Tuesday, May 15, 2007
|
|
Quickie Debate Recap
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
10:49 PM
|
|
So who won? Tonight, two candidates really benefited form their efforts. I have a feeling that Mitt Romney will emerge from every one of these shindigs as the most articulate, well informed and appealing candidate. In terms of debating skills, it’s a man amongst boys out there. But Rudy also had a great night, rebounding from a fairly disastrous debut at the first go-round. Rudy is by far the most likely candidate to have an “I paid for this microphone” moment.
Mitt gains from every one of these formats. The more the country gets to see him, the better it is for him. As for Rudy, he did nothing less than right his campaign’s listing ship. This was the first time in a long time that it looked like his frontrunner status was anything more than an accident.
As for McCain, it was an up and down night. He badly bungled the Confederate Flag question, but had some good moments, too. McCain looks a bit tired and inarticulate at these things. When Fred gets in, the contrast between him and the rest of the top tier will be all the starker.
Now, some individual comments:
1) Rudy Giuliani - Much, much better than last time. Still, the format doesn’t lend itself to his speaking style. At these things, Rudy rambles, interrupting himself only to interject a tired soundbite. I wonder why he can’t streamline his thought processes more efficiently. Nevertheless, he had by far the best moment of the night by challenging Congressman Crackpot on his absurd 9/11 comments.
2) John McCain – Obviously McCain was trying to tone it down tonight. The finger pointing and shrillness that characterized his effort a couple of weeks ago were happily absent tonight. His campaign must have hooked up a focus group to one of those Frank Luntz instant reaction gizmos to grade his performance last time.
3) Mitt Romney – Was it just me, or did Romney talk a lot less tonight than in the previous hoedown? Anyway, about Iraq, his answer was so much more scholarly than the others. It’s almost like he’s a doctorate holder who actually knows the facts, while the other guys are platitude spewing high school students. His command of the facts and authoritative delivery have to be the envy of the field.
4) Tommy Thompson – Tommy usually holds his hands, arms and the rest of his body perfectly still while he talks. When he offers some body language, it’s like a little voice in his head is saying, “Move your hands – it will make you look life-like.” The effect makes him resemble a disembodied head atop a gray suit. Maybe America will flip for that image. I didn’t. I’m even going to make a prediction – Tommy Thompson will be the first candidate voted off the island. His presidential campaign is providing a disgraceful coda to a distinguished career. Let it end!
5) Ron Paul – Do you know that this Robert Taft-idolizing crackpot is Andrew Sullivan’s latest heartthrob? Andrew’s bitterly disappointed that Republicans aren’t giving Paul a chance. I’m convinced that if Andrew familiarized himself with Paul’s background, his disappointment would be mitigated. On the bright side, Wendell Goler asked Paul for three programs he would cut. Talk about serving a heaping helping of red meat to a libertarian. (For what it’s worth, Paul is actually right about the Department of Homeland Security; that monstrosity is a living breathing emblem of all that’s wrong with our government.) The good news is that Paul was such an embarrassment tonight, he may not be invited to the next debate. As Captain Picard might say, make it so.
6) Tom Tancredo – Tancredo is completely unready for primetime. He halts when he speaks, and is oddly unsure of himself. Not that it matters, but he’s not presidential. At these forums, he’d be better off going the Ron Paul route and just talking about what he wants to talk about in response to every question. When asked about Iraq, talk about immigration. When asked about the economy, talk about immigration. What’s the worse that can happen? It’s not like he can sink in the polls. Good line about “the road to Des Moines,” though. Across the board, the canned jokes were pretty solid tonight.
7) Some Guy Named Gilmohr – Can this guy ever answer a single question without immediately citing his résumé?
8) Sam Brownback – Obviously made a concerted effort to be more animated tonight. Since the bar was set very low in that regard, mission accomplished. But, sheesh, when Brownback was talking about ethanol as the answer to rising gas prices, I felt like throwing my Cairn terrier through the TV screen. You know what ethanol is? The chemical compound that results when you mix corn and tax dollars.
9) Mike Huckabee – You know what bugs me about Huckabee and Gilmore? I get no sense that any depth of understanding lurks beneath their platitudes and the obsessive recitation of their résumés. Nevertheless, I have to give Huckabee mad props for the “John Edwards in a beauty shop” line. Could it be that my relentless pounding of the Pink Sapphire meme has successfully brought it into the mainstream? If so, I could not be prouder.
10) Duncan Hunter – Unlike the guys who mention their lame-o backgrounds as governor, Hunter actually has a résumé that you gotta love. Also, I think he comes across impressively. In a better world, he would be a top tier candidate.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|
|
Where is proof Iran has nukes?
Are we going to believe faulty intelligence again, from this admin.
Even if Iran had one nuke should we freak out.
In cold war, we had 40000 nukes pointed at us but we weren't freaking out, like we are with a thrid world nation like Iran.
Spin the fear B-Rob, Spin it! |
|
|
Do we need to provide you with conclusive proof that the sky is, in fact, blue? Most of us are capable of just looking up and, y'know, SEEING IT. |
|
Here is the quote you're looking for..."nut-job" doesn't do Ron Paul justice but it will work until he exits stage LEFT!
Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
April 5, 2006
"Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against "Iran for the SUPPOSED THREAT it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction" that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had."
( take note of words "supposed threat" & "WMD THAT ARE NO MORE PRESENT...")
"Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran - whether planned or accidental - will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3."
("IMAGINARY NUCLEAR WEAPONS....IRAN") we know now they are not at all imaginary weapons the Iranians are building (and were when this speech was delivered).
IMO this doesn't sound like a man who has any clue about ME Foreign Policy, OR MAYBE his elevator just doesn't go all the way to top.
Whatever. He's TOAST.
|
|
Just a note on 1790. Though, surprise, I certainly don't advocate isolationism, I certainly would not mind having the wisdom of that time, and the men who applied it, apply that astute thinking to the problems of our day.
I think very well, they who lived then would well understand the peril of our time and act decisively and accordingly to the world wide threat posed by Islamo Fascism.
Fortunately, it does seem we have leaders rising to the occasion, if only sufficient Americans will throw their concerted weight behind them.
|
|
|
will be all giddy when he hauls in about 2% of the vote when actual ballots are cast? |
|
You wrote:'Fergus: "[Douglass's] own disconnect from reality is on a similar level [as Dr. Paul's own nutjob lunacy.] Thus I am also now a certifiable nutjob.'
No, I am sure your tinfoil hat protects you quite nicely from the mind control rays that would make you a crazy person. Or the fluoride in the water, whichever is your bugbear.
FYI, in case you didn't notice, back in 1964 Goldwater allowed himself to be demonized, and lost the election, thus giving us four years of Johnson, and indirectly sending us into the arms of Nixon four years later. One could make the argument that the nightmare of the late 60s and all of the 70s was partially Goldwater's responsibility, and that of his loyal, dedicated "lunatic fringe" following.
If a replay of that is what Dr. Paul has in store for us, it's just as well that he is an absolutely hopeless candidate. Even if he weren't a nutjob. |
|
Did you learn that from reading the Wikipedia version of history? **rolling eyes
It was the UN cease-fire agreement that "ended" the Gulf War of 1990-1991 that asked the for the "no-fly" zone. The purpose was to:
1) protect the minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims)in northern and southern Iraq from Saddam's murderous regime
2) to enforce Saddam to comply with UN weapons inspectors in their search for prohibited weapons (WMD).
|
|
|
Never, never throw a Terrier thru a TV! They bite when they are mad!! My Westie would be happy to have your Carin as a playmate if you don't stop w/your (almost) abuse! And Dean, be a little more honest in your assesments of Romney. You know he wasn't the best last night. After the 1st debate & 60 Min. interview I was beginning to turn his way but he was a bit of an empty (if very blue!!) suit last nite in a few instances. But that said; these debates, while somewhat illuminating are also false settings that are really quite scripted except for Rudy's anger @ Paul. Even the "beauty shop" line was, I'll bet, already written and just waiting for an opening! |
|
Apparently Ron Paul worshippers are not only deprived of logic, but also grammatical skills. "A nutjob is a nutjob is a nutjob" is, grammatically, akin to "a Chevy is a Ford is a GMC", indicating that whatever superficial differences might separate the three different items, they are in fact the same article beneath the surface. The point was not to enhance the argument, but rather to indicate that whatever differences in the specific kind of lunacy might differentiate Dr. Paul from the other examples I gave, he is no less disconnected from reality.
Dr. Paul wishes us to return to 1790 foreign policy. That is lunacy, dress it up however prettily he might. He is not a serious candidate, and for you and tanabear and the rest to keep shoving him under our noses going, "No, seriously, smell THIS," only indicates that your own disconnect from reality is on a similar level.
Enjoy your candidate for all 20 seconds he lasts in this race, then have fun slumping off to the sidelines and pouting when it becomes obvious even to you that a snowball in July has a better chance of being elected president. |
|
Nope. I have no serious thoughts on Dr. Paul's remarks. Just as I have no serious thoughts on the jailhouse ramblings of Charles Manson, Tim McVeigh, or the fellow in college who bought two-page ads in the campus newspaper filled with exotic equations purporting to prove that the Universe is, in fact, a Plutonium atom. I also have no serious thoughts on the remarks of the fellow who stands on the 16th Street Mall in Denver and screams "WHORE!" at every woman who passes by, apart from thoughts regarding medication and dosages and stuff.
A nutjob is a nutjob is a nutjob. |
|
|
I am still a Romney man, but I believe that Hunter and Huckabee had the most to gain, and gained big time with me. Duncan Hunter was excellent on the border. Huckabee had some great lines on Edwards (I laughed my head off.). He comes across as a very sincere man. The only thing that I disagree with him about is putting the IRS out of business. I have never understood this. How are you going to collect taxes if there is no agency to carry out that function? Now, whether you rename the "Internal Revenue Service" as "The Tax Collector" is irrelevant if they are going to essentially do the same thing. Reform, yes, but putting the IRS out of business...come on. |
|
Lynne
What Ron Paul said is the growth of agencies has created more bureaucracy and are less efficiency. He gave the Educational department and Homeland security as an example.
The facts are since we have grown the federal and State government schools performance is down, less money as a % is in the classroom and administrative cost is up!
Also if you like at Katrina, immigration, ports and waste any rational person would have to give Homeland Security a low grade.
This is why I no longer can support most Republicans, because I was a Barry Goldwater fan who believed less government was better not more government like the new GOP!
Read about Barry Goldwater and tell me why NEOCONS are conservative?
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/the-father-of-the-conservative-movement
|
|
I am loving these comments!
First, we have the deluded Dems, represented by BrianJ and others, pretending to be elated by supposedly poor choices among the Republican field. Please. While Obama spouts platitudes, Edwards turns himself into a beauty shop joke, Goracle's volume expands at a rate certain to elicit questions on heating of gasses, and Hillary turn herself into the political equivalent of a plastic surgery addict, the Republican side is (for the most part) having serious debates which still maintain civility and collegiality. In the meantime, Reid and Pelosi continue to provide demonstration after demonstration that they don't have the first clue how to govern. You can't wait for 2008 you say? I can't WAIT for filibuster over the so-called "Fairness Doctrine!" It will be pure political gold, and either your bloviating about how poor the Rpublican presidential field is, is mere bluster designed to cheer you up, or else you ought to don your hat and join the Tinfoil Brigade!
And speaking of tinfoil, we have all the Ron Paul supporters coming out to demonstrate their own brand of cluelessness. At least with you folks, I am torn between laughing my fanny off, and worrying how many you will take over the cliff with you. So far it seems like the Ron Paul Lemming crowd is small but loud, and that pleases me, but I'm keeping an eye out. Still, when it's folks like Konop and tanabear doing the loudest shouting, I'm not *too* worried...
All in all, it's been a morning of hilarity! |
|
Gulf War I was never "ended"...a CEASE FIRE was declared and agreed to by Iraq. No UN Mandate needed...
WE established the No-Fly Zone as part of the CEASE FIRE...when he FIRED at US he broke the agreement, therefore we never really needed to go to the UN and try to get them to stand up for their own (17) resolutions...
We could have, and should have bombed him the very 1st day he fired at our pilots!!!
Clinton choked at pulling the trigger....GWB did the same for far too long as well. |
|
Gabby writes: "Dean din't serve his country. Bad Dean! Bad Dean!"
Give it a break! You posts give me visions of your dining on ground glass for breakfast every morning.
For the record, some of us including Dean could not have served. Regular readers know Dean has CF whioh would not allow him to serve. I did not serve as I had a serious gon accident as a young man. That should not prevent us from discussion matters of war and peace.
|
|
Dean,
How about showing 'Gilmore' a little more respect. He is a limited government advocate who did cut taxes in Virginia and he was head of the RNC when Republicans were winning elections.
Yes, he will not win the nomination for the President but I would prefer him to any of the big three. By the way, why is Romney considered one of the big three? He barely registers 15% in any poll. He is barely a Republican - universal health care in MASS., a Joseph Smith epiphany on Abortion, and the efficiency of the 'Big Dig'. Give me a break.
I will hold my nose and vote for any of the big three or Duncan Hunter because they will fight and win the war. Otherwise wouldn't bother with any of them.
|
|
A little glowing on Mitt, but he did well. Rudy is the guy who did the best last night.
Mazel Tov on the birth of your Edward's "Pink Saffire" meme--it is a beautiful baby metrosexual!
I swear that there is a conspiracy to take libertarian candidates and drug them or mess with their brains so they act like idiots or loons. Why can't we have a sane candidate spouting libertarian principals?
Throwing the Cairn Terrier through the sceen? Count to 10 before you lose your temper.
|
|
|
Is just downright unfair and insulting...to Sanjaya. |
|
Were, once again, the Democrats.
None of your candidates have the emotional stability to be President. I think most of them actually salivated over the chance to kill people in Iran. Watching these guys acting like nine-year-olds playing with toy soldiers on their bedspreads was disgusting.
As for Romney, you're like the maker of what was supposed to be the world's best dog food- except the dogs won't eat it. Most of the rightists who actually vote in GOoPer primaries don't think he's a Christian. Therefore, he can't win. |
|
Ron Paul was ignored by FOX and put down while FOW viewers almost voted him the winner! Congressman Paul pointed out that our policy in the Middle East is part of the problem regarding terrorism. This was part of a study as well as CIA analysis of the Middle East yet he was ridiculed by most the candidates.
NPR-“Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been essentially doubling in Iraq every year that we’ve had more or less 150,000 American combat soldiers stationed there.”Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism
AC-Full interview with Robert Pape
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-mitt-romney-win-debate
Do you think Ron Paul is right the GOP base is shrinking due to the war policy?
FOX News -asked you to tell us who you thought won Tuesday night’s First-in-the-South Republican Presidential Candidates Primary Debate. With more than 40,000 votes submitted via text message, 29 percent said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney made the best showing of all 10 GOP presidential hopefuls who made their cases to the American people at the University of South Carolina’s Koger Center for the Arts in Columbia, S.C.
• Did You Miss the Live Broadcast? Click Here to Watch the Entire Debate on FOXNews.com.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who ignited controversy at the debate with remarks that U.S. policy had invited the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, came in second with 25 percent. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who strongly admonished Paul for his comments, came in third place with 19 percent. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is the frontrunner in South Carolina polls, came in sixth with 5 percent.
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-mitt-romney-win-debate
|
|
|
I don't think Romney came out as well as you suggest. Giuliani, on the other hand, had the gift of Ron Paul. That was a powning extraordinaire. |
|
1) Dean Barnett has once again put on his cheerleader uniform for his bud Romney (or maybe he never takes it off). I thought Romney won the first debate but his performance last night was lackluster at best. As Jonah Goldberg noted on National Review, if you turned down the sound when Romney spoke you could imagine him saying, "what can I do to put you in this BMW today?" He came across as a guy that will say anything to get votes.
