The Candidates
??????? Procedurally, I thought MSNBC did an?fairly good?job of not getting bogged down among ten candidates debating. But I thought their questions were substantively mediocre, and the inability of the moderators to get the candidates to directly answer questions and stay on subject (and candidates should not be allowed to use their answer time for issues they want to bring up or in response to previous questions) wasted time and eroded focus.
Former White House advisor David Gergen hit it on the head, I think, in claiming that there was too much discussion of the past and not nearly enough about the future - and that is the fault of MSNBC, I think, and its debate moderators and contributors in questioning the Republican candidates.
Neither entitlement reform (especially Social Security and Medicare), the size and scope of government, judicial appointments, education, the future of the military, affirmative action, the Middle East peace process, nuclear proliferation, geopolitical strategic threats and allies, economic growth, trade, leadership, gun control (in the wake of the Virginia Tech incident), or the contrasts with Democrat approaches to public policy were the focus of questions, which is just irresponsible, it seems to me, in a 90-minute forum such as this. And many crucial topics - such as health care reform and race relations - were only directed to a few candidates for just a brief period of time.
Technology and public participation are terrific, but not when silly and simplistic questions result in them being utilized in such a forum and squeeze out more important and revealing lines of inquiry.
The Bill Clinton question was a complete and utter waste of everyone’s limited time (and I am wondering when we Republicans can move away from our Bill Clinton fixation), and gotcha questions to Mayor Giuliani (about the difference between Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam, which he nailed - good for him) and Governor Thompson (about the exact numbers of dead and wounded soliders resulting from the Iraq War, which he came close to as to the dead but vastly underestimated as to the wounded) were way out of line. I guess we were lucky that questions weren’t asked about the current prices for a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread.
My personal preference would be that more questions?are addressed by all candidates in order to measure differences.
As to the candidates, I thought it was pretty hard to stand out with so many of them on stage.
But the ones I would consider not inviting to the May 15 debate at the University of South Carolina if I was Fox News, in order to make their debate more manageable and substantive and?penetrating, would be Governor Gilmore, Congressman Hunter, Congressman Paul, Congressman Tancredo, and Governor Thompson. I just thought that these candidates failed to impress as presidential, often focusing on the same narrow issues in answering whatever questions were thrown their way, and their fundraising and poll standing simply do not argue well for their inclusion on May 15.
I thought Governor Huckabee and Senator Brownback helped themselves with confident, smooth, nuanced responses that made them look like they belonged in a presidential debate. For me, Governor Huckabee’s rapid, concise, and powerful response to the question about the jettisoning of Secretary Rumsfeld might have been the most impressive answer of the evening.
I thought the three front-runners stumbled at times and did not really separate themselves from each other or significantly help their causes.?Here is my?quick and specific take on them.
I think abortion obviously continues to hang up Mayor Giualini (and if he was pro-life this GOP nomination process might be a foregone conclusion), and his response to the Roe v. Wade question (while?the other nine?candidates enthusiastically agreed it would be terrific if the decision was overturned, the Mayor grimacingly said it would be okay if the decision was overturned or okay if the decision was upheld on stare decisis grounds) and admission that he is for and was a facilitator of?(as Mayor) public funding of abortion made him look defensive and certainly won’t help him with many mainstream conservatives. I agree with the commentators?who claim the Mayor was more subdued than might be expected for a candidate whose strengths are toughness and leadership. The brevity of time allowed in answering simply did not, I think,?help the Mayor flesh out his strengths?as the leader of the New York City?turnaround. And I think it was interesting that the Mayor was the least critical candidate when it came to the administration of President George W. Bush - a brave, risky, and perhaps not completely supportable position.
I agree with those who claim that the Senator McCain attempt to play the tough guy looked forced. His whole demeanor - squinting and tense and poised to pounce - did not make me comfortable. I do think that his focus on out-of-control government spending is effective, as well as his knowledge and understanding and gravitas when it comes to military and international matters. The Senator just looks a bit too old and a bit too desperate up there, to me.
