Patriot Groups throughout Arizona
LAST NIGHT THERE WAS A PARTY IN MESA AND I WAS THERE
It was a Republican Party and there was a big crowd and all seemed to have fun. It was also serious and informative and important, especially because next Tuesday the Republican Party Members vote in the Primary Election to choose who they want to be their contender against President Obama in the General Election just a few months from now. There were four candidates who debated the moderator of CNN and each other, and all held their own in their own way.
Here is how I saw it:
Ron Paul was quirky and condescending and constitutional, two bad traits and one good. He admitted that he was failing to get his message across "constitutionally" and "internationally" and was now trying to get it across "economically", but that wasn't working for him either. He fell lock stock and barrel for CNN's closing trick question, "what is the biggest misconception about your campaign?" and answered that it was he couldn't win. When CNN asked him to describe himself in one word (another stupid question), he said "CONSISTENT". He looked dejected and demoralized and defeated, and fully aware of his consistent image as an underdog.
Newt Gingrich was serious and analytic and intellectual, three good traits but none of which makes him popular with the people, and in politics you must be able to gain popularity. When CNN asked him to describe himself in one word, he said "CHEERFUL" which was no doubt what his handlers had told him over and over again what he had to be in order to gain popularity;it was a cute answer and got some laughs and it showed the stupidity of the CNN question; but it also showed me that he has resigned himself to defeat.
Rick Santorum was statesmanlike but not presidential. His punches on Romney were ineffective and Romney's punches on him were also ineffective, but Paul's punches on Santorum were hard and effective. Gingrich really didn't try to punch anybody, but instead spoke of himself and his accomplishments and his plans and his programs (commendable). Santorum took the punches as best he could but he became defensive and had to admit mistakes in his voting record (no child left behind); he also tried to say the "politics is a team sport" (earmarks) and sometimes you have to do what you have to do, none of which went over very well. Santorum lost a lot of ground in the debate and he knew it and it showed.
Mit Romney was presidential and resolute and unflappable. He counter-punched when he had to, but overall he spoke of himself, his positions, his accomplishments, and his plans (like Gingrich). He defended himself quickly and effectively when he needed to, then quickly regained the offensive, and then continued to push his message resolutely (totally unlike Santorum who was put on defense often and then could never seem to recover the offense). Romney was the only one who didn't fall for CNN's closing trick question; instead he gave a good closing statement and when the moderator interrupted him to ask him to give a misconception, Romney quipped, "You get to ask the questions, but I get to answer them", and then continued on message -- with that he showed me the leadership quality I am looking for in a President; a resolute leader with sound thinking who cannot be distracted.