2) The Fox guys were very good and helped make this debate more informative than the first. Memo to Chris Matthews: Stick with spitting on guests on Hardball and leave the debate setting to the professionals.
3) Rudy won this debate hands down. The way he became visibly angered at Ron Paul for saying America brought 9/11 on itself was a strong reminder why I favor him over all candidates when it comes to fighting the WOT. This war is personal to him and I believe he is the one guy that will do what it takes to defeat the enemy. He was also the only man on the stage that correctly referred to the enemy as Islamic terrorists.
I completely disagree with Rudy on abortion but I thought he handled the question much better last night than during the previous debate. He didn't make me feel any better about his stance but at least he came across as sincere in his beliefs.
4) Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee are the only two "second tier" candidates worthy of being invited back for the next debate. I like both of these men a lot, especially Hunter.
5) McCain did OK, but not great. Used the tired "drunken sailor" line and then got waxed when Huckabee immediately fired off his "John Edwards in a beauty salon" comment.
McCain's not going to win the nomination and I'm glad of it. He cannot defend McCain Feingold and is poor at even attempting to do so.
6) I had high hopes that Tommy Thompson would be a worthy VP choice to help win Wisconsin and possibly keep Iowa red, but I think his debate performances have blown any opportunity for him to ever be considered for that position. He's been abysmal. |
|
"I" got elected in a "BLUER than blue state" or some such drivel once more, I think I'll scream!
Perhaps Mitt doesn't know the history of Massachusetts as well as he should...We have a tendency to elect Republican governors as a counter-balance to the solidly Dem legislature.
Dukakis was an exception to the rule and Mitts Lt. Gov. was a woman who recieved no help and little support from the Mitt-man when she ran. In fact I place some of the blame on Romney for my state now having a governor who is Left of my two Senators (Fat Teddy Kennedy and Gigolo John Kerry).
As a former voter for Romney (voted for his Lt. Gov. too but to no avail) I am in the position to inform the TH readers about Mitt Romney, Flip-Flopper extraordinaire.
I can attest to the fact that poor old John McCain was right when he said about Romney & his penchant for pandering;
"...and I haven't changed my position on even number years or changed because of the different offices I've been running for."
Hopefully, the more the voting public learns about 'Mitt The Flip' the quicker he will be rejected and become 'Mitt The Flop'.
|
|
|
I thought Rudy won with a noble assist from Ron Paul. I think Romney is full of ideas, statesmanlike, but there just is something missing, that I can't put my finger on that makes him hard to get totally behind. And what is the deal with Pat Caddell? He looked like he is 100 years old and has parkinsons. Is he ill? |
|
Far be it from me to detract from a man's military service but for you to say...
"...those who actually served their country at risk of life and limb and hold Goldwater/Reagan values?"
(I take it you were referring to Ron Paul)
is REALLY putting some serious SPIN on it...
Military Service:
FLIGHT SURGEON, United States Air National Guard, 1965-1968
FLIGHT SURGEON, United States Air Force, 1963-1965
Want to know what's funny? While the text message lines were open there were no Paulophiles posting on TH.
Zero, Zip, Nada. Same number as Paul's chances of becoming president...Zilch.
|
|
And the children texting their votes over and over and over again for their own bizarre American idol is exactly the reason why there won't be electronic elections anytime soon.
|
|
|
Most will think Rudy won the debate but Huckabee drew first real applause and reaction from the crowd with his comments on the Fair Tax. Kudos to Huckabee!!!!!! Don't understand the gravity of the Fair Tax? Check out ://www.fairtax.org/ |
|
What gives with your denunciation of Tommy Thompson?
Now I don't hold any water for Thompson, but to suggest that his quest for the GOP nomination is a "disgraceful coda to a distinguished career" is bizarre, absolutely bizarre.
He hasn't embarrassed himself.
Sure, he's old. So what. So is Rumsfeld, so is Cheney, so is McCain. So was Reagan. Big fricken deal.
His answers haven't been anything that would warrant such an over-the-top as the suggestion that he's "disgracing" himself.
In what way is he "disgracing" himself.
The disgrace tonight was that creep Ron Paul.
Giuliani should have been far more heated with him.
And no, Romney did not look like a "scholarly" candidate while the rest of the field resembled high-schoolers.
Not even close.
You didn't notice him tonight as much as you did the first debate BECAUSE he shrunk, he dwindled, he slipped back into the field, while others, like Rudy, like Hunter, even like Huckabee stepped forward.
Others stepped forward, Romney fell back.
And we'll see that reflected in the polls.
Of course it's only the second debate, so there is time, but if the rest of the field steps up their game, it will be game, set and match against Romney.
Romney needs so much help, he's such a mountain to climb, that it's just hopeless for him.
Just hopeless.
If anybody looked head and shoulders above the field tonight it was Hunter.
Hunter demonstrated COMMAND tonight.
TANCREDO does halt when he speaks. But he hasn't offered the nation "misunderestimate," now has he?
And NO! he didn't constantly speak about the border. He didn't take every question and turn it into one about the border. And it's an insult to our intelligence to suggest as much.
I watched the debate twice tonight. Tancredo didn't prove himself to be a one-trick-pony when answering.
Tancredo verbal delinquencies are on par with our President.
But you are right that it's not Presidential, and what's more, our President isn't very Presidential, now is he?
