Sunday, August 05, 2007
|
|
Analyzing The Debate From Plato's Cave
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
2:39 PM
|
Didn't watch it. Went to church as I suspect the majority of GOP primary voters did, with the other half on vacation, on the golf course, or just loafing through a Sunday morning.
So I am sorting through the post-debate campaign releases, and the best one-liner and the best spin definitely comes from Team Romney:
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza: "Former Gov. Mitt Romney is the frontrunner in Iowa and he's at the center of the debate at its start." (Chris Cillizza, "Republican Debate In Iowa Begins," Washington Post's The Fix, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/ 8/5/07)
Time's Mark Halperin: "I think Governor Romney had the best performance overall. He's been strong in all the debates, comes very well prepared." (ABC WOI-DM's "Vote 2008 Special," 8/5/07)
Time's Mark Halperin: "Mitt Romney gets an A. I couldn't find a lot of things to criticize in his performance. He faced some tough questions, but he did a good job handling it. It's becoming clich to say, but he looks and sounds like a president. For a lot of voters that's important." (ABC WOI-DM's "Vote 2008 Special," 8/5/07)
ABC News Political Director David Chalian: "I think Mitt Romney had a really strong performance. … I think from then on out, he had a very smooth, solid performance, and continues to show why he is leading in these early states." (ABC WOI-DM's "Vote 2008 Special," 8/5/07)
The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "The pre-packaged one-liner of the morning. At least so far. Romney on Obama's desire to meet with enemy leaders and hawkish views on Pakistan: 'He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.'" (Jonathan Martin, "The View From Across The Street," The Politico, http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/ 8/5/07)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I didn't know where [Romney]'d go from the McCain, Giuliani start there.... hitting Obama 'from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove' was pretty funny, and to point. And a good ending on the military and the surge." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "The Corner," National Review Blog, http://corner.nationalreview.com\ , 6/5/07)
The Politico's Jonathan Martin "Republican pollster and author Frank Luntz and Fox News have set up a dial group of 29 GOP primary voters from the Des Moines area … Asked who was winning the debate so far, about a dozen said Romney." (Jonathan Martin, "The View From Across The Street," The Politico, http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/ 8/5/07)
The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "One small but influential group of voters -- a bit like Iowa itself, come to think of it -- had Mitt Romney winning at the halfway point." (Jonathan Martin, "The View Across The Street," The Politico, 8/5/07)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "From the 'normal American' focus group that just dropped by my Corner Debate Watching Headquarters ... 'Romney seems the most pleasant and presidential.' Coming off that YouTube fighting with that radio host, he seems like a guy revving for the fight. (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "The Corner," National Review Blog, http://corner.nationalreview.com\ , 6/5/07)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "'Moving Islam toward modernity'… Romney's attitude sounds a little like Ronald Reagan's cultural exchanges with the Soviet Union. And it strikes me as a real-world approach taking into consideration the problems we face run deep." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "The Corner," National Review Blog, http://corner.nationalreview.com/ , 6/5/07)
ABC News Political Radar: "Romney has a pretty effective – if not down-the-line conservative – answer on healthcare: 'We have to have our citizens insured.' And he took a subtle jab at Giuliani's new health care plan, which relies on tax breaks to encourage individuals to obtain health coverage." (ABC News, "Live Blogging From Sunday's Democratic Debate," http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/, 8/5/07)
Team Giuliani sends along this:
Townhall.com’s Matt Lewis: “I've got to declare Rudy Giuliani the winner today.” (Matt Lewis, “Sunday Morning Coming Down,” Townhall.com’s Blog, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
- Lewis: “[I]t has now become apparent that Rudy Giuliani is the leader when it comes to ideas. Several times, he has injected a new idea which then, other candidates copied.” (Matt Lewis, “Sunday Morning Coming Down,” Townhall.com’s Blog, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
- Lewis: “Rudy has clearly thought-through the questions and answers to a greater degree than the other candidates.” (Matt Lewis, “Sunday Morning Coming Down,” Townhall.com’s Blog, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
ABC News’ Rick Klein: “[Giuliani] has some serious support in the hall …” (Rick Klein, “Live Blogging From Sunday’s Democratic Debate,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
- Klein: Rudy “got what appeared to be the most applause upon entering the room …” (Rick Klein “Live Blogging From Sunday’s Democratic Debate,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
The American Spectator’s Jennifer Rubin: “Rudy shows most command of detail and is making his case effectively that NYC experience matters.” (Jennifer Rubin, “Debate 5,” The American Spectator’s “AmSpecBlog,” http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=7507, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
- Rubin: “[Giuliani] weaves his command of detail and his NYC experience into answers impressively.” (Jennifer Rubin, “Debate Wrap Up,” The American Spectator’s “AmSpecBlog,” http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=7510, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
