I'll probably be proven wrong on this, but despite the intense sparring at times there didn't seem to by any takeaway moments, truly outstanding lines, or troublesome gaffes that will dominate the post-debate coverage beyond the standard news stories.
What will dominate those write ups is the sustained spat between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney on immigration. Giuliani might have actually been in position to get the better of the exchange but erred badly with his "sanctuary mansion" line. Romney was highly effective in then coming back at him asking Giuliani if he thus supported asking people, hired by a company you have employed, for ID papers simply because they look different or speak with a different accent. That was a tough hole for Giuliani to dig out of.
On the whole, most of the candidates were solid tonight:
Mitt Romney - at his best on domestic policy, as usual. Acquitted himself well in exchanges with his two biggest opponents right now, Giuliani and Mike Huckabee. His exchange with John McCain regarding torture was a bit of a danger zone for him. Romney was right on the policy, but McCain commands the moral high ground for obvious reasons on the subject. Romney was a more commanding presence tonight than in the last couple debates, though the ongoing reminders of his past positions while running for office in Massachusetts are going to be a constant challenge and obviously not his campaign's preferred ground at all.
Rudy Giuliani - even when he has a couple bad answers he still does exceptionally well overall in debate formats. Besides the aforementioned blunder in his exchange with Romney, he probably got himself into the most trouble with his answer on gun rights (where activists on the topic won't like his "let states regulate it" rhetoric). Because of the nature of the debate he didn't have to spend too much time other than one question on this story that broke this afternoon, which is sure to have some legs in coming days.
John McCain - came alive toward the end on topics like Iraq and torture after being oddly subdued through the first half of the debate - as he has appeared at times on the campaign trail this year. An admirable, principled performance once he engaged, but he's just not a part of the race like he was in 2000, especially since even his best issues aren't moving voters his way.
Mike Huckabee - on the defensive a bit tonight for the first time in a debate, including via the first question he received on his record of supporting tuition breaks/scholarships for illegal immigrants. His sober, lengthy answer was a bit un-Huck like, and highlights an issue where he differs from the GOP base, which many such folks didn't or don't yet know about. Nevertheless, Huckabee is what he is at these things. He's charmingly pithy on camera, regardless of the merits of his candidacy.
Fred Thompson - A decent but not outstanding showing tonight; serious and exceptionally competent on a number of issues, like Social Security. But given his campaign's current struggles, he needed better than decent. More importantly, he needed to draw sharper contrasts with Huckabee, whose rise has stolen his thunder in Iowa and threatens to do so in South Carolina as well. What Thompson and his campaign are delivering just isn't adequate.
Everyone else: With the exception of the hilarious irony of Ron Paul getting a question that involved the Trilateral Commission (doesn't that just say it all?), there's nothing much to say.
In sum, the debate, as the race as a whole right now, had the vibe of a Giuliani v. Romney race, with Huckabee lurking thanks to his rapidly rising presence in Iowa. McCain and Thompson are secondary actors at this point unless the race dynamics change in a fundamental way.
After some reservations about the YouTube debate format, I think it came out better than might have been expected...though that isn't saying much. CNN seemed attune to keeping it serious for the most part, though they weren't perfect. The questions seemed like they were screened by some MSM hack thinking "this is what the GOP base cares about" (Confederate flags, Bibles, etc.) rather than a more serious vetting of the issues. Also, the way in which it became more of a forum for asking as many YouTube questions as possible as opposed to a free-flowing debate made the program less relevant to the actual race being decided. Still, most of the questions were highly or at least moderately relevant to the GOP nomination race, even if they weren't sufficiently diverse. The Confederate flag question, however, was a total waste of time. The Mars exploration query was a close second.
UPDATE: Anderson Cooper and CNN are rightfully owning up for a notable blunder: one of the questioners is a member of Hillary Clinton's "LGBT Americans for Hillary Committee" and was a member of "Veterans for Kerry." Oops.
Trying googling your questioners next time, people.
UPDATE II: Oh, dear. I almost forgot to post this. The "line of the night" comes from my 8-year old daughter who was in the room, waiting to head off to dance class this evening while her Papa (that's me) was watching the debate. Fred Thompson comes on the screen. She blurts out:
"That guy looks dead."
