Rand was tonight's big winner, Ted was big loser (Washington Post Article)

Losers:

* Ted Cruz: Cruz did the thing I hate the most in debates -- complain about the rules -- when he tried to game a bit more talking time and got shut down by moderator Chris Wallace. The Texas Senator's joking threat that if he kept taking incoming from the other candidates he might leave the stage (Donald Trump reference!) fell flat. He was on the wrong end of a scolding by Paul over his conservative righteousness. And, time and time again, Cruz found himself insisting that on a panoply of issues -- military spending, immigration etc. -- everyone was either wrong about his position or didn't understand it well enough. That's too much defense for Cruz to play -- especially in a debate without Trump.



Winners:
* Rand Paul: Maybe the Kentucky Senator just needed to take a debate off. After not making the main stage in the 6th debate (and refusing to appear in the undercard debate), Paul was a major player in this one. He showed off his trademark willingness to needle the other candidates -- he went after Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz at various points -- but also offered nuanced thoughts on racial profiling and abortion. This was the Paul who many political observers -- myself included -- thought we might see in this campaign: A candidate willing and able to speak to issues his party has struggled to address in recent years. Too little, too late. But, at least he had a moment.
 
ha, thats the same journalist who wrote a column just last week saying Rand had the worst week ever when he got excluded from the debate and had to resort to his own Q&A
 
Don't worry. His moment is coming very soon.

Exactly! This is just the beginning. The campaign has been quietly building up IA without much media attention and they are going to ready to kick butt very soon.
 
WAPO: Rand Paul, Megyn Kelly WINNERS of GOP Debate

o15UiH4.png


The Fix
[h=1]Winners and losers from the 7th Republican presidential debate[/h]


Resize Text
Print Article
Comments 452
Book mark article
Read later list



Saved to Reading List



By Chris Cillizza January 28 at 11:13 PM

Seven of the eight leading Republican presidential candidates gathered in Iowa Thursday night for the seventh debate of the race. Donald Trump, the race's clear frontrunner, was less than ten miles away from the debate site -- holding his own counter-rally after deciding to to participate for decidedly vague reasons.
I watched the whole thing. (We also annotated it!) Below my take on the best and the worst from the night that was.
Winners
* Rand Paul: Maybe the Kentucky Senator just needed to take a debate off. After not making the main stage in the 6th debate (and refusing to appear in the undercard debate), Paul was a major player in this one. He showed off his trademark willingness to needle the other candidates -- he went after Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz at various points -- but also offered nuanced thoughts on racial profiling and abortion. This was the Paul who many political observers -- myself included -- thought we might see in this campaign: A candidate willing and able to speak to issues his party has struggled to address in recent years. Too little, too late. But, at least he had a moment.
* Megyn Kelly: There has rarely been a debate moderator who has come under as much scrutiny as Kelly has during the course of this campaign. Despite all of that negative attention, Kelly showed why she is the face of Fox News on Thursday night. She was pointed, tough and well versed on the issues. And, more important to me? She showed her sense of humor and a willingness to not take herself too seriously. That she performed so well with so many eyes on her speaks incredibly highly of her abilities.
* Jeb Bush: If you had any doubt about how much Donald Trump is in Jeb's head, this debate should have cleared it up. The former Florida governor was, from the get go, more relaxed and more forceful in this Trump-less debate than he has been in the previous six debates where Trump was included. He owned his family's political legacy unapologetically. He fought Rubio to a draw in an immigration back and forth. He regularly was the only candidate -- aside from Paul -- who answered the questions asked of him. Jeb is still a somewhat (ok, very) awkward candidate -- his halting closing statement was painful -- who doesn't really like going on the attack. But, without Trump looming over him, Bush looked positively presidential.
* Video reels of past candidate statements: Fox ran video clips of both Rubio and Cruz saying things in the past that they have run away from in this campaign. And it was great! This is what debates should be about. Holding candidates accountable. Asking them to explain why what they said four years ago isn't what they are saying now. I only wish Fox did this for all of the candidates.
* Commercials: Thank you Fox News! A commercial every 30 minutes or so worked nicely both with my bathroom needs and my desire to consume somewhere between 100 and 120 Oreos. #blessed
Losers
* Ted Cruz: Cruz did the thing I hate the most in debates -- complain about the rules -- when he tried to game a bit more talking time and got shut down by moderator Chris Wallace. The Texas Senator's joking threat that if he kept taking incoming from the other candidates he might leave the stage (Donald Trump reference!) fell flat. He was on the wrong end of a scolding by Paul over his conservative righteousness. And, time and time again, Cruz found himself insisting that on a panoply of issues -- military spending, immigration etc. -- everyone was either wrong about his position or didn't understand it well enough. That's too much defense for Cruz to play -- especially in a debate without Trump.
* Ben Carson: Whoa boy. Carson swung from barely being asked any questions to providing answers that often bordered on incoherence. His response to a question about how to deal with Russia simply made no sense -- further adding to the narrative that he is far, far out of his depth on foreign policy. At one point, he seemed stunned to even get a question, which isn't the best look for a guy running to be the leader of a 300-million person country. Carson looked out of his league tonight.
* Chris Christie: The New Jersey governor felt a little like a Johnny One-Note tonight. For every question he was asked, the answer was how terrible Hillary Clinton is, was and will be. Ok, I get that bashing Clinton is never a bad idea in a Republican primary but the strategy made Christie look very two dimensional and brought to my mind memories of Rudy Giuliani's campaign in 2008. And not in a good way.
imrs.php