But I agree that after 12 years of verbal spasms from the men of the Bush family, that this nation, this party demands COMMAND of the English language. ABSOLUTE COMMAND.
And that's part of the reason that Hunter stood out tonight. Because he spoke so easily.
We're seeing what I deemed a "articulation backlash."
This party is sick to death of verbal cripples, such as GHWB, and especially GW.
The guy who should go is Brownback.
Brownback actually held his midsection as if he had a womb when he was speaking of abortion. It was weird. And his platitudes about "bringing people together" was insulting, absolutely insulting.
What does he think that twit Clinton tried to do?
What does he think dopey Condi is wandering around the Mideast trying to do?
What does he think that this Presidency has been nauseatingly attempting EVER SINCE we liberated Baghdad?
Brownback and Paul have got to go!
And your inability to OBJECTIVELY assess the field is tiresome, increasingly tiresome.
Are you offering an assessment of the debate, OR are you offering spin for the Romney campaign?
You can't do both.
You have to make the choice.
Are you an adjunct of the Romney campaign?
Or are you a political commentator?
|
|
I would like to know what the big "draw" to Thompson is about? In my book, he's not much better than John McCain, mr. "let reach across the isle"...moderate boy.
In fact, didn't Thompson lead McCain's 2000 Presidential bid?
Why would a Conservative want him as a candidate? He does not have a record that indicates he's solid on conservative issues...he even voted for the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, which tells me he's not too bright!
So again, what is the big draw? Cause I just don't see it! |
|
All of us are struck by Hunter's two debate performances.
He's earning our respect.
And that's a fact.
I considered something of a crank, something of a joke candidate.
But after two debate performances, ................ I would be a crank to dismiss him.
Rudy or McCain would do well to seriously consider him for the ticket.
He's impressive.
If he continues as he had over the last two debates, ........................ he's going to start moving numbers.
That's why Professor Hewitt is so desperate to see the field dwindle so early in the race.
The thing has barely begun, yet Hewitt wants people out.
Tells you a great deal about the weakness of his candidate that he is so desperate to get others out of the race.
The greater Professor Hewitt's hysteria and desperation, the more pathetic appears the candidate that he so strangely supports.
Even tonight, did you notice Romney's attempt to straddle the divide on the issue of interrogation.
Romney doesn't want the questioning to be business as usual.
BUT NOR does he countenance what some describe as "torture."
So what's he done? He supports "enhanced interrogation techniques."
What a dodge!
And the audience saw through it right away.
This audience tonight was rather quick on the uptake.
|
|
McCain saying that we've got to worry about how the world sees us to the torture question and using the "what happens when our soldiers are captured" reasoning, will look pretty lame if they find the missing GIs mutilated like the last "American POWs" taken captive were found.
|
|
I thought that Romney did pretty well during the first half of the debate but faded badly when Wendell Goler & Chris Wallace started asking him about his flip-flops. His answer about doubling Gitmo was nice but he gets evasive when he's challenged.
I thought McCain looked more composed this time, although he's still awfully smug. His saying "Is there any doubt that there's too much money in our political system"? shows that he still hates the First Amendment. Tonight's answer just reminded people of that. His saying that we've got to worry about how the world sees us to the torture question sounded alot like the Kerry "Global test" answer. Pathetic.
The only true winner tonight was Fred Thompson. When he jumps in, he'll make mincemeat of everyone but Rudy.
Finally, I thought that FNC's political team was vastly superior to MSNBC's team. It's like comparing Michael Jordan's Bulls to a college team. |
|
But I must say that your best candidate (Rudy) is basically a Democrat. Mitt is slick. I just don't think the public is open to the idea of another Republican smoothie. They have already been sold a bill of goods by the GOP and they're just not in the buying mood. FDT and Mitt are the losers in that regard.
McCain's time has come and gone. Rudy is a virtual Democrat. Newt might resonate, in that he is known but also unconventional. The question is can he appear humble enough. If so, he has a shot, in my opinion. But anyhow, good luck. I haven't felt this good about a Presidential election since 1976. Hell, if I remembered 1964, it would probably be since then..
|
|
The big losers in case you missed it were
1. Ron Paul
2. Tommy Thompson
3. Gilmore & Brownback (tie)
Fred Thompson still has time. There is nothing special about sharing the stage with 10 when it will be down to six soon enough. That's when the candidates can expand on their answers & not worry about 30 second sound bytes...or be forced to suffer fools like Chris Matthews.
Sweeps is over soon. The last 1st run episode of Law & Order runs this week. I expect an announcement shortly after that...contract liability and all.
|
|
In the 1990's I got a mailing from Ron Paul, warning of the 'new money' with holograms embedded, and offering gold coins for sale, complete with a handy cylinder case for burying in the back yard while the blacks and browns rioted outside.
There are a few tens of thousand people who eat this stuff up. He's in the debate as a marketing opp. |
|
i really like romney. he is smooth and polished. i went into the first debate a rudy fan and i must say he did a great job. mccain, sorry, your time has come and gone. my wife and i really like huckabee. he seems very sincere, but still....
the big loser: fred thompson: he keeps playing around and not announcing and it finally caught up to him. one look at the townhall message boards prove that. after the first debate: constant fred, now nothing.
my ticket: romeny and hunter. two blue staters for president.
rudy is the best leader of the bunch, but just to liberal on the social issues. |
|
1) I now know why the democrat hopefuls did not want to debate on Fox.... They can't handle the tough questions
2) There are 4 good candidates in the republican field. Romney, Giuliani, Hunter, McCain |
|
I too was wondering just what the heck this Cadell person was talking about. The closest thing the Democrats have to any sense of Gravitas is Senator Clinton, the southerner from Arkansas turned Senator from New York, but her gravitas I fear is actually a misapprehension of what in reality is dourness.
