Let's get tonight's comedy show, er, debate, started off:

[Guinevere]

How is LJ's post funny, Meade? It's mostly snotty and condescending - implying that because Sue and I are a Democrat and a Socialist, respectively, we have no right to comment on the GOP candidates and their public performance/stated positions.

I'll make sure to follow up on every comment you and Jim make about the Dems with the same kind of thoughtful rebuttal and analysis.

[wesw]

paranoia sets in......

...when did it become ok to say bad things about women? translation : you can t say anything bad about Hillary or you hate women...

losing strategy 101

[MajGenl.Meade]

Guin, I don't think LJ even remotely implied that you and Sue have no "right" to comment on the comedy show. You're reading way too much into that. You didn't think this was funny?

Oh dear... I take that to mean that no potential GOP nominee could win your support...

In the presidential election, whether a person is a dem, rep, socialist, communist, independent, apathist (dat a woid?) makes no difference in who they have a "right" to comment on and vote for - or against. So keep firing away - I've enjoyed the analyses you've both put up on the debate and don't disagree with most of it

[Guinevere]

You don't think his (or anyone's) snottiness would silence me, do you?

I didn't find it funny. It's pretty damn obvious neither Sue or I would vote for one of the Republicans. Nor do I think, but for his pledge about Rand Paul, would LJ vote for HRC or any Democrat. Although perhaps if
Trump was the GOP nominee I could convince him to vote on our side......

[Lord Jim]

implying that because Sue and I are a Democrat and a Socialist, respectively, we have no right to comment on the GOP candidates and their public performance/stated positions.

Oh brother....

It is utterly bewildering to me how anyone could possibly have had that take-away from what I posted....

And if someone says that Hillary Clinton comes across as an "out of touch Grandma" will you consider that a comment on her "public performance/stated positions" or will you call them a sexist hater?


(Anyone who thinks the answer to that is the former rather than the latter can join that line for the drug testing I referenced in an earlier post... )

Nor do I think but for his pledge about Rand Paul, would LJ vote for HRC or any Democrat. Although perhaps if Trump was the GOP nominee I could convince him to vote on our side......

Mr. Trump has already done your work for you; over the course of his "campaign" he has persuaded me that he is so godawful that if by some nightmare scenario he were nominated, it wouldn't be enough just to not vote or vote third party...He has earned himself a position next to Rand Paul in very lowest rung of candidates...

And while you are correct in saying that otherwise I won't be voting for any Democrat for President, it's also highly unlikely that when the Democrats have their first debate, (I understand they're planning on having six, which is more than I expected.) that you will see me say that I think every single one of them did poorly....

When assessing how I believe a politician is coming across, I'm pretty good about not letting my philosophical views about their positions color my analysis...

You may recall the glowing review I gave a nationally unknown Illinois Senate candidate for his keynote speech at the 2004 convention....

[wesw]

if it hadn t been for his going "all in" with the Obama program for national destruction, I could have seen myself voting for Joe Biden.

I have supported him before.

I don t limit my vote to republicans.

I have voted for many more democrats than I have for republicans in my life.

that ship has sailed for the immediate future tho.

I have no loyalty to any political party.

independent voter here, and the dems have lost me...., along with many others

[Guinevere]

Jim, where exactly did I say "all of them did poorly." Show me, please, because I just re-read what I wrote, and that isn't what i said. I didn't say any of them did well, true. But that isn't the same thing.

And really, did *you* think any of them did well?

[Lord Jim]

Jim, where exactly did I say "all of them did poorly."

Sue said, (among other things):

everyone on that stage came off poorly.

And you replied to her post with a standing ovation...

If I were to give someone a standing ovation for a post, it would mean I agreed with everything in the post....

I guess you didn't mean that...

What I said earlier was that because of the time limitations with so many candidates it would be difficult for anyone to stand out well. Despite that I think Kasich definitely helped himself and that Rubio also probably helped himself somewhat. I thought Christie also did fairly well.

Several did particularly poorly (besides Trump I would include Paul and Carson, and I think Huckabee came across a bit unhinged) but for most, with only 6-8 minutes of speaking time interspersed with nine other candidates being questioned in a ninety minute debate, I don't think they made a particularly strong impression one way or the other...(Including Jeb)

[Guinevere]

I think the facial expressions and body language said a lot, particularly with Jeb. The others also spoke volumes with *how* they spoke.

As for Sue's post, you're correct, it opened with "they all did poorly" but I was really reacting to the Jesus/PP chest thumping comments when I submitted my Standing O.

So sue me

[RayThom]

Apparently, like assholes, everybody has one.

Best of all there are still 456 days and 12 hours to go. Statistically, someone now arguing these deep, issue driven, finer points of politics are likely not to be around on November 8, 2016. Me? I'll have a more rounded opinion after the RNC and DNC conventions are over next July. You gotta' love our electoral system. (No one else does. And the whole world's watching.)

God bless America!

[Econoline]

Good luck finding that OFF button...

[Lord Jim]

Trumpty Dumpty has been whining about is that he supposedly was the only one asked tough questions. Here are the first questions that each of the other nine were asked:

KELLY: Gentlemen, our first round of questions is on the subject of electability in the general election, and we start tonight with you, Dr. Carson.

You are a successful neurosurgeon, but you admit that you have had to study up on foreign policy, saying there's a lot to learn.

Your critics say that your inexperience shows. You've suggested that the Baltic States are not a part of NATO, just months ago you were unfamiliar with the major political parties and government in Israel, and domestically, you thought Alan Greenspan had been treasury secretary instead of federal reserve chair.

