Liveblogging the Republican Debate

Well, I didn’t think it was going to happen, but it looks as though the stars are aligned and I will have an opportunity to provide live play by play commentary for the Republican Debate happening now  on CNBC (an encore presentation will apparently be televised during primetime on MSNBC).

As is typical for our liveblogging efforts, the liveblogging will actually take place in the comments section below and anyone not partaking in a blatant spam effort are welcome to join in.

With that said, away we go.

63 Responses to “Liveblogging the Republican Debate”

  1. Tancredo, same question?

    Not if he doesn’t agree with who it is.

  2. Brownback, same question?

    Yes because they will be pro growth and pro life.

  3. Hunter, same question?

    He said something about Republicans respecting human beings, and I kinda just laughed through the rest of his answer.

  4. Rudy, will London replace New York as the economic center of the world?

    Got schooled on the stats by Maria, and Giuliani goes into patriotism, but fails to address Maria’s facts.

  5. Romney, same question?

    Of course New York will not be replaced. and he will support the republican nominee, and evokes Ron Reagan.

  6. Romney gets a DAMN good dig on Thompson.

  7. Fred, how would you get along with Canadian minister Harper?

    Talks about the GWOT ™.

    I wish I could take comfort in knowing that now the GOP voters will see he has no clothes, but I haven’t much faith.

  8. Huckabee on air travel, and he’s got way more to say than can be encompassed in thirty seconds.

  9. McCain, how would you catch bin Laden?

    Develop an OSS type organization. Anything it takes… I kinda take umberage with this idea.

  10. Romney, what is the biggest long term threat to the country?

    Lack of optimism. I totally disagree with his answer, but he delivers it well, and I’ll reiterate something that I’ve said many times before. Of all the people on the stage, Romney is the candidate who most embodies presidentialism.

  11. And that puts an end to this… well… I’ll be nice.

    I’ll be honest, there were some somewhat pleasant surprises in this debate. The fact that some of the candidates were willing to at least acknowledge certain things such as climate change and the vast disparity between the uber rich and the dwindling middle class was something of a breath of fresh air.

    Also, it should be noted that Hillary Clinton has been named multiple times, indicating that this is not just the inevitable candidate, but also, the preferred one (for more on this, you can search our site for conventional wisdom for my opinion on this phenomenon).

    But for the most part, you can imagine my disagreement with much of what was said this afternoon.

    Some other things of note. I think Mitt Romney looked particularly strong during the event, and would be, I would say, a conclusive winner. McCain also looked strong, and you would not know his campaign is struggling from the performance he turned in.

    Giuliani continues to be somewhat charming if you don’t find the entire idea of the man completely offensive, and he will have done little to hurt his standing.

    The real crapshoot is Fred Thompson who delivered a meandering performance. He looked as though he came to the debate with a handfull of jokes and talking points, and he seemed to meander from those two things an awful lot into a nearly hypnotic state of rambling.

    It will of course come down to the voters, but I would hope that they had enough sense to realize this guy is all smoke, and no fire.

    Thanks for staying with me through this liveblogging event, and have a good evening.

  12. lester says:

    that debate was total garbage. the last debate, the one all the frontunners bowed out of, was the only passable one they’ve had. Even Alan keyes, who is insane and has no eyebrows, had a good night. There was a camraderie between the candidates and the audience.

    in sharp contrast was this dimly lit cold boring waste of time. Why don’t they just go down the line with the question? Why do we need to hear Mitt Romney answer 5 times and huckabbe once? Does huckabee have tourettes? The last debate they went down the line so you knew when the person was going to speak and what they were going to ask. Mitt Romney, Rudy Guliani, John Mcain and now Fred Thompson are the most boring pieces of shit imaginable. John Mcain gave the most bush-like / retarded answer I’ve heard since Bush himself when asked about the interest rates, he said he didnt know but that’s why h’e’ll appoint guys like bernanke to do a real good job.

    this answer you noted

    “Brownback. Halfway decent answer that goes beyond just not raising taxes, or cutting spending, but goes into some decent specifics, and I’m not thoroughly opposed to a Brac like kind of deal for more than just the military as far as government programs.”

    was the only non ron paul answer that had any substance at all to it. Mike Huckabee sholdn’t have bothered showing up.

    who likes these things? i don’t care how much of a Romney or Mcain supporter someone is, you can’t enjoy watching them give those answers. “bored to tears” is not just a figure of speech

  13. Dooglio says:

    I agree with lester. The whole debate was mostly a waste of time, and clearly weighted to the “favorite” candidates. I thought they treated Ron Paul unfairly–he’s the only candidate with anything worth saying. At least, when he did speak, he nailed the others on their “war propaganda” speech. I liked the way that just hung in the room and you got to watch the others struggle for a bit trying to dodge it with more patriotic platitudes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook