The Official Fox News/Google Debate Discussion Thread

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Every anchor on FOX News looks like they belong in a Don Henley song.

Dirty Laundry, it's called.  Yes, they all look the part.  Even old Geraldo still looks buff with his porn-star moustache.  But they do go out of their way to avoid the bubble-headedness.  Fox sort of invented the motif of the generally attractive yet well-versed anchor.    They specialize in sensationalistic, agenda-driven reporting, where you can get your news and editorializing all in one fell swoop, without even having to turn the page, so it's important to have that edge.  Actually, that's the one thing about Fox that I really like.


Here's what the news reporters used to look like when I was a child:




But thanks to Fox, here's what they look like now:




And other news channels have started following suit:




Apparently that channel wants you to notice it from all angles:




And it isn't just in the US.  Here's a hot newsie from France:




Even the Arabs are catching on:



Peace be upon you, baby.


Anyway, back to topic.  I'm hoping that there'll be some serious foreign policy questions tonight.  And I seriously hope Megyn holds their feet to the fire.  Make 'em answer the questions when they try to delve into campaign speeches. 

Not to digress again, but speaking of feet--actually, this isn't off-topic since it contains references to both the moderator of the debate and one of the debate sponsors--but sometime when you're bored, type in "Megyn Kelly Feet" in the Google Video Search.  Check it out. 

This is Florida. When it comes to foreign policy, the prevailing sentiment is "Israel must be protected on pain of death!". I wouldn't be too surprised if Perry advocating genocide of all Palestinians for Israeli resettlement results in cheers and whoops.

Perry and Romney will slug each other, and Perry will probably be a giant target. Nothing new there.

Santorum will either aim for Perry on social issues or aim for Paul on foreign policy. He probably can't manage to repeat his performance of last time (not that it made the slightest difference to his polling numbers). Perry is the easier target in terms of knowledge and directions to attack from, but since this is Little-Israel he will have no better chance to batter at Paul. Paul normally has to tread carefully when arguing foreign policy (See: his unfortunate wording in the last one), and if he is put into a bad corner and has to say anything short of "Israel is not heaven on Earth" he will be booed like there is no tomorrow. He might be able to escape if he manages to deflect the attack by changing the subject to the UN, though.

Should be fun.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Ronnie has been improving his oration alright. He took a question on an issue he is usually viewed to be weak on, flipped it around, and managed to get big cheers anyway when it looked like he was going to get booed.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Rick Perry sounded drunk right there. I think its after his nap time.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Romney did pretty poorly at first, and improved to "acceptable + empty rhetoric" by the end.

Perry did okay at first, and then suddenly started attacking Romney while sounding like a drunk and slurring his words.

They both lost. Johnson made himself look pretty good, Paul made himself look like a very much serious candidate, and Cain did a fine job that might push him back up partway to where he was.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Come noon on January 20th, 2013 there will be a former Pres. Barack Obama, and the new president will be Mitt Romney Ron Paul

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Come noon on January 20th, 2013 there will be a former Pres. Barack Obama, and the new president will be Mitt Romney Ron Paul

Respectively I think not.

Romney performed acceptably at best (after a couple initial slips at first). He was very vulnerable at several points, but Perry lost the chance by slurring like a drunk in wild accusations while Santorum yelled and got mad. The only conceivable way to claim this as a Romney victory is to assume every non-Perry candidate drops dead.

Frankly, the two frontrunners performed worst. Santorum did marginally better, but his angry yelling hurt, while Bachmann failed to make any impression. Gingrich, Johnson, and Huntsman did decent. Cain and Paul performed exceptionally well. At no point did either of them slip over their own words. Paul's best performance came from the hardest questions (the "border wall keeping you in" question was probably his best answer, actually), he kept an audience that wasn't especially supportive completely in his pocket, and he plugged his electability.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Folks here seem to be missing that Perry is allowing Mitt to appear to move to the right of him, especially on immigration.

After watching tonight, Perry is done, long-term, which leaves Mitt as the only announced candidate with a chance at the nomination.  Watch.

Rick Perry is a Bush 3.0 if elected in 2012. We don't need 4 terms of Bush (16 years).  I'd like to see a Romney vs Paul debate!

