Does anyone else think Romney just wiped the floor with McCain?

[Bounce]

So, having watched a good chunk of that debate, I was astounded at how frequently McCain managed to have his ass handed to him. It honestly was on the verge of embarrassing, and I don't have much of a horse in this race; if anything, I like both of the "other guys" at the table tonight than the front-runners. But I didn't expect the man who supposedly has so much momentum and is now expected to become the Republican nominee to look so utterly awful tonight.

Am I alone in this? Do other people think he did well?

[chiefhogskin48]

He looked bad, but I don't think it matters. Romney sucks, and no amount of lobbying by Rush Limbaugh and other desperate demagogues will make him likeable.

But yeah, hopefully not many people were watching. :laugh:

[SkinsHokieFan]

He looked bad, but I don't think it matters. Romney sucks, and no amount of lobbying by Rush Limbaugh and other desperate demagogues will make him likeable.

But yeah, hopefully not many people were watching. :laugh:

The three new famous letters on ES.....QFT

[PeterMP]

He didn't look good, but it is hard to do so when it is really everybody is against you.

It isn't like Romney looked great. Why a MA govenor would bring up the big dig during a debate is beyond me. The news paper editorial issue was a net lost for Romney. Again, why bring something like that up if you aren't even getting the endorsement of the conservative newspaper in your own state or can't give a single endorsement of a conservative paper for yourself? Samething about NOT serveing in the military.

McCain isn't the best public speaker. I wish he was better. For example on the last question, he should have left out the foot shoulder in the Reagan revolution part out. He needs to move away from that. It is better for him to talk about the people that were part of the Reagan Cabinent that support him, which is more than any other candidate. Get the new info out there.

On the whole timetable thing, if you look at the whole thing it is clear that the questioner assumed he meant a secret timetable:

"QUESTION: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, there's no question but that -- the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.

QUESTION: So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition."

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/mccains_conversation_changer_a.html

emphasis added is mine:

A PRIVATE timetable. Romney made no effort to correct the questioner. That McCain raised it when he did was a little dirty, but it seems clear that Romney is at best leaving himself room to support a secret timetable.

McCain should have actually gotten the whole quote and done it better. The way he was putting together two parts it actually sounded like that Romney didn't support a timetable.

[88Comrade2000]

Terminator is endorsing him! Arnold can make them forget about this debate.

[prophet]

Romney did well.

McCain is a grumpy old man, and looked bad tonight.

but,

The winner is!

CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider: "Huckabee, I think, stood out in this debate as the one who made sense, talked as ordinary people do, and rose above politics.

I think the one who really helped himself was Huckabee.

All in all: Huckabee gained ground, McCain probably lost ground, and Romney didn’t help or hurt himself – although he did effectively defend himself. McCain sounded petty – and that’s not the McCain voters know and like.

But to the extent that Huckabee may have made any gains from his performance, Romney’s got bigger worries out of tonight than the Arizona senator."

[PeterMP]

Romney did well.

McCain is a grumpy old man, and looked bad tonight.

but,

The winner is!

CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider: "Huckabee, I think, stood out in this debate as the one who made sense, talked as ordinary people do, and rose above politics.

I think the one who really helped himself was Huckabee.

All in all: Huckabee gained ground, McCain probably lost ground, and Romney didn’t help or hurt himself – although he did effectively defend himself. McCain sounded petty – and that’s not the McCain voters know and like.

But to the extent that Huckabee may have made any gains from his performance, Romney’s got bigger worries out of tonight than the Arizona senator."

Huckabee looked the best. The question is does it really help him reach new voters.

[prophet]

Huckabee looked the best. The question is does it really help him reach new voters.

Its all about winning the southern states.

If he pulls off a victory in the states in which he is currently leading in the polls(Super Tuesday)

Tenn, Ga, Bama, Mo, OK

Its going to get intresting, because we are going to convention.

I'm just glad the likes of Rush, Hannity, and Coulter have all crapped their pampers.

[expensivegift]

For me I think the biggest difference was in the posture and body language.

McCain looked uncomfortable sitting next to Romney. He was slouched over even when he was talking and it did not look good when Romney was sitting next to him looking almost like a towering figure.

But all that doesn't matter because the Governator is endorsing McCain.