The stark contrast will be on sharp display in the showdown. In the meantime, I think I'll actually watch the next Democratic debate just for comparison sake. It should be a hoot, but serious? Please. |
|
Same ol' same ol'...
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 27, 2002
"The several hundred al Qaeda members, we were told, hate us because:
We're rich, we're free, we enjoy materialism, and the purveyors of terror are jealous and envious, creating the hatred that drives their cause. They despise our Christian-Judaic values and this, is the sole reason why they are willing to die for their cause."
"For this to be believed, one must also be convinced that the perpetrators lied to the world about why they attacked us."
"The al Qaeda leaders say they hate us because:
-We show extreme bias in support of one side in the fifty-plus-year war going on in the Middle East."
"What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we believe only the official line from the administration..."
"I'm convinced we must pay more attention to the real cause of the attacks of last year and challenge the explanations given us."
This guy is Delusional! And Dangerous!!
And now, everyone who watched the debate knows it! Finally!!
And to think he has a few hundred people texting so as he cn win.
Tanabear - Can you spell Sanjaya?
|
|
Without having read the book, I cannot assess precisely the timeline of jihad and how it led to 9/11 in keeping with the author's theory. However, based on my studies of the Middle East, I can tell you there have been cycles of religious fervor mixed with periods of relative stability dating back hundreds of years. There are many competing influences which drive this cycle. The most recent outbreak of large-scale militant Islamic fervor began with Khomeini's ascendancy in Iran in 1978. This helped to install terrorist networks with state support.
I understand your displeasure with Paul for his comments--they were completely inappropriate for a debate, namely a Republican debate. However, there's no ignoring that our policies in the Middle East were cited by our enemies as the primary motivation for war. That in no way justifies what they did or invalidates our standing policies in the Middle East as of 9/11. I can tell you after having served 2 tours in Saudi, a joyless country if I ever saw, there appeared to be no endgame in regards to our presence in Saudi or our enforcement of no-fly zones. |
|
Gilmore and Huckabee are both former Southern governors. Not bad resumes to recite when seeking Presidential office. Gilmore, in particular, arguably has just as much if not more experience with terror threats than Romney does, now that I think of it.
And, they're second-tier candidates. They HAVE to obsessively recite their resumes because they don't have you and Hugh doing it for them. It only seems like overkill to people like us who follow this stuff obsessively. To the general public, it's just old-fashioned messaging. If Gilmore and Huckabee do it enough, they hope, it will sink in. |
|
|
|
On Romney - "The more the country gets to see him, the better it is for him"...?? Don't you mean the more the country FINDS OUT about him the worse it will be for him?
Rudy McCain - Same RINO, different name.
Ron Paul - Doesn't have a clue about the REAL WORLD going on all around us.
Tancredo - Saw him in NH...he seemed out of place there too. He comes across as a one trick pony and, illegal immigration is its name.
Huckabee - No way.
Gilmore - Who the heck is he???
Tommy Thompson - Maybe he is IN just to confuse people with his last name...oh, right, there's no one else named Thompson running. Forget I mentioned it.
Duncan Hunter - IF the OTHER THOMPSON doesn't run, Hunter gets my vote.
However, IF FRED Thompson does enter the race I would love to see a Thompson/Hunter ticket!!
BTW
Homeland Security - While I agree it is a bloated bureaucracy ELIMINATING it would be a huge mistake, especially during a war like the one we find ourselves fighting now.
|
|
|
|
|
I obviously meant Fred Thompson, not Fred Hunter. |
|
|
On Ron Paul's middle east comment, before you come to the premature conclusion that he had a point, you should read Paul Johnson's "The Birth of the Modern". There is a section that explains that the modern jihad began in 1818 in Chechenia and has been ongoing ever since. And this book was published in 1991. Jihad was an unknown concept in the West at that time. Ron Paul is a dangerously misinformed stooge who seemed to have been briefed by Michael Moore. |
|
|
I didn't think the big 3 did well at all, particulary McCain and Giuliani. Their answers on abortion and immigration were a disaster. For Giuliani to point out that abortion declined by 16% during his "regime" was very disengenuous since that was a result of demographics (as were most of the decline of the crime statistics). I was really astounded at what an idiot Ron Paul truly is. That guy is nothing short of insane. If I didn't already know that Romney is a genuine person, I would not think that so far. He really does come across as Bob Barker/Vin Scully. And I like Romney. He needs to get some of that Duncan Hunter/Fred Hunter gravitas. If I had to pick the overall winners, I would say Hunter followed by Tancredo. Hopefully, there are only 4-5 candidates at the next debate (can Bloomberg buy his way in? I say if his poll numbers are below the statistical error range, charge his $999,999,000 for a microphone). |
|
|
Ron Paul is an isolationalist Republican in a modern world. It no longer works. It didn't work in the 30's either. It worked when Madison lived and it took several weeks to cross the Atlantic. Only a candidate who recognizes that the world has in fact changed in the last 200 years can be taken seriously. |
|
...in Congress.
