Debate #14: Stephanopolous FAILS

Believe it or not, I agree with the Huff Post headline:

"WORST. DEBATE. EVER."

 

For the most part, the candidates were consistent with what we have come to expect from them, but George Stephanopolous gave a truly dreadful performance. One would have thought he was assigned the role of David Axelrod, instead of journalist or moderator. Between his palpable leftist agenda and Diane Sawyer's air-headed and cloying "charm," it would have been a total fiasco if not for the local journalist on the panel, who brought some seriousness and specificity to the questions.

Out in the Siberian reaches of the stage, Rick Perry did well, but Stephanopolous et al had little interest in giving him any time or opportunity.  The headline on Perry, if there is one, will be that he would send our troops back into Iraq NOW. I understood what he was saying but he tends to not explain himself fully - an unwelcome and unfortunate reminder of Pres. Bush. I still think he would make an excellent president.

Newt Gingrich, my (close) second choice, didn't get much time or attention either, outside of invitations to attack other candidates (the "gotcha" questions). I hoped he would jump on Stephanopolous at one point, but instead he took the invitation and "contrasted" himself to Romney; that was disappointing. In another instance, however, he did point out the intrinsic bias - I think he used the word, "bigotry" - of the media and reeled off a series of questions that should be asked, but never are.  He had another good moment when he elaborated on the "Big Picture" of the threat of militant Islam to Western civilization, and demonstrated that it is far more than simply a military matter. His would be a fascinating presidency (and I would love to watch him debate Obama).

Romney's performance was as per usual: well-practiced and not-too-anything that might give voters something to react against. More than the others, he oftentimes concentrated his comments on the failures of Obama, making him appear to be campaigning on a higher plane than the rest.  I could live with him, I suppose, but I can't imagine him being anyone's first choice.  Every time he says that Obama has made "mistakes," I worry that he will be too nicey-nice, too milquetoast, too much like McCain in '08. 

Santorum also did well, but he doesn't have presidential "weight" in my opinion. He just doesn't have the stature. To my mind, he comes off as someone who would make a very good governor of Pennsylvania.  Also, for me, he's way too ideologically driven. Sorry, but I don't want to be sanctimoniously preached at  - from the Left or the Right - about my lightbulbs, my family or my "values," especially now when our economy and broad international upheaval present such dire threats to our stability and national security. Plus, the constitutional questions surrounding Roe v. Wade are of absolutely no interest to me in 2012, but here I might be reacting to Stephanopolous, not Santorum; at the end of a debate, one is left with impressions only and it's hard to tell exactly where they came from.

Ron Paul? Sometimes I find him very interesting, but at other times he scares me. He's very skilled at wriggling out of direct answers to direct questions, but is that what we're looking for? One minute he's saying the world could go to hell in a handbasket and he would do nothing to stop it, and the next minute he's polishing the halo of his military service. It's confusing. And what are his accomplishments? Only one piece of legislation to his name after thirty-some years in Congress; even Nicky Joe Rahall has done more. I'm not impressed.

Oh, and I almost forgot... Huntsman. Why was he even on the stage?

 

 

Comments

[Mannie Sherberg]

Good analysis, Yael. In the end, I fear it's all coming down to simple arithmetic: Romney will probably win the nomination because two guys -- Gingrich and Santorum -- are dividing the vote that could defeat him. This would be a whole different race if either G or S dropped out -- but that does not appear likely. Strange, isn't it, that the fate of our country should hinge on the fact that too many guys are running for one job. Yes, I suppose we'll all learn to live with Romney in the White House (what choice do we have?) -- but what a dreary administration his promises to be. I don't think I've ever seen a public figure so bland, so colorless, so nondescript. Prepare yourself for four soporific years.

[Yael]

Mannie, we should be so lucky as to have a soporific spell. After three years of worry and apprehension that have literally kept millions of people up at night, we could all use a break. And a good night's sleep.

[Sheldon Dan]

Your title says it all: "Debate #14." The entire last year was taken up with debates. In my opinion, there were many more debates than we really needed. Can we come up with a better way to choose a nominee?