Since posts at this site about the last Republican debate drew a good response in the comments I'll throw some quick thoughts out here for everyone to chew on and discuss.
In quick summary: if Mitt Romney won the first debate, John McCain held steady, and Rudy Giuliani lost, then in this debate Giuliani won - in part for simply performing so much better than himself last time - while McCain and Romney held steady in their top-tier positioning.
Overall - the last debate was entertaining, this one was much more substantive and thus, more worthwhile. The questions had more policy meat; and hearing the candidates respond to the hypothetical terrorist attack scenario was certainly more valuable than questions about evolution or Catholic bishops. I'm torn on allowing audience applause though. On one hand it gives some instant feedback, but it also detracts from debate time in a notable way.
Rudy Giuliani - if you can declare a "winner" in a debate field of ten people, he has the honor, if nothing else for his exchange with Ron Paul alone. Overall he gave a much better showing than his disastrous performance at the Reagan Library. He was forceful when necessary, relaxed when appropriate. Most importantly, he was at least clear and direct, not muddled, about his position on social issues and how he differs from his fellow candidates on them. How those positions sell with some elements of the Republican base may be another matter.
Mitt Romney - a very solid performance though he probably suffers a bit because the reviews from the last debate were so good. High expectations in debates are rarely helpful. He also had to deal with the inevitable questions about changing his public policy approach on some social issues. He seemed to handle those well though the tone of the questions themselves had him on the defensive. Interestingly, he speaks comfortably with impressive clarity and knowledge on a wide range of issues. There's something Presidential about that.
John McCain - much more even keel than his over-caffeinated performance in California, and generally strong. I do wish he wouldn't tell the same drunken sailor jokes over and over. He also seemed to get drawn out on issues where he has sharp differences with the conservative base, both in a question from Chris Wallace and in his differences with other candidates on "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Mike Huckabee - got the laugh line of the night comparing government spending to John Edwards in a beauty shop. He may be lagging in the polls but he is an enjoyable addition to the debate stage.
Ron Paul - well, he's still a Libertarian at heart, and it seems safe to say not a lot of people are going to want him on the stage after tonight's atrocious discussion of 9/11.
Sam Brownback - for good or for ill he's still not very interesting, despite his admirable record of public service.
Tommy Thompson - ditto.
Jim Gilmore - it didn't seem like he needed to go after his fellow candidates as much as he did, especially since the moderators came equipped with plenty of tough questions.
Tom Tancredo - better than his last debate performance, but that's not saying a whole lot. He needs to get better at speaking in concise talking points to survive in this format.
Duncan Hunter - at times he's impressively firm on some interesting issues, but sounds like someone who's been in DC too long (he gets the acronym penalty of the night for saying "SecDef" in reference to the Secretary of Defense). His protectionist rhetoric on trade is also at odds with much of the party, particularly its general election coalition.
At this point, it really would be nice to start shrinking the size of the crowd on stage. That may be awkward with the pending candidacies of Fred Thompson, and perhaps Newt Gingrich, who will deserve to participate. But some of the fellows on TV tonight clearly aren't going anywhere. More importantly, the debates as a whole will have greater merit if voters are able to hear more from the serious contenders from whom they will eventually have to choose.
Your thoughts on all the above, including who you would "vote off the island" for the next debate, plus anything else about tonight's event are welcome in the comments.
Lastly, for those wondering about Presidential politics at a largely local blog, it's likely to be a periodic but not regular feature here. In the current relative scarcity of state and local political news, it's worth talking about the most significant story in politics for a bit.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 15, 2007 10:40 PM | Email ThisOn a side note, as you can see they finally unblocked SP.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 15, 2007 10:55 PMMR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.
Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.
Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.
And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.
MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?
REP. PAUL: What changed?
MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Congressman?
REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
Posted by: Donovan on May 15, 2007 11:13 PMOverall I think Mike Huckabee also gets an A+, as does John McCain, who as Eric points out, was much more even-keel. That being said, I think McCain spoke to the hearts of a lot of Americans tonight with his defense of his own positions, and with his explanation of why he's against torture.
No clear winner in my book--only a fading Mitt Romney. If I had to vote off, here's the order I'd do it in: Ron Paul, Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, and then "Tanc".
Posted by: Patrick on May 15, 2007 11:26 PMYou and Paul and many others just don't get it. The war on terror's domain is not on the issue of non-interventionist foreign policy, it is on issue with the Monroe Doctrine.
9/11 and previous attacks showed the government that the radical islamists, like the old world europeans, want to take over the western hemisphere and the world. It is a true conservative republican attitude to associate the war against radical islamists with the Monroe Doctrine.
Paul is just absolutely wrong, it has nothing to do with non-interventionist, and that thinking is very dangerous to our country.
Posted by: Doug on May 15, 2007 11:34 PMI researched Ron Paul and found that he is the last man interested in saving the USA as a free nation. Those who want to play childish games and pretend this is not the situation -- your minds are like Ronald McDonald white paper bags full of shit and piss left over from people's $1 happy meal crap-fest, tossed on the side of the curb.
You are animals. You have no soul. You are the walking dead. You are the hungry white ghosts addicted to bright pretty lights and impulsive animal-instinct compulsions that ultimately have zero substance. We all would be better off if you had never been born, so you wouldn't get an opportunity to vote.
Why not try to pick yourself up off the ground of hell and pick up a bit of information so you can educate yourself on who Ron Paul is and what he represents? That's the least you can do. But maybe I should expect more from the dog that pisses on my front lawn.
Posted by: Bman on May 15, 2007 11:43 PMBut a non-interventionist policy for the United States is absoulutely abusurd but in many ways I think the Democratic Realism and militarism of the current administration is also a little absurd.
I don't know what exactly is the right answer but some middle ground has to be found in between the two.
Posted by: infernotandy on May 15, 2007 11:56 PMRudy doesnt even know why 9/11 happened and he was in new york when it did happen what a idiot enough said.
Ron Paul knows the Truth and told it any one who has learned of the history of 9/11 and america history would know that And to say He Did bad...
Id have to call you a bigot.
Especially after tonight, Ron Paul is the easy choice to be immediately kicked off the ''future debates'' island. After that seems like it gets a little harder to make the case for ditching some but not all of the others in the ''2nd tier'' this early; even though Eric is clearly correct when he sez that some of them are not going anywhere. But I also agree that the size of the crowd is a problem given this format: Everything comes out pretty much at sound-bite level.
''Meet the Press'' has gone to the other extreme: Tim Russert said during his interview with Sen. McCain today that they are going to give all of the candidates (or at least ''serious'' candidates, however that is defined) a full hour.
Agree that Guiliani gets the prize for serious come-back response of the night, for not letting Ron Paul get away unchallenged.
For sure Huckabee's ~''spending like Edwards in a beauty shop'' was the biggest chuckle of the event.... and who knows: With the right ''packaging'' by media experts, that $400 haircut thing could start to matter during the general if Edwards is the nominee (don't think he will be, but he's certainly a contender).
Stay tuned... we should know for sure who both the (R) and (D) nominees will be in about 9 months.
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 16, 2007 12:17 AMLet's face it, Rudy is the True Republican.
The Fiorello LaGuardia, the Lincoln.
We need to purge the Republicans of the extremists and kooks and get back to consensus...
I would guess most of his supporters will vote for Obama or Hillary when he doesn't make it past the nomination...strike that, they won't vote at all - Bong hits for Paul.
Posted by: Doug on May 16, 2007 12:44 AMHunter's "protectionist rhetoric" being at odds with Republicans? I don't know where you've been my friend but the majority of the ground troops in the Republican Party are not at all thrilled about trading with a growing superpower who wants to knock us off the top of the heap economically and militarily.