UPDATE III: Fred Barnes states at greater length and with more clarity my reservations noted in the original post regarding CNN's question selection. Notable passage:
By my count, of the 30-plus questions, there were 6 on immigration, 3 on guns, 2 on abortion, 2 on gays, and one on whether the candidates believe every word in the Bible. These are exactly the issues, in the view of liberals and many in the media, on which Republicans look particularly unattractive. And there were two questions by African Americans premised loosely on the notion that blacks get nothing from Republicans and have no reason to vote for them.Posted by Eric Earling at November 28, 2007 08:28 PM | Email This
The Confederate Flag & Red Sox questions were a total waste of time.
Posted by: M. Sanchez on November 28, 2007 08:38 PM
From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum
Here are our counts for how long each candidate spoke during the first part of the debate
Romney -- 7:03, during 9 times
McCain -- 5:09, during 4 times
Giuliani -- 5:08, during 9 times
Thompson -- 4:38, during 4 times
Huckabee -- 4:14, during 5 times
Paul -- 3:27, during 4 times
Tancredo -- 2:20, during 4 times
Hunter -- 2:16, during 3 times
One note -- Huckabee did not get a chance to speak until 26 minutes into the debate, and Paul did not get his chance until more than a half hour into the debate.
Its pretty obvious these debates are pure theatrics; a way to keep the illusion that democracy is still alive down there. Its also obvious who, by those at the helm, is being silenced.
Why can't you people wake up and realise that your decisions unfortunately don't just affect you, but the rest of the world. Maybe you'd be able to sort through the crap and realise you're being led to the slaughter again.
Posted by: fromnorthoftheborder on November 28, 2007 08:55 PMRomney vs Hillary would be like an audio animatronic debate from the hall of presidents in Disneyland.
My man Rudy also did well on the sincerity scale, but his bickering with Romney on Romney's house was absolutely dreadful.
Hairy
Please don't feed the Paulzis. If you ignore them then they won't be able to turn yet another thread into a pointless discussion of Paul's absurd campaign.
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on November 28, 2007 09:35 PMPlay it again, Michael.
Posted by: Misty on November 28, 2007 09:39 PMHuck also dominated the debate, in spite of the very entertaining dust-up between Rudy and Mitt, both of whom are wearing out their welcome in NH and Iowa.
Mitt had an angry glint in his eyes tonight. He was on the defensive, and interrupted others often. Not pleasant at all.
McCain looked tired, except when he got to the torture issue. Mitt was right though, presidents don't telegraph what techniques they will use on terrorists. The Dems and the media (and McCain) don't get that.
Ron Paul should have been forced to "own" the 9/11 conspiracy theorists he has on the Internet, not some non-existant NAFTA highway.
Posted by: Stephen A. on November 28, 2007 09:44 PMGet a grip. The world hungers for American ideals, wich is why you saw the end of communism and see democracy blooming across the globe.
Does America do everything right? Of course not. It would be ridiculous to think so. But America tries. It is not a mistake that our country is wealthy and powerful. We innovate, we create. In barely 200 years we have risen to super-power status and are thriving while other countries much older are not. We are the most productive country in the world. We value the genius and courage. We idolize the "rags to riches" stories. We believe that everyone can do anything. We are supremely independant. And we believe that America is just.
What about that description is not commendable? What about that description makes you ashamed to be an American?
Our freedom and our ability may make others envious, but envy is not the same as hatred.
I do not accept the premise that the world hates America.
The World Doesn't Hate America, the Left Does
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 28, 2007 09:50 PM1. Romney was on awkward defensive for me. It just didn't play this time on my end - sorry, Eric. His answer to the gay general seemed like a gaffe to me. The crowd may not disagree with him, but his polishedness works against him when he gets a below-the-belter.
2. Giuliani was good on expressing policy, if that's worth anything in the debates.
3. Huckabee is an affable guy. I disagree with him a lot, but he's hard to dislike. That said, I don't think any of his answers were particularly remarkable as substance goes.
4. Full comments on Tancredo and Hunter: Hunter didn't seem to mix up Anderson Cooper's first name last name with his last name first name. That's all.