Just a few more notes.
Agree with DB a great deal, and found his insight more than helpful.
DB writes: "I get no sense that any depth of understanding lurks beneath their platitudes..."
I feel you can add Mr. Tancredo.
When asked about interest on debt, he could not answer the question, merely saying it is a problem, then run after some other cliches.
He demonstrated he has little understanding of a Global Market, a Free Market, and why some of the things he describes as a problem, are actually a sign of health.
I am beginning to feel this is why Tancredo has grabbed onto a simple issue 'immigration', cause he isn't really that sharp.
One has to wonder, now that vivid isolationists like Tancredo and Paul are in the GOP tent, will the followers of these two be encouraged to support the GOP winner of the Nomination in the END?
Regarding McCain...
This is a US VETERAN, who 'mishandled' his plane in the face of enemy fire many years ago.
Of all the people who should understand the difficulty of an admirable Military Operation, like the one in Iraq, it should be John McCain.
He voted for this MISSION, and his demeaning those who bravely implemented his chosen policy is ugly.
When Senator McCain says 'mishandled' he joins the likes of Senator Reid, trying to appease the liberal Media and some Democrat Partisans.
Yet, besides an ugly toss of the Bush Administration under the bus, he also throws the thousands of Americans serving in Our amazing Armed Services.
John McCain really should know better.
Leadership is not this Senator... |
|
|
The Fox crew was far better prepared and serious in their questioning than the MSNBC clowns. The clowns treated all 10 as people who should not even be considered. Fox knew that there were serious people who could answer serious questions. I thought Rudy, Mitt, Duncan, John and yes, even the Huck did the best. It is time to winnow out the rest. Paul is simply better suited for a back bencher role in a libertarian parliament. Thompson is a Cabinet guy. Brownback makes a fine Ks. Senator. Gilmour is.....Tancredo makes a good scold in Co. and for the Pub House. Rudy and Mitt and Duncan are the serious people with McCain there too. But, the BASE is not, not going to nominate John. His day is done. If Fred and Newt get in, the seriousness of those 6, McCain will probably survive the cut, will make the Dems look like empty suits. Pat Cadell was wrong. The Dems are not that strong in their presence. Hil and BO and perhaps Bill Richardson are their serious people. They do not , my estimate, rank with the Pub 6, if those guys Fred and Newt ever get in! |
|
You've got to be kidding...Ron Paul is nothing but an embarrassment. He sounded like one of the terrorists tonight, blaming America for the murder of over 3000 innocent victims on 9/11. Shame on him...and his ridiculous comment regarding "bombing Iraq for ten years" was frankly pathetic. Perhaps he needs to get a history lesson...Saddam was shooting at UN coalition planes that were patrolling the UN mandated NO-FLY zone!
But as a typical Buchanan wanna-be, he would just seek to make the US an isolationist state hoping that world problems simply will not "touch" the US...pathetic! It's time for him to go back to Texas and hide his head in the sand again! |
|
|
Just so we all know the truth; Tom Tancredo's favorite issue is not immigration, but ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. While the leftists and our bungler-in-chief try to cloud the issue, there is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration; just ask any of us who came to this country in accordance with its laws. |
|
Nine men and who is that showed up at a debate tonight monitored by adults. Even Thompson had a moment of lucidity when he spoke knowledgeably about stem cell research. But that was his highlight, therefore I'm not betting against Dean.
For the most part the men were poised, I thought, but a couple stood out to be sure.
Rudy, my man, as Dennis Miller would say, certainly had the moment of the night.
And I was prepared to give that to Mike Huckabee with his Pink Sapphire observation.
Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and even Sam Brownback had very strong moments.
Tancredo and Gilmore were at least serious and knowledgeable.
Lets see that's the nine serious men.
Oh yea, there was that guy who had me throwing cushions at the TV. The guy who made me reminisce fondly on fingernails scratching a chalkboard.
I ask again, what happens to this country if the showdown is between Paul and Gravel? |
|
McRudyMittredo sez:
Gays should be able to marry but not have abortions, assault rifles, or have to pay the AMT.
Paul did make a valid point about our relationship to the Middle East, but that was exactly the wrong forum to discuss 50 years of Mideast geopolitics. He would have been much wiser to note how the Carter Administration bungled the Iran situation, supported the wrong guy, created a vacuum that led to the Soviets seizing Afghanistan, which gave nutters like Osama Bin Laden their showbiz break, and appeared absolutely inept and impotent in the face of the hostage crisis. All of these conditions set in motion our present course. That's true "blowback." After that comment, I doubt Paul gets reelected in his district.
There's some merit in attacking your opponent for modifying their positions. By the time you've reached your 50s and you're in the public eye, you should have a handle on your core beliefs as they apply to policy.
|
|
Dean, you had to appreciate Rudy's genuinely angry/miffed/pointed response to Ron Paul's lunacy.
My verdict is still out on Mitt. He is clearly the most polished and he is obviously well informed but for some reason I am still not convinced that he can win the general election. Neither can McCain for that matter. If Mitt seems too polished, McCain is just flat out too old.
It will be interesting to see what kind of presence Fred Thompson will have if/when he jumps in.
|
|
|
|
Take II and well, I am still confident in my choice. Once again, Duncan Hunter was pretty much ignored, while the three "top" candidates, Giuliani, Romney and McCain, were given most of the questions. Fox, however, put forth a much better forum and supplied much more direct and pertinent questions, offering a better opportunity to supply the responses that, at least, I am interested in hearing.