The New York Times’ Katharine Q. Seelye: “Giuliani took to the question [on raising taxes] the way King Kong might take the Empire State Building.” (Katharine Q. Seelye, “Sunday Morning Debate Blogging,” The New York Times’ “The Caucus” Blog, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez: Rudy displayed “the right instincts.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “The Right Instincts,” National Review Online’s “The Corner” Blog, http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWNiMmU5NDZiNmU2ZjU4MGRlNWNkODk3NDIzYzU1MTE, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
Townhall.com’s Matt Lewis: “Rudy is brillaint [sic] at these debates.” (Matt Lewis, “Sunday Morning Coming Down,” Townhall.com’s Blog, www.townhall.com/blog/g/5ad983e3-7d46-421f-93c8-74d5f8e26d2b,, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
- Lewis: “[Giuliani] refuses to accept the assumptions of the questioners … Other candidates should learn this lesson.” (Matt Lewis, “Sunday Morning Coming Down,” Townhall.com’s Blog, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
- Lewis: “Rudy scores points by being the first to refer to ‘socialized healthcare.’” (Matt Lewis, “Sunday Morning Coming Down,” Townhall.com’s Blog, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
- Lewis: “Giuliani points out that in 4 Democrat debates, the words Islamic extremism were never mentioned. He points out that Iraq is a battle in a larger war.” (Matt Lewis, “Sunday Morning Coming Down,” Townhall.com’s Blog, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
The Washington Posts’ Chris Cillizza: “Giuliani is certainly on message.” (Chris Cillizza, “Giuliani Continues To Slam Democrats,” The Washington Posts’ “The Fix” Blog, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
- Cillizza: “Giuliani’s strident criticism of Democrats on security and taxes are aimed at showing Republican primary voters that he is plenty conservative to represent them in the general election.” (Chris Cillizza, “Giuliani Continues To Slam Democrats,” The Washington Posts’ “The Fix” Blog, 8/5/07, Accessed 8/5/07)
Senator McCain's ship e-mails:
John McCain "Shines When He Reminds Us Of Stakes In Iraq"
The American Spectator's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain ... Shines When He Reminds Us Of Stakes In Iraq." (Jennifer Rubin, "Debate 5," American Spectator Blog, 8/5/07)
ABC News: "McCain Looks Strong On The War Again." (ABC News, "Live Blogging From Sunday's Democratic Debate," "Political Radar" Blog, 8/5/07)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez Cheers McCain Iraq Stance: "You Go, Senator." "John McCain feels my pain. 'We will not set a date for surrender, as the Democrats want us to.' You, go, senator." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner Blog, 8/5/07)
Red State's California Yankee: "My Favorite Moments ... McCain Remains Firm On The War ..." (California Yankee, "Republicans Debate In Iowa," Red State Blog, 8/5/07)
John McCain "Awesome" When Decrying Pork-Barrel Spending
The New York Sun's Liz Mair: "McCain Is On Pork. Awesome. ... This Is Where I Love McCain." (Liz Mair Blog, www.lizmair.com, 8/5/07)
The American Spectator's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain gives it to Congress for porkbarrel spending rather than infrastructure maintenance ..." (Jennifer Rubin, "Debate 5," American Spectator Blog, 8/5/07)
The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "[McCain] appeared to come to life when he was able to address a favorite topic: pork. Decrying the earmark-heavy highway bill that included the now-famous 'bridge to nowhere,' McCain pointed out that the same legislation included 'not one dime' for 'bridge inspection.'" (Jonathan Martin, "A Good Moment For McCain," The Politico's "Jonathan Martin" Blog, 8/5/07)
McCain Brings Humor To Morning Debate
MSNBC's Domenico Montanaro: "McCain bringing a little humor to it with what the responsibilities of a VP should or would be. He said he's thought a lot about it having been considered for that post several times one of those responsibilities is being aware of the president's health! Ha." (Domenico Montanaro, "And We're Back," MSNBC's First Read Blog, 8/5/07)
Time Magazine's Ana Marie Cox: "[McCain] gets off a great, relaxed line about how the VP has two duties: to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate and 'inquire daily as to the health of the president.' ... He sums up seriously, saying that he'd give the VP a portfolio, but that he'd make sure 'that everyone understands there's only one president.' Snap." (Ana Marie Cox, "Liveblogging: Girding Loins In Des Moines," Time's "Swampland" Blog, 8/5/07)
Compare these three releases, and you instantly see that Governor Romney is leading with the strongest set of authorities and quotes when it comes to post-debate analysis, but that Mayor Giuliani is not far behind. Senator McCain is quoting Red State's "California Yankee," Ana Marie Cox and Domenico Montanaro. Advantage Romney. I'll play the interesting selections tomorrow, but Senator Strangelove Obama will get the most play across all media, and that's a big plus. The GOP wants a candidate who will take it to Clinton-Obama, and while Rudy has already shown his willingness to do that, Romney caught up with today's telling barb.
Clearly the race has entered a stage where Romney and Giuliani are locked in a tight, compelling contest with Romney holding an advantage in Iowa and New Hamnpshire the he will hope to use to catapult past the mayor in Florida. Senator Thompson's fan dance has gotten old, and I suspect skipping this and future debates sours more than entices the electorate. Unlike the Dems, the GOP's top tier has avoided throwing haymakers at each other, which is a very good thing this far out from the actual votes.