Posted by: Don Ward on May 16, 2007 01:04 AMYou really might want to consider the fact that among other things, OBL and fellow travellers are still 'bent' about the fact that Christian Europeans kicked the Moors out of Andalusia (nka "Spain" -- to use the English version of the name of that country) after Islamists had invaded that portion of Europe.
Maybe THEY should be thinking that THEY precipitated the sequence of events over the recently passed millenium?
And, the tribute that they demanded from a, then recently independent, United States in the early 1800s -- was that due to an interventionist policy of the 1950s by your logic?
"....To the shores of Tripoli..."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html
Posted by: FT on May 16, 2007 04:23 AMPaul's most outrageous comment, something that shows his communicative inabilities was along the lines of how we should listen to the terrorists for the reasons they attacked us. That is ridiculous, and though I don't think Paul is a "blame America" type, with comments like that in a 30-second debate piece, that's how he sounded last night.
Romney is ridiculously articulate, far more so than anyone else, but he lacks substance in a lot of what he says, and that comes across to me and I assume a lot of people. Kudos to McCain and Giuliani, they did well and I hope one of the two will be our next president.
And one more thing: Fox News viewer polls mean nothing. Some of the online polls before the 2000 election showed bush with a 20+ point lead. Only scientific polls matter when gauging public opinion.
Posted by: JD on May 16, 2007 05:35 AMHunter spoke more to China in the debate, but his talk about trade on the campaign trail as a whole is utterly protectionist. That's clearly at odds with economic conservatives, one of the three pillars of the conservative coalition (the others of course being national security conservatives and social conservatives). Note that Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth really went after Hunter in his post-debate assessment.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 16, 2007 06:36 AMYour not kidding, Paul's people came out of the wood work, but I'm not sure they are helping him at all.
Bman dumb words sure proved that!
But coming to think of it, having Ron Paul as opposition certainly contrasts the other candidates in a favorable light.
Personally, I would like the US to be isolationist. But, that decision was made decades ago, so I have to live with it. I also don't want the US to be policemen of the world. Again, that decision was made decades ago. I have to deal with it.
Question: how is this presidential dynamic going to benefit the Rs in '08
Posted by: swatter on May 16, 2007 07:23 AMIt's more than a detachment from reality by Ron Paul and his supportors (who just demonstrated that deepspace moonbats come in all flavors).
From the debate:
-------------------------------------------
Asked directly if he was suggesting that the United States invited the 9/11 attacks, Paul said, ''I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it.''
------------------------------------------
So Ron Paul thinks we should try and understand the feelings and appreciate the grievances of the Islamo-Nazi killers who murdered 3000 of our innocent fellow citizens in cold blood ??.. Maybe we should negotiate with Al Qaeda ??.. how about a mediator; SURELY we can work this out ??
GIVE ME A BREAK !!
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 16, 2007 07:26 AMThe Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 16, 2007 07:51 AMWell spoken! I, too, will stay home before voting for Guiliani. He finally gave us a glimpse of who he really is, and his candidacy will never fly for Republican votors in the south and midwest, who value morality, decency and second amendment rights. Rudy the Rino should audition for VP on Hillary's ticket. It's a better fit.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 16, 2007 07:58 AMI like Rudy a lot - but question his one-note invocations of his 9/11 creds as a basis for his presidential fitness.
I also think Ron Paul brings a valuable perspective to the debates and is arguably the one true consitutional originalist on that stage. It's unfortunate that he chose the language of "listening" to the terrorists - that word made me cringe - but his premise is absolutely sound. If we as a nation don't have the sensory acuity to look in the mirror and realize that we reap what we sow - then we will surely end up bankrupting ourselves, morally and financially, in an endless cycle of foreign entanglements. Our ill-conceived pokes and jabs into the Mid East hornets' nest over the last half century are breeding a new generation of Islamo-fascist warriors who will be all too eager to fight and die for the sake of bringing America down. I think Ron Paul "gets" this - though he could definitely stand to sharpen his rhetoric.