5. Thompson wasn't awful, but his answers didn't seem cohesive and memorable to me.
6. McCain seemed solid but I doubt it'll get him out of the doldrums.
7. The "gay general" question is going to get Hillary Clinton in the top of the news from the GOP debate, and not in a particularly negative way. The cynic might argue that this would be brilliant if it was intentional.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on November 28, 2007 10:10 PM4. Full comments on Tancredo and Hunter: Hunter mixed up Anderson Cooper's first name last name with his last name first name. That's all.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on November 28, 2007 10:12 PMThe irony is that Romney was on the defense more in the previous couple debates than this one. I understand your point, especially on the issue of possibly appearing too polished at times. But being on the defensive in these things is often because tough questions are being sent your way. And that happens when you're doing well, which is why Romney has a lot of bullseyes on him lately.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 28, 2007 10:25 PMYou are right about Jesus not advocating war, or even any government action at all. Would Jesus have said that government, if it exists at all, should be limited? Perhaps...
I loved most of what Ragnar wrote @ 15. America should be the shining example, Reagan's shining city on the hill. What shines is liberty, justice and virtue. But what hurts our reputation is when we support unpopular dictators like Pakistan's Musharef, the Shah of Iran, the Saudi Kings, Pinochet, Asaad. etc. It hurts our reputation when we do things that keep foreigners oppressed by tyrants. We ought to stop that, don't you think? Then we would be more likely to win the hearts and minds of foreigners in the Middle East and elsewhere. Then they would not throw the baby of freedom out with the bathwater of US foreign interventionism.
Ron Paul understands this. George Washington understood the risks of entangling alliances. We need to heed their advice, or we will continue to be the target of terrorists, and we will continue to get bogged down in guerrilla wars of occupation.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 28, 2007 10:32 PMI s'pose. Joe Primary Voter probably isn't going to fault Romney too much for half-botching a questioned posed in a way that virtually assured he could never hit it out of the park. Polish is polish. It suits him. But he needs to learn how to mix polish with genuine, down-to-earth sincerity. Otherwise every hit he takes is going to be a bruiser. Romney, hate him or love him, is ripe for schadenfreude.
Interestingly, many (virtually all?) of Romney's personality weaknesses seem to me to be Huckabee's strengths, and vice-versa. Two-Headed Romnebee would easily be *the* first-tier candidate (even if Sunday mornings would probably be a little conflicted).
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on November 28, 2007 10:38 PMAll kidding aside, it did seem like the questions were definitely written with the candidate(s) in mind and with a stereotypical view of Republicans in general. Really, a question about what guns you own.. I was quite suprised at how few these guys really had. How about the confederate flag question? They are painting a redneck picture of all Republicans. Gun toting, Confederate flag flying, pickup driving, bible thumping- wait, I am describing myself.(no joke)
The one that took the cake was the gay General, and the rumor is that he is part of Clinton, INC. I really wonder about his credentials, most guys who go through the training and schools (spec-ops, war college, etc) that he supposedly went through are given a full psych profile, and defects like being gay become evident. Plus, he would have had to have a security clearance, which amounts to an extensive full background check, even the slightest rumor of someone being gay would disqualify him for that (people get disqualified for too many speeding tickets). He would have had to be straight for his Army years and turned gay later. If the General is really a Clinton hack it creates a credibility problem that CNN will need to address, or not.
Posted by: redneck on November 28, 2007 10:47 PMYou do make a fair point about the sincerity issue with Romney. By nature of his appearance and manner in public (being so polished), he doesn't always sell as authentic because he sometimes comes off as too perfect. I think that's one of the real weaknesses of his candidacy as far as they go.
I think on that score though, his answer in response to Fred's video shot on abortion as well as his answer to the black-on-black crime issue oozed a level of heartfelt feeling that he would do well to show more of on the trail.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 28, 2007 10:50 PMYes, I have to admit I liked the cotton candy that Huckabee extended in the form of compassionate conservatism, but I just wouldn't respect myself if I supported him because he'd be poking his religious nose into our personal business 6 months after he took office. That's just not a core Republican principle IMO.
Frankly, when Romney wasn't evading questions he should have answered...the ones he did give just scared the Bejeezus out of me more than Pat Robertson does. He even smirked like him. He's a whack-a-doodle fundie that could get caught wearing a wetsuit one day. Ugh!
