**It looks like Eric beat me to this post since I had to go listen to Bryan Suits speak to the YRs in Bellevue last night.**
I too watched the GOP Presidential debate. Twice. Using great literary creativity I'll list the ten candidates in not so random order and give my impressions on their performance. Since I've already written 54 words I don't have to come up with a catchy story lede either.
Here goes.
Rudy Giuliani probably had the least to gain and the most to lose with the debate. And he lost. He fumbled on just about every right-to-life question put to him. And there were a lot. This certainly won't impress anyone on either side of the issue. He seemed very uncomfortable up on stage. If he keeps this up Giuliani will be kicking himself for waiting to run against Hillary Clinton in 2008 instead of doing so in 2006.
John McCain has probably been the biggest supporter of the war in Iraq and he's the most emphatic about winning it. He's saying all the right things which should have the Republican base falling in line behind him like ducklings. It's just that they're not. I'm not sure if he'll ever get over McCain-Feingold or the Paul Shanklin "McCain's Mutiny" handicap. Furthermore McCain came across sounding like your grandfather who keeps telling the same old war stories. He repeated the joke about government spending like a drunken sailor and twice brought up the threat to veto the first pork barrel spending bill put on his desk. I'm sure the audience got it the first time. What was particularly disturbing was McCain's tendency to almost literally repeat the exact same answer given by one of the candidates who went before him. Of the "Big Three" I've liked McCain the best but he needs work on his delivery.
Of the "Big Three" Mitt Romney probably gained the most ground. He did everything right. Was friendly, jocular and flashed those pearly whites for everyone watching on TV. Can a candidate be too polished? Can he be too charismatic? Can he be too perfect with how a question is answered? Can he be too likable? I'm not quite sure if Romney said anything of real substance last night but damn he looked good saying it.
Sam Brownback was not afraid to wear his faith on his shirt sleeve. You gotta like his rah-rah style. It was very classy the way he complimented his fellow candidates.
When you're a third-tier candidate like Jim Gilmore that means you're usually given the idiotic throwaway questions. Will you hire Karl Rove if elected to the White House? What the hell does the problem with the growing number of mothers behind bars in state prisons have anything to do with the Executive of the Federal Branch of government?
I Heart Mike Huckabee. He sounded very capable and more important he acted like he deserved to be up on that stage. He's not too flashy. He talked GOPspeak. I don't know how any Republican primary voter could not like him. But can he advance from Double-A ball into the big leagues?
Duncan Hunter obviously ate his Wheaties for breakfast. He displayed the detailed knowledge about national security issues that one would expect from the former Chair of the Armed Services Committee. He was right about how the Iraqi Army should be phased into combat readiness. He brought up the threat posed to America by the growing hegemony of China as well as a nuclear North Korea. He clearly articulated the need for strong border security and warned about America's trade deficit. When asked to name something the U.S. government does well Hunter said "Precision munitions on Mr. Zarqawi's safehouse". If you happen to be one of those evil right-wing Republicans one reads about in the newspapers, Hunter has to be on your wish list.
The GOP is a big-tent, coalition party which includes individuals of widely disparate political philosophies. This includes flakey former Libertarians like Ron Paul.
Tom Tancredo was expected to shake things up a bit during the debate. He certainly didn't sound as confident as he does in a friendly venue such as Michael Savage's radio show. He spent more time alluding to issues that "hadn't been brought up during the debate" instead of just bringing them up in the debate. That's what the microphone is used for Tom.
Tommy Thompson feels that abortion is a states right issue which ultimately will be how that issue is solved. He's right. The closest he'll get to the presidency, though, is with a cabinet appointment.
After watching the debate I'd have to say that the biggest winner of the evening was Fred Thompson. There's an old saying in stand-up comedy about always leaving the audience wanting more. Thompson hasn't even gotten up on stage and folks are calling his name. You can liken it to the syndrome with backup quarterbacks on losing football teams. When Rick Mirer was tossing the pigskin here in the early '90s every Hawks fan worth their Rainier beer was clamoring for John Friez to be put in. Here's hoping that Thompson is more of a 2001 Tom Brady.
The most annoying part of the debate was the moderator. Just because he's portrayed as a clueless ass-clown by Saturday Night Live doesn't mean that Chris Mathews has to play one in real life. Professionally I always cringe at Mathews' "Have you stopped beating your wife" interrogation tactic. If you are going to ask a hard question just ask it and for God's sake let the person answer. Stop trying to manufacture discord among the GOP candidates. Trust me that will happen with no need for prompting or prodding.
If one of the candidates had had the balls to say "You know Chris that is about the most idiotic thing I've heard all week. Were you born stupid or do you just work hard at it?", that man would have gone up in the polls ten percent overnight and would be getting fitted for his leather desk chair in the White House.
