comments. "Inquisition?" Really? They may have asked some semi-difficult questions, but they didn't keep the people on task and just let them vomit their rhetoric. Take the questions about white cops killing unarmed blacks. Everyone just said "we need to be united, not divided" and "the color of skin shouldn't dictate how people are treated." Nobody addressed the problem. Same thing with the budget questions. People threw out their high-level "cut entitlements so we can build up our poor, under-funded military." There was nothing new there, going back to well before I was born. Every R says that same thing, without specifics. The only slightly controversial thing said was by Paul who said he would cut aid to other countries, including Israel. That is, until he was called out and then backed off that.

As a well-informed republican, do you think the moderators held the candidates accountable to answering the questions asked?

[Indy]

And just to be clear, I am not faulting Fox anymore than I would fault CNN, or anyone else that handles the debates, for either side. They are all for show and don't help the average voter decide, based on what differentiates the candidates, why they should vote for one over the other.

[Dan H]

It's a bit hyperbolic but certainly was more antagonistic than, oh, Candy Crowley and Obama teaming up against Romney. As far as the lack of content, well, that's to be expected in a 10-person debate. For a lot of these candidates, it was their first exposure to the public at large. Going forward specifics will be gone into; that's usually how things work.

If anything it looks to me like they were throwing softballs at Jeb(!) and playing hardball with everyone else. Thankfully Jeb(!) looked like a deer in the headlights to even lame questions so I don't think (and hope) he'll keep traction.

[Indy]

It's a bit hyperbolic but certainly was more antagonistic than, oh, Candy Crowley and Obama teaming up against Romney. As far as the lack of content, well, that's to be expected in a 10-person debate. For a lot of these candidates, it was their first exposure to the public at large. Going forward specifics will be gone into; that's usually how things work.

If anything it looks to me like they were throwing softballs at Jeb(!) and playing hardball with everyone else. Thankfully Jeb(!) looked like a deer in the headlights to even lame questions so I don't think (and hope) he'll keep traction.

I love hearing your perspective. I didn't get the sense they were throwing hardballs at anyone. What would you consider a hard question that they actually made someone answer?

[Dan H]

First question Carson got?

First question Trump got?

The abortion question for Walker.

Off the top of my head.

[Dan H]

She honestly wasn't on my radar but she had a great debate last night, and offered this today:

http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/08/246 ... olicy-win/

Some actual policy to chew on.

[Indy]

First question Carson got?

KELLY: Gentlemen, our first round of questions is on the subject of electability in the general election, and we start tonight with you, Dr. Carson.

You are a successful neurosurgeon, but you admit that you have had to study up on foreign policy, saying there’s a lot to learn.

Your critics say that your inexperience shows. You’ve suggested that the Baltic States are not a part of NATO, just months ago you were unfamiliar with the major political parties and government in Israel, and domestically, you thought Alan Greenspan had been treasury secretary instead of federal reserve chair.

Aren’t these basic mistakes, and don’t they raise legitimate questions about whether you are ready to be president?

CARSON: Well, I could take issue with — with all of those things, but we don’t have time.

But I will say, we have a debate here tonight, and we will have an opportunity to explore those areas, and I’m looking very much forward to demonstrating that, in fact, the thing that is probably most important is having a brain, and to be able to figure things out and learn things very rapidly.

So, you know, experience comes from a large number of different arenas, and America became a great nation early on not because it was flooded with politicians, but because it was flooded with people who understood the value of personal responsibility, hard work, creativity, innovation, and that’s what will get us on the right track now, as well.

He didn't answer it at all. He just used the tired old "You know what makes America great?" argument so it seems like whatever he says next you have to agree with or you are a bad American.

Doctor, you are inexperienced and have made a lot of mistakes that I have just detailed, and they show you aren't ready to be president.

Well, you know, this country is great because of innovation and hard work, and I am great at that.

First question Trump got?

The nomination question or the twitter question?

The abortion question for Walker.

KELLY: Governor Walker, you’ve consistently said that you want to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. You recently signed an abortion law in Wisconsin that does have an exception for the mother’s life, but you’re on the record as having objected to it. Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion, and with 83 percent of the American public in favor of a life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election?

WALKER: Well, I’m pro-life, I’ve always been pro-life, and I’ve got a position that I think is consistent with many Americans out there in that…

(APPLAUSE) WALKER: …in that I believe that that is an unborn child that’s in need of protection out there, and I’ve said many a time that that unborn child can be protected, and there are many other alternatives that can also protect the life of that mother. That’s been consistently proven.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has a radical position in terms of support for Planned Parenthood, I defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before any of these videos came out…

(APPLAUSE)

WALKER: …I’ve got a position that’s in line with everyday America.

The question is good, but has also been a national story since he signed it. So it wasn't anything new. And, again, he didn't answer it... He just said there are plenty of way to protect mothers and then contradicted the facts by saying his position is in step with most of America when it couldn't be further from the truth. And nobody batted an eye.

[Dan H]

Was more responding to your assertion that there were no hardballs rather than whether they answered those questions. The politicians obviously fell back into talking points; Trump seemed to answer honestly. That seems to be one of the things people like about him.

More on the tone/tenor of the questioning:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/212090/

[Indy]

Was more responding to your assertion that there were no hardballs rather than whether they answered those questions. The politicians obviously fell back into talking points; Trump seemed to answer honestly. That seems to be one of the things people like about him.

More on the tone/tenor of the questioning:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/212090/

What would you consider a hard question that they actually made someone answer?