On to Ames, where vote totals at least provide some hard data on which to base the spin.
|
|
It was pretty poor. I didn't think Romney was impressive at all -- his answers were general and canned. His point about Obama was silly -- he didn't want to disagree that -- if we had to -- we ought to go into Pakistan, so, instead, he simply said we shouldn't TALK about it in a campaign. That is not strong. Guiliani bobbled that one, too. McCain's best moments were rehashed from 2000 (his line about being Veep is as old as he is -- I think I remember that from working for him in '99). And, of course, Tancredo came off as quite literally insane. Obama is Dr. Strangelove?
Frankly, the guys who sounded the most impressive and in control of the facts may well have been Tommy Thompson and Mike Huckabee. But they are as interesting as paint drying. And the guy who got by far the most raucous applause was Ron Paul. I am not a fan, but I keep hearing about him -- and now I've seen him in action. He is the only one who appeared to have real passionate support in the audience.
It is going to be a bleak year for Republicans, I think. I don't like her, but the big cHill beats the pants off of the front-runners in a head-to-head debate. |
|
...In my 'perfect world'.However,Hugh,I wouldn't have a bit of trouble enthusiastically supporting Mitt in the election,should it come to him.He needs,I think,to keep hammering on the
Tough Guy thing.We KNOW Rudy's tough as nails.
Mitt needs to keep adding evidence to the book about himself.Wartime requires Tough Guys.(*Another good reason for Condi on Rudy's ticket,
or Mitt's...Ok..ok...k'..k'...I know she wants the NFL Commissioner's job.But the girl's gonna have to wait!*) |
|
ABC Reset Republican Debate Tally After Ron Paul Win?
Why does the media keep playing games with Ron Paul?
FreeMarketNews.com-ABC TV apparently reset its tally of who won the Republican debate it broadcast on August 5, Sunday morning.
At 10 AM EST, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) was winning the debate with over 1,000 votes. Mitt Romney was next with 106. After the debate at approximately 11:10 AM EST when the tally was rechecked, ABC showed Ron Paul had just 445 votes. Second was “Nobody Won. I’m Voting Democratic.”
Of course, it could all be an innocent gliche, and perhaps ABC will explain these tallies or see fit to rectify them. But it has long been FMNN’s contention, along with others, that Ron Paul, an old fashioned Jeffersonian conservative, would serve as a metaphor and magnifying glass for America’s current political difficulties and expanding corruption.
Read the rest of this entry »
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/abc-reset-republican-debate-tally-after-ron-paul-win
|
|
Hugh declares Mitt the winner (and Hugh went to church and did not see the debate).
Matt Lewis declares Giuliani the winner.
McCain declares himself the winner.
I was very impressed with Mitt's mixing it up with an out of control Christian that Dean posted. Mitt did well with that.
|
|
If the convention were held today based on an applause-o-meter, then I suppose Paul would be the GOP candidate according to the logic above. Using similar logic, based on Clinton's reception at Yearly-KOS, Hilliary doesn't have a prayer so she might as well anoint the international-studies major from Indiana(?) who will apparently announce our war plans before hand so the terrorists who want to negotiate will get out of the way. Beating Obama in a debate with platitudes is like taking candy from a baby unless he wises up and closes his mouth until one of his handlers tells him to open it. I, Col. Bat Guano protector of coke machines everywhere, knew Dr. Strangelove and Obama is no Dr. Strangelove. The good doctor was at least was an expert in something.
Speaking of Romney, I'm intrigued by his command of what is concerning to me having perused his website. What troubles me about him (to be honest) is Mormon doctrine. This is a doctrine that claims an enormous Israelite civilization existed here in the Americas after undergoing its own Cain and Abel type struggle and visited by Christ after His cruxification. The only problem with that is there is zero archealogical evidence for that civilization and no significant direct DNA connection between Israelis today and American Indians. Faith without evidence is mysticism so I'm having trouble relating to his spiritual side, Hugh. |
|
Quick note on this thread in general: If you are a Democrat, your opinion on this does not really matter much. And no, I'm not trying to stifle debate, censor you, blah, blah, blah - I'm just saying that this is really directed at Republican primary voters (especially those in Iowa, and the other Super Duper States), so that is what is ultimately going to count on this thread.
Now, on to the good stuff:
Romney - Most polished. Possibly the most presidential. Exudes the confidence of someone who has handled an executive office before. Second only to Giuliani in command of subject matter.
Giuliani - Romney sounded better, but Giuliani had a much wider grasp of the issues, and, at least at this juncture, seems to be way ahead of the other candidates in terms of ability to articulate real policy goals. Like Romney, Giuliani's presence makes it clear that he has executive experience.
McCain - A little more quiet than usual. Although he does not have the executive experience of Romney and Giuliani, he certainly speaks with the most gravitas on the issue of the Iraq War, and the War on Terror - the most important issue of the campaign. I'm finding it more and more difficult to dislike McCain.
Ron Paul - Bleeech. Maybe he should blame more stuff on the "Neocons," or whomever...
Tommy Thompson - ZZZZZZZZ
Mike Huckabee - Okay, I guess.
Brownback - Tangling with Romney this early is not a smart move - Romney's stinging response was deserved. His extended feud with Huckabee doesn't help either. Still going on about the 3 state solution (which he supports, along with my once favorite, Kay Bailey Hutchison)
Tom Tancredo - He sort of gives me the creeps. I confess that I sort of tuned him out.