They said obl had his 'hatred' roots in the Saudi bases. I think that is too much of an oversimplification. obl was and still is a renegade and would have found other excuses.
While a lot of the non-candidates (those with small volumes of supporters) have good sound-bites on their pet topics, but those positions don't have a prayer of happening. It ain't goin' to happen so why dwell on it.
Last year, for example, wouldn't it have been better to pass some sort of immigration reform than nothing? Now what could we get? Too bad Tancredo could only support the Tancredo model.
Posted by: swatter on May 16, 2007 08:29 AMMay 16, 2007
Conservative's Dark Horse?
By Nancy Morgan
As my friends and I made our way to the parking lot, we all pretty much agreed that yes, he would make a great President and, what a shame that he didn't have a chance.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/16/conservatives-dark-horse/
BTW: Why was he not wearing his tin foil hat?
Posted by: John425 on May 16, 2007 09:49 AMYou're dreaming. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Dem's controlled everything? My God! We could have healthcare just like the Brits, oh and yeah they would surely end the war in Iraq immediately. Soon all of our income could go to the government and they could give everybody exactly what they deserve...
Breadlines.
Not enough of anything.
Crappy healthcare. You think they will still steralize surgical instruments?
50 people employed to do the job of 10 yet get a crappy product.
Sounds like Utopia to me.
Hooray for the Democrats. May they rule forever.
Pull your head out of your A$$ Cato.
(Senator McCain) Why should Americans continue to fight and die while Iraqi politicians continue to do so little?
(Governor Thompson) This is a freely elected government, sir. How can you require them to do anything?
Governor Romney, can you foresee any circumstances under which you would pull out of Iraq without leaving behind a stable political and security situation?
(Senator Brownback) Is that any way to fight and win a war, to look for a consensus among the politicians in Washington?
(Mayor Giuliani) Is your commitment to winning in Iraq open-ended?
(Congressman Tancredo) Are you in effect giving our enemies a timetable for retreat?
(Congressman Paul) Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?
(Congressman Hunter) Why should we believe that this replacement (of American Troops) is going to start happening any time soon?
(Governor Huckabee) If the generals were to come to you as president and say, we don't have enough troops there; we need, let's say, 300,000, would you be open to significantly increasing our presence in Iraq?
(Governor Gilmore) What would you do to resolve this nuclear issue? And will you launch a pre-emptive strike if they (Iran) were close to achieving a weapon?
It's not difficult to figure out Who FAUX prefers to hand cute puppy questions to and who to put immediately on the defensive. Unfortunate but not unexpected - it seems their minds are already made up before the event occurs again.
Posted by: Acid Brain on May 16, 2007 10:33 AMI'm mean holy crap look at how short of time it took people to completely twist the meaning of what Paul said. It takes somebody with a complete lack of moral integrity to grab a small snippet of a larger statement and then contextualize it to fit their pro Rudy view. Paul's view of what is going on in the middle east, if you choose to view it without republican blinders, is dead on. Not that we should ignore 9/11, or that we brought it on ourselves, but the fact that we stirred up the hornets nest by creating bases, etc in the area.
Posted by: mr rcguy on May 16, 2007 10:42 AMIraq withdrawal move thwarted in Senate.
The proposal lost 29-67 ...wait a moment! wasn't the hue and cry that voters wanted OUT and the mandate of the newly elected SLIM majority to give it to them???
Huh!
