I saw it the opposite.
My analysis. Short
Paul. I think he did very well and got his points across, hopefully enough republicans that share his anti war sentiment watched this debate. My biggest fear with Paul is the same that happened in Wyoming, and that is too many republicans beat the drums of war, and I feel that will be the republicans downfall this election. Somehow someway we must drive that across to potential voters, that a vote for a pro war republican candidate is a vote for a democratic president. I really feel Paul's negative is he isn't aggressive in speech, when someone speaks over him he stops talking, unlike Romney who raises his voice and gets his point across. Multiple times Paul talked on foreign affairs and his point got drowned out by more forceful speaking candidates.
Thompson. I thought he did the best. He didn't stutter, he answered the hard questions and didn't waiver on his stances. Like him or not he is 1 candidate you can say sticks to his guns and doesn't pander like the other candidates. I felt Thompson spoke just enough to matter and he confronted Rudy and Mccain on immigration and both of those guys could not respond, they just came up with the same rhetoric. Where Thompson won was he made people think of the negatives of Mccain and Rudy without looking like he was attacking them. Thompson was very sly in this debate.
Mccain. I thought his CHANGE joke towards Romney and how he laughed at his own joke shows exactly why so many people dislike this guy. I think of a weasel when I see and hear Mccain talk. i think he faired the worst of all candidates and as time goes on people will see him as a snake.
Romney. I thought he did well considering he was the focus of most of the attacks, at one point I thought he was going to punch huckabee.. I really think he is the odds on favorite to win the republican nomination and I think inside all the other republican candidates feel that way. While I am not a Romney fan I would prefer him over Rudy and Mccain.
Huckabee. This guy played it as smart as anyone, he is very smart politician and it elevated him to leader status. Huckabee views has more holes than swiss cheese, and now he is considered the front runner by many he did exactly what a candidate with so many holes should do, he said nothing. Huckabee only spoke when he had to, he let all the other candidates argue and he just sat there and listen, once again people will walk away not knowing all the negatives of Huckabee. I think Huckabee had less face time than Paul.
Giuliani. I think he was kind of neutral in this debate. I felt he stuck with his message, I just don't feel its a strong message and no one really believes him. He will have his niche, but in general his whole thing is attack terrorists and thats it, and everyone else but Ron Paul feels that way but the others have more to them than attack terrorists. I also think Fred put him in his place on amnesty.
My analysis. Short
Paul. I think he did very well and got his points across, hopefully enough republicans that share his anti war sentiment watched this debate. My biggest fear with Paul is the same that happened in Wyoming, and that is too many republicans beat the drums of war, and I feel that will be the republicans downfall this election. Somehow someway we must drive that across to potential voters, that a vote for a pro war republican candidate is a vote for a democratic president. I really feel Paul's negative is he isn't aggressive in speech, when someone speaks over him he stops talking, unlike Romney who raises his voice and gets his point across. Multiple times Paul talked on foreign affairs and his point got drowned out by more forceful speaking candidates.
Thompson. I thought he did the best. He didn't stutter, he answered the hard questions and didn't waiver on his stances. Like him or not he is 1 candidate you can say sticks to his guns and doesn't pander like the other candidates. I felt Thompson spoke just enough to matter and he confronted Rudy and Mccain on immigration and both of those guys could not respond, they just came up with the same rhetoric. Where Thompson won was he made people think of the negatives of Mccain and Rudy without looking like he was attacking them. Thompson was very sly in this debate.
Mccain. I thought his CHANGE joke towards Romney and how he laughed at his own joke shows exactly why so many people dislike this guy. I think of a weasel when I see and hear Mccain talk. i think he faired the worst of all candidates and as time goes on people will see him as a snake.
Romney. I thought he did well considering he was the focus of most of the attacks, at one point I thought he was going to punch huckabee.. I really think he is the odds on favorite to win the republican nomination and I think inside all the other republican candidates feel that way. While I am not a Romney fan I would prefer him over Rudy and Mccain.
Huckabee. This guy played it as smart as anyone, he is very smart politician and it elevated him to leader status. Huckabee views has more holes than swiss cheese, and now he is considered the front runner by many he did exactly what a candidate with so many holes should do, he said nothing. Huckabee only spoke when he had to, he let all the other candidates argue and he just sat there and listen, once again people will walk away not knowing all the negatives of Huckabee. I think Huckabee had less face time than Paul.
Giuliani. I think he was kind of neutral in this debate. I felt he stuck with his message, I just don't feel its a strong message and no one really believes him. He will have his niche, but in general his whole thing is attack terrorists and thats it, and everyone else but Ron Paul feels that way but the others have more to them than attack terrorists. I also think Fred put him in his place on amnesty.
