Time rates Guilliani's debate performance over RP

[Therion]

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/republican_debates0515/article/0,28804,1621296_1621606,00.html

:rolleyes:

Interesting how the ones with the most money tended to get better grades.

[LibertyOrDie]

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/republican_debates0515/article/0,28804,1621296_1621606,00.html

:rolleyes:

Interesting how the ones with the most money tended to get better grades.

This is ridiculous, the remarks on the other candidates were serious - RP and Tommy Thompson got made fun of. I think it is time for the letters to commence.


letters@time.com

If you subscribe, here is a link to customer service: https://secure.customersvc.com/wes/servlet/Show?WESPAGE=am/Services/wes_email.jsp&MSRSMAG=TD

[Original_Intent]

They also either don't know or, more likely, choose to ignore the difference between isolationism and non-intervention.

[Bob Cochran]

Time isn't very relevant any more. Their review wasn't unfavorable.

If Ron Paul isn't allowed to participate in future GOP debates, I suggest we all re-register as Independents immediately. I'm going to anyway.

[Melchior]

This wasn't horrible, no need to bombard them with e-mail.

I think Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo got worse treament.


His hearing aid and health both seemed satisfactory.


Often appeared to be lost in thought, drifting uncertainly in and out of the debate.

We need a laughing smiley.

[Kandilynn]

I don't think that was the worst assessment. First off, the only thing they criticized him on was his looks. And they said a lot of good things about him. And this ranking was much better than the national journal ranking on MSNBC.com.

I think that they are showing Ron Paul in a positive light, because who doesn't like Mr.Magoo? If I were reading this article, and I had no clue who Ron Paul was, I would go look him up. He's the only one who didn't have a real negative comment. His "negative" was also listed on the positive list.

[Melchior]

Mark Halperin gave Ron Paul a better grade for the first debate, he isn't completely biased:


Grade: B

Stayed more consistently on his (libertarian) message than anyone else on stage. Might see a spike in Internet donations from voters who oppose big government and the Bush foreign policy. But made no effort to contrast his views with those of his competitors, and at times seemed to encourage the no-chance, alterna-goof role.

His last statement there is completely inaccurate, but whatever.

[LibertyOrDie]

My disagreement with this article is it's tone of inconsistancy, you have serious points made of pros and cons on every candidate, with the expection on Tommy Thompson and Ron Paul. Is it anything terrible they said? No, but the lack of professionalism in the articles consistancy bothered me. I felt it worthy of a comment.