[DaveMason]

PeterMP, I still think it's a stretch to call that a "timetable". Romney is basically saying we need to set some goals, and once we reach those set goals, then yes, we start to withdraw troops. If I'm understanding McCain's line of thinking, the only way to NOT support timetables is to literally stay in Iraq forever. That is nuts.

So to answer the original poster's question: yes, I think Romney beat McCain in this debate...but I've thought the same thing in a lot of previous debates, and the reaction amongst mainstream republicans is that Romney is "petty" or "too slick/salesman-like". No matter how great a speaker/debator he may be, if people don't like him then people don't like him. This debate will not improve his chances for the nomination.

Looks like we're getting a Hilary/McCain election. I predict a record low turnout, with only 6 voters total, nationwide. The election will end in a 3-3 tie.

[prophet]

Though RP won the online poll again... :laugh:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Schneider: The night's big winner: Huckabee

Posted: 09:49 PM ET

Huckabee performed well, Schneider says.

Huckabee, I think, stood out in this debate as the one who made sense, talked as ordinary people do, and rose above politics. They may have scored. He connected. And that’s a problem for Romney, who would like to become the alternative to John McCain among conservatives who oppose the Arizona senator. But he has very tough competition from Huckabee, who’s forcing people to re-think his run at a time when he was supposed to be out of the game.

But this has always been the way he’s worked: Romney uses money to stay competitive. Huckabee has debates.

I don’t think McCain made many gains – and I think he may have caused people to re-think the race. I don’t think this was his strongest night, not because he was under attack. But because he wasn’t a straight talker. He talked very much like a politician. He was making a lot of charges at Romney – some of which, like the timetable charge, seemed very questionable.

A couple of Romney’s answers were quite good, particularly on the Iraq timetables issue. I don’t think he did himself any harm. But I think the one who really helped himself was Huckabee.

All in all: Huckabee gained ground, McCain probably lost ground, and Romney didn’t help or hurt himself – although he did effectively defend himself. McCain sounded petty – and that’s not the McCain voters know and like.

But to the extent that Huckabee may have made any gains from his performance, Romney’s got bigger worries out of tonight than the Arizona senator.

[GibbsFactor]

Well Ron did win. Watch again, he got the most applause relative to the time he had to talk. Anderson said he wants to give everyone the first question, skipped Paul, then promised him a chance in two questions, skipped him again. But whatever.

[prophet]

Schneider: Huckabee makes a great case

Posted: 09:32 PM ET

This is one of the better answers for why a governor should become president I’ve ever heard — a very compelling and eloquent answer. This is how he scores points in debates — in this case, a well-spoken defense of federalism, a very deep Republican theme.

He simply speaks in terms people relate to. He makes sense.

Related: Watch Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul debate the Iraq war

– CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider

[chiefhogskin48]

Prophet,

I admire your passion for Huckabee, but he doesn't have a puncher's chance on Super Tuesday. He does well only with evangelicals, which will not deliver him enough states.

As for Romney, he will pull a Hillary and stop at nothing to get the nomination. He has to use his own money because nobody likes him enough to actually donate to his sham of a campaign.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Prophet,

I admire your passion for Huckabee, but he doesn't have a puncher's chance on Super Tuesday. He does well only with evangelicals, which will not deliver him enough states.

As for Romney, he will pull a Hillary and stop at nothing to get the nomination. He has to use his own money because nobody likes him enough to actually donate to his sham of a campaign.

I'm pretty sure his Mormon brothers have blown up his coffers with cash. That's how they roll. But yeah, he is a douche.

[PeterMP]

PeterMP, I still think it's a stretch to call that a "timetable". Romney is basically saying we need to set some goals, and once we reach those set goals, then yes, we start to withdraw troops. If I'm understanding McCain's line of thinking, the only way to NOT support timetables is to literally stay in Iraq forever. That is nuts.

I don't see how that arguement holds. The question asked about a timetable for withdraw because the war is unpopular.

If the question was about how do you determine or measure our rate of success in Iraq, then I think that makes more sense.

Let's even take his example of the Rhine. What he said is that if we didn't reach the Rhine by a certain date then we'd withdraw, and you can't tell the enemy that because then all they have to do is deny you that goal until that certain time, and then they win.

Do you think the US military had a deadline by which they were suppossed to reach the Rhine or they were going to withdraw secret or not? I'm sure they had a timetable by which they wanted to reach the Rhine after D-Day, but no, they didn't think in terms of defeat so that wouldn't have been tied to withdraw.