Governor Romney started off rocky, I thought, though part of it was that some of the early?lines of approach?were barbs aimed directly at him (questioning his change of position on abortion and statement that he would not move heaven and earth to find Osama bin Laden) - which was probably unfair (you cannot have questions that only put one or two candidates on the spot). Like the Mayor, he struggles with abortion, though I thought that by the end of the evening he was making a very plausible and coherent case that he simply has changed from pro-choice to pro-life; the question is whether it is a principled or politically expedient change (which voters will have to judge for themselves). I thought the Governor came across at times like the young and eager beaver, which may not be as presidential as he wants to be, and was not able (under the constraints of the format) to emphasize his record of achievement as a public and private sector manager and leader as well as he needs to.
With a potentially smaller field, the candidates having one encounter under the belts (in order to calm the nerves and focus their approach), and the ability of Fox News to be able to learn from what MSNBC did, I am looking forward to the May 15 debate at the University of South Carolina. Oh, and of course we have the Senator Fred Thompson speech to the Orange County (CA) Lincoln Club tonight and whatever response Speaker Newt Gingrich has to all of this, as well.
In addition to the comments of Gergen, the one piece of post-debate analysis I found somewhat compelling was from Dean Barnett, who is usually just way too long-winded for my taste,?over at the Hugh Hewitt web site, as to what the expectations will be for Fred Thompson (although I strongly disagree with Barnett’s?conclusion that Thompson should wait to get in - because of the importance of fundraising in this endeavor, he cannot possibly afford to do that):
“Fred’s got an issue. When he enters, the expectations for him to run a perfect campaign will be impossibly high. At the first debate he participates in, if he does anything less than get all the other candidates to confess that Fred Thompson is the better man, the pundits will label his performance a disappointment.
In short, official candidate Thompson will get no honeymoon. All the other candidates have made a bunch of errors between the start of things and now. They’re learning, at least in theory. Fred’s margin of error will be extremely small.
I say that argues for him delaying his entry until at least Labor Day, maybe longer. Then he’ll have to go only a few months without making a mistake. The flip side of the coin is that he enters now and has setbacks and surges like all the other candidates and hopefully (from his perspective) winds up on top.
But being just another guy isn’t much fun. Just ask Rudy.”
May 4th, 2007 at 10:23 am
[...] post by Republius and software by Elliott [...]
May 4th, 2007 at 10:26 am
On deliveries, Huckabee and Duncan Hunter definitely showed that they should be allowed to stay in, even if I didn’t agree with everything they said. Brownback was passionate. Giuliani looked rattled, and very uncomfortable. It was obvious that he was not on his game last night. McCain looked awful for the first 30 minutes, but he gave some of the strongest answers that will likely play up in the south. Romney was solid, but seemed to talk above the heads of those who don’t follow politics as passionately, and needs to work on his image as a politician to gain a lot of traction in red states. Tancredo is getting a positive response on the local talk radio this morning.
The format was terrible, and really didn’t help things. We have possibly two or three more candidates who might enter, so this needs to be fixed.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:34 am
I disagree with those who believe Congressman Hunter should be allowed to go forward in any GOP presidential debates. He is a three-note candidate - military matters, securing the border, and fair trade - whose fundraising and poll standing do not compel his inclusion.
There was one question, and I cannot even remember its substantive, that he never came close to answering, instead giving a speech about military strategy.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:47 am
He came across as very mature to me. I don’t think he’s a top tier candidate by any stretch, but thought he was very impressive in his ability as a speaker.
I didn’t agree with everything he said, but he impressed me with his ability to speak to the common folks. My mother, who’s a blue-dog democrat, thought he was very impressive as a speaker.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:52 am
To bad Ron Paul has already been invited to the Fox debate! Sorry Neocon’s! You have screwed the party ask Pat Buchanan a true Conservative!