And poor ol' Fred. He really needs to spend a bit more time in the make-up chair and puff some oxygen before he debates. Dude's great in movies where they have lots of takes, but he just isn't a good debater.
I think there were two others in the debate, but I can't seem to retain their names any more. They need to just quit.
And as for the dude wearing the tinfoil hat....I just can't utter his name. Conspiracy freeway to Canada?
A flailing war backer or a 2nd Amendment softie? A military guy or an attorney? A Westie or an Eastie? Yankee or Diamondback? Oh, who will I nominate at our caucus and county convention and in the primary?
Posted by: Matty on November 28, 2007 11:58 PMand yes, most of the rest of the world believe you to be the laughing stock.
The bully.
I guess that's why so many americans traveling abroad have starting sewing canadian flags on their packs.
And the beauty of the internet is I can have a voice here, whether you like it or not. Feel free to do the same on our matters, if you care to look past your own noses.
Posted by: fromnorthoftheborder on November 29, 2007 12:09 AMThis is a blog and trust me, things can get pretty uncivil. Still, as you pointed out, this is the new public square and is an efficient way to get across ideas to the masses. I just finished reading the transcript of the debate, I did not watch it. I know that people get different impressions watching a debate as opposed listening to them. It is said that people who listened to the Kennedy-Nixon debate on the radio thought Nixon won.
I believe that there are some cultural differences between the Canadian/British model of parliamentary style debate. Prime Minister's question period is something that our executives are not subject to. Tony Blair and Pierre Trudeau were masters at that format. Perhaps, using that technique, Clinton was a master and he spent time at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.
We do not have a parliamentary system and our presidents don't have to run in ridings as your prime ministers do. They don't have to necesarily master one to one debate as much as manage their image. Although, I believe that Blair when he was running the first New Labour campaign brought over Carville and Begalia as consultants.
Until I actually spent time in England, there was much about that system I did not understand. Even though our countries are only a few miles apart in geography, what you are observing is miles distance in outlook. Sometimes, things are not better or worse, only different. My two cents and I guess the way this currency thing is going, I may want some loons.
Posted by: WVH on November 29, 2007 12:49 AMYou said this:
"You are right about Jesus not advocating war, or even any government action at all. Would Jesus have said that government, if it exists at all, should be limited? Perhaps..."
I came across the comment about Jesus in the transcript and gagged. He did say render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.
Since He was and is all knowing, He probably doesn't get into blog discussions of any type.
Probably got better things to do, like saving those who don't believe in Him.
But I do want to say something about Canadians in order to keep others from getting the wrong idea from one person.
Every country has its faults, but there is no doubt that Canada is one of the best countries in the world. And I said that even before Canada elected Stephen Harper prime minister. He is a true friend of the United States, and a good man. Canada is lucky to have him as a leader at this time -- and so are we here in the United States.
And we owe thanks to Canada for their troops in Afghanistan, who are fighting bravely and effectively on our side, and against the terrorists.
If you want to know more about what many Canadians think, I suggest reading Kate McMillan's site from time to time. She, and many of her commenters, are so pro-American that I am embarrassed from time to time.
(I believe the "Blame Canada" song is from South Park.)
Posted by: Jim MIller on November 29, 2007 06:02 AMI should be surprised but no, it's CNN and doing the right thing is not some they know how to do!
Keep it up CNN, pretty soon so 2watt station in the middle of NO where will be more listened to than you!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 29, 2007 06:25 AM - Appealed most to American public: Huckabee
- Leaders (still) Rudy & Mitt (they WILL be the final two)
...and c'mon; these staged events really aren't 'debates' in the true sense of the word.
OVERALL WINNER (last nite): Mrs Clinton (& Pudge!) :)
Posted by: Duffman on November 29, 2007 06:31 AMSomeone please tell CNN about the internet.
However, I object to CNN getting to pick the questions. As the 30 year old political editor of Utube or boobtube said to Hugh Hewitt, it was the fact CNN had political journalists is the reason they got to pick the questions. And the person in charge- a far left socialist. And he gets to pick the questions to pose to the Republicans?
Anybody notice how skewed the moderators are towards the socialistic viewpoints? And anybody notice that when FOX did the questions, they were substantial and debate igniting?
Posted by: swatter on November 29, 2007 07:15 AMWouldn't hurt to hop over and see some of the articles- including the Weekly Standard.