Perry's performance doesn't even have the benefit of the support of the pundits this time. Romney's performance was better, which means Perry's chances of winning the nomination are rapidly going down the drain.

However, Romney just isn't a strong frontrunner, as shown by how every two-bit newcomer with media support overtakes him each month before collapsing. The only one who could enter at this point and take Perry's "flavour of the month" position would be Palin, and she doesn't seem very serious. So it looks like Paul is going to be taking that spot.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Folks here seem to be missing that Perry is allowing Mitt to appear to move to the right of him, especially on immigration.

After watching tonight, Perry is done, long-term, which leaves Mitt as the only announced candidate with a chance at the nomination.  Watch.

Rick Perry is a Bush 3.0 if elected in 2012. We don't need 4 terms of Bush (16 years).  I'd like to see a Romney vs Paul debate!

Perry's performance doesn't even have the benefit of the support of the pundits this time. Romney's performance was better, which means Perry's chances of winning the nomination are rapidly going down the drain.

However, Romney just isn't a strong frontrunner, as shown by how every two-bit newcomer with media support overtakes him each month before collapsing. The only one who could enter at this point and take Perry's "flavour of the month" position would be Palin, and she doesn't seem very serious. So it looks like Paul is going to be taking that spot.

I doubt Paul will, he doesn't appeal to the evangelical crazy crowd.

Romney appeals to them even less, and the rest of the field is, either in terms of support or in terms of campaign infrastructure/finance, dead in the water. Unless Perry proves himself to be the Black Knight, someone will be sliding into his current spot. If that someone isn't Palin (and even if it is Palin, I doubt she'd last that long for the same reasons as Perry), it will probably be Paul.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Folks here seem to be missing that Perry is allowing Mitt to appear to move to the right of him, especially on immigration.

After watching tonight, Perry is done, long-term, which leaves Mitt as the only announced candidate with a chance at the nomination.  Watch.

Better late than never Sam.  But Perry is the best thing that ever happened to Mitt. He gets a chance to appear adult, and more knowledgable, and nuanced, again and again, while Perry and Bachmann and Santorum chew each other up. I'm sure Mitttens hopes they all stay in through Florida. After that, it's over.

Oh, one other thing: as each drops out, they will endorse Mitt.

I dont think Mitt will get all of them in the end. Paul won't drop out. I liked that Cain was getting quite a bit of vp love. The anti-Romney is Ron Paul not Perry. La ti da will come back to bite Perry.

Paul can and has made quite a few inroads to the evangelical community and we haven't forgotten.

Paul won't be endorsing, won't ever drop out, and won't ever win. He's sui generis. He's Don Quixote, and he's actually becoming a bit more likable - toning done his old man whine schtick a bit.

Fixed that for you.

His polling numbers have been improving over time, and that was with his effective flub in the last debate. He outlined policy, he didn't screw up delivery, and he managed to make himself appear electable despite getting maybe 5-8 minutes total of speaking (the "Google interruptions" that mentioned him maybe half the time helped, too).

His odds aren't amazing, but they certainly exist and are higher than those of most of the field.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Paul is Paul. His debate performance is exactly how you would expect it go. Same points, same temperament. He has to be the most remarkably consistent debater I've ever seen. You've seen him once you've seen them all.

That's why I see no way Paul ever gets above 15% in the Republican primary. He has his loyal set of fans but will fail at attracting a much wider audience. If you are at all familiar with him you can practically predict his answer to ever question.

It also screams hackishness when people actually vote for Paul for the "who benefited from this debate" or say their opinion of Paul improved after a debate because if you've haven't figured his views out by now, you're not paying attention. Anyone who votes that way is likely just doing so because they are a Paul supporter and not because watching a debate changed their mind.

The word for someone who changes their mind every time a debate question comes up is "flip-flopper".

Performance and articulation make all the difference. Paul's performance in the last debate wasn't winning because it wasn't put well and he tripped up on foreign policy. Paul in this debate, despite being given less time than sideshows like Santorum, articulated his points extremely well, didn't ramble about his pet issues (Federal Reserve, etc), and generally did fine.

But of course, for some people, Ron Paul would be considered to have a "bad performance" regardless of what he says or how much support he gains.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

For some people, Ron Paul would be considered to have a "bad performance" regardless of what he says or how much support he gains.