May 4th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Hey I held that the SC Republicans are going to allow everyone in……….
May 4th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Kemp, Pat Buchanan left the party over selfish and petty motives. Perhaps rabid libertarians like you should consider doing the same. Believe me, we’ll do fine without you.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I thought the SC republicans bulked are all allowing all in?
May 4th, 2007 at 11:08 am
I may behind the curve on news as to how the South Carolina Republican Party is going to handle their debate. Last I heard, they were considering not inviting candidates who do not garner at least 1% in the polls and were working with Fox News on coming up with a threshold.
If this has changed based on popular pressure, which would not surprise me, please someone link a report. Thanks.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Why can’t Rudy answer the abortion question with any clarity. He does not have to change his
Pro-Choice stance on it. He could simply state the obvious: even if Roe v. Wade is overturned,
there is not a majority in the nation to ban it outright at the federal level (to my knowledge
none of the candidates are stating they would even propose banning it at the federal level), so
therefore abortion will remain legal in some, if not most, states. It isn’t like someone from
a state where it is illegal would have to cross the nation on horseback. In the end the
possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade is much to do about nothing, as it would simply make abortion
more difficult to obtain in some places but it would remain available nevertheless. Why can’t Rudy, or
any candidate for that matter, explain that?
May 4th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Last I heard, all were gonna be there. Might’ve changed again though.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:14 am
http://www.messagejury.com/
Here is some focus groups from Iowa voters. Huckabee and Romney does well as paul with the Dems… McCain and Rudy no so much.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Here’s another ABC article:
“Republican operatives agreed that the debate did nothing to shake up the crowded GOP field.
They said Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, McCain, a four-term Arizona senator, and Romney, the ex-Massachusetts governor, remained the strongest contenders, with the most money and the best approval ratings in the polls more than eight months before the first 2008 national convention delegates are selected.”
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=politics&id=5273329
May 4th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Tommy, I can’t believe these guys get paid to tell us what the polls have been saying for months.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:23 am
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/printer/07may04.reaction.gop.debate/index.html
Curious reaction to GOP debate
By: SGT News | Published on 05/04/07
“The Republican debate Thursday hosted by Chris Matthews spurred on curious reactions to Rudy Giuliani’s strange awkwardness on the issue of abortion, Romney’s off-the-cuff humor and frustration over the types of questions asked in the affair.”
May 4th, 2007 at 11:24 am
I know. It’s ridiculous.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:25 am
No wonder why Bob Dole never had a prayer. Guiliani started to clear up some of his issues with the base? Was he watching a different debate?
May 4th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Thanks for the links, by the way. What would we do without you?
May 4th, 2007 at 11:26 am
No problem. The media spin is really fascinating to me.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Yeah, I just hope we can overcome it for the general, or we’re doomed. They make day look like night and vice versa.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Russ thought Romney did well.
But he said he liked Gilmore too.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Rush I mean
May 4th, 2007 at 11:31 am
I think we will. If Obama is the nominee, he has no chance due to the thinnest resume in the history of Presidential elections.
Hillary is so polarizing, and hasn’t done anything of note.
Gore’s the wildcard. I can’t honestly predict how the Dems will react to him in the south this time.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Actually, Rush said he liked most all of the candidates last night. He’ll stay neutral until it’s decided.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:32 am
JF (#15),
Rudy did start to clear up some issues with the base - but the key word is definitely “started” - it implies that he has yet to finish, and he still has a lot of work to do.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:32 am
When respected contributors and posters to this site as well as members of the media vary so widely in their analysis of who won the debate, perhaps those who conclude that nobody won are correct. I used the term clear winner because it didn’t seem to me that anyone reached that distinct level.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I agree with you on that Republius. Everyone had their plusses and minuses.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Here’s a very funny (if lib take) on the debate last night from the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2072835,00.html
May 4th, 2007 at 11:39 am
[...] post by Republius and software by Elliott [...]
May 4th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Palin for VP,
Matthews: “Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?”
