I'm a big Rick Perry fan; he did okay, in the sense that he came across as firm and focused. His voice was disconcerting, though, and seemed to rise to a higher pitch when he was intense about a point. Didn't really distinguish himself.
Santorum: same ole, same ole.
Graham: looks physically weak but referred frequently to his war experience. This is not a disadvantage but it seemed Graham didn't offer much other than that. Read his final statement.
Pataki: Meh.
Gilmore: Don't know much about him, but he has an impressive resume. I liked him. Does he have any steam for his campaign? Meh.
Jindal: Impressive and articulate. Made some great points about immigration and getting away from regulations.
Carly: Strong, focused, unrelenting. Impressive leadership skills and came across as having an iron spine, just what you want in a national leader.
Contrary to some others, I thought the moderators were fair yet pressed the debaters with tough questions.
These people are great candidates; Republicans have nothing to be ashamed of when presenting these candidates.
ALSO: I like the fact that Carly is willing to take on the issue of Hillary's deceit and corruption in a way that male candidates cannot. Carly's playing well for the Republican party in general, fighting on the same ground Hillary holds.
No comments:
Post a Comment