Also, I don't go to church but was I the only one who was personally offended - dare I say outraged - that Mathews tried to misquote Gov. Huckabee, a Baptist minister, in a clumsy effort to smear Gov. Romney's Mormon faith in order to instigate a religious feud in the party?
Many of the questions seemed intent on bashing the Bush administration which, like it or not, will become an irrelevancy come 2008. As I mentioned, one of the night's nonsensical questions was whether the candidates would hire Karl Rove. Who gives a rat's ass and what does that matter? There's probably about a dozen-thousand more pressing concerns than pushing for a constitutional amendment to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for president.
The questions from "the public" posted at Politico.com were also about as useful as a three-legged goat in a bucket of mayonnaise. In future debates networks would be better off polling sixth-grade school newsletter writers. Or at least the queries should be delivered in such a way as to elicit more than a monosyllabic response.
Last of all, when someone asks if you want Bill Clinton back in the White House, you always say yes. This makes it so much easier for the Attorney General to tell Bubba he has the right to remain silent and has a right to a lawyer.
Uh ... exactly what does Tom want to talk about?
I have a suggestion: a Republican Tom Tancedo - David Duke ticket in '08.
Posted by: David Mathews on May 4, 2007 06:01 AMI am not George W. Bush.
Posted by: Honest Republican on May 4, 2007 06:40 AMMr. Honest, I bring up Chris Matthews because his election schtick in 2000 was "who is going to be the anti-Clinton?" That made a lot of sense then and still makes a lot of sense as our country picks another President.
Is Hillary the anti-Bush? Yes, but do we still remember the other Clinton?
So, when I analyze (for me that is a 30 second meditation) the candidates, I try to figure out which candidate is the opposite of Bush in personality and demeanor.
I think it is Romney and what he did in private practice and in Massachusetts. I haven't heard enough from the 1000 pound gorilla- Thompson- to rate him yet.
Posted by: swatter on May 4, 2007 07:14 AMBut then again, I am also a former Libertarian.
That racist David Matthews appears to really have a thing for Tom Tancredo.
Fred???
What you saw was a Vice-Presidential debate...maybe.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 4, 2007 07:49 AMI am reminded of Geraldine F.'s press conference about her husband's finances, in which she stayed until EVERY SINGLE PERSON was done asking questions. It worked for this particular issue.
Let's try to do something wise for a change.
Posted by: Honest Republican on May 4, 2007 08:50 AMRomney handles himself quite different from Bush. Romney doesn't have the speech quirks that Bush had. He doesn't have the Bush family history with oil that erroneously was used as fodder by the "I hate Bush" crowd. He made his money mainly on his own. He took the bankrupt Olympics and made it successful. He reads a lot more than Bush. He is conservative. He is methodical. He is articulate.
Hoping to see a cross-analysis of McCain and Giuliani of how they are different than Bush.
Things I mentioned are not as important to me as they are to the voting public.
Posted by: swatter on May 4, 2007 09:55 AMWonder if Fred Thompson will get over it either, he was one of it's biggest supporters. =)
I suppose you feel the same way about the Clinton Presidency? How about Reagan's?
Posted by: Blah on May 4, 2007 10:20 AMDo you mean for NY Senate in 2006? I never even heard that possibility mentioned. Rudy started to run against her in 2000, was getting trounced in the polls due to his low approval ratings as mayor (pre-9/11) and marital problems, and then withdrew due to prostate cancer. But I agree that he would do even worse this time. Since 2000 he presided over a disastrous emergency response to 9/11 (longstanding police/fire radio problems, emergency headquarters in the city's prime terrorist target, etc.), tried to suspend the constitution to extend his mayoral term because he didn't think the city could handle an election two months later, and tried to get a criminal appointed chief of Homeland Security. On the positive side, he behaved with dignity when his city was victimized, and politically he is closer to mainstream America than are any of the other Republicans. Ironically the last fact is his biggest problem now.
Posted by: Bruce on May 4, 2007 10:25 AMOther than the REALLY dumb questions, I thought it went fairly well. It was nice to see the candidates work in some of their positions on important topics- in spite of the moderators. It was also nice to see them interacting with each other. You could tell there were differences of opinion, but that is good in a debate. It never seemed to get personal, even though the moderators seemed to be trying REALLY hard to drag it in that direction.
I look forward to the next one... hopefully with more intelligent moderators, and better questions.
Posted by: David on May 4, 2007 10:31 AMRon Paul is the only hope for this country. He's Ron Paul Kenobi.
