Wednesday, November 28, 2007
|
|
The LouTube Debate
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
8:40 PM
|
What a carnival. Sure, I agree with most of the posters at The Corner that Mitt is doing very, very well and that Rudy hurt himself badly with the "sanctuary mansion" shot as did Huckabee on the tuition for the children of illegal immigration, but machine-gunning immigration questions was an absurd way to spend the first 35 minutes of the debate, and it was wrong to throw a "conspiracy theorist" question at Ron Paul after making him cool his heels for 35 minutes. He's got a huge significant base of support, and using theater to marginalize him and then brand him as the tinfoil hatter was simply wrong.
As was having a cartoon direct a question at John McCain. Senator McCain is making a dignified exit from national politics, and though I disagree greatly with his policies, he is a great American and deserves a great deal more respect as do all of these candidates. CNN couldn't help themselves, but we knew that would happen.
Lou Dobbs is making a fortune banging the anti-illegal immigration drum and talking up the threat of the North American Union. It is clear who had a great influence on this debate's design, and it wasn't a serious political journalist.
UPDATE: K-Lo's take:
So Far [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
this is Romney's best debate performance yet. He reminds us he has experience and outside of Washington, he's tackled difficult issues, and does not let his temper get the best of him with a New York bully (something that will come in handy).
|
|
and handled himself cooly with 'hot' stuff coming at him from McCain and Rudy. Got my attention.
I watched probably 30-minutes total. Back & forth,
all in the 2nd hour. I'm a Rudy guy, but always have an **asterisk** in my mind about him: Presidential Temperment. McCain doesn't possess that quality, for sure. No disrespect(and awe)to the horrors which McCain endured in Hanoi, his vehemence against Waterboarding just isn't reassuring with the Radical Islamists we face. How would anyone rebut the fact that the Monstrous
Khalid Sheik Mohammed sang like a Diva and we gained some Vital Intelligence boosts as a result?
He'd planned the 9-11 Butchery of thousands of innocents and we CAN'T make the Bas***d feel scared and drowny?? Oh, Please. Sell that nonsense at a swill market. If we have all we need from KSM, take him out to the edge of the runway at Gitmo & put 3 through his ear. Or, bare minimum, keep the butcher around for awhile as leverage against new high value POW's. Good Grief, McCain getting enraged about mistreatment of that sewage is a tad out of balance. (**Yes, Yes, I know, BUT understandable.**)
Duncan & Tancredo need to leave the race. Huck can't win against Hillary or Bazama, I think.
Paul is chillingly bizarre. How can any sane, well balanced person with ears to hear & eyes to see watch this wacko and not want to splash thorazine in his face?? (**Yes, Yessssss, I know, some very sane people DO support him...I just don't GET IT.**)
Whichever commenter above said that he doesn't GET Mitt not using his vast-successful business experience more, count me in there, too. It is a huge Executive Plus that nobody else has. Use it.
He can pillage any of the Dems with it, particularly Lady MacClinton or Obama. |
|
Byron York: Tired of Huck or not, I suspect that he has helped himself more than any other candidate on stage tonight. He's clearly on the rise in Iowa and South Carolina, and perhaps elsewhere, and my guess is that people who are considering supporting him liked what they saw tonight. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTk3ZGJjNGUyODg2N DhiMDdjNGIxZjg1YWFkMDkzMWE=
Lisa Schiffren: On both torture and, now, excrutiatingly, gays in the military, Romney punted on the question and blithered about getting advice from military officers. Not good enough if you are running for Commander in Chief. Especially given our committment to civilian control. I want to see him stand up and clearly state what he thinks — even if the audience boos. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmZmODhjYTdlMWM5Y TBmY2U2OGRhNDg0YjMzY2VhOTc=
K-Lo: Even with all our issues with McCain, I'm reminded the Time Men of the Year probably should be General Petraeus, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and the American Soldier. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjE2OGI2ZGVhNmE2Y zM1MmM5N2U0ZDVmM2I2Yjg4Y2M=
|
|
Mitt to me:
Ponnuru said: So the Politico ran a damaging story on [Rudy]. So his numbers in early states are looking worse. So Romney did pretty well in the debate, and won the immigration exchange. So he didn't dominate the debate the way he usually does, and reminded Second Amendment activists of their differences. [Rudy] still had a good day, because Huckabee had a good day.