Am I forgetting anyone? |
|
I know who I forgot - Duncan Hunter
He was really good as usual, but nothing's going to happen there, so... |
|
|
- needs to put up, or shut up already! |
|
So, not just Dems should clam up, but Republicans from inconsequential primary states? Perhaps people should have to provide their voting records with comments?
I am not a Republican, and I am not a Democrat. Frankly, I dread the prospect of ANY of the announced candidates being President. Hence, having explained in advance that I hate them all, I think I am in a position to be an honest broker. I don't think Romney or Guiliani can win a general election. I think Romney is extremely unimpressive -- I rarely hear him speaking in anything other than platitudes, and he is quite, well, slimy. I have more personal experience with Guiliani, having lived in NY, and I know people who have worked with him back to the 70s -- he is, honestly, just a bad guy. He is a nasty, power-hungry, unpleasant jerk, and he would make Hillary look like the mother of the nation -- and I say this as someone who doesn't like her or her husband.
Thompson should likely shut up -- he is like Gore -- people can clamor all they like, but they would regret it if they got what they are asking for -- he will fade when he joins. |
|
Well, that person will never get elected.
Whoever it was. |
|
"Joe FlavaFlav"
- that's real mature.
"So, not just Dems should clam up, but Republicans from inconsequential primary states? Perhaps people should have to provide their voting records with comments?"
- I clearly did not say that. I went out of my way to say that I'm not saying that Democrats, or anyone else for that matter, should "clam up." I merely stated the obvious, namely, that the feelings of Republicans - especially those in the Super primary states - are more important at this point, because that is the target audience for these debates.
But by all means, feel free to comment as much as you want.
I obviously disagree with the substantive parts of your post, but that's really a matter of taste and perspective, I guess.
I also live in NY (spent most of my early years on LI, and have lived for years in NYC), and I have relatives who worked under Giuliani, and neither I, nor any of my relatives, have any idea what you're talking about.
To be honest (and I could be wrong), you sound like a conventional liberal Democrat who's pretending to be an "independent" to sound more objective, so that you can have some cover when you blast all the Republicans (and then you toss in that throwaway line about Hillary and her husband, just to beef up your supposed "independent" credentials).
I expect you'll get all upset now, but that's probably because I just called your bluff... |
|
I am most certainly not a liberal democrat. I don't consider myself to be either big 'l' liberal or small 'l' liberal. But I never denied being left -- doesn't mean I approve of the dems any more than I do the republicans.
It takes a good deal more than silliness to upset me. I'm relatively slow to anger.
I would be suprised if there were no people who worked for or with Rudy who loved him. His press secretary sure did. So did Bernie Kerik. I am simply saying that -- amongst many -- he has a reputation for putting Rudy before all else. I don't think his career rebuffs that perspective. Hence, for example, he couldn't deal with Bratton, who got and deserved so much credit for the crime drop.
|
|
|
I watched and I guess all is perception, but it's clear to me that it is not Romney at all who is in the lead. He does indeed look polished, etc. but it is Giuliani who comes out looking good in these debates. He's got not only a strong presence, but he avoids one liners while Mitt polishes them. Giuliani's got ideas where Romney has platitudes. Giuliani is clearly the front-runner here... |
|
Josephus Flavius,
Manfred thinks the Democrats are too CONSERVATIVE.
He may not identify himself as a Marxist, but based on his comments in numerous threads, I think it's fair to say that he sympathizes with the basic tenets expressed in Marxism.
Manfred will distort what you write, enabling him to knock down a straw man. |
|
The local market that caters to restaurants and businesses had spareribs for less than a $1.50 a pound. Decent looking ribs but you had to buy about 10 lbs. Ok with me, they are on the smoker now.
One of you mentioned pork and I felt I had to share.
|
|
It seems that after every debate, Ron Paul is declared the "winner" in the on-line polls. What is wrong with this picture? According to the latest Newsweek Poll (August 1, 2007), Rudy Giuliani is at 30%, Ron Paul is at 2%. (The only good news for Paul is that he is "up" from the last Gallup Poll, where he stood at 1%.) Paul's "favorable/unfavorable" index is 20/38, the worst of any Republican candidate. Moreover, in a head-to-head with the leading Democratic candidates, Paul loses by a landslide of 15%, the worst of any Republican candidate.
Despite being the run-away "winner" of the most recent debate, Paul has almost no money ($2.3 million cash on hand as of 7/17), and poll ratings that rank with what pollsters call "the placebo," meaning that poll respondents will give a fictitious "John Jones" 1% of the vote in any given poll. Paul beats the placebo--barely.
Obviously, some pranksters have great fun spending their time voting multiple times for Ron Paul after each debate, but the real numbers show his support to be virtually nil, among both Republicans and Democrats. |
|
Ditto on Manfred. I've seen his posts before, so I know he's just making up this phony "independent" stuff. He's "independent" like Bernie Sanders is "independent" - or like the NYT is "objective."