Well, he has a tendency to seem like he's ranting: he goes on tangents that seem off-topic, he gets visibly over-excited when he talks about his favorite issues, and he refers to concepts and arguments that most debate viewers probably have no familiarity with. And his esoteric positions are bound to cause him trouble, no matter how well he can explain himself. Regardless of the merits of his positions, he sounds loopy to the uninitiated.

Paul is also really poorly endowed with regard to almost all of the superficial qualities that have been shown to influence voters (poor posture, waves his arms wildly when he talks, wispy stature, high pitched voice that frequently cracks, talks really fast). He'd perform better if he didn't suffer from these disadvantages.

But that's exactly why he did better at this debate compared to the others!

Usually he has a way of going on a long winded rant when asked a question. This time, his first question was answered very briefly and concisely, which he was then invited to expand on. He laid out the most important points and he said them clearly rather than endlessly extrapolate until reaching "The Federal Reserve is the problem!".

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

But that's exactly why he did better at this debate compared to the others!

Usually he has a way of going on a long winded rant when asked a question. This time, his first question was answered very briefly and concisely, which he was then invited to expand on. He laid out the most important points and he said them clearly rather than endlessly extrapolate until reaching "The Federal Reserve is the problem!".

I forgot to indicate my agreement with you on this point in my previous post. In my opinion, this was Paul's best debate performance yet. He lacked any really great moments (I guess he should have plagiarized a joke or told a personal story that totally misrepresented actual policy if he wanted one), but he looked polished and professional and managed to answer every question succinctly and directly.

Understandable that he had no great moments, though. He received the second least time to speak, behind Johnson, with five questions, 4 minutes thirty seconds of speaking time, and no questions that he might have turned into a great moment (foreign policy). It was probably the most obviously biased debate yet (When Ron was brought up in the pre-debate, the response was "Lets not talk about him"), which makes it surprising that he did well.

Anyway, he was aiming less for "Ron Paul sticks it to the man again!" and more trying to present himself in a way that doesn't alienate Republican voters. Considering the only negativity I have heard about his performance was along the lines of "Well, Ron Paul doesn't count for anything because he can't win because I say so", making it a good sign.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Anyway, he was aiming less for "Ron Paul sticks it to the man again!" and more trying to present himself in a way that doesn't alienate Republican voters. Considering the only negativity I have heard about his performance was along the lines of "Well, Ron Paul doesn't count for anything because he can't win because I say so", making it a good sign.

His campaign definitely seems to have adopted a different tone, and this was the first debate in which his performance reflected this change. But there's still plenty of daylight between Paul and most primary voters on foreign policy and social issues, his spirited and effective defense of his pro-life credentials aside.

Imagine Perry imploding and Ron Paul suddenly surging to 25% in polls. Can you imagine how Paul would stand up to the kind of volleys that Romney, Santorum, and Bachmann would undoubtedly send his way both in and out of the debates? (Admittedly, it'd be difficult to perform worse than Perry in the debates, at least.) Think about endorsements, too: How many Republican senators and governors would be willing to publicly support Paul?

Paul's debate style is kind of the opposite of Perry's; when pressed on an issue, he becomes more articulate, clearer, and far more interesting to watch (whereas Perry flails wildly and falls apart). So long as he doesn't screw up his wording (like he did last time by quoting Bin Laden), he would happily argue with the entire Republican field.

Anyway, they would have a much harder time attacking Paul. Most of them are basically copy-pasting his old policies wholesale and remarketing them, and he could call them out on their respective deficiencies without much trouble. Romney, for example is an extremely vulnerable candidate, but Perry has been wasting his time attacking Romneycare from the exact direction that Romney wants him to attack ("Its like Obamacare!"). Perry came close to really damaging Romney when he suddenly went on a rant, but he blew it by sounding like he was a drunk. The rest it really varies, but Gingrich doesn't like attacks, Huntsman has very few areas where he could convincingly shoot at Paul, Bachmann has yet to say a bad thing about him (she in particular loves to take his ideas and repackage them, so no surprise there), Santorum attacking Paul will almost always result in Paul getting the better end of it unless Paul shoots himself in the foot, and Cain has no grounds to attack. I can think of maybe three issues that Paul couldn't turn into successful claims with ease.