I have always thought that Giuliani could not win a two-man primary. I no longer believe that. He could beat Huckabee even in a two-man race. He can root for Huckabee to take out all his stronger competitors.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDI0NDBiMDMzYjgyYW I4Nzg1YTEwNDZhMDM5YmE5Y2M=
Kate O'Beirne said: Mitt Romney had a really good night, but it would have been even better if Huckabee hadn't had such a good one too.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDRmZTZlYTc1ODA2Yj U5ZGQ3NzhjOGMzYTUxZjhhMjE=
K-Lo says: Yes, I don't think Huck's going away anytime soon, my personal preferences aside. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWQ0YjljMjE2ZmUwY mZhZTZmZThjM2FiYzA1NmVhNmI=
|
|
Show: Rudy Giuliani. Like I said, I didn’t like the starting exchange with Romney. Rudy’s kept his temper and his aggressive style in check until maybe tonight, and maybe a few times tonight he came across a little too “hot”, a little too angry. (You know, that drive that led to the weasel exchange back when he was mayor.) There was a lot of crosstalk during his arguments with other candidates; when that happens, neither guy looks good. But as the night wore on, he got back to his strengths.
Troubled night: Romney. The knives were out for him from the starting gun, which might as well have been metaphorically aimed at his head. I don’t think he came out the better on the clash with McCain on interrogation, and while the “sanctuary mansion” was a below-the-belt shot, it's going to be remembered and repeated. The gays-in-the-military answer looks like yet another flip-flop. He didn’t fall apart under this barrage, but every major candidate on that stage wants Romney knocked out first, and so he’s got a big bulls-eye on his back from here on out. Easy to see his negatives rising week by week if every debate offers an extensive retrospective of his every flaw and position change. http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTM4Y2ZiY2M yMTZjMTI5OGM3NWE1OTRjNThhMjY0YzE=
|
|
Win: John McCain. Seemed to be front and center throughout the night. I agree with Thompson on the immigration policy proposals, but disdain any nativist tone, the kind that drips from every pore of Tancredo. McCain spoke like a grownup during that segment, as well as the discussion on interrogation/torture. As I said earlier, in a noisy room, he dominated by speaking softly. Ron Paul wanted to be taken seriously, and tonight McCain took him seriously by head-butting him on the Iraq war.
Place: Mike Huckabee. I don’t necessarily like how his candidacy is turning into a litmus test for the strength of social conservatives versus fiscal conservatives. But time and again, he’s the smoothest, funniest, most natural campaigner on the stage, and that goes a long way. He saved the rest of the field on the question about whether they believe every word of the Bible, and had the line on the night, saying Jesus was too smart to run for office.
|
|
I agree with most here that Mike Huckabee was the winner. I thought it was a bad and awkward night for Romney.
His revelation to all about flip flopping on yet another subject, gays in the military, was really the last straw, don't you think?
I thought McCain was probably second place. He seemed like a statesman tonight and everyone seems to defer to him on anything military related. |
|
What has Romney ever said to make you think he is pandering on waterboarding? Most Americans accept that scaring some headchoppers for a few seconds is an acceptable and appropriate way to get info. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that Romney is only trying to appeal to the base.
McCain is a hero, but he also a nasty man who has betrayed conservatives time and again. |
|
Reading comprehension is a good skill. Look into it sometime.
I never said the Bible question was not legit. All I said is that question will never be asked of Democratic candidates in a debate to put them on the record taking a position on it. |
|
Actually Hugh did not create it (that would be giving Hugh way too much credit) but in his rush to bash down McCain and Kyl has emboldened the Lou Dobbs anti-immigrant anti-trade forces. If they have their way, watch a repeat of the Great Depression II (which was caused not by the fall of the stock markety, but by a protectionist trade and tarriff war).
Republicans used to be fiscally conservative, socially tollerant, and pro business. Not any more. |
|
And it is not answering some questions directly. Personally I suspect Romney thinks waterboarding is wrong and would never have supported it, but he thinks he needs to to appeal to the base. I think waterboarding is flat out wrong, but in a weird way I trust someone more who disagrees with me than someone who is willing to support it for poltiical gain.