Huckabee seems nice, but he doesn't believe in evolution? That's like saying the heart doesn't pump blood through the body. He's laughable.
Who did the public say was the winner of the debate? Ron Paul, hands down.
MSNBC poll
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18436681
Who stood out from the pack? * 50272 responses
Ron Paul
30% in the lead
next highest Rudy with 19%
Who showed the most leadership qualities? * 49591 responses
Ron paul 25%
Mitt Romney 23%
Who was the most convincing candidate? * 49345 responses
Ron Paul 28%
Mitt Romney 23%
Who had the best one-liner? * 47064 responses
Ron Paul 25%
Mitt Romney 17%
Rudy is still the front runner by half.
Bush did.
Ron Paul is the only hope for this country. He's Ron Paul Kenobi.
He has no chance whatsoever to be an effective President, regardless of how much you may like his views.
Who did the public say was the winner of the debate? Ron Paul, hands down.
False. You do not cite a poll that has any validity of any kind.
You keep telling yourself that and watch the Clinton's move right back into the White House.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E
And every single candidate wants to overturn R.v.W while they criticize medieval fundamentalists in the middle east for their treatment of women from the other side of their mouth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsHah0LcvG4
And I still ask myself repeatedly why the GOP running off the rails on a crazy train depresses me?
Posted by: Acid Brain on May 4, 2007 10:53 AMToo bad your mother wasn't pro-choice.
Posted by: John Galt on May 4, 2007 11:10 AMFalse.
And every single candidate wants to overturn R.v.W while they criticize medieval fundamentalists in the middle east for their treatment of women from the other side of their mouth?
Red Herring.
And I still ask myself repeatedly why the GOP running off the rails on a crazy train depresses me?
What should depress you is that you were incapable of making a point that was not fatally based on an obvious logical fallacy.
I'm sure there are other THEORIES that they don't believe in as well. And this disqualifies them why? I would hazard a guess that somewhere around 50% of the country would agree with them on the theory of evolution.
On the abortion issue- most, if not all of the candidates stated that they want the abortion issue to be decided at the state level. How does that compare to Muslim extremists imposing their religious views on women in that culture? Again, I would guess that around 50% of the country agree with them.
Posted by: David on May 4, 2007 11:21 AMAnd every single candidate wants to overturn R.v.W while they criticize medieval fundamentalists in the middle east for their treatment of women from the other side of their mouth?
So believing life begins at conception and feeling that a mother doesn't have the right to kill that life is the moral equivalent of beheading people of another religion or stoning a woman to death because she was raped?
Are you sure it's the GOP you're talking about being on the crazy train?
Posted by: Mike H on May 4, 2007 11:40 AMI kept wondering to myself, why doesn't Dr. No just re-join the LP & run as a Libertarian again? His performance yesterday left me wondering what he's really trying to accomplish by running in this race.
It really pains me to say this, but Ron Paul is an ineffective gadfly. A gadfly I passionately agree with on probably 4 out of 5 issues, but nevertheless as much a gadfly as (ugh) McDermott.
Posted by: EmmaPeel on May 4, 2007 11:52 AMAlso, (on the subject) what I didn't like about the "debate" was the moderator and the questions from the audience (The Politico had something to do with that I suspect). None of the questions I heard applied to any issues. Just more "when did you stop beating your wife" questions. The Karl Rove question was the most ridiculous I have ever heard in any debate. Tit for tat: Can we get Rush Limbaugh moderating a Democrat debate with the Enterprise Institute as co-sponsor? I have never seen a debate moderator as horribly biased as Matthews. He wanted Rs to look bad and he succeeded pretty much.
This "debate" shows how this election and its run-up is going to be conducted. The left is pulling out all the stops on this one baby. The MSM, Daily Kos and the other 525s couldn't deliver Gore or Kerry and they aren't going to underestimate the job again.
too bad other mom's chose death for 40 million children less lucky than you.
Posted by: John Galt on May 4, 2007 01:22 PMToo bad other moms chose death for 40 million children less lucky than you.
But I guess that's okay with you. That's quite the moral compass you have there. You might see if you can get your money back; it's clearly defective.
Posted by: John Galt on May 4, 2007 01:24 PMHow about Michael Savage instead? Rush has more tact in his little finger than Michael Savage in his whole body and that's saying a lot given they'd both be pretty badly biased. LOL.
That would be a pretty fun show. I'm sure having Mathews moderate last night was fun for any of the Capital Hill crowd in Seattle watching (and not too stoned).
Posted by: ferrous on May 4, 2007 01:27 PMThat's "GasBaghdad" Jim McDermott...
But your point is well taken...gadfly.
Did Fred have a Law & Order taping?
Anyone notice the resemblance between Fred and Ike?