The flip of that is Romney is saying in Iraq that we should have had a secret timetable (that the Iraqis would know about, which means it would almost certainly have leaked to Al Qeada), and if we didn't meet those objective, we should have left.

The flip side is that McCain doesn't believe we should be there all the time if things don't go well. It just isn't clear how he's going to determine when to withdraw if things don't go well. By the way, I don't necessarily support the view McCain is advocating here. Just that I don't think calling him a liar is fair here.

[prophet]

Prophet,

I admire your passion for Huckabee, but he doesn't have a puncher's chance on Super Tuesday. He does well only with evangelicals, which will not deliver him enough states.

As for Romney, he will pull a Hillary and stop at nothing to get the nomination. He has to use his own money because nobody likes him enough to actually donate to his sham of a campaign.

You may be right, but it is not over yet.

I agree with you on Romney, but it looked like McCain was the one who was in trouble tonight. I can not explain why he acted like he did tonight. Does he want to fumble his chances? It reminded me of Byner when he played for the browns when he fumbled against denver.

[E-Dog Night]

he should have left out the foot shoulder in the Reagan revolution part out.

Now that you mention it, my foot shoulder has been kinda achy lately. Always happens when the weather gets cold.

[Mickalino]

It reminded me of Byner when he played for the browns when he fumbled against denver.

But that would be a good sign for McCain, considering the great things Byner went on to do with the Skins, after that fumble.

[GibbsFactor]

So who here thinks that Iraq will one day be as stable a place for our troops as Japan and Germany?

[prophet]

So who here thinks that Iraq will one day be as stable a place for our troops as Japan and Germany?

Personally Nope.

But I don't think we just pack up, and leave tomorrow.

[Oldskool]

Two face is always going to come off slicker than McCain and McCain did look tired tonight.

But it doesn't matter really, McCain has the moderate vote of the GOP and will win the nomination. Conservatives are, if anything, prudent people and will embrace him once he is the nominee.

[twa]

So who here thinks that Iraq will one day be as stable a place for our troops as Japan and Germany?

Why not?

Both those seemed about as unlikely at the time I would think,and I know you can easily get into trouble in Germany today.

[twa]

But it doesn't matter really, McCain has the moderate vote of the GOP and will win the nomination. Conservatives are, if anything, prudent people and will embrace him once he is the nominee.

Perhaps...unless he takes Huck as VP, then even Hillary looks better imo.

[DaveMason]

The flip side is that McCain doesn't believe we should be there all the time if things don't go well. It just isn't clear how he's going to determine when to withdraw if things don't go well. By the way, I don't necessarily support the view McCain is advocating here. Just that I don't think calling him a liar is fair here.

I think it's fair to say that he's a liar. Just look at his quotes in the original AP article.

"Clearly, the impression was that he was ready to set a date for withdrawal. You can't read it any other way," McCain explained.

...

Speaking in Fort Myers, Fla., McCain said of Iraq: "If we surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do, and withdraw, as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost of American blood and treasure would be dramatically higher."

...

"Now, one of my opponents wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster."

It definitely sounds to me like McCain is accusing Romney of setting a firm date and then pulling the troops out no matter what. Romney has never supported that. Unless I'm misreading the original quote that you posted, he was simply in favor of setting internal goals. For instance, "let's achieve goal x by date y, and if that happens we can quietly start to scale back troops". That is a far cry from "let's wait until date y. if things aren't fixed by then, we're pulling out anyway", which is what McCain is dishonestly implying.

I don't know...maybe I'm crazy. I feel like Romney is running the least-dirty campaign out of the front-runner republicans(granted, I only follow politics superficially...but as far as I can see, he hasn't blatantly lied about any one candidate, and he hasn't taken any shots at anybody's religion), and yet somehow he gets labeled the evil one.

Basically I'd just like to see one non-evil person run the whitehouse. Just once in my lifetime. (Ok, I'm jokingly going overboard with the "evil" labels, but I hope my point is still clear. Clinton and Bush have both been pretty bad, and McCain/Hilary don't seem like much of an improvement) I'm done with party politics. I consider myself conservative, but I am all for an Obama presidency. Just give me somebody who's not a complete tool, ya know?