And golly gosh gee whiz isn't this just on the heels of this:
CNN Poll Finds Majority Say They're Pro-Life, Abortion Key 2008 Issue
and this:
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Our YLM's penchant for self-delusion is really quite amusing.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 16, 2007 10:48 AMThe hard left is so enamoured with themselves that they can't see that their loss wasn't as much of an anti-war statement but more of a anti-republican govt. statement. Republicans stopped any attempt to be fiscally conservative, or small govt. the day they had the majority. And then with scandle after scandle coming out of the Bush White House how could anybody blame people from jumping ship? You (metaphorically) are a blind idiot if you keep believing Bush/Gonzalez/Rove, et al. when they deny things. Rove "I didn't know I was deleting them permenantly." Oh come on!!!!, anybody who has any IT experience at all knows that is a flat lie. Gonzalez "Those weren't really my top aides." WTF?!?! are you kidding me? On the "Right" believes these guys?
Posted by: mr rcguy on May 16, 2007 11:00 AMNobody on the stage would be a good presidnet --
Time to move on...nothing to see here...
Posted by: Jim Harrison on May 16, 2007 11:02 AMCongrats on Romney for having a great debate performance
Its time to kick people out of the debates to make them more substantive Bye Bye Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, and Mike Huckabee none of you have a chance!!!!
Welcome a narrow debate between Romney, Giulani, McCain, Gingrich, and the other Thompson
Posted by: Andre on May 16, 2007 11:06 AMGOP party is in shambles with no clear leader. Waiting on a dark horse candidate to lead the party to the light seems kind of a desperate move. The GOP looks worse than the Dem's did at this time four years ago.
Paul runs at about 1% in SCIENTIFIC polls. These internet things are open to dnc and Kossac spammers who like Paul because he flames the other candidates.
Spare me. Paul may some principles, but his 9/11 answer was so atrociously bad I don't know where to begin fisking it.
Posted by: Steve in Queen Anne on May 16, 2007 12:25 PMIn both cases the immediate issue isn't the _real_ issue. Creationists are simply defending their central value - their religious dogma - at all costs, and a bedrock scientific theory that happens to contradict some of their dogma is therefore expendable. Libertarian fundamentalists hold non-intervention as a free-floating abstraction, and the true believers have decided that the immediate need to fight a war on terror is expendable. (The more pragmatic libertarians among us have long since become Republicans.)
I predict that the LP will draft Ron Paul to run as a Libertarian again. He won't say no.
Posted by: EmmaPeel on May 16, 2007 12:33 PMWell, it's nice that Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth feels like that. *Finger twirl* Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Last time I checked he wasn't infallible and if C4G feels that the current trade situation with China is a healthy one then they're just wrong on this issue.
But no one's perfect.
Fair trade with South Korea, Japan, European Union, Malaysia, Mexico, South America, India and elsewhere is fine and I don't think anyone is arguing against that. But directly funding Beijing's military air and sealift capacities, increasing its ballistic missile force, modernizing its blue water navy, and providing technology for its aerospace program is not a good tradeoff just so one can save three cents on a plastic bobblehead doll.
But I've gotten way off topic.
Posted by: Don Ward on May 16, 2007 12:48 PMI'm very curious why you apparently think that political parties aren't allowed to evolve. I won't dispute Paul's interpretation of how Republicans used to be, but for heavens sake, Republicans have no been that way for decades--PLURAL. Likewise, Democrats used to be in favor of spreading liberty and as you can see these days, they've decided to take the isolationism that Ron Paul seems to advocate strongly.
Posted by: ferrous on May 16, 2007 01:46 PMIf Brit is such a good moderator, wouldn't the dems want that?
Posted by: swatter on May 16, 2007 02:26 PMRomney, Paul, Giuliani Won SC Debate - Fox News Viewers
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Romney_Paul_Giuliani_Won_SC_Debat...
Rudy thinks they attacked us because we treat our women with respect and have freedom. Paul thinks it may have to do with bombing their cities, supplying arms to their enemies, stationing our troops in their cities and embargoing their nations.
I'll trust the american people and the republican primary voters (of which I will be one for the first time in my life if Paul is still in the race), to decide which theory is more plausible. I trust the voters will realize what Rudy refuses to recognize before the primaries.
Travis Pahl
Posted by: Travis Pahl on May 19, 2007 08:27 PM