Some random thoughts:
The dynamic of this debate was really different from the two
held in South Carolina. The audience was instructed not to cheer and to remain
silent. This, combined with the smallness of the stage, had a weird effect of
inducing a gentler tone to the whole affair, when pundits expected it to be
much nastier and combative.
Without a crowd, Newt is emaciated and Romney shines
through.
Brian Williams really seemed disinterested in the whole
thing.
Someone brought up Terri Schiavo. Really? What more can be
said about it, it’s no longer 2005.
I liked it when Romney refused to support the sugar
subsidies. Subsidies are terrible in principle, agricultural subsidies are
absolutely indefensible.
There’s this feeling out there than Ron Paul is some crazy
old kook. He’s certainly eccentric, but if you watch his debate performances
you’ll notice that he always takes time to answer the question and not fall
into the trap of mindlessly reciting soundbites. And his answer on the wetlands
shows that he is not dogmatic. Sure, he’d like to get rid of it, but there are
greater priorities.
Newt needed that crowd. I thought he faltered here a bit. He
didn’t screw up enough to lose Florida, but if this were a widely watched
debate, it might slow his momentum.
Romney is a weak candidate, but he does well in forums like
this. I think Romney has this weird anti-social streak to him. He doesn’t feel
comfortable in the middle of a crowd, around large groups of people. Give him a
small, quiet audience and a power point and he’s in his element.
This debate, in the grand scheme of things, will prove to be
pretty irrelevant unlike the two South Carolina debates which propelled
Gingrich to victory and altered the shape of the race.
Oh, I forgot Rick Santorum. Ugh. What else can be said about
him?
No comments:
Post a Comment