“Absolutely,” said Romney.
“A glorious day of human liberty and freedom,” said Sen. Sam Brownback.
“Yes, it was wrongly decided,” said former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore.
“Most certainly,” said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
“Yes,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter.
Then the question came to Giuliani. “It would be O.K.,” he said.
“O.K. to repeal?” asked Matthews.
“It would be O.K. to repeal,” Giuliani said. “It would be also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent and I think a judge has to make that decision.”
“Would it be O.K. if they didn’t repeal it?” Matthews pressed.
“I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it. We’re a federalist system of government and states can make their own decisions.”
————–
Ok to repeal, ok to not repeal, personally hate abortion but protected the right to choose when mayor, would advise friends to not abort but support federal funding of abortion, etc. The more Rudy talks about abortion, the more flip-floppy he becomes. How did this debate begin to allay the concerns of the base?
May 4th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Tommy (#21),
You’re righht about Obama in the sense that I would LOVE to run against his nearly non-existent resume/record. That said - I don’t expect the media or the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson/Louis Farrakhan types to allow legitimate debate on Obama’s record or experience.
What I fear is that, with Obama as the Dem nominee, the Al Sharptons of the world will scream so much about racial issues that any Republican with legitimate concerns about Mr. Obama’s record will immediately be labelled a racist. Call me a pessimist if you like, but I just can’t see today’s media being able to distinguish legitimate political disagreement from racism as far as Obama is concerned.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Palin, the Democrats are pros at using the race card. Believe me, if the race card were to be pulled, it would be pulled now in his favor to crush Clinton and Edwards. But it’s not, and to his credit, it’s because Obama has refused to play the race game so far. So I have hope that demagoguery will not be an issue in the campaign.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I know most of you dont like me anyway, so I am going to say this:
Almost 600 comments on this site in response to the debate last night…amazing. The bottom line is, all the professional pundits and the professional bloggers (like most all of you on this site) say that either Romney or McCain won. What does the general American public say?? Rudy Giuliani convincingly won last night’s debate.
Get REAL guys…. take your college boy heads out of the sand, GET A LIFE and support the best candidate that can WIN against the dems. THAT IS RUDY!!!!!!
May 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
JF (in #28), obviously the Mayor did nothing to allay the concerns of social and religious conservatives when it comes to abortion in last night’s debate; he actually stoked their fears. He also admitted in the debate that he is a supporter and facilitator (as Mayor) of (local) public funding for abortion; being in favor of the Hyde Amendment is nonsensical and hardly ameliorative when you will allow other taxpayer funds to subsidize this taking of life.
Had Mayor Giuliani come out strongly against partial-birth abortion and public funding of abortion and the overturning of Roe v. Wade (even though those would be changes in position), and then remained personally opposed to abortion but in favor of allowing a woman to decide and not criminalizing the procedure, I think the GOP nomination would have been his to lose. Now, I simply think he has lost the nomination due to taking an intransigent position on the issue that is too far out of the Republican mainstream as the pro-life party.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
JF,
Like I said, Rudy has a long way to go in explaining his position to the base. However, make a mistake in saying that Rudy flip-flops on this issue when what he actually has done is articulate a consistent position that just happens to be more nuanced than some of us prefer.
You have to remember that Giuliani clearly beleives that local governments have a vastly different role than the federal government concerning abortion. So, in his mind, Mayor Giuliani would logically handle the issue differently than President Giuliani, because Mayor Giuliani’s postition as head of a LOCAL government entails different responsibilities and consitutional limitations than Presdent Giuliani’s role as head of the FEDERAL government. Many people do not see the difference between the role of a Mayor and the role of a President, but as a legal expert and staunch federalist, Rudy Giuliani sees a drastic difference between the role of the two offices.
