Which Republican presidential nominee?
Having just spent an hour or so watching the New Hampshire GOP Republican debate, having gleaned various tidbits over the internet since a while back, I can honestly say I don’t know.
Yet.
In comments at that link, Ron Paul’s supporters come across as a tad too fervent, as does Paul himself. He just comes across as a bit whiney. Quick to complain about a problem but a bit wishy washy with any solutions.
Romney arguably won, but he comes off as Obama-lite+religion. He’s big government but I will say he’s tending to own his opponents. He does look presidential and has the establishment’s backing… not necessarily a good thing when up against Obama who REALLY has the Establishment’s backing and REALLY (at least) talks presidential (except here where he sounds about as formidable as Julia Gillard).
Gingrich came off well but he failed to seize various moments – a knack Romney is a master of – and that, overall, made him less memorable. However, he really did come across as knowing the issues (and solutions, direction that should be taken) better than the rest, but he just couldn’t quite clinch it.
Perry sounded good and almost seized opportunities as well as Romney, but I’m not so sure America is ready for another Texan president.
Santorum: the other front-runner at the moment. Hey did OK. Didn’t seize on Romney but did identify more clearly than others that Iran is a big deal now whether you want it or like it or not. But like the others, except Romney, he kowtowed to the panel and failed to define himself properly.
Huntsman came across as more philosophical without adding any qualitative substance. He kept identifying issues without ramming home what he’d do about them. He came across more like a dictionary or Wikipedia than anything else. He explained in detail what we already vaguely knew.
They all had some good things to argue yet none of them wiped the floor.
So time will tell, and we have a few months, to who will actually seize the nomination.
Three points.
1: They are still debating, being scrutinised, still sorting it out, so don’t fall into any pundit’s trap of egging on any one nominee just yet. That is folly and akin to gambling on a horse in the Melbourne Cup when it’s the only bet you make each year.
2: Any one of them will be a better choice than Obama who thanks to these debates is finally, sort of, being scrutinised himself, if not BY the main stream media, at least ON the main stream media.
3: The nominees have proved stronger and more worthy than the MSM and the Right blogosphere have led me to conclude thus far.
UPDATE
Although Romney’s narrative may not have been the best, the point is he managed to iterate it better than the others, despite whatever question was posed.
The Tizona Group 
January 13, 2012, 2:15 pm at 2:15 pm
It is not possible to be lighter than Obama. He’s in the 49th percentile on the IQ curve; he has little useful knowledge or expertise; he never has demonstrated a modicum of intellectual capacity; he demands favours in return for his august presence; he expects immediate acquiescence to his desires, without making those desires known; he often make statements about proposals he never made; he reiterates statements he never made; after three years in office his best speeches online are his stuttering confused babbling where his thought are well behind his tongue; he managed the gut-wrenching agonizing decision to go after Bin Laden, after 16 hours and a good night’s rest. And apparently his sense of humour is about as sturdy as a piece of wet toilet paper.
But Gov Huntsman could prove me wrong.
Cheers
January 13, 2012, 3:35 pm at 3:35 pm
Two votes and only one star? Was it really that bad?
January 22, 2012, 11:34 pm at 11:34 pm
Hi there, I located your blog via Google even though looking for initial aid for a heart attack and your post looks quite fascinating for me.