Posted by: swatter on November 29, 2007 07:53 AM
www.michellemalkin.com/
What a freaking joke MSM has become!!!
And Rudy v. Romney on illegals. How in the world can Rudy compare Romney's landscape company having illegals with making NewYork a sanctuary city with a straight face?
Posted by: swatter on November 29, 2007 09:08 AM"And Rudy v. Romney on illegals. How in the world can Rudy compare Romney's landscape company having illegals with making NewYork a sanctuary city with a straight face?"
I read the debate transcript. How he make the comment with a straight face- any suggestion of botox? :-)
Posted by: WVH on November 29, 2007 09:27 AMFor the Democratic 'debate' they had Democratic activists planted in the audience posing as 'undecided voters'
For the Republican 'debate' they had Democratic activists planted in the audience posing as 'undecided voters'
Is that equal treatment, or what?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 29, 2007 11:19 AM1-Hunter lecturing the first guy with a gun question on gun safety. Dumbassery should always be called out.
2-Thompson's answer "I own a couple (guns) but I’m not gonna tell you what they are or where they are." Thompson knows the gun rights crowd.
The question: "Name 3 government programs you think should be cut back." came close to asking a question I would have asked.
I'd have asked, "Name one department (no, you can't just say 'NEA' and get away with it) you think should be eliminated because it is beyond the powers granted to the federal government by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution."
Ron Paul and Federalist Fred would have had fun with that one. Rudi, Mitt, and Huckabee would have had a much more difficult time.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on November 29, 2007 03:06 PMA couple of the answers by some of the candidates on other issues are very similar. Rudy's answer to the abortion question of 'would you sign a bill passed by congress outlawing all abortions if....' Roe v. Wade was overturned, was probably the most currently constitutionally correct answer. The correct answer would be that they would have to wait to read the Supreme Court ruling. Rudy should have also said that if congress gave him a law allowing it in all cases except for rape, incest, life of mother, he wouldn't sign that one either and leave it up to the states.
Romney's answers were perplexing, mostly made for audience answers. His answer to the abortion issue infuriates me even more and solidifies my opinion of him as a political whore more closely resembling slick willie than anything else. He has been changing his position on abortion for awhile, his latest being he would push for states' rights on the matter. And with this debate question he did the 'popular' thing by saying he would sign the bill, knowing full well that would take away states' rights on the matter. However, it sure is the right thing to say at a Republican debate.
Posted by: Doug on November 29, 2007 03:36 PMWith this lineup Fruitcake could actually win. America loves Fruitcake.
There are several other checks and balances built in to our system that are supposed to have a sort of veto, based on their own readings of the Constitution.
Jury nullification allows juries to refuse to convict, and thereby refuse to enforce laws they deem to be unconstitutional.
The Constitution is supposedly written by "we the people" and we are also to judge whether politicians have upheld their oaths of office.
And just because the supreme court rules that a law is constitutional, does not mean that they are right. Supreme courts have been wrong in the past. Some times these decisions are overturned by later courts, some times they are not.
We can not abdicate our responsibility to think for ourselves. We do not have to believe a law is constitutional just because the supreme court says it is in a 5-4, or even a 9-0 decision.
Think about Kelo vs. New London, Ct. That's the one where the City of New London used eminent domain to kick people out of their homes in order to sell the land, at a profit, to a pharmaceutical company. The main reason they wanted to do this was that it would provide more tax revenue for the City. This was clearly a violation of our right to property under the 5th and 14th amendments, and was a taking not for public, but for private gain. The SCOTUS upheld the Cities actions. If Kelo stands, there would be no limitations on when a City could seize your land, and offer you below-market "compensation."
It is perfectly acceptable, no, stronger than that, it is our personal moral responsibility to have our own opinions about what is constitutional and what is not. If the people do not read and interpret the Constitution for themselves, but leave it to the "experts" then our liberties will be eroded. The Constitution was written in plain English, so that the people could read and interpret it.
You do not have to accept everything that politicians do. Liberty requires that you question authority. The ultimate defenders of liberty are NOT the politicians, they are the people.
The Constitution is a document of ENUMERATED powers, who's purpose is to limit the size, scope and power of the Federal Government so that our liberties are protected. Any Federal Department not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is unconstitutional under the 10th amendment. Any Presidential candidate who does not understand this, does not understand, and therefor can not uphold his or her oath of office.