Granted - I personally disagree with Rudy’s position on abortion. However, I do think he has been reletively clear as to what his position is - though I would like him to give a whole speech on the subject sometime just to show the American people his thought process on the issue of abortion in relation to federalism.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
KT, who said that? Are you talking about that discredited Survey USA poll, which only polled 317 Californians? Even that wasn’t so positive for Guiliani:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=105152
May 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
PalinForVP! (#23),
I have to agree with previous posters, in that it’s going to be all but impossible for Rudy to EVER satisfy the base on the abortion issue. Right now he’s trying to walk a tightrope which involves:
1. Flipping (without explanation) on his most drastic positions supporting partial birth abortion, opposing the Hyde Amendment, opposing parental notification rights, etc…
2. Dodging questions on whether he thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned, whether it’s good constitutional law, etc…
Combine this with his insane statements about requiring states to subsidize abortion because it’s a constitutional right, and his definition of “pro-choice-strict-constructionism”. He can’t abandon these statements without making another flip, and his recent attempts to explain them away further muddy the waters.
I think Rudy’s least damaging strategy at this point is to just admit that there’s no agreement to be found between him and pro-lifers, and keep repeating the “80% is your ally” mantra. Any time Rudy lets people see more of what’s behind the bathrobe than this, it just gets ugly.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Palin for VP, so you’re basically saying that in the transition from local politician to President, any candidate should be allowed to change his position and get a free pass? I would actually agree with you on that, but the pundits and partisans will never let that happen, so I think this actually hurt Guiliani with the base. I wouldn’t go quite so far as to stick a fork in him like Republius would (as this was never the source of his appeal with the base in the first place), but he looks extremely shaky right now, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him lose 10% by the end of the month.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
And again to JF (#30),
I agree in the sense that I don’t expect Obama himself to pull the race card. However, once he is established as the Dem nominee (which I personally think he will be), I beleive that you can expect Jackson, Sharpton, and others of their ilk to kick the racial aspect of the election into high gear at the first possible opportunity. Right now, such people are not totally sure they prefer Obama over the more radical candidates, and it looks like he can win the nomination without the race card - so they’re keeping their poweder dry until the general election.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
KT (in #31), unfortunately, for Giuliani supporters, it is too early to assess who is the strongest GOP candidate to take on the Democrat in November of 2008. Giuliani supporters would love to declare the race over already and claim the nomination by acclamation based on current polling numbers. But 20% of the electorate admit they do not know enough about Giuliani to form an opinion as to favorability, and the Giuliani record will be parsed a lot more closely as the campaign unfolds for all voters - even those who think they know enough about him currently.
Last night was the first step in a long journey. This race will have plenty of twists and turns before it is over. Giuliani supporters need to relax and see if their guy can succeed over the long haul. But I can understand why they are anxious.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Palin for VP, I’m sure the demagogues will do what they do best: demagogue. But these guys have been discredited for so long that I don’t think it even matters if they call for a new race war.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
murphy,
I agree that talking a lot about abortion is not Rudy’s ticket to the White House….Personally, I just like to see him give one whole speech on the subject in order to lay out his entire position clearly and then focus on the “80% ally” mantra like you said.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
http://flapsblog.com/
Has detail break down of the poll. 53% were pro choice in the survey usa day poll……
May 4th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
“The Bill Clinton question was a complete and utter waste of everyone’s limited time (and I am wondering when we Republicans can move away from our Bill Clinton fixation”
It was that ass Matthews who brought up Bill Clinton. Romney got to go first and his “You got to be kidding!” pretty much expressed all the candidates’ feelings. My feelings too.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
No wonder why Bob Dole never had a prayer. Guiliani started to clear up some of his issues with the base? Was he watching a different debate?
He did clear up issues. But clarity is not always a good thing.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
I do think the Bill question was more relavate than the Karl Rove questions…..
