So I just finished watching the Fox News forum tonight. This debate was also held at St. Anselm College as was last night's debate. In one word, my response: Lame.
Overall, the debate was rather boring. Romney was on the attack and was quite the smooth talker tonight--he was confident and slightly rude at times. Romney had to make a comeback from his miserable night last night; if Romney shot himself in the foot last night, then he must have healed miraculously while he slept--he still was on the defensive, however.
As for Huckabee, he performed decently. He evaded a clear yes-no question from Mitt Romney on the net tax increases during his governorship of Arkansas. Romney: "Net-net, did you raise taxes by half a million dollars?" Huckabee: "We got more jobs, etc." This banter continued for a minute or so, back and forth, Huckabee tried hammering back asking Romney questions, refusing to say a firm yes or no, but implied a 'yes'. Chris Wallace eventually cut it off and changed the subject. Personally, I wished that Huckabee would have just said yes and then backed up his answer. In truth, the taxes were needed, some were under judicial mandate, and they improved roads and schools. When Huckabee left office, he left his state with roughly $850 million in surplus. That aside, I think Romney was looking for a particular soundbite, and Huckabee wouldn't give it to him--think about it, it would have made a great ad if he had said either 'yes' or 'no'. He still got an interesting soundbite, but not the one he wanted.
At one point in the debate, Romney put his hand on Huckabee's arm and attempted to interrupt Huckabee as he was trying to make a point, and Huckabee got irritated, brushed off Mitt's hand and said, "Mitt, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to Chris. You're not the moderator." I think it's obvious that all the candidates in the forum were tired of Mitt's falsity, smooth-talking, and attacks.
The debate was followed by an interview with a focus group led by Frank Luntz, who asked the typical post-debate questions: "How many of you came here supporting Mitt Romney?" About two rose their hands. "After the debate, how many of you are going to leave here supporting Mitt Romney?" I think almost every person rose their hands. Most of them agreed that Fred Thompson was the weakest candidate in the debate. One guy remarked that he mumbled on and on. One of the girls in the focus group would look around to see who was raising their hand as she slowly moved hers up.
The talking-heads commenced discussion after the focus group set-up. Once again, the focus of the conversation was Mitt Romney's "strong" performance, especially after last night.
Yes, I am biased, but I'm going to say it anyway: tonight was an obvious Mitt Romney love-fest sponsored by Fox News.
Fox News, you have lost the shred of respect I had left for you.
-Cydney
Cross-posted on The Celebrity.
Posted by Cydney at January 06, 2008 07:40 PM | Email ThisMitt has moved down to #3 for me, behind McCain. It's his constant negativity and misleading attacks (like his one on McCain where he keeps saying McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, which is true, but it was because he wanted to also cut SPENDING, which our "Republican" Congress wouldn't do).
I'd still prefer him to Huckabee though. Huckabee is just too liberal (not on social issues, but on most everything else) for me. Even when I agree with his policy, I disagree often with his reason, like when he said he supported homeschooling rights because "it works." A conservative should support homeschooling rights whether it "works" or not, because it is an issue of liberty.
Posted by: pudge on January 6, 2008 08:39 PMHuckabee does have populist ideals, and I'm not going to deny it. He didn't either--he said tonight that "if that's populism, than I'm guilty." I don't think all populist ideals aren't bad. I think useless government programs are a no-no, but I think funding for music education in public school is a good thing.
I hate taxes just as much as the next guy, but sometimes they're needed.
Anyway...the debate was pretty boring until the focus group thing, and then I was yelling at the TV. :) It felt so scripted.
On the side, I like John McCain, too, and he'd most definitely be my second pick behind Huckabee.
Posted by: Cydney on January 6, 2008 10:52 PMThe second night, Huckabee, Thompson and McCain all seemed second tier to Giuliani and Romney.
It seems those three need Ron Paul in the audience so they can appear presidential to at least one candidate.
Posted by: swatter on January 7, 2008 08:12 AMI think Thompson was probably the most ignored--he was rather boring.
Haha...I almost wished they invited Ron Paul. It would have spiced things up, but then again, it would have inevitably ruined the perfect pro-Romney they had set up.
Posted by: Cydney on January 7, 2008 08:36 AMI think that money coming from the federal government IS a bad thing. A very bad thing. Indeed, an unconstitutional thing.
And I could not disagree more about the pharmaceutical comments. That is a quintessentially American belief. He is absolutely right. Pharmaceuticals are the GOOD guys. That doesn't mean they do everything right, but if you give me PETA and Greenpeace and Al Gore on one side, and any big pharmaceutical on the other ... guess which has saved and significantly improved more lives.
How are they bad guys? Because they are trying to make a profit, and use that money to make even MORE life-saving drugs? Granted, the people in charge make a lot of money, but so what? That's a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the bottom line of these companies. Far more money goes into R&D than into anyone's pockets. My biggest problem with pharmaceuticals is simply that government gives them too many rights. We need patent reform on drugs.
swatter: shrug. I thought Giuliani looked fifth tier to everyone else. I thought McCain and Thompson both looked great, though Romney did better.
Oh, I don't necessarily agree with Romney and the pharmaceutical comments, I just think he didn't phrase it very well. Pharmaceuticals aren't the bad guys, it's the overregulation from the government that makes it hard to get cheap prescription drugs. BELIEVE me, when I have to fork over $108 for my medication once a month, I'm not a happy camper. The government needs to encourage competition within the pharmaceutical market.
I'm sorry if I miscommunicated that. I don't want to sound like a liberal crazy. :)
Posted by: Cydney on January 7, 2008 07:06 PMhttp://www.home-school.com/news/huckabee.html
Posted by: Michelle on January 8, 2008 10:39 AMThat article was somewhat deceptive. AND, this lady sounds like a Ron Paul supporter.
If you actually read the entire HSLDA Court Report article on that bill in Arkansas, you'll notice that Huckabee didn't necessarily support it. 80% of elected officials in Arkansas were democrat, and there's not much you can do as governor if your legislature overwhelmingly passes a bill, you veto it, and the veto gets overrided.
Also, Gov. Huckabee was the first governor ever to appoint a homeschooling mom to his State board of education. Huckabee is a huge proponent of homeschooling.
I would trust the HSLDA's endorsement of Gov. Huckabee. Even if Ron Paul is supposedly a bigger proponent of homeschooling rights, HSLDA PAC still endorsed Huckabee, and they usually don't make a habit of endorsing presidential candidates until after the primaries.
That's saying something.
Posted by: Cydney on January 8, 2008 10:59 AMSimply appointing a homeschooling mom to his board of education does not make him a "strong proponent of homeschooling". When you're endorsed by the NH NEA, the biggest enemy of homeschooling, it's hard to square that.
And by the way, many homeschoolers who belong to HSLDA strongly opposed the endorsement of Huckabee which really came from its president, not the organization. And the HSLDA president has not denied that Huckabee is not the best proponent of homeschooling. His decision had more to do with Huckabee's social conservative positions, not his positions on education.
Posted by: Michelle on January 9, 2008 08:16 AM