The effect of following this policy of the founders would eliminate a lot of government activities that you like, and that give you subsidies. But doind so would also eliminate many more that only waste your money, and that you disapprove of. The trade-off is a good one. Support the Constitution. Support limited government and the rule of law.
Support Ron Paul.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 29, 2007 04:56 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-DdsRh_v-s
I think Ron Paul won. I agree with each of his positions. He got great applause. He said just what he thinks. He comes across as very genuine, intelligent, and sincere.
Abortion should be handled by the states, not the feds.
We should bring the troops home. The radical Muslims want to kill us because we have been over there for decades, meddling in their politics and supporting the dictators who oppress them. Just come home to defend US borders.
Our soverignty is being eroded by the UN, WTO, NAFTA and such projects as the highway from Mexico to Canada.
We should be spending US money to help Americans, not foreigners.
We should eliminate unconstitutional departments like the departments of education and commerce. We should stop the deficit spending that is making the US weaker.
This all makes perfect sense.
Go, Ron Paul!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 29, 2007 05:37 PMIf congress sends him a bill that he believes would be unconstitutional under the current interpretation of the constitution he must veto it under his responsibility to protect the constitution. However the reverse is not true. If congress sends him a bill that he personally believes should be unconstitutional but that rascal SCOTUS has previously determined it to be constitional, he CANNOT under his responsibility to protect the constitution veto that bill on the sole reason that he thinks it is unconstitutional. That in itself is a violation of his oath.
As it pertains to you and I here's a 2nd amendment example: If you insisted on keeping a sawed off shotgun and carrying it around because the supremes were wrong way back when to say that your right to bear and keep the sawed off shotgun was not constitutionally protected - then you would be wrong. Even if the Supremes would overturn that next year, you currently would be wrong to do so because you would be violating the constitution....end of story. You and Ron Paul, and sometimes other R's running for President haven't figured that out yet, when the Supreme Court Rules - it is the law of the land, unless that same body changes that interpretation later. In that case the in between time is not a gray area, the previous ruling holds until it's changed.
Posted by: Doug on November 29, 2007 05:40 PMIn your last paragraph, you conflate illegal with immoral. I agree that the President has sworn an oath to uphold the law, and for a President to break one is immoral. Ron Paul would uphold this oath better than any candidate in the race, I'll bet.
But we the people can break any law we like, as long as we don't hurt anyone or violate anyone's rights, and as long as we accept the legal process and it's consequences. This is the heart of civil disobedience, and it is as American as Thoreau, Rosa Parks, and ML King jr. Americans do not swear oaths to defend the constitution, only elected officials are required to do that.
Walking around carrying a shotgun is our Constitutional right. I would be proud of any peaceful American who exercised that right, allowed himself to be arrested peacefully, and fought it all the way to the SCOTUS. Doing so might be illegal, but it is certainly not immoral, and he would be engaging in an act of virtue if his actions lead to the repeal of a victimless crime law.
My point is, my friend, that sometimes it is our moral duty to break bad laws, as long as we do not hurt anyone or violate their rights, and as long as we accept the consequences. The reason that civil disobedience is American is that there is a higher law than the constitution.
And just because there is a law, doesn't mean that the citizens become sheep. Free people have a responsibility to think for themselves. Accepting all laws is a recipie for dictatorship.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 29, 2007 07:28 PMI am in turn perplexed at why Romney's answer on abortion miffs you. He has stated it before in this campaign and it aligns with the stated goals for the pro-life movement.
Step #1 - repeal Roe v Wade to return the issue to the states. Step #2 - once the political will and consensus is available, enact federal legislation and/or a constitutional amendment on the issue. Obviously, #2 is a long, long way from happening given the current political climate in the country. So Step #1 is the short-term goal, Step #2 is a very long-term goal.
Romney made a specific effort to delineate those points last night, getting interrupted by Anderson Cooper in the process. So, that's neither a change from what he has said this campaign nor as incongruent as you make it out to be.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 29, 2007 07:50 PMEric, quotes from Mitt:
"And so I'd like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and allow the states to put in place pro-life legislation." - at odds with the debate where he stated he would sign Federal regulation rather than allow the states to.