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 4, 2007 02:25 PMI notice the way you skated right around the morality of the issue by debating numbers. Cute move, but I've seen it before. If the number is only 2 million does that make it more acceptable? At what point does the murder of a potential person (even YOU!) become unacceptable? I guess I just have higher standards. But then, I believe in *actual* right and wrong, not moral relativism.
Posted by: John Galt on May 4, 2007 03:25 PMGo right ahead and continue to politicize it and devalue it at your leisure.
Posted by: Acid Brain on May 4, 2007 03:38 PMPlease focus on the actual subject of this post (GOP presidential debate) and why the candidates are the greatest thing since buttered garlic bread or how much they suck root politically.
Posted by: Don Ward on May 4, 2007 03:51 PMThe data comes from a researcher for Planned Parenthood.
That said, who cares if it did come from Dobson, as long as it is backed up by the data? It's a logical fallacy to exclude it for that reason, a variation on the ad hominem fallacy called the genetic fallacy.
Only as long as Roe V. Wade and Casey V. Planned Parenthood are not overturned, does it make sense to claim State's Rights. When they are overturned, they will be overturned because of the acknowledgement that life begins at conception or close to. When that happens, the Supreme Court may very well rule that the unborn has Federal constitutional protection whereby the States would no longer have any rights over the Federal law.
While I greatly appreciate the installation of judges that strongly believe in State's Rights, I would hope that someday we have judges that look at the unborn and say their Life needs Federal constitutional protection and not individual state protection.
I don't know if any of the candidates agree but are just afraid to say it. I think that because Roe took it away from the states, that conservatives have two factors working on them: first, simple opposition to Roe that makes people react against federal control (and in favor of state control); second, one appealing strategy is to attack Roe is to go at it from the states.
But it still makes most sense from a republican perspective as a federal issue.
Funny, I feel the same way about Gay Marriage, it should be fully approved at a federal level.
Yet I believe it's a states rights issue because certain states including this one feel that homosexual couples should be given the same legal rights as heterosexual ones under the law. Others feel differently and have laws written by their legislatures who serve the will of the people.
Let the states decide how they want to handle abortion/gay marriage and stop trying to shove your particular morality down peoples throats via the federal Govt. Let the people decide what rights they agree/disagree with like the framers of the constitution intended.
The Republicans - being the stupid party, while meaning well by agreeing to debate on MSNBC where the rabid left goes did not have to do this. They are also going to debate on CNN next, where such lapdogs such as Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty roost. Seems like they need to be more fiesty toward the moderators whenever they show liberal bias, which would command more respect from the viewers and shake that stupid party label. Good luck with that !
Let the states decide how they want to handle abortion/gay marriage and stop trying to shove your particular morality down peoples throats via the federal Govt. Let the people decide what rights they agree/disagree with like the framers of the constitution intended.
OK, so we have Cato on record as wanting to repeal the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibited slavery.
The Republicans should nominate the candidate with movie star good looks and the one who can pronounce nuclear.
The choice is clear.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on May 5, 2007 05:17 AMYippy yi coyote get along little doggie...
Posted by: dcat on May 5, 2007 08:38 AMNobody else even comes close.
Fred Thompson will be backed by the elite only because they are scared shitless of Paul.
Posted by: Independent Voter on May 5, 2007 12:17 PMNo Wonder They're Afraid of Brit Hume
The not-visibly-insane Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even face Brit Hume.
In case you missed this profile in Democrat machismo, the Democratic presidential candidates are refusing to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because the hosts are "biased." But they'll face down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!
At this, even Hillary Clinton was thinking, "Come on, guys -- let's grow a pair."
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 5, 2007 02:02 PMIn a new video posted today on the Internet, al
Qaeda's number two man, .
"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap," Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer.
These traitorous, seditious, America-hating cowards known as liberals and democrats must not be allowed any chance to be 'coward in chief'.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 5, 2007 03:56 PMIn a new video posted today on the Internet, al Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al Zawahiri, mocks the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq.
"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap," Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 5, 2007 03:59 PMAl Qaeda no. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri wished for hundreds of thousands of U.S. dead in a new video. (ABC News)
In a new video posted today on the Internet, al Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al Zawahiri, mocks the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq.
"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap," Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 5, 2007 03:59 PMAl Qaeda no. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri wished for hundreds of thousands of U.S. dead in a new video. (ABC News)
In a new video posted today on the Internet, al Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al Zawahiri, mocks the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq.
"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap," Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 5, 2007 04:01 PMWASHINGTON, May 4 -- Every morning, representatives from a cluster of antiwar groups gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership staff members in the House and the Senate.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 5, 2007 05:13 PM