Aren't these basic mistakes, and don't they raise legitimate questions about whether you are ready to be president?


WALLACE: Senator Rubio, when Jeb Bush announced his candidacy for presidency, he said this: "There's no passing off responsibility when you're a governor, no blending into the legislative crowd."

Could you please address Governor Bush across the stage here, and explain to him why you, someone who has never held executive office, are better prepared to be president than he is, a man who you say did a great job running your state of Florida for eight years.


BAIER: Governor Bush, you have insisted that you're your own man. You say you have a life experience uniquely your own. Not your father's, not your brother's.

But there are several opponents on this stage who get big- applause lines in early voting states with this line: quote, "the last thing the country needs is another Bush in the Oval Office."

So do you understand the real concern in this country about dynastic politics?


WALLACE: Senator Cruz, your colleague, Senator Paul, right there next to you, said a few months ago he agrees with you on a number of issues, but he says you do nothing to grow the party. He says you feed red meat to the base, but you don't reach out to minorities. You have a toxic relationship with GOP leaders in Congress. You even called the Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell a liar recently.

How can you win in 2016 when you're such a divisive figure?


BAIER: Governor Christie, you're not exactly the darling of conservatives. You tout your record as a Republican governor in a blue state. On Facebook, the most people talking about you, not surprisingly, come from your state of New Jersey, and one of the top issues they are talking about is the economy.

This -- this may be why. Under your watch, New Jersey has undergone nine credit rating downgrades. The state's 44th in private sector growth. You face an employee pension crisis and the Garden State has the third highest foreclosure rate in the country. So why should voters believe that your management of the country's finances would be any different?


KELLY: Governor Walker, you've consistently said that you want to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. You recently signed an abortion law in Wisconsin that does have an exception for the mother's life, but you're on the record as having objected to it. Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion, and with 83 percent of the American public in favor of a life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election?


WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, like Governor Walker, you have staked out strong positions on social issues. You favor a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. You favor a constitutional amendment banning abortions, except for the life of the mother. Millions of people in this country agree with you, but according to the polls, and again this an electability question, according to the polls, more people don't, so how do you persuade enough Independents and Democrats to get elected in 2016?


BAIER: Senator Paul, you recently blamed the rise of ISIS on Republican hawks. You later said that that statement, you could have said it better. But, the statement went on, and you said, quote, "Everything they've talked about in foreign policy, they've been wrong for the last 20 years."

Why are you so quick to blame your own party?


KELLY: Governor Kasich, You chose to expand Medicaid in your state, unlike several other governors on this stage tonight, and it is already over budget by some estimates costing taxpayers an additional $1.4 billion in just the first 18 months. You defended your Medicaid expansion by invoking God, saying to skeptics that when they arrive in heaven, Saint Peter isn't going to ask them how small they've kept government, but what they have done for the poor. Why should Republican voters, who generally want to shrink government, believe that you won't use your Saint Peter rationale to expand every government program?

Not seein' a whole lot of softballs in there Donald...

What Wallace, Kelly and Baier did, (as Kelly announced at the outset was their intention) was to ask tough, blunt questions that went directly to what is seen as each candidates specific greatest electoral weakness...

In Trump's case, this clearly is his use of language and his personal demeanor and temperament , making Kelly's question entirely appropriate and completely in line with the approach taken to every other candidate.

[Sue U]

And if someone says that Hillary Clinton comes across as an "out of touch Grandma" will you consider that a comment on her "public performance/stated positions" or will you call them a sexist hater?

I wouldn't consider that sexist; I used "grandpa" in my description of Kasich because he seemed to reflect opinions that I would generally associate with the oldz, regardless of whether male or female. And he even said specifically "I'm an old-fashioned person here" when asked about marriage equality. Even though Hillz is in fact a grandma, I haven't heard her express anything so retrograde; if she had, I'd probably have said something similar about her. From a substantive perspective I don't think Kasich made any kind of case for his own candidacy; his appearance may have helped some with name recognition outside of Ohio, but that's about it.

And while you are correct in saying that otherwise I won't be voting for any Democrat for President, it's also highly unlikely that when the Democrats have their first debate, (I understand they're planning on having six, which is more than I expected.) that you will see me say that I think every single one of them did poorly....

When assessing how I believe a politician is coming across, I'm pretty good about not letting my philosophical views about their positions color my analysis...

I said I thought they all came off poorly because I thought they did. If I thought one or more did particularly well, I am not above saying so. I think I have been pretty consistent in saying I think Marc Rubio is telegenic, does a good job speaking (the Great Thirst incident notwithstanding), and actually has some substantive issues he wants to address in a thoughtful manner. I disagree strongly with his policy prescriptions, but I think he is honest, earnest, sincere and has a genuine desire for pubic service. I haven't seen him pander the way many of the others on that stage have shamelessly done. But I think Hillary would murder him in the general election, and his performance at the debate only reinforced my opinion. I think he may be an excellent candidate for the GOP in 2024, though.

I agree with you that the number of candidates on stage and the format were obstacles to overcome for anyone to stand out, but Donald Trump had little difficulty making the show all about him. And that, as I have said before, is the entire problem: as long as he is in the room, everything is always going to be about him.

[wesw]

lookit, I m not above using thru and tho. , but if I ever start substituting z's for s's , please shoot me......

[TPFKA@W]

lookit, I m not above using thru and tho. , but if I ever start substituting z's for s's , please shoot me......

Shades of locotek. Her z to thing was so awful.

[Sue U]

Mine is satire.