I still love John McCain. I consider him a hero and wish he could be the nominee. I am again starting to fear we are going to end up with President Hillary. |
|
is a very good communicator, by far the best in the lot. His mannerisms are strikingly similar to Bill Clinton. (Is it a Hope, Arkansas thing?)
McCain is someone you can believe in, whether or nort you agree with his views. His comments on waterboarding were, in my opinion, dead-on, and romney came off looking ridiculous. In fact, I for one didn't think Romney was particulary impressive tonight.
Fred looks like a corpse. Ron Paul is your demented grandfather. Rudy is sleazy but you get the feeling he's get the job done.
It's rather funny to hear them all talk about immigration as if any of them will do anything about it. Tancredo or Hunter would, which is why they'll never get elected. But if you think President Rudy or President Mitt is going to solve illegal immigration, think again. |
|
Hey, as long as your calling Neoconscum strange, try putting a mirror in front of your mug without fawning and preening and batting your eyelids.
I know, it's a frightening thought.
|
|
|
On the contrary - his answer was spot on, and giving credit to Bill Cosby was appropriate. Few fathers in the home in the black community is having horrible repercussions and needs to be focused on. |
|
There is no dispute about the lack of suave in Mitt's responses to these questions, however, the substance of his answers was pretty accurate. He is dead on that the president shouldn't telegraph what we will and won't do to our enemies in order to extract information. Our enemies should be left to believe we'll do whatever is necessary. There is no smart reason to limit ones options by taking an unnecessary position on it. It simply allows the enemy to manipulate our system.
And by the by, I know it has become sacrilege to disagree with the Holy McCain on military matters, but the Geneva Conventions prohibit torture, but does not define what the term means. It is McCain's take that torture includes waterboarding, but thats his position, its not what the Geneva Conventions actually say.
On gays in the military, Romney essentially said the same thing McCain did: that "don't ask don't tell" is working, and that he will leave it up to the military leaders to determine their own policy on the issue. The delivery was bad, but the position was fine. Stop overreacting. |
|
I disagree with your assessment of this evening's entertainment. Why?
1.) The questions were from real people----not snowmen, no Abe Lincolns. Some of those folks represented questions I would consider asking. Were they perfect? No. Big freakin' whoop. We have a year to go. Lighten up.
2.) The candidates were put into situations of challenge; "sanctuary mansion"....whew, what has this country come to? Rudy and Mitt sparred on that one. What could any present day "journalist" do to better bring about similar exchange? Nada. Lighten up.
3.) Okay, the delivery of questions were not in the style of Edward R. Murrow, Charles Kurault, Howard K. Smith, Brinkley, Chancellor, or Cronkite. However, I would rather have been dished up questions by regular folks, rather than the yahoos from CNN. Lighten up.
You're wrong on this one, Hugh. Too bad. |
|
|
I think Hugh left the debate too soon. Mitt did OK but did not win it. Rudy was OK but did not win it. Actually, the Huck did. John and Fred also did better than expected. So did Duncan but no one cares. Paul is simply a backbencher. The most serious questions were answered by McCain, Mitt, Fred and Rudy. Mike is still on the charm campaign. Tom, Duncan, and Ron should go home and run for their House seats. |
|
In the actual debate I felt Romney did well but had awkward parts where he was uncomfortable. The Bible and guns come to mind. He was not plastic, he actually said the right things but he was not smooth.
When Romney hits a question that he is not sure how to answer he says "I will listen" or "I will consult experts and make a decision." In a debate it seems tentative. However, in this year of change where so many voters are frustrated by government that will not listen, "I will listen" needs to become the next Romney commercial.
Romney had a great night in the sense that he got the headline he wanted (Romney Rudy on immigration) he also got a great exchange with Huck on immigration. That is the issue that Romney wants to own right now. Everyone knows Tancredo, Hunter etc are not going to win. Romney is the only secure borders candidate with a shot at beating Rudy.
The new politico article on corruption during Rudy's affair and his hiding the paper trail from auditors makes Romney's chances much better. |
|
Both Rudy and Romney wear well.
