GOP Debate

Stanley Kurtz over at NRO’s The Corner gives it to Perry:

This was a very successful debate debut for Rick Perry. It confirms his position as the leader of the field. As of now, this race is a Perry-Romney duel, but Perry’s the one to beat. Romney and Perry were well matched tonight, but Perry’s appeal to the base means he’s got a leg up over Romney just by fighting to a draw, which he did at least, if not better…

It seems to be the consensus that Perry did well – which means a Perry win because it was his first time out and he didn’t blow it.  As for me, I do believe that Perry’s entry in to the race immediately ensured that Romney would not be the nominee…even if Perry doesn’t end up making it, he’s sure to take a good portion of Romney’s support, thus causing Romney to come up short when the votes start to be counted. The big question is whether or not the second tier candidates can take advantage of the Romney/Perry dogfight…while the two big boys battle it out a clever Bachmann or Cain stealing their clothes and heading off to early primary wins?  We shall see.


32 thoughts on “GOP Debate

  1. 6206j September 7, 2011 / 10:47 pm

    Insulting vulgarity deleted, as it always is, //Moderator

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 7, 2011 / 10:50 pm


      A small State governor of no particular impact who became an Obama appointee would be in Huntsman’s position TEA Party or no…

    • neocon1 September 7, 2011 / 11:34 pm

      Repeating insulting vulgarity not going to pass muster either. //Moderator

  2. 6206j September 7, 2011 / 11:03 pm

    You prefer a weak govenor of a large state, who’s economic miracle is based on government and minimum wage jobs and thinks he can pray to God for rain. Perry didn’t look presidential tonight, Romney & Huntsman did.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 7, 2011 / 11:05 pm


      I’d list my preferences as Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, Perry, Romney, Gingich, Huntsman, Paul – in that order, for the moment.

  3. RetiredSpook September 7, 2011 / 11:15 pm

    What the debate showed more than anything else is that any person on that stage would be better than the current resident of the White House.

    That said, the person who came across as the LEAST presidential was Ron Paul. His statements were disjointed and in some cases virtually incoherent.

    I still think there’s an excellent chance that the 2012 presidential nominee of the Republican Party was not on the stage tonight.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 7, 2011 / 11:18 pm


      Indeed – we’ll see if Palin or Christie gets in…

      • neocon1 September 7, 2011 / 11:32 pm

        christie = UGH
        looney on coal and AGW
        looney on islam
        END of story.

      • neocon1 September 7, 2011 / 11:36 pm

        romney is labeled a loser, that is hard to overcome. especially to mcLame.

  4. Eph September 8, 2011 / 12:25 am

    6206J Is a KOS plant/idiot. Perry definately won tonight

  5. Eph September 8, 2011 / 12:27 am

    Besides for Huntsman and Ron Paul, I cant see any of the “second teir” candidates helping Romney-care by dropping out of the race.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 8, 2011 / 12:39 am


      I can’t see any reason for any of them to drop out…at least not until after South Carolina, as long as they can gather enough funds to compete until then. It is wide open – Perry and Romney in the lead, but neither of them even close to being a prohibitive favorite.

  6. doug September 8, 2011 / 3:23 am

    meh,too many of us aren’t going to trust a Texan who supported Al Gore over George Bush. I think Perry will ride high until Palin or Jeb gets in then they will take all the oxygen out of the room.

  7. js September 8, 2011 / 7:34 am

    this was handed to perry and romney by the moderator asking the questions…it was not a fair debate…each candidate did not get an equal opportunity to deal with the same issues…

    it only exposed to me what the MSM wants the public to do and think…it failed to provide equal opportunity to each candidate and without that…it could not be a fair debate…

    • js September 8, 2011 / 7:35 am

      Can you figure out any reason why the MSM would skew the debate in favor of the 2 candidates most like demoncrats in the panel?