[Indy]

Was more responding to your assertion that there were no hardballs rather than whether they answered those questions. The politicians obviously fell back into talking points; Trump seemed to answer honestly. That seems to be one of the things people like about him.

More on the tone/tenor of the questioning:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/212090/

I don't get it. (From your posted article below). It seems like an incredibly fair question...

Graham is right. It wasn’t that the Fox moderators–mostly Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace, and to a lesser extent, Brett Baier–asked “tough” questions. I’m all for tough questions. But there’s a difference between “tough” and “snarky,” and I felt there was far more of the latter than the former.

Kelly and Wallace in particular spent precious air time framing their questions as ad hominem attacks rather than a quest to probe serious issues. Indeed, virtually every major question posed by the Fox moderators began with an insult to each candidate. For example, Kelly’s opening question of Donald Trump was this silliness:

“One of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter,” Kelly said to Trump in the opening minutes. “However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.”

“Only Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump interjected to laughter.

“For the record, it was well beyond Rosie,” Kelly shot back, noting that Trump had told one contestant on “Celebrity Apprentice” that it would be a pretty picture to “see her on her knees.” “Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?” Kelly asked.

[Dan H]

Quote: I didn't get the sense they were throwing hardballs at anyone.

BTW, I'm not complaining, I think it was a good thing. It will train them for when the Candy Crowleys of the world start dog-piling.

[Nodack]

She honestly wasn't on my radar but she had a great debate last night, and offered this today:

http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/08/246 ... olicy-win/

Some actual policy to chew on.

I promised to roll back the bad deal that President Obama negotiated with Iran – and to make two important phone calls on my first day in office.

The first one will be to my good friend Bibi Netanyahu, to reassure him that we will stand with the State of Israel. The second phone call will be to the Supreme Leader of Iran. He might not take the call, but he would get the message. The message would be this: new deal. Until you open every nuclear and military facility to full and unfettered inspections, we are going to make it as difficult as possible for you to move money around the global financial system.

The US, China, Russia, France, Germany and the UK negotiated a deal with Iran. According to Republicans nobody but Obama had anything to do with it. In her plan, she wants to enact sanctions on Iran and that will eventually make them come to the table and deal with us. We already have sanctions on Iran that did make them deal with Russia, China, US, France, Germany and the UK. Her plan is exactly what the US just did, just with a Republican as President. Unfortunately Obama was President when they came to the table and that is unacceptable.

When we do not stand with our allies nor confront our adversaries, our friends lose courage and our enemies press forward. Make no mistake, this is becoming America’s reputation around the world: an inept, corrupt, bloated bureaucracy that makes meaningless promises and flinches before our enemies.

I fail to see how Republicans squashing this deal between all those countries is standing with our allies and confronting our adversaries. All it does is send the message that you can't deal with the US because they are divided amongst themselves and cannot agree on anything. Plus Republicans sending Iran a letter saying any deal you make with this president will be null and void the nano second a Republican is elected also sends a message to our friends and adversaries that Republicans will make sure that any US promise is meaningless because they will break it. And of course it's all Obama's fault.

Instead, they have seen an administration that does not keep its promises, that draws a red line and allows Assad to cross it. They have seen a bloated federal bureaucracy that is too inept to stop the cyberattacks we knew were coming – first from the Chinese and now, as we learned this week, from the Russians.


Assad did agree to get rid of all his WMD and we lost zero troops in Syria. Cyber attacks will keep coming no matter what and no matter who is President. They say we need to shut the NSA down because they are trampling on our freedoms and snooping, but at the same time they aren't doing enough and that's Obama's fault.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will provide our Arab allies with the support they need to defeat ISIS in the Middle East. They know this is their fight – but they need help. I would arm the Kurds, share intelligence with the Egyptians, and provide the bombs and materiel that Jordan has requested.

We have been supporting the Kurds. They have supplied the man power and we have been coordinating air attacks to support them which have been working really well. The Kurds are a little tricky. We like them, but Turkey hates them and Turkey is an ally of ours so we have to dance the dance. Supplying them with weapons would infuriate Turkey. Working with Egypt and Jordan are a little tricky too. Obama was hammered for working with Egyptians who elected the Muslim Brotherhood to lead them. We gave assistence to them and Republicans said Obama was arming ISIS. Now we aren't working closely enough with them for her taste. Ok, whatever.

[Mori Chu]

I didn't see anybody in that debate who I think can seriously win a Presidential election.

[Indy]

I didn't see anybody in that debate who I think can seriously win a Presidential election.

Did you honestly see GWB at the first debate and think he could win?

[Dan H]

Assad did agree to get rid of all his WMD and we lost zero troops in Syria. Cyber attacks will keep coming no matter what and no matter who is President. They say we need to shut the NSA down because they are trampling on our freedoms and snooping, but at the same time they aren't doing enough and that's Obama's fault.

Apparently he got rid of them by nerve gassing civilians?

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... civilians/

As far as the Iran goes, it's pushed Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia together - as well as making Saudi consider their own nuclear program as a deterrent.

In a sense I'd say it's moot what the hell Germany, the UK, etc., say, because they aren't as likely to be a target as are any of Iran's non-Shia neighbors.

It's not so much that the opposition feels that the Iran deal was a bad idea, it's that we gave them the house and a car for well, nothing, other than being able to say we got a deal. Iran still has multiple Americans held hostage. My brother defused Iranian-designed and -produced EFP IEDs in Iraq. Iran now has even more money to export terror around the Middle East.

There were also rumors that the French ambassador mused that a Congressional disapproval of the treaty might be a good thing because a better deal could be had.