I agree that Romney's campaign need to find a way to turn business success into a winner. His record and his accomplishments might be hard to describe quickly, but come on! America loves a winner!
On Gays in the military, let me just point out that his discomfort with saying half-truths or whatever you want to call Clinton-speach only endears him to me. They were trying to trap him, and he's a man of integrity who thinks ahead. It's his to lose in Iowa, and Anderson Vanderbilt was giving him every opportunity to do so.
|
|
I don't know about Kennedy, but I have heard about Prescott Bush and the Nazis.
I reckon its a matter of opinion about SPP and the NAU. Paul got into this subject more than any other candidate that I have heard. This is a plus, considering all the denial that has been done about them. |
|
Hugh,
I'll echo Lokaz' post - good job pointing out bad debate structure and a loaded negative question to Ron Paul.
Have to disagree somewhat about Lou Dobbs not being a 'serious political journalist.' He may be a little too focused on the illegal immigration issue, but it's a very important one. Bush's credibility with the 'War on Terror' is severely diminished, because our southern border isn't secure.
When you have tens of millions of Mexican illegals, and a lot of "other-than-Mexicans" (i.e., Muslims who want to do bad things to Americans) crossing the border en masse, this doesn't make sense to the average American: Why are US soldiers fighting halfway around the world, when the biggest security threat is our southern border with Mexico?
More Americans are questioning our involvement in Iraq, and asking questions like:
Exactly who are we fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds... or does it depend on the day)?
What are the specific objectives of these wars, other than the vague goal of 'fighting terrorism?'
Why do we need private military/security firms such as Blackwater in addition to our national armed forces?
How does America define "victory" in these conflicts?
I disagree with NeoCon - the biggest threat our country faces is financial, not militarily. What's really weird, NeoCon, is that all the other candidates are giving the economic issues lip service, and don't realize how serious they are.
Our national debt is at $9 trillion, future obligations for Social Security and Medicare will be in the tens of trillions. Plus - actual inflation is MUCH higher than the govt. CPI numbers (which don't include food or energy). Tell me that isn't crazy.
|
|
|
Ron Paul did not hit anything out of the park at all. He had some good, libertarian points to make, but he said nothing concrete, made vague statements about the alleged NAU, and clearly misunderstands foreign policy. He says we should be engaged with other countries in trade and communication but not invading other countries and interfering with their way of life. Before he said it, though, McCain showed why Paul is so off - American businessmen (i.e. a Kennedy) traded a whole lot with Nazi Germany and were in a lot of contact with them in the 1930s. A little intervention and a lot less trading might have saved a few million lives back then. Hopefully, it will this time around. |
|
Sorry Hugh, but Romney blew it in the second half. I agree he did well against Giuliani on the immigration questions, but he tanked on a few after the first commercial break. And it wasn't necessarily because of his answer. It was his answer and then his awkward and uncomfortable posture (i.e. his answer to the Bible question) and then his attempt to smooth over rather than shut up (foot in mouth and then washing the socks with saliva). And his gays in the military handling was a disaster (I don't know how he could have climbed out of that hole, though).
Being that Huckabee is his Iowa rival, he needed to score some big points. Huckabee may be more liberal-oriented, and I may not agree with him on a lot of policy issues, but he has a way about him that really connected with me and with the people watching tonight. I think he may be the Great Communicator of this field of candidates. I don't necessarily agree with him on in-state tuition for illegals, but his argument with Romney on the subject made Romney come off looking cold and uncaring and Huckabee like a thoughtful and focused leader, even if Romney is right on the policy. |
|
That was a circus.
Nobody will ever ask in a Democrat debate a question to put them on the record if they believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.
Would love to see the dodging though.
Huckabee answered the question great.
I can't for the life of me understand why Romney does not point to his business success track record.
Romney missed a big opportunity to nail Rudy on his accusation of hiring illegals to take care of his property. He didn't hire illegals. He hired a company and while he did point out that it is not the responsibility of the customer to vet the legal status of their employers, he could have turned it around pointing out the failure of govt to enforce illegal hiring practices.
|
|
...began tonight. The very worst of Romney was revealed today. The flip-flop, unprincipled, triangulating candidate was seen in all his glory tonight as best exemplified in his exchange with John McCain about waterboarding. It was compounded by his ridiculous unwillingness to answer the question about gays in the military. Bill Clinton triangulated -- but he did it in a very non-obvious way. Mitt Romney proved he will say anything (or nothing) to gain the nomination and amazingly enough, he became the caricacture he has been portrayed as in full view of the entire country.