  8. Cluster September 8, 2011 / 9:51 am

    I know I am going to disappoint neocon, but I like Romney. I was waiting to see if Perry could show me something, but he never really did. Bachmann became weak, Paul is one dropped vowel from being completely incoherent, Cain is excellent but not the right man this time around, Santorum is good too but just not enough private sector experience for me, Huntsman is borderline democrat, and Newt was good, but I have to agree with Spook and say that he would make a bad president – so for me Romney clearly won the night.

    • RetiredSpook September 8, 2011 / 10:23 am


      I would agree with your assessment. Romney was my first choice in 2008, but, so far this time around I haven’t had the enthusiasm for him that I did 4 years ago. He seemed the most presidential last night, and he’s clearly more knowledgeable about the things that matter right now than Obama, but then my cat is more knowledgeable than Obama. Still, I’m guessing a President Romney would have a Cabinet and Cabinet-level staff with more than 8% private sector experience.

      • Count d'Haricots September 8, 2011 / 11:30 am

        Romney was my candidate of choice in 2008. I don’t have the same enthusiasm about him this time around. You’ll recall I was so offended that we had McCain I threatened to sit out the election. That only gives us more dimocrats at every level and one self-serving single-issue voter protesting the Party’s choice isn’t going to get a better candidate elected, they only keep the best available from being elected.

        Perry’s past will likely cause a flame-out, Romney or Christie or any North-East Republican is problematic on social issues, Palin has far too many negatives, Bachmann doesn’t have a record of accomplishment, Cain has no governmental experience, Gingrich is a political whore, Santorum is too green and unknown outside of Pennsylvania, Huntsman is a democrat, and Paul could be our first Ambassador to Mars.

        I can’t get over the feeling that Romney will be the Republican candidate because it’s “his turn”. We all know how well that method of selection has worked in the past.

        I could support any of those listed above over the current office-holder except Dimocrat-lite Huntsmen or Mr. Face-Palm Ron Paul whom I suspect is actually Tommy Chong or Pat Paulson.

      • dbschmidt September 8, 2011 / 11:49 am

        I still have to go back and watch the debate plus other attributes like, as js pointed out, skewed questioning and time allotments as I have heard that from a great deal of folks that watched it.

        Nevertheless, at the moment I am still a Cain fan and if for no other reason (aside from business & executive experience) than his lack of governmental experience. Watchwords being “I am from the Government and here to help you.”

      • RetiredSpook September 8, 2011 / 12:49 pm


        We Tivoed it and watched it later so we could replay certain segments for clarification. It was pretty clear from the start that Brian Williams and Company had two goals in mind: get the participants to attack each other, and insulate Obama from criticism as much as possible. Gingrich call them on it a couple times and got rousing applause.

        The moderators did a fairly good job of not letting anyone filibuster, but they clearly gave Romney and Perry more time than anyone else. IMO, Bachman came across as the most thoughtful person on the stage. She received no criticism from anyone else on the stage, and aimed most of her remarks at the shortcomings of the current administration. Still, at best, I see her as a VP candidate.

      • dbschmidt September 8, 2011 / 1:09 pm

        I am looking for someone, anyone, who will start to dismantle the regulations and make the foundation sound again for business. Since being a part of the Work Force Reduction (WFR) at my previous employer I am trying to decide whether to stay in the corporate world or start another small business. I could not believe the difference between 1994 and now in the amount of crap one has to wade through just to become a shell of a corporation (no infrastructure yet) to fly a trial balloon.

      • Cluster September 8, 2011 / 1:27 pm

        My opinion is that at this time, more than any other time, we need a CEO who knows how to unleash America’s private sector, and encourage innovation, expansion and development. Romney is my choice – so far anyway

      • RetiredSpook September 8, 2011 / 2:09 pm

        I could not believe the difference between 1994 and now in the amount of crap one has to wade through just to become a shell of a corporation

        DB, I started my current business in 1990 as a sole proprietorship, and incorporated as a Sub-S in 1992. You’re right; it was pretty simple back then: a 1 page form to apply for a federal ID # and the original and a copy of my articles of Incorporation accompanied by a cover letter and a filing fee of $90 to the Indiana Secretary of State; that was it. In the current business environment you need to either be so big that you can hire lawyers to take care of all the BS, or you need to be so small that you’re flying under the radar. I’m in the latter group, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

        You’re also correct that regulations need to be rolled back, but deregulation should not be NO regulation. The trick will be to simplify the rules and then prosecute those who break them.