In any case, I agree with what was said above, namely, that Giuliani looks like the strongest candidate so far, but I would add that I do not think that Romney is all fluff. He's more polished - which sometimes makes him seem too slick - but that can really be a good thing. Imagine if our current President were as articulate and polished as Mitt Romney. As much as I agree with many of our President's policies, I constantly find myself frustrated by his seeming inability to articulate himself well.
And I know that everyone (liberals and conservatives, both) claim that, in private, he is actually quite engaging and well-spoken, that doesn't really help once the cameras are on you. |
|
|
No, seriously, Mitt looks like a winner. Go Mitt! I sure hope he ends up with the GOP nomination. Just imagine: another successful conservative Presidency, right after the current one. Voters are bound to like that idea. He could carry right on where W leaves off. |
|
Joseph Flavius,
You and I appear to be on the same page.
I'll keep an eye out for your future posts.
I'm both a Rudy AND a Mitt guy who'd like to see a Duncan Hunter or a Victor Davis Hanson as Sec. of Defense.
|
|
|
whoops...Josephus Flavius....I misspelled your name. My bad. |
|
"Joseph Flavius,
You and I appear to be on the same page.
I'll keep an eye out for your future posts.
I'm both a Rudy AND a Mitt guy who'd like to see a Duncan Hunter or a Victor Davis Hanson as Sec. of Defense."
- We really DO seem to be on the same page. Likewise for your future posts! |
|
|
Fred is losing steam quickly. I think one of the things that attracted so much support for Fred was his no-nonsense speeches against illegal immigration and other hot-button issues. The image was that of a man of action. The reality has been inactivity on his part. It'll be Giuliani or Romney. McCain is (and ought to be) out of the running. The rest are nowhere close to being contenders. |
|
|
|
...comfy out there in No Commitmentland.Your read is probably correct,though I've waffled on 'fixing' him with descriptives lately.He exhibits,at times,a cluelessness that's surprising--Especially for one so...well...Windy.
Example Above:His thesis at 3:12pm that Hillary
is gonna blast either of the Repub frontrunners outta the water is,to be kind,a Hoot.But, remember that he doesn't like her.(Uh-huh)She's utterly insulated from challenges of a tough kind from the press,etc...That ain't gonna fly for 10 seconds with Rudy or Mitt. |
|
"Didn't watch it."
Neither did anyone else (important). When is everyone going to clue in that these incessant pygmy debates are completely value-free? |
|
|
Most observers of this game currently are male political junkies like me... but once women (half the electorate) start paying attention, Romney has got to get the advantage. Multi-married Rudy and multi-married Judi will put off quite a percentage of women, I'd guess. |
|
Back from drinking fruity/boozy drinks on the beach? Obviously, the sand in the nooks is making you a bit cranky.
I do not like the big cHill -- voted for that tool Lazio, actually, even though I thought he was about as a smart as a box of rocks. But her greatest disadvantage -- her almost total charmlessness -- will be negated by Rudy, who is equally unlikeable as a person. And her wonkiness will make Romney look like an amateur. One can say what they like about her (really! feel free!), but she is the best prepared and most disciplined campaigner so far of the season. She is also without any principle, so she glides effortlessly across the political spectrum.
Take all that and add one more thing: Dems will vote for her across the board, but both Rudy and Romney will shed some Republican votes (not to say they'll vote for her -- they'll vote with their butts and stay home). Rudy is pro-choice, which will lose him a few %; Romney is "not christian" (NOT my feelings -- I don't care what religion you are), which will lose him a few %. Since it is essentially a 48-48 nation (with 4% none-of-the-abovers), this puts her over the top. I don't mean to say she will win an electoral landslide -- it may be a while before we see 1984 numbers again -- if ever. But the Dems are united, and the Republicans not only aren't, but they don't appear to have a candidate who can do it. That is why Thompson was doing so well -- he was that dream.
Cluelessness. Good one. Of course, typically when you call something I say clueless (e.g. the Trotskite/Trotskyist thing), you are demonstrably wrong. And I am very committed -- just not to the Dems or the Republicans. A pox on both their houses. |
|
I just KNEW manfred wouldn't be able to take so many people calling him out on this.
You see what manfred is doing? Throwing in some token, meaningless insult about Hillary so that he can pretend to objectively predict the outcome of a Rudy vs. Hillary election. Riiiight...
You know what? I can do it to. Watch this:
I'm Josephus Flavius and I'm an independent who hates Republicans just as much as Democrats (really, truly!), and I think, in my totally objective and completely nonpartisan opinion, that none of the Democrats stand a chance against the better-prepared, leadership-oriented, serious candidates on the Right. She's almost as hated on the Left as on the Right. And remember, folks, that is my absolutely, completely, NONpartisan opinion!
There ya' go. |
|
|
|
With this crowd, anyone to the left of Jesse Helms is suspect. That's why the Repubs have become so marginalized, and why the Dems are on the threshold of a permanent majority.
I don't agree with the "pox on both their houses" approach. Democracy (if not the Republican base's version) is about half-loafs and splitting differences. If, morally speaking, the Dems are a 65 and the Repubs a 35, that's a significant distinction--and the two sides should not be equalized.