I have not changed my mind in regards to Giuliani. He will not gain my support. His replies, as in the last debate, were very shaky and when pressed for an honest reply regarding his stance on abortion, he completely skated around it and frankly, did not answer. In addition, his constant comments about his experience with security (referencing 9/11) have out worn their welcome with me. First off, he left office in January of 2002; that gives him a total of four months as "leader" in NY after 9/11. There is no doubt, he did an incredible job during that time, but it hardly makes him the expert on security that he attempts to portray himself as.
I completely commend Giuliani, however, for taking on the ridiculous statements made by Rep. Ron Paul. Ron Paul, who in my opinion is nothing but a farce and has no right to be on that stage, nor even considered a valid candidate for the office of the Presidency. He’s a complete isolationist and in today’s world, it’s just not prudent to be so!
I will admit I am quite impressed with Mike Huckabee. I actually believe he has the most viable plan for Iraq, and honestly, it makes the most sense. Allowing the people of Iraq to earn oil revenues will open the door of hope, will encourage enterprise and will take the Iraqi people out of oppression. Of course the best comment of the night came from him when he simply stated, Congress has “spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop”…great delivery! In my opinion he clearly won the debate tonight.
Duncan Hunter - he’s sharp, intelligent and secure in his responses. He has a plan regarding border security and amazingly, has the support of over 70% of the Hispanics in San Diego. He also has a strong military plan, which of course, I completely agree with. "Get the information"...do we need to hear more? He's all about protecting this nation, which is the only true responsibility of the Federal government and he clearly understands that!
Mitt Romney – Abolishing the department of education should still be a goal. The Federal government should not be involved; the local and state governments and most importantly, parents should be in charge of handling education. His remarks to McCain regarding campaign finance reform get a big high five from me! Again, he was pretty smooth and seemed to have well thought out answers, although, I am not as impressed this time, as I was in the last debate.
Senator Sam Brownback – as I stated after the first debate, I love his stance for life. However, I just don’t see him as a strong Presidential candidate. He doesn’t seem to have the right answers on issues, such as a plan for the Iraq war, taxes, immigration, etc; so no change in opinion here.
Senator John McCain – Although he attempted to come across more relaxed and even made an attempt at expressing humor…he still has not “won” me over. I commend him for his stance on the war on terror; he obviously understands the need to win both in Iraq and ultimately the entire war. I absolutely agree with him, regarding staying in Iraq, I would gladly stand with him there. However, I cannot agree with him on his embryonic stem cell opinion and have to question his “reaching across isles”…I don’t want a President who is going to compromise, I want a President who will lead.
Okay, now I am even more against him, as I just saw a commercial in which he has a retired General speaking out against the way the war has been run in Iraq, attacking President Bush.; shame on McCain. We hear enough attacks from the left; do we really need it from the right as well? Not the way to win! Win on strong principles, ideals, values, morals and character…not by cheapening yourself to “liberal” tactics.
Rep. Tom Tancredo – “when we go under, Western civilization goes under” – I’ll say a big Amen to that. At least he seems to “get it” in regards to the war on terror. But like Senator Brownback, I see nothing “special” here. He is not very articulate and has not offered any strong stances on anything, other than immigration.
Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson - hardly made an impact at all tonight. Of course, they weren’t given much of an opportunity, as I mentioned above. Props to Jim Gilmore, however, for his “Rudy McRomney” statement!
Wrapping it up, I would like to hear more from Mike Huckabee, but am still confident in Duncan Hunter. Hunter is always prepared, precise and to the point!
|
|
Agreed with Jon, as Fox is vast improvement.
However, why would they cede so much time for Wendell to chat with Ron Paul on Iraq?
Thanks to the Mayor, who maybe will grow with more aggressive nature to speak out against folly.
Thankful Mayor changed subject of questioning his 'conservatism' to focus on the Hillary threat of taxation and regulation of the Free Market.
Rudy wants to focus on the issues, Communism Hillary's way, and Radical Muslim Killers, and the priority thinking is welcome.
Romney again is class, strong, wise, and his abortion answer was helpful.
Romney gets the GWOT and seems solid on all the issues.
A ticket of Rudy and Romney looks attractive at this time, with either on top.
|
|
|
With apologies to Mickey Mouse, Chris Matthews is Minnie Mouse when compared to serious men like Britt Hume and his equally serious co-hosts. |
|
|
Dean, what debate were you watching? Romney looked a bit flustered on a few questions and had the biggest clunker line of the evening, that "blue suit-black suit" comment. Kerplunk. Romney needs to lose the Bob Barker impression and sound genuine. I haven't heard it yet. |
|
I eliminated 3 on war stance. Brownback and Thompson seem clueless. Paul is a raving lunatic throwback to the 30's. I eliminate Gilmore and Huckabee on lack of gravitas (though Huckabee will never be forgotten for the great Edwards comment.
I thought Tancredo was better than you did. I still don't trust him on the war.
I think Romney appears too rehearsed and plastic. He did well, but he did well in an artificial seeming way.
All three of the "top tier" candidates get it on the war, and Hunter is by far my favorite. I could probably vote for any of those 4. I tried to blog on the fly on the debate on my site. Might check it out if you are bored. |
|
|
at least, the most Conservative and least clownish... |
|
|
|