Some Thoughts On the Debate Last Night and Candidates for Republican Nomination
Carly won. However, if you remember last go around, Gingrich also blew it away-yet he was not the nominee
2. Most of the candidates come off somewhat hapless and unPresidential
3. Paul and Carly were the only two I remember mentioning rights
4. Cruz and Trump were the only ones to call out Congress
5. No real questions about fixing/building the economy
6. Too much emphasis on the Border. I mean it's not a big plan issue. Just say you'll secure it. why get into details? BUT, the economy and wealth creation need to have a plan to sell to voters. One of my favorite comedies, Modern Family has a character who is always asking her ADD husband-"What's the PLAN PHIL?" that is my question for them. Hermann Cain did that well with his 9-9-9 plan. At first I thought it hokey, but it got people thinking and it was simple and covered the major bases. To be a successful front runner, I think you need a plan kinda like that. Regulation killing, agency checking, tax overhaul (abolish the IRS) and wealth creation-those can be articulated fairly simply. Foreign policy is harder and more controversial, so I would not make it my cornerstone(as Rand is currently doing).
What did I miss and what are your thoughts on what the candidates need to do in order to stand apart from the pack?
2. Most of the candidates come off somewhat hapless and unPresidential
3. Paul and Carly were the only two I remember mentioning rights
4. Cruz and Trump were the only ones to call out Congress
5. No real questions about fixing/building the economy
6. Too much emphasis on the Border. I mean it's not a big plan issue. Just say you'll secure it. why get into details? BUT, the economy and wealth creation need to have a plan to sell to voters. One of my favorite comedies, Modern Family has a character who is always asking her ADD husband-"What's the PLAN PHIL?" that is my question for them. Hermann Cain did that well with his 9-9-9 plan. At first I thought it hokey, but it got people thinking and it was simple and covered the major bases. To be a successful front runner, I think you need a plan kinda like that. Regulation killing, agency checking, tax overhaul (abolish the IRS) and wealth creation-those can be articulated fairly simply. Foreign policy is harder and more controversial, so I would not make it my cornerstone(as Rand is currently doing).
What did I miss and what are your thoughts on what the candidates need to do in order to stand apart from the pack?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
Fiorino as a politcal outsider is an unknown but as one comment went ruled the stage.
Jindal the only one I had much prior information about I see was listed with Ms Carly and #1 and #2
Another comment was too many people on the stage. Just the opposite were any registered candidates not there? That would be cause for complaint.
I doubt anyone changed their mind finding excuses for even the most lack luster RINOS but having started out at zero and picked the same two in advance I should start paying some attention at least to see how they are destroyed by the left.
As far as Paul is concerned he didn't sound pro Constitutional enough to offer an bill in Congress to reclaim the Bill of Rights. Lots of milage lacking in tread. unless I missed something in the commentaries.
Right time for the Night of the Long Knives. We'll see whose throats the DNC cut this time as they choose their Republican candidate. That's what being lapdogs is all about.
So... still not candidates besides left wing of the left and right wing of the left?
(Not that there was a lot of competition on that in particular.)
I enjoyed what Trump had to say. Rand Paul is my favorite but there's no way he'll get elected, let alone nominated by the party. He speaks of things way beyond the grasp of the average American - freedom, rights, the Constitution. People don't want to hear that stuff. They want their social security, and spicy sound bites.
Oh, and this is the first time I every really listened to Ben Carson. I was favorably impressed.
I'd rather not repeat that debacle on a larger scale, thanks. (Although it appears that O-racist and GWBush already beat Carly to it, paraphrasing Ben Carson ;^)
Being a good salesman is part of the job, but it isn't enough.
I completely agree with you, kh, on the paucity of details from candidates.
(At least that was my perception of your comment;^)
Part of that (maybe most) is due to the design of the "debate", which imo is designed to deliver sound bites, and prevent any substantial discussion.
From an earlier post: Candidates should be required to put forth a complete business plan for their presidency in order to get on the stage, and the contents of those business plans should be a substantial part of the discussion. I still think the debates should be one on one, head to head double elimination with ad hominem attacks banned with two infractions causing forfeiture of the debate.
(Being "eliminated" would not remove the candidate from the race, but would exclude the candidate from the rest of the playoffs.)
If I was running, my slogan might be: "It's The Corruption, Stupid"
Stop pretending to fix 3rd world countries' corrupt governments and fix ours.