      • dbschmidt September 8, 2011 / 4:25 pm

        Guess I am “old-fashioned” in that respect as well. With consideration our Constitution and the entire Federal Highways Act (DoD) where both not over 24 pages (IIRC) in length — I am for major simplification with real penalties that apply to all equally. Make the penalty severe enough no one wants to test it.

        Unfortunately, government is primarily lawyers writing laws for lawyers so everyone requires a lawyer to even try to migrate any part of the system today. Maybe, as Shakespeare wrote “The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers”

      • RetiredSpook September 8, 2011 / 4:32 pm

        Maybe, as Shakespeare wrote “The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers”

        Well, all except the Count’s wife.

      • Count d'Haricots September 8, 2011 / 4:56 pm


        Leave us not forget that the butcher was plotting to overthrow a government in favor of a communistic social order when he suggested, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

        But, to the point of Cain; navigating in the glacial atmosphere of government requires someone who has worked with it at some level; businessmen with no experience do poorly when confronted with the absurdity of governmental regulation and culture.

        Government is an institution; after you’ve done it for a while you become institutionalized.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 8, 2011 / 5:01 pm

        Count, that is why I believe it will collapse under it’s own weight and no one poltician or group of politicians can fix it. The sooner the better, in my view.

      • Count d'Haricots September 8, 2011 / 5:22 pm


        Governments are buy necessity unwieldy, cumbersome and glacial. If a government were as responsive as industry we would have had six violent revolutions in this country and not just two. This system can be pulled back from the brink, but it’s going to take participation and effort. Getting involved locally, selecting platforms and candidates that most closely match yours, and accepting that the “next-best” may be the best you get this time.

        George H.W. Bush once said that we must accept that the only candidate that will match our philosophy perfectly is ourselves. Unless you want to run for every office you’re going to have to accept that some are unacceptable, while others are mostly acceptable and still others are perfectly suited. I’ll take “perfectly suited” every time, but I won’t give up and allow the moochers and layabouts to select the “unacceptable” for me.

        If you think it’s a near impossible task to get us back to that “Shining City on a Hill” now, just try it after anarchy takes over; no country has ever been starved into capitalism.

      • dbschmidt September 8, 2011 / 9:17 pm

        I know you realize that I do not actually intend on killing any lawyers as I have quite a few as friends and surprisingly most of them agree with my point of view. We need to get the legal-eze out of legislation and just clearly state what is meant. One topic-One bill and not a 2,400+ page framework that allows some 140+ new government entities to write their own ticket, um, regulations to fill-in-the-blanks.

        The reason I would still prefer Cain is I think he is savvy enough to quickly catch onto the game being played and maybe can help alter that as well. What happened to the honest man who did what he said on a handshake. I am one, but we are far and few between.

      • bardolf September 8, 2011 / 9:58 pm

        “Governments are buy necessity” – Count

        A Ron Paul supporter would say by necessity. A Perry/Romney supporter thinks you buy the government same as an Obama supporter.

  9. Green Mountain Boy September 8, 2011 / 10:34 pm

    Governments may be a necessity. The sheer volume of the government we have now is not, The volume keeps growing by leaps and bounds. Given the outright hostility of the donkrats and the repub establishment to anyone who seriously wants to reduce the volume of the government, well good luck with not having a third.

    We have on one side a party that is expanding thier control over day to day life anyway they can. We have another party saying we won’t stop it but tell us vote for them anyway. You are not going to get back to a more constitutional way of governing by giving away 100 dollars and then taking back 1 dollar. This is the repub history over the last 20 years and anyone who points it out will be villified and attacked mercilessly.

    • neocon1 September 9, 2011 / 8:59 am


      hear hear

Comments are closed.