Post by W.O.M.I on May 15, 2007 22:41:04 GMT -5
Well, this one certainly had more fireworks than the last one.
A few observations:
First, Fox News conducted a far more serious, thoughful and professional debate than the hapless and hopeless folks over at MSNBC.
If anyone wondered if Fox would ask tough questions of the Republican candidates, such doubts were dispelled almost immediately, as the debate began with Chris Wallace asking questions on Iraq.
Both Wallace and Wendell Goler had no problems asking candidates followup questions if they felt the candidates were eucking the issue, as when Wallace broke into a response by Tommy Thompson, saying "You didn't answer my question and give me three programs you'd eliminate. Could you give me one?"
MSNBC could learn a great deal about how to conduct a good debate among candidates rather than the biased dreck they offered last time.
As for the candidates, the gloves came off.
Perhaps the best line of the evening came from Mike Huckabee, who said that Republicans " hadspent like John Edwards at a beauty shop."
Romney and McCain had a rather testy exchange in which Romney made the point that McCain's support of the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill would do the same damage to national security that McCain-Feingold had done to free speech.
McCain responded by saying that his positions on various issues such as fiscal responsibility, life issues and gay rights were consistent through the years and didn't change as he ran for various political offices, an allusion to the fact that Romney has changed position several times in his various campaigns.
But the real confrontation of the evening was between Ron Paul and Rudy Guiliani.
Paul suggested that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because of our foreign policy in the Middle east throughout the years and that we bore more than a bit of the blame.
Said Paul:
Guiliani actually broke in to Goler's followup question, saying:
Guiliani's response drew loud and prolonged applause, not only from the audience but also from several of the other candidates.
Paul- God bless him- stepped in it right up to his shins. His position on this issue would be far more at home in the next Democrat Party debate than it was here.
Winners and Losers:
Winner #1- Surprise!- Democrats. Too much time was spent trying to tear down the other Republican candidates and not nearly enough attacking the real enemy- the Democrats.
If the Republicans want to emulate Ronald Reagan, they should follow his Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not attack a fellow Republican."
Democrats spent almost their entire debate attacking Republicans in the most mean-spirited and disingenuous ways they could devise. Republicans need to quit being so damn nice and respond in kind.
Winner #2- Guiliani. Not many people are going to be talking about his pro-choice position; they're going to be talking about Rudy's response to Ron Paul and remembering that no one among the Republican (Dems either for that matter) has the absolute moral authority he has to speak out on matters of terrorism and effective reponse to terrorism.
Winner #3- Duncan Hunter. He spoke out strongly on what are, to Republicans, the major key issues: national security, border security and fiscal responsibility. Tom Tancredo came into the race as the ackowledged authority on border security and dealing with illegal immigration, but Hunter is only a smidge behind him- if that- and he has a far better command of other issues than Tancredo does. Don't get me wrong- I love Tancredo on illegal immigration- but that's the only instrument in his orchestra. If either McCain or Romeny begin to slide, Hunter could join the Top Tier candidates.
Winner #3A- Mike Huckabee. OK...I admit it: he's on the list just because he championed the Fair Tax again. But that's plenty to make my list...and it is, after all, MY list.
Loser #1- Ron Paul. Viewers of this debate are going to go away with the impression that Ron paul believes America is, to some degree, at fault for inciting the Muslims to commit the 9/11 attacks. While that viewpoint might fly over at DailyKOS, it won't among Republicans.
Paul suffers from the same malady that Bush does- "foot in mouth disease"- and the debate format doesn't give him enough time to clearly express himself. He's forced to speak in sound bites and he is singularly incapable of doing so.
Loser #2- Mitt Romney. I heard a caller to a national radio program say today that Mitt Romney looks and sounds like the "perfect Presidential candidate"- in fact, >TOO< perfect. He comes across as a bit plastic, a bit contrived, a bit scripted- like he's reciting memorized dialog rahter than speaking from his heart. If he'd just burp to remind us he's really human, people would be more likely to trust him. The caller might have been on to something. McCain was able to portray Romney as a flip-flopper on some issues very key to Republican support- life issues, gay issues, universal health care, etc. McCain isn't exactly a polished speaker and elite debater- if he could make the case against Romney, anyone could...and will.
Loser #3- McCain. He did pretty well until the last question asked by the Fox moderators.
That question involved each of the candidate's response to a nuclear attack on the United States, either before it takes place or after, and how each of them would either try to prevent it- would they authorize torture in order to gain information that might prevent such an attack- or, if it was not preventable, how they would respond to it.
McCain took his usual stance that he would not suborn torture, no way no how. While I concede that no one on the panel has the moral authority that McCain has on this issue, I found myself wishing once again that McCain had taken the stance that, 'yes, I am against torture....but no interrogation techniques of which I am aware that the US uses to extract information rises to the level of torture, and I ought to know what does- and what does NOT- constitute