Huckabee will win Iowa and Romney's campaign will be over. And it began tonight when Mitt couldn't even take a position on gays in the military or waterboarding. |
|
|
NAU question, Paul knocked it out of the ball park. The NAU and SPP need a very close examination by the general public. If this was an attempt to trip up Paul it didn't work. |
|
|
... tonight revealed a flip flop he has had! Do we want a president who will "change his mind" every few seconds? |
|
they love a close race, of course.
Anderson drilled into Mitt more than anyone else.
...and Romney exited awkwardly with the Red Sox anger/hate. i'm from boston, so I understand it, but it was one of those moments where you see what a kind of nerd Mitt he can be, and how comfortable around sports/guy stuff Rudy is by contrast. They have very different kinds of charisma.
Huckabee was helped and he helped himself - which is what the media wants.
Thompson is funny and quick, but he didn't get much time, and he can bore when he does.
This is Rudy/Romney, like Hugh's been pounding.
The rest of them are running for VP. All huck can do is draw it out.
Either way, Mitt looks like a million bucks, and Rudy looks like FDR. I feel good about either man as our candidate.
|
|
Not that it is a surprise coming from you Hugh. Mitt could have passed out two minutes in and you would have declared him the winner. In fact, on your radio show today, during the first 10 minutes of the debate, you declared Romney the winner after his first answer regarding immigration. You are a joke.
As for the debate, I found it to be the most entertaining, spirited and substantive of the entire season. I think Huckabee and McCain were the most impressive candidates. Romney was absolutely pathetic and the audience laughed at his triangulations answers on questions such as water-boarding and gays in the military. |
|
I don't have cable, but being a Romney supporter I'm glad he did well.
It seems like in all the previous debates, Giuliani always has gotten better grades than Romney.
Maybe Romney has hit his stride.
One big liability Giuliani has on the illegal immigration issue is that those with credibility on the issue, those who have been involved in the immigration enforcement movement for years, see Giuliani as an enemy of immigration enforcement.
(Rightfully so in my view)
A couple of specifics: the "virtual fence" has always been the refuge of politicians who DON'T want the border enforced, because they know a virtual fence can easily be rendered ineffective by a President who doesn't want the border enforced. (unlike a real fence, which is harder for a President to sabotage)
Also, the thing about Romney hiring illegals is a red herring. The idea that someone should insist on reviewing the personnel records of a business he hires is absurd. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was illegal for the employer to disclose those documents.
This is the same sleazy tactic that was played on Tom Tancredo a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
I love Hugh but why you support this guy I don't get it. He has changed every position. Now we find out about his conversion about gays in the military. Mitt is a Flip Flopper |
|
|
The early consensus is that Romney is having a good night. |
|
I've been curious to see him due to curiosity sparked by his supporters on HH threads.
That's a tightly wrapped boy. I didn't catch any of the 1st hour, so didn't witness the whole illegal entry thing and putting Paul on the 'conspiracy spot' and I agree with Hugh about that being a cheap way to go. But, standing there next to McCain and answering & responding to Iraq War questions / debate points, he made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. Dang. This guy is really weird. You Paul People actually want this guy calling the shots in Wartime? Nope. Nada. Nyet. Nein. Negatory. NO Way.
Truly clueless about the War. And, STRANGE. |
|
|
... but he is not having a good night. This is worrying. |
|
...it was wrong to throw a "conspiracy theorist" question at Ron Paul after making him cool his heels for 35 minutes. He's got a huge significant base of support, and using theater to marginalize him and then brand him as the tinfoil hatter was simply wrong."
Well said Mr. Hewitt on this blurb. Quality journalism perhaps making a come back. I thank you for this.
|
|
|
For all the praise that everyone's heaping on Romney, that was an absolutely pathetic response to the question about black-on-black crime. Just awful. No wonder black voters don't think Republicans relate to them. |
|
|
|