May 4th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I notice that Brownback brought up the 80% mantra though Giuliani didn’t. Is Brownback hoping for a VP slot?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
And, just for the Record, as I leave for my Friday afternoon meeting, the AOL On-Line Poll is now, as of 03:09 PM ET, up to 128,011 votes, and Rudy maintains his consistent lead:
Giuliani 40%
Romney 20%
McCain 19%
Paul 04%
Thompson 04%
May 4th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
It is not inconsistent for Rudy to oppose FEDERAL funding of abortion, but support STATES’ rights to determine whether they individually want to publicly fund abortions. That is a federalist’s position.
In partial defense of Tommy Thompson’s assertion that “several thousand” American troops have been wounded in Iraq, it all depends on one’s definition of wounded.
Thus far, the number of Americans wounded in Iraq, requiring medical air transport is 7,267. The total number of US troops who have been wounded in hostile action in Iraq and could not return to duty within 72 hours is 11,215. So, while Thompson was inaccurate in his estimation, I wouldn’t say he “vastly underestimated” the true figure.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I think Romney was the VERY clear winner!
May 4th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
The debate helped me figure out whom I definitely do not like.
I thought Brownback came across as too pious and not very presidential. He is very intellignt, I realize, but that did not come across on the sceen. If, by some fluke, he should be the nominee, GOP loses.
Duncan Hunter also has to be reckoned as marginal based on this debate. True, he is articulate, but, as another commenter stated, he has only three interests, and he did not even branch out when questioned on a different topic. The libertarian wing of the party, and libertarian-leaning voters will have no use for him.
I thought McCain did poorly. Is it just me, or does he remind anyone else of Peter Graves. When discussing how much confidence he has in “the new general” in Iraq, thw words “Mission Impossible” should not come to mind. Honestly, he struck this viewert as old, his “toughness” and “straight talk” strained and rather cranky. He actually reminded me of Bob Dole, in the sense of being the somewhat-past-his-sell-by-date candidate, whose “turn” it is to get the GOP nod.
Romney, Giuliani, and Gilmore, I thought, showed a willingness to give thoughtful answers that was commendable, given the format. For reasons that everyone else has commented on, the task was hardest for Giuliani. Romney is obviously ready for prime time, not something that everyone watching would have known beforehand, so the debate has to be scored as an unqualified “plus” for him.
I was impressed with how poised Gilmore seemed for a relative neophyte. He might not seem the most presidential, but he does seem very comfortable with who he is. Granted, he has his own sound bite (”consistent conservative”), but he went into some detail to back up that claim, and he did not shrink from acknowledging positions that were contrary to conservative orthodoxy.
Tommy Thompson also came across as thoughtful, and almost all conservatives would gladly support him, but (no surprise, here) he comes across also as rather dull.
Huckabee was articulate, looked like he belonged on the stage, and held his own. (He had the best line in response to the Clinton question.)
Ron Paul could only gain from TV exposure, obviously, but in a more fundamental way he lost ground. People who have always liked him (this writer, who voted for him in 1988, included) might forget that Ron Paul is not the same young libertarian who came to Congress in 1975. Seeing Paul on stage kind of brought home the fact that he is now 32 years older than he was back then, and 19 years older than when he ran in 1988. Still, it is refreshing to have such a different voice in the race.
Tancredo is obviously bright and gutsy. He has a signature issue, of course, but can express himself on a wide spectrum of issues (cf., Hunter, supra). Tancredo deserves credit for actually trying to discuss entitlements. He is much too scary for the general electorate, however.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
My brother and I both agreed that Romney did very well, maybe not “won,” but he was smooth, confident, and conservative. I thought Huckabee did well also and Hunter won my nod for Secretary of Defense. I thought Paul, Tancredo, and Thompson struggled, although they sometimes had good things to say.
May 5th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I am in total agreement.
Their is only one way to run these debates and that is to have the citizens ask the questions(pre submitted, preferred by citizens in the audience and have each answer one question at a time front and center stage for their questions they are asked.
This california debate seemed more like as chris mathews stated he was told by nbc to focus on the major candidates…he seemed to have romney as a favorite.
This was a real biased mess.