Custom Search

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Bloomberg/Washington Post Republican Presidential Debate: Transcript Link and Commentary

By Susan Duclos

The Bloomberg/Washington Post Republican Presidential Debate was Tuesday, Oct 11 at 8 p.m.

As promised, here is a link to the transcript.

As I always say, people that want to determine winners and losers of a debate should really read the transcript for themselves and not let analysis from others influence their thinking.

With that said I will admit to finding these debates tedious because anyone can come up with a "plan" for any given situation. A what if scenario. Anyone can make a promise to do (insert whatever here) but a president doesn't get to do anything he/she wants, they have to create proposals that will make it through both house's of Congress, so much of an agenda is determined by the make up of said Congress.

Quick rundown

Bachman: If she says "I was the leading voice" or "I'm a federal tax lawyer" one more time, I might scream. I like her, she has good points to make. I understand she is part of Congress and Congress is getting low marks of approval and she is trying to distance herself, but to constantly hear that same refrain of "I this" and "I that" and "I was" and "I did" is very annoying and for me it took away from her actual answers.

Perry: He is right when he says debates are not his strong suit, they aren't. He raises money like a machine, has a great record on jobs which will be one of the top issues in 2012, and is well received when he speaks publicly as well as when he is meeting with people in gatherings. He should focus on his strong points because those will be enough to keep him in the top tier.

Gingrich: Outspoken, calls stupid when he sees it and holds nothing back. Has good ideas but he doesn't resonate with people which will keep him low in the polls.

Romney: Not as inevitable as he thinks he is. Remember in 2007 everyone though Hillary was inevitable, things change in politics and Romney has style, but I do not think he will ever get around the fact that he socialized healthcare in his state and that model was used to help string together the monstrosity that is called Obamacare which the majority of the public still oppose.

Cain: His 999 plan has gotten a lot of attention and will continue to do so because he has actually produced a plan, talked it up and simplified it in a manner that it doesn't take a mathematician to understand. He also has a sense of humor which people respond to and business experience like Romney, without the excess baggage of Romneycare.

Paul: His supporters are loyal, he does well in straw polls, online polls and surveys but that never translates into hard core conservative support. He has some ideas many could get behind and others that seem to be "out there". When he first declared I said "The pity of it for Paul's 2011 supporters is they do not seem to be as irrational as the ones referred to above, but not many online media forums, MSM nor blogs, are willing to revisit the insanity of 2008. "

I still believe that to be true.

As for Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum, they talk and I fall asleep.

RCP averages have Romney, Cain and Perry all in double digits with Paul, Gingrich, Bachman, Santorum and Huntsman below 10 percent in polling.

No one truly has a lock on the nomination yet because in politics the polling numbers can change with one wrong word, phrase or mistake. Polling has settled down as the public gets to know the candidates and for me, the race has just started now that the field is set. I say that because Christie and Palin both have made it clear they will not be declaring so those hold-out supporters now have to determine which candidate to support in their place.