Let's not strain at gnats and swallow camels. The Dems may stink, but the Repubs are beholden to a childishly frothy and reactionary base--one that has proven to be bad for democracy, bad for policy, and bad for the prestige and power of our country. |
|
I'm not going to take issue with your comments, because you're just parroting the tired ol' Democrat party line.
I would, however, like to ask one question (and I hope you will be totally honest): Would you, or would you not, characterize the DailyKos as "childishly frothy"? |
|
Umm.. would it help if I said that I think that Rudy would really beat the pants off of Kucinich? Give me a break. I couldn't care less what you think. But mark what I wrote -- you will be able to apologize come election time. Ah, hell, I know, you guys never admit when you were wrong.
What is so hard to believe about not liking either party? Seems odd to me that you would find that implausible.
|
|
|
With all due respect, I disagree with the idea that democracy is about splitting differences. I fear that is the attitude that gets the mythical middle lauded in every David Broder drool. It is the notion that sets up Lieberman and Hagel as wisemen because they are willing to cross their party -- with little attention paid to HOW they do it or why. It is also what leads to the tripe in the media -- where they feel compelled to give both sides, even if one side is absurd. I don't believe that in a debate between good idea and bad idea, compromise should lead us to a widely-applauded fair idea. If I remain in the minority -- even in the slim minority -- but that minority maintains its integrity and discipline, I prefer that to compromise, dilution, and, ultimately, appropriation. |
|
Okay, so far:
1) "Joe FlavaFlav"
2) "Josephus Atillius"
Any other bits of comedic gold up your sleeve?...
As for the rest of your post - you're taking us in circles, so I'll just let our exchange stand as it is, and let our fellow posters judge for themselves.
By the way, this just occurred to me - does anyone else here think that John McCain would make an excellent Secretary of Defense? |
|
|
Apparently Hugh did not see Jim Ger.'s NRO Corner material on the debate. The debate did have Mitt's quip on Obama. Fine. But, it was Rudy who had the better answers on serious policy questions and had some humor too against George Steponhistongue. The latest RCP poll has Rudy pulling away from Fred and Mitt still at 10%. Too bad Mitt isn't from Mich. like his Dad. Then the ticket could be Rudy-Mitt. Perhaps Fred will finally come in and get some movement but frankly, his absence does not give me great hope that he is ready for prime time. As to McCain for SECDEF, uh, no because Janet Nap . is a Dem guv who would put a Dem in his place. Hunter belongs in a Pub Admin. as SECDEF or SECSTATE. |
|
up before you hurt yourself,Lad!
This thread was supposed to be for Repubs or for folks supporting a Repub candidate--And, surprise,you're here(to MAXIMUM WINDAGE)more than anyone.Good Grief.
FLAVIUS:Your meaty paragraph at 7:35pm is mighty good HOOT. Luv it! |
|
|
Good point about Janet Napolitano. I forgot about that. Duncan Hunter would be great, but all things being equal, I just feel like McCain's words carry more weight on issues relevant to the post of SecDef. |
|
I am reminded that the majority of these MSM pundit/losers are members of the same crowd who sat by idly and watched the decider guy, duh-b'ya, lie us into an ever sickening and unsuccessful war. These snoozers are the same nefarious parasites who continue to sleep at the switch and shirk their responsibility as objective inquiring journalists while our civil liberties are being wasted away daily. There's nothing free about this press...they are bought and paid for. They are clueless in the battle. Here are the opinions that really matter.......
Yeah yeah, I know all about how Paul supporters spam the airways; they're just really aggressive; get together in groups of 2,000 or so, drink beer, eat pizza and manipulate these polls. I can't figure out why all of the other candidate's supporters aren't smart enough or energetic enough or dedicated enough to their guy to do this. Hell, Romney's buying votes in the Iowa Straw Poll; why not pay for spammers to make Mitt look good on a couple of on line polls? I mean seriously folks, 57% for Ron Paul and less than 1% for Mitt Romney....that's a truckload of spam.
ABC wanted to know, "Who do you think won the Republican debate?” So, 32,517 voters told them as of this writing. I mean, let's face it the “Nobodys" got more votes than RudyMcRomney. They must be learning the spamming techniques from the Paul people.
Ron Paul 18,525
Mitt Romney 2,906
Rudy Giuliani 2,475
Nobody. I'm waiting for Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich to enter the race. 2,288
Nobody won. I'm voting Democratic. 1,935
Mike Huckabee 1,759
Sam Brownback 943
Tom Tancredo 528
John McCain 486
Tommy Thompson 350
Duncan Hunter 322
Total Vote: 32,517" |
|
I also agree with you about Giuliani having better control over the substance of issues than any other candidate, but I don't think Hugh needs to get dumped on here. I don't think Hugh declared Romney the winner, he just gave him credit for that one line, which you gotta admit was pretty fantastic.
Again, although I am tending more and more towards Giuliani, I still think it is important not to underestimate the power of a well-presented, and strongly articulated argument. Mitt Romney is the master in this regard. Basically, Romney is many of the things that President Bush should be, but is not.
Also, I'm warming up to McCain. I wouldn't vote for him over Giuliani or Romney at this point, but still... |
|
National Review Online's The Corner, and The Campaign Spot, are both excellent sources of information for the campaign (and the Corner is just all around great).