"That we should, therefore, allow our state to become a pro-life state. I believe states should have the right to make this decision". Again at odds with his comments at the debate.
When he wrote his 'mea culpa' as it were, explaining in the Globe how he now has a pro-life stance he said he believed each state should have the right to decide on abortion rather than the one size fits all of Roe v. Wade.
In order to show difference between him and Rudy (who had to answer the question a well), Mitt took the avenue that was expedient in front of the conservative viewers, that of, screw the states I will sign a federal law on the issue. Of course he is LYING OUT HIS BUTT. But so what, he'll say anything and then in the general will go back to state's rights.
It's a big change Eric, a huge change from what he said before and what he'll say later to a different group. It's Clintonesque.
Posted by: Doug on November 29, 2007 08:39 PMSorry, it's not all a change in what he has said on the campaign trail, let alone what you'd like to describe it as. Each statement you highlight applies to a specific point in the two-step process I outlined.
He took some grief on this score earlier in the year because MSMers couldn't figure out how the two steps are related or that they would by nature have a significant gap in time between them. Their thinking, along with yours apparently from the way you frame your argument, is that Romney's statements are meant to say he supports the same things occurring at the same time. That's not accurate, as Marc Ambinder ably summarized earlier this year.
I believe the bigger issue is that you don't like Romney and don't believe his conversion to the pro-life cause. That's your right and you've made your position quite clear here in the past. Everyone is entitled to their own belief on that score. I believe you're wrong, and I'm not sure where saying a leading Presidential candidate is "LYING OUT HIS BUTT" really advances your argument.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 29, 2007 09:03 PMSee also this post from the Campaign Spot in August discussing the same points I made about Romney and the two-step process. The post further cites a 2005 Boston Globe op-ed where Romney announced he had changed his mind to pro-life and supports the very two-step process in question.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 29, 2007 09:08 PMDoug @ 54, you are right, I inadvertently left the words "sawed-off" out of my post @ 52. To make it explicit, I DO think that the second amendment means that the right to keep and bear a SAWED-OFF shotgun shall not be infringed. I think that any law that makes doing so a crime is unconstitutional, and immoral and ought to be struck down in some way. I don't care how it is done. I would be proud of anyone who peacefully broke this law, and fought it all the way to the supreme court.
"...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Pretty cut and dried to me.
Our State Constitution is even better:
"...the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 29, 2007 09:10 PMI also think Romney looked really bad. I agree, Romney was OK on the torture policy, for example -- I disagree with him, but it's a valid position -- but he still looked terrible defending his position, even when he was being misrepresented. He just couldn't catch a break or something. And he had that happen all night. he even badly fumbled the Bible question (which I agree was a bad question to begin with).
I was not in favor of the GOP doing the YouTube debate, months ago. Even when I asked questions and did the song, I didn't really care for the debate idea. But I think, as Eric did, it turned out better than expected, and I hope they can keep improving on the format. It's certainly no worse than some of the other moderated debates ...
Posted by: pudge on November 29, 2007 09:18 PMUS vs. Miller - the last 2nd Amendment case to come before the Supreme Court in 1939 - it was all about someone who peacefully broke the law in relation to a sawed off shotgun and the Supremes ruling was that there was no constitutional right to keep or bear them. I do expect the next ruling will not overturn this one but emphasis it more.
Eric,
My problems with Mitt are simple, first electability. When he gets to the point that I'm comfortable that he could beat Hillary then that problem is solved. (If he is the nominee, I of course will vote for him and put signs up and have a bumper sticker as well).
Second, trust. I will be voting for a President, not a politician. I don't want someone that says his positions in all sorts of different ways so that he can appeal to more people. It's why I like Bush, he says what he means and if you or I don't like it, that's fine at least we know where he stands. And, yes, Bruce I like that quality in Ron Paul, but his position on our country's security is a non-starter for me.
Romney's campaign website refers to that article that you mention directly to his quote on abortion - "But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
Now Eric, tell me why he answered the way he did, that he would sign Congress' Bill that banned abortion? It is very simple, he answered it that way to get the support of the viewers. Rudy had just explained that he wouldn't sign the bill that he believed it should be left to the states and he didn't get much applause for that. Slick Mitt steps and and decides, well I guess I won't let the states decide through the democratic process, tonight I will make it a Federal Mandate.