* Fox News Channel: The simple fact is that from an entertainment perspective, this debate was less interesting than virtually all of the previous six. The reason? Trump wasn't there. That, of course, is not entirely (or even mainly) Fox's fault. But, my guess is that the ratings for this debate will be significantly lower than the other Republican debates on major cable channels. And, if you don't think ratings are the way networks judge success, I have a whole mess of compact discs -- they're the future of music! -- to sell you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-from-the-7th-republican-presidential-debate/
 
No mention of Kasich or Rubio as a winner or loser. Must mean they were below losing.

(By the way, am I the only one sickened each time Rubio says "Hillary Clint Ton"?
 
First time he's ever heard that.
Lol.

You know, the other thing that made him look stupid was when they asked him what he would cut and he could only name Planned Parenthood. They even gave him a chance to name something bigger, but he totally whiffed. He tried to take a spending question and turn it into a social issue question. Total failure. Because he doesn't want to cut government spending at all.
 
• Video reels of past candidate statements: Fox ran video clips of both Rubio and Cruz saying things in the past that they have run away from in this campaign. And it was great! This is what debates should be about. Holding candidates accountable. Asking them to explain why what they said four years ago isn't what they are saying now. I only wish Fox did this for all of the candidates.

Bullshit. Don't call it a "debate" if it is really an interrogation by a prosecuting attorney.

It's not surprising that the establishment mainstream media would advocate for this. Who decides which candidates get this treatment? Who decides which issue to badger the candidate about? Oh yeah, it's the media themselves. Another great way for them to inject their bias, if not downright manipulate an election.
 
Last edited:
Bullshit. Don't call it a "debate" if it is really an interrogation by a prosecuting attorney.

It's not surprising that the establishment mainstream media would advocate for this. Who decides which candidates gets this treatment? Who decides which issue to badger the candidate about? Oh yeah, it's the media themselves. Another great way for them to inject their bias, if not downright manipulate an election.

This tactic was a staple of the old "Meet the Press". I actually think it's a good method because it can highlight hypocrisy, but it also gives the viewer insight to how a candidate responds when being publicly challenged. I agree that it's not a "debate method", but it's useful nonetheless. I also agree that if you're going to do it, you should do it consistently. I would have loved to have heard Rand answer one of those.
 
Bullshit. Don't call it a "debate" if it is really an interrogation by a prosecuting attorney.

It's not surprising that the establishment mainstream media would advocate for this. Who decides which candidates get this treatment? Who decides which issue to badger the candidate about? Oh yeah, it's the media themselves. Another great way for them to inject their bias, if not downright manipulate an election.

You have to admit though that it works in Rand's favor. The other candidates have dirt that can be brought up and they've made contradicting statements, where Rand doesn't so they really dont have much to leverage against him. Granted, I much rather have a real debate with legitimate questions given to each candidate with ample time to explain their stance in detail. That would be one long debate with so many people on the stage..and odds are most wouldnt bother watching. Maybe when the field narrows down a bit it might get better, but I wont hold my breath on that one.
 
Rand won just because another person on the stage called says he speaks the truth, all the pundits say Rands policies are smartest all of the time. I don't think Rubio knows that's what the narrative has been. The whole time it was Rand is awesome too bad his polls are down he can't win. Now it's Rand is awesome he has the best ideas and even his enemy on the stage says he speaks the truth he just disagrees with him. Then, I'm sure you guys saw what they did to Ted but it wasn't pretty.

 
Back
Top