 
|
 |
|
Scoring the big debate:
-"Gray won" - Dave Jensen, Condor blog
-"I'd say (Cruz) won" - Outside the Beltway blog
-"I don't think anyone won" - Dan Weintraub, Sacto Bee
-"Arnold totally disappointed me" - Matt Welch, at RogerLSimon.com
-Arnold "not ready for prime time" - HowardOwens.com
-"Arnold did okay" - Roger L. Simon himself.
-"Arnold did well enough to win" - Mickey Kaus, Kausfiles
(Arnold too smug - Mickey's mother)
-Arnold "accomplished his mission" - Priorities and Frivolities
-"Arnold won. Not even close" - Hugh Hewitt, columnist and KRLA host
There it is, from Gray won to Arnold hit a homer. They all give deeper critiques at the links. Some of the links come via Prestopundit, who has the longest aggregation I could find. He scores it that "Schwarzenegger stood out as the debate amateur" and that "McClintock proved he would make a great governor -- of Arizona." With Prestopundit the non-Republicans don't matter so I won't list those, but he takes them on too here.
Prestopundit also says of Schwarzenegger's performance:
Why didn't Schwarzenegger's people insist that the candidates stand? Candidates sitting always have significantly less stature than do candidates who stand.
Maybe it's the fudging his height thing.
I agree with Kynn, sans the repellant (I find one or two of his views repellant. Overall, I would have to say Gray won, as it made the recall seem like a circus of fools. Here's my rankings for who did the best:
1. McClintock (seemed the most sure and smartest)
2. Arnold (most personality)
3. Camejo (calmest)
4. Busty (dead weight)
5. Arianna (clown, not fool)
I oppose absolutely everything McClintock says, but he won the debate insofar as the art of debating goes. He stuck to questions and he offered unshakable, neatly digested, well-reasoneed answers. His defense of opposing issuing DL's to the undocumented was especially adroit. He possesses actual convictions, a quality that distinguishes him from the frontrunners, including Gray.
Posted by: joseph at September 25, 2003 09:04 AMAs much as I respect Hugh's intellect, wit and panache, he's lost all credibility as an analyst. Hugh saying "Ahnold won" is about as predictable as Scheer saying "Bush is a criminal." His comments don't really belong on a list of debate analysis, because he would've declared AS the winner if he'd delivered a Nazi salute while lighting a joint on stage.
Posted by: BobfromPlaya at September 25, 2003 10:14 AMHow was Camejo the "calmest"? He was foaming at the mouth like the unreconstructed '60s activist that he is. Eat the rich, and all that.
Posted by: brett at September 25, 2003 10:18 AMI would say McClintock won, hands down. He was the only one that stuck to the issues, was well spoken, and didn't get involved in petty squabbling. Unfortunately, I think he's a little too conservative for the state of California, but he came across as the only one who would be a capable governor.
Posted by: Ben at September 25, 2003 10:47 AMFurther armchair analysis over at Welch's site:
http://www.mattwelch.com/archives/week_2003_09_21.html#2187
Posted by: ricardo at September 25, 2003 12:19 PM
of LA Observed
I thought Tom McClintock came across quite well -- and I'm someone who finds his political views pretty repellant.
--Kynn
Posted by: Kynn Bartlett at September 25, 2003 08:05 AM