Yes, that would be great for us conservatives, but he is either lying on his campaign site or he lied at the debate. My guess is that he doesn't want to take different views, he's just politicking. End result is that if decides he needs to put a pro-abortion judge on the Supreme Court to get something in return from the Senate, we won't know what he'll do.
Posted by: Doug on November 29, 2007 09:40 PMYou're right. That's why he used the language he did at the debate, saying yes to such a bill as a hypothetical and pointing out it isn't going to happen in the near future.
As to your other points, I can respect the issue on trust. I've obviously reached a different conclusion but I can understand why people come to that point with Romney given all the information at hand.
Lastly, I think the only real way electability is being measured right now is hypothetical head-to-head matchups, which are next to worthless given that only Hillary and McCain are truly well-known to likely general election voters (even Rudy is still known for his past reputation than as a candidate and what he's campaigning on). But, I share your passion for wanting to win. I honestly think everything Romney brings to the table makes him ultimately our most electable candidate, and the one that will best represent the party's coalition.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 29, 2007 09:59 PMI have. They, like the Log Cabin R's, are pretty grumpy with Romney and are spending their money accordingly. I'm not sure that either group, however, understands that unless their ads are exceptionally well done, the source taints their intended goals.
Objectively, the ads are ok, not great, and their tone doesn't fit the broader tone of the broader campaign right now. So they stand out as "attack" ads rather than as part of the campaign back-and-forth. I'm sure the Romney camp would like the ads to go away, but I don't think they'll be as effective as either attacking group hopes.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 30, 2007 06:59 AMOf course, in the long term, I know they want it to help Rudy, their ideal candidate, but the ad is not necessary for that. As long as the pro-life movement is fracturing itself among 3,4 or 5 candidates, Rudy will win.
Posted by: Michelle on November 30, 2007 01:11 PMOh yeah...Romney is a big gay rights advocate...or was so when he was in Mass. Looks like he's changed his position, there he goes flipity flop just like an Atlantic Cod.
I agree the ads won't win anyone over and I agree that isn't their intent. Their intent is to make Romney look bad, which they do. But given the material they have to work with the ads could be a lot more effective, which they really need to be to do the trick given the source.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 30, 2007 07:05 PMI agree with that. They could have found better material at Life of the Party.
Posted by: Michelle on December 1, 2007 08:13 PMFirst, I was pleased at John McCain's attack, which he clearly had planned. Not because that sort of stream-of-consciousness nonsense about Hitler and WWII -- when the neocons openly want what they call WW IV! Are we to forget that the first war crime charged at Nuremberg was waging aggressive war?
I mean this: mainstream politicians NEVER attack an opponent they think is far behind. The McCain campaign, we've heard, is worried sick about New Hampshire, and they thought a slam at me would help. Ha! Of course, it only strengthened our forces.
Then, after the debate, Rudy Giuliani walked up to me and said, "Oooh, you sure have a LOT of supporters." It's only the beginning, I told him.
Indeed, he could have told that by the crowd outside after the debate. Mitt Romney had a few people, but no one else did. We, on the other hand, had about 500 enthusiastic revolutionaries, plus a boat, a trolley, and two planes towing lighted signs. As I looked out at the crowd, I thought: the establishment has no idea of what they are facing. We have an army of freedom, prosperity, and peace. As the LA Times political blog noted the other day, the British also thought they had no problem with the Americans--until Yorktown.
But we have an astoundingly short time before the first contests. The Iowa caucuses are on January 3, the New Hampshire primary is on January 8, and Nevada and South Carolina are both on January 19. We have only 30 days to stake our claim to the nomination, and to the new America that restores the ideals of the founders, and leads the world through free enterprise, a sound dollar, the rule of law, and peaceful example. Not through inflation and bombs.
Help me surprise the neocons and all the establishment with our success. Help me build the foundation for the America we all want. Send your most generous contribution: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate. The military-industrial complex, the biased media, the big banks, the Fed, the waterboarders, and the IRS don't like what we're doing. But every good American is applauding us, and daring to hope for a better future.
Please, help me give it to them, to us, to all Americans to come. Keep this revolution growing and winning: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 3, 2007 08:59 PM