Posted on | June 14, 2011 | 34 Comments
Having declared that the debate in Manchester, N.H., would result in Herman Cain stomping the other candidates “like Godzilla stomped Tokyo,” I’m now prepared to admit that the result was not quite so one-sided. However, I don’t get CNN at the house — some glitch in the cable service limits my choices to Fox and MSNBC — so I am dependent on the judgments of others.
And by “others,” I mean VodkaPundit, who drunkblogged it, because massive quantities of alcohol help clarify the issues.
Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post clearly disagreed, but Cillizza is a liberal, which is why he wrote:
A relatively tepid debate with candidates largely agreeing with one another on the major issues of the day.
But wasn’t that true of every 2007-08 debate among the candidates for the Democratic primary? I remember watching (or trying to watch) those debates and wondering, “Why bother?” You had three major candidates — Clinton, Edwards and Obama — and a bunch of guys who had no plausible chance. (Chris Dodd for president? I mean, really?) They were all predictably liberal, and their policy differences were matters of incidental detail. But I don’t remember CNN hitting them with a bunch of “gotcha” questions or trying to set them at each other’s throats.
Da Tech Guy delivers his verdict: “Bottom line: Bachmann wins, Cain remains solid, Newt and Santourm help themselves, Romney remains steady Pawlenty doesn’t help himself enough, Paul is Paul.”
Here’s an Associated Press video highlight reel of the candidates trashing Obama’s economic policy: