I missed the first half-hour but managed to sit through the next 2 and a half hours plus. That's a LOT of debating.
Some quick impressions: CNN did a far better job of handling the second debate than Fox News did the first, but I guess that shouldn't come as a surprise. The Fox debate, even in the context of a single-party debate, was far more partisan, and no one was out to *get* any candidate in this debate. Plus, the extra hour gave the moderators plenty of time to make sure all of the candidates got at least a fair amount of exposure.
Winners: All of the candidates, to some degree. I thought they all handled themselves well, no one made any obvious blunders and all got some face time. Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump pretty much dominated for the first hour or so of the portion of the debate I saw. Fiorina did land a zinger against Trump when questioned about his less than flattering comments about her looks.
If you had to call a single winner, Fiorina would appear to be the pick. She was poised and well prepared, and boy if a real hard-assed conservative woman president is your ideal leader, she's your gal!!!
Trump I thought did very well. Sure he was full of bluster, but some of his answers actually showed some thought and weren't just braggadoccio. Some Republicans gasped when he told Jeb Bush that the last three months of his brother's presidency were such a disaster that Abraham Lincoln couldn't have been elected if he would have been the GOP nominee in 2008. The truth hurts. But apparently a number of Republicans have much fonder memories of Bush II than most of the nation.
I doubt he scored many points with the GOP audience, but Rand Paul really impressed me. He said the feds shouldn't interfere if states want to legalize marijuana, was reasonable on the Iran deal (he'd see how it was working first rather than just scuttle it), and said the U.S. should use force as a last resort. Paul also gave a long thoughtful answer about how the war on drugs has in the U.S. turned into a racial war and devastated American inner cities as a result by jailing minorities and leaving them unable to find work. Stuff like this is why I think he'd be the most dangerous Republican in the general election, but it's also why he has no chance to be the GOP nominee.
Jeb Bush was probably better than in the first debate. He had some strong moments, but at other times he had a deer in the headlights look about him. I'd say he made progress but probably didn't change many minds.
Ben Carson, who has been surging in the polls of late, may have been the night's biggest loser. I think he was damaged badly by having to defend his position that the U.S. should not have attacked Afghanistan after 9-11. In general, he just didn't seem as poised and confident this time around.
Gay rights came up once indirectly. Mike Huckabee was asked about appearing last week with Kim Davis when she was released from jail in Kentucky. Huckabee tried to make a big deal about religious freedom, but none of the other candidates really wanted to get into the topic, so it just kind of dropped. That's probably a very good thing!!!
Chris Christie got to look tough, but the New Jersey tough guy act doesn't seem to be making many inroads. I thought Marco Rubio came across much better this time around. He seems the most cerebral of the more conservative contingent.
John Kasich again sounded too reasonable to be a Republican. Ted Cruz again sounded like the biggest nut of the group. And Scott Walker doesn't sound like a candidate who's going to last much longer.
Your thoughts?
Not correcting that fool who called our President a Muslim is just the tip of the iceberg of ignorance in his brain.
Also, the CNN debate wasn't as blatantly partisan as the Fox debate. It was apparent that the Fox moderators' assignment was to get Donald Trump, but their effort backfired, to say the least.
Not surprised Walker was second to go. The second debate just built on the first. He wasn't ready for the race and wasn't really into it. He was dead man walking by the second half of the debate.
Yeah, Trump's a blowhard, an asshole, an egomaniac, etc., etc. But as I mentioned, one thing I like about him as opposed to most of the other GOP candidates is that he's not ideologically rigid. He has shown over the years that he's open to changing his opinion. Now, not saying I think he'd make a great president or anything, but I don't think he'd necessarily be disastrous on the remote chance he should be elected. Unlike psychopath Ted Cruz, most obviously.
BTW, it will be very interesting to see what the GOP establishment winds up doing. Walker is gone. Kasich is a bad fit in today's GOP. Bush is the money guy, but his campaign has been a dud so far. If he doesn't right the ship pretty soon, Rubio will likely be the guy. But I have no idea if the party's BIG conservative wing will be willing to go along with that. Pretty obvious they don't like Bush or Kasich.
And I'd do a threesome, or twosome, or anysome with you anytime, Fur :)
Trump had most of the time and after three hours did not offer up anything concrete except assurances that he could do it bigger and better. He's not Palinesque; he can speak a complete sentence; but just stating that "Putin and I would get along" lacks in depth. Trump, for shear ego, seems to forget that a lot of people he would have to deal with are megalomaniacs who would relish playing him. He's so out of his league, it's breathless. The debate, too, should have warned viewers that he still does not understand that Congress and the Courts are up to the task of faulting and stopping his failings. It's like he does not get it--why one of the candidates or the moderators did not call him on it the other night is beyond me.
One positive of the debate: Scott Walker dropped out today. Although that bums me out as the more candidates hang in there the bigger chance I think we have of seeing the Republicans implode this election. Walker is a politician through and through and he can divine the tea leaves--A discrete call from one of the Koch brothers probably gave him a little incentive to pull back too.
Fiorina, uggh. She's been around California for a long time and has not had much success at buying any offices. She's won't get the Presidential nomination, and doubtful that any candidate would want her for a VP. Best bit I read about her came from Timothy Egan's blog: "The media stampede now is for Carly Fiorina. She’ll get a sizable poll bump and lots of favorable press in coming weeks. She showed dignity when asked to respond to Trump’s put-down of her looks, and she showed a basic mastery of detail that anyone who spends a day Googling world events could acquire.
But she will not wear well; she’s a terrible candidate in the age of income inequality and a battered middle class. Mitt Romney was pummeled for investing in companies that close American plants and ship jobs overseas. Fiorina, as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, went him one better — firing thousands of people, while being rewarded for failure. She is the embodiment of the unfairness, the rigged game that hurts so many average working people." She's genuinely flawed and will come under tough scrutiny the further she moves up the polls.
John Kasich stated that in the debate that if were to be on the ticket that Hillary would not win Ohio. A lot of what he said during the debate was met with silence--he seemed to be the only one up there calling for moderation with everything. Not a great position for those conservatives who are dying to see heads roll and blood splattered. That said, for those with deep pockets and those who count electoral votes, I bet that comment on him winning Ohio is still being bantered about.
As for your latter comment on Rubio--could not agree more. Up for a threesome? :)
link to Egan's blog: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/opinion/losers- … collection
And before anyone starts on the dangers of merchants running countries. Remember that our current president and recent last presidents have used their position more as an extra bank than anything else
1. Rand Paul, obviously fits my political orientation best
2. John Kasich, why is he a Republican?
3. Donald Trump, not ideologically rigid and might be willing to compromise to get things done.
4. Marco Rubio, if I were fucking him.
Otherwise, forget it :)