Even Markos Moulitsas likes NRO! |
|
jf wrote: "By the way, this just occurred to me - does anyone else here think that John McCain would make an excellent Secretary of Defense?"
No, McCain is being touted to head the new Neocon think tank, "NUKE A NATION". It's a typical D.C. "K" street thing where in your freshman year, as an intern, you learn everything you need to know about bombing any third world country into oblivion. Next as a sophomore you're schooled that once the population is totally submissive, to teach them about things like liberty, rule of law, elections and democracy.
If McCain fails to snag that little nugget, he needs to retire early from his Senate seat and retreat quietly into the Arizona desert. There he can hand out bottled water to illiegal aliens. |
|
Oh, hell no. I'm tired of hearing this. So he was Navy, so what? Webb was Navy and was forced to resign. I think both men share a common failing... bottom line, whatever they say, they believe in the end it's all about them. That's why neither man takes contradiction at all well.
Oh, and it's Flavius Josephus, if you're trying to be historical. |
|
I studied the works of Josephus and Philo under Louis Feldman, the greatest Josephan scholar of our time.
So if you REALLY want to get technical, it's Iosepus (see War 1.3). I put it backwards just for the hell of it (sort of like how your name is richard mcenroe instead of Richard McEnroe)
If you're interested in Josephus (especially the Antiquities), let's talk! |
|
|
I honestly don't know too much about the Kossacks. I just like calling the Republicans "childish" and "unserious" to hoist them on their own petard. |
|
Liberal Patriot,
you wrote;
-----------------
"I honestly don't know too much about the Kossacks."
-----------------
Or the Constitution, or theology, or economics, or American Exceptionalism, or the price of wheat, or orinthology....
Ha, ha, ha, sorry Liberal Patriot ol' buddy, that one was too irresistable !
I will hand it to you, you are an expert on baseball. |
|
Liberal Patriot,
You write:
"I honestly don't know too much about the Kossacks. I just like calling the Republicans "childish" and "unserious" to hoist them on their own petard."
First of all, I'm not sure if you know what that expression means. How are you hoisting us on our own petard by calling us names? That's your big "gotcha" plan?!
Your post on this blog accused conservatives of being "childishly frothy." The premise of my follow-up question to you was the following: While I strongly disagree with your characterization of this blog and/or the conservative base as "childishly frothy," I am willing to work within the rules of your question by asking you to honestly stand before the rest of us and claim that the DailyKos, or the Democratic Underground are not "childishly frothy" as well.
If they are (and you KNOW they are), well then, I'll just hand you a phone so can call my good buddy the kettle and say, "you're black."
You can get out of this by claiming to not like the DailyKos either, but that doesn't do you much good, because the Democratic Party is currently quite taken with it.
Your only option after that is to pull a "manfred" and pretend to be an "independent" (read: socialist a la Bernie Sanders). Good luck with that... |
|
|
...fans thought Ron Paul won the debate? Eight times as many as thought Rudy or Romney won? Well, shucks, if each of those folks would just do the right thing and send the good doctor a hundred bucks, he can double his treasury--leaving his war chest still the smallest in the race, but more respectable for a guy of his manifest popularity. |
|
Oh come on. Sanctimony does not become you. I am called nasty things all the time in these threads.
Does the left engage in name-calling? Sure. Who does it more? Well, now that the left is using the web to organize, it is probably evening out some. With all the cries of outrage from the right on leftist name-calling, one almost gets the impression that your side can dish it out, but not take it.
I must admit I like turning language used by Republicans back on themselves. I remember after you kiped the 2000 elections, how you swept into Washington claiming that "the adults were back in charge." And I know how you like to designate Republican pundits as "serious." But from where I sit, there is nothing especially "serious" or "grown-up" about Republican governance. It seems all the world like a bunch of reactionaries who are more consumed with fervor than with sobriety, balance, and judgement. Moreover, I think that Americans in general are finally recognizing this as well. This generation of Republicans is not the party of Ike--it is a party of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Jim Dobson. It is not the party of our fathers. It is a party of foamers.
And that's why we are seeing a secular shift towards the center-left. Republicans are unreliable. GW ran as "a different kind of Republican," but he turned out to be an all-too-common Republican. And when our country was attacked, rather than uniting our country--left, right, and center--to fight the terrorist enemy, the Republican leadership sought to divide our country and govern, even in time of war, with 50%+1.
Your base is larger than our base. You have one in three, we have one in five. But the great silent majority, as in the late 70s, when they turned on the noisy and disproportinately influential left-wing, has begun to turn on you.
|
|
We are served with with Rudy and Romney...
Would make a fine Ticket with either in President or VP slots. |
|
Does anybody really care about anything anybody the 2nd tier candidates say in these debates (unless the comments are funny or stupid of course)?
Rudy - I think Giuliani did well but I think his comments on abortion and civil unions hurt him. Not because of how he stated his comments (I actually think he said them as best as he could) but because those are his positions and they hurt him as a Republican candidate. He's lucky those were some of the first comments he made because conservative watchers probably forgot about them by the end.
If any of his other comments outshone those of Romney it wasn't by much if at all.
Mitt - Another smooth, great performance by Romney. However, if there was one fault its that he didn't really emphasize his ability to turn things around nor his executive/managerial experience. Those are probably his greatest assets as a Presidential candidate. The guy simply knows how to run things.
One last note, I'm glad they didn't waste his and our time by bringing up his religion. Hopefully the rest of the press follows suit. It's about time. |
|
what about the your mistake question?
that was the king one liner of the night to avoid answering a question about what a defining mistake was. |
|
and include the bright,nimble,thoughtful,always
stimulating and utterly vacuous Hereto'hep with
the deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep LP,will ya. |
|
Assuming what you're saying is accurate of the past debates (that Romney has been the most impressive, the most consistently), at what point is it clear that he lacks the national constituency that he needs to win? With his poll numbers hovering around that impressive 10-11%, the time comes when you have to say that people have heard him win two or three debates and still aren't convinced.
Who has ever heard of a candidate winning two or three presidential debates and staying around the 10% line? In my life it's never happened. Can you think of a parallel?
And does that mean anything? I think it does. Romney is done. I'll call it well in advance. Will he get a bounce after Ames and New Hampshire? I'll predict very little. Maybe he'll shoot up to the 15%...which ain't bad, it is a 50% spike! |
|
his first debate was not perfection, but each time Rudy gets better and better.
If I want to buy a used car I would go to Romney, for a Commander in Chief I am going with Giuliani. |
|
|
Good opener, suppose it was a conspiracy to have the debate Sunday morning? |
|
|
Fred can shutup now; he missed the casting call. Unless he wants to endorse someone, he's effective marginalized fodder. |
|
pathetic. Face it, the Republican Party is facing serious blow-back from the rest of America for their failed governance the past 6 years - when they controlled it all. They're history for the next generation at least, and by then, when the demographics catch up, they won't even rate being a bona fide political party.
Good thing, too ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the record, I can't vote for Rep. Paul despite the urgings of a number of rabid friends. His isolationist foreign policy remains a no-go in a world in which crossing an ocean is a matter of hours rather than months.
However, comma...
On every other issue Paul is as Reaganesque as Reagan and then some. So why is everyone pretending that he doesn't exist?
Currently I'm faced with a kind of photographic negative thing: Paul is dead-on with every issue except the most vital one; the rest of the GOP pack are solid on national security but "Demo-Socialist Lite" on everything else.
- He's the only one serious about a long-overdue abolition of the Income Tax in favor of a consumption tax;
- He's the only one committed to *reducing* the size, scope, expense, intrusiveness and oppressiveness of government, on ethical principle - while the rest offer stale band-aid arguments from... finger-to-the-wind pragmatism;
- He's the only one talking "deregulation" - the rest are as afraid of the term as the Demo-Socs are of "Islamic terrorist";
- He's the only one, apparently, who dares to posit that the Constitution should be the prime reference for all government activity.
So why is someone who exhibits such an exemplary - nay, stellar - grasp of core GOP principles being treated to the campaign equivalent of a Stalinist exile? I have a theory:
|
|
(cont'd -)
The rest of the GOP pack lack the principles and/or spines to utter anything but populism;
They are therefore petrified by the presence of a man of principle who has the courage to articulate that principle; The stark contrast to their standard-issue, middle-of-the-road pablum has them profoundly embarrassed and eager to be rid of him as soon as possible.
So, the one unasked debate question - and likely never-to-be-asked this campaign: "At what point does government control of the lives of American citizens, from the most complex nuance of eco-fascist regulation down to the number of squares of toilet tissue we're to be allowed for wiping our arses, become oppressive enough for you to actually start *cutting* government?"
Other than national defense, I truly am not seeing the proverbial "dime's worth of difference..."
Color me disgusted. |
|
If Brownback is such a big prolifer why does he attack Romney relentlessly and ignore Rudy? Rudy is openly prochoice and the front runner.
I have a hard time believing Brownback is really motivated by his prolife position. It looks a lot more like a religious crusade. |
|
Zaphod B. Goode writes: Monday, August, 06, 2007 10:14 PM
Paul's "Spiking" by GOP pundits
"For the record, I can't vote for Rep. Paul despite the urgings of a number of rabid friends. His isolationist foreign policy remains a no-go in a world in which crossing an ocean is a matter of hours rather than months."
Read the constitution which Dr. Paul persistantly, relentlessly follows. Nowhere does it call for a strong national OFFENSE!
Because of the NEOcong practise of kick butts, kill people and figure out the reasons why as we go along, we're more isolated than ever. Hell almost everyone despises us...and in many cases we have earned it!
|
|
You have a neighbor who, because of his religion, considers you a heretic or infidel or sinner or _______(insert perjorative of choice here)_____.
One fine day you look out your kitchen window and notice that he's bought a shiny new Howitzer and has it pointed directly at where your head typically is situated whilst you have your scrambled eggs, biryani and pad keemao.
The rational response: "Time to call the cops."
Paul's response: "My, what a pretty barrel! I wonder if I've been nice enough to him lately."
This is just like trying to teach a cat to fetch - he'll just sit there, crosseyed, staring at your finger... |
|
|
|