I want me some of what Diane’s taking.

A word of advice to Gov. Huntsman:  Answer in English, not Mandarin.  

Santorum did well tonight, especially with that wretched little Chuckie doll chewing on his ankle. Loved the microphone line, fast and perfect. Perry was better than I’ve seen him, and suggests that the big-deal Texas Governor may actually be in there somewhere.  I’d find a Santorum/Perry ticket real interesting.

Mitt, well, the whole night was about keeping everybody off Mitt and the moderators did their best.  They were more successful at that than they were at keeping the candidates off topics unfavorable to Obama, and it was about time they did some more stepping on the moderators.

Newt — well I twitted Newt on his first couple weasel words and evasions, then it got old, as did Newt.  In true Gingrich fashion he played the macher all night and then slapped himself with the sports blunder.  Kinda metaphorical for his Speakership, actually.

Huntsman, well… I actually felt a rare bit of sympathy for him the last couple of days, what with strange cracker journalists hanging around his daughters, but… what is the point, exactly.  If the others are the not-Mitts he seems to be trying to be the MORE-Mitt.

Paul, well… Paul’s a crapweasel, a humunculus, a Chuckie doll with funding.  Compared to him, Newt is a Calvin Coolidge of probity. Scroom.

Excuse my french, but this was the worst f@$king example of a debate I’ve ever seen. Diane Sawyer looked and acted like she swallowed a couple of Quaaludes and chased them down with a bottle of cheap Vodka

Agreed.  I’ve never seen her better!

Except for Huntsman and Paul, this debate wasn’t about New Hampshire – a better showing than expected for Santorum could help him, but is less critical – it was about South Carolina, where we may end up with “the” Not-Romney candidate.  So I was surprised that Perry didn’t ding Santorum (Newt’s doing a number on himself), or at least try.  Still a pretty good performance for Perry, though, without memorable errors.

But Santorum was definitely helped by the favor, as he is the one potential challenger on the rise.  Romney also did what he needs to do, if only the minimum, which is defend himself but try to let the others sidetrack themselves (with the help of the panel).

Newt is just not likable, which suits those of us who don’t consider him conservative, although too many have fallen for the brochure.  He will drop like a stone just from the couple of days of good ol’ mean, nasty, self-important Newt with the temper of a moccasin we got to see last week.

At the rate he’s going, Paul will be institutionalized before the last primaries. 

Huntsman probably has a 10% ceiling in New Hampshire, and about 1% everywhere else.  Nice kids, though.  All of the candidates’ kids have presented well this time, with the possible exception of Paul’s.

Santorum was clearly the intended target of the Gay-Per-View portion of the debate. The moderators thought they were going to get a big gotcha-moment on that subject, and they thought Santorum would serve it up. Gingrich did everyone a huge favor by calling them out.  They set up Newt in a similar way in the pre-Iowa debate, by asking every candidate about the importance of marital fidelity, and then ending with Newt (their way of putting the “B” in “subtle”).

The truth is, none of these candidates spend their summers on the beach in Provincetown.  None of them wrestle with whether they should say “LGBT” or “GLBT.”  To the media, they will always sound tone-deaf on gay issues.  So the one-and-only reason for that line of questioning is to manufacture ammo for the left.

I read one post-mortem on the debate that said that Romney looked like the nomination was already in-hand.  But in fact, it’s the media that is already way past the primaries, shilling for Obama in these Republican debates.

That microphone line was a pretty good slam; I was impressed.

 The only way she could have been “better” would have been if she had dropped a hit of Purple Haze and smoked a bowl of Opium.

At the very least, these types of questions let the media and the Dems “run out the clock” on letting
the Republicans actually discuss more important matters that might resonate with the public and cause problems for their nominee. At best, it creates a negative narrative about a candidate or party – even creates a flameout. So it’s win-win for them.

You never saw anything like this during the Dem debates 4 or 8 years ago. Every single one was presented as a serious, sober public servant and the questions themselves were designed to minimize their
differences, were focused on letting each candidate highlight their positives, and create a positive narrative for the party as a whole.

Whoever get the nomination is going to face the same problem.  Our candidate list is pretty heavily larded up with East Coasters (and the two from planet Mongo).  Granted, PA ain’t MA, but the VP is going to have to be someone from the heartland/Southwest or you risk alienating a big part of the country.

And I’ve got a new post referencing/linking Donald’s post: “The Exact Instant the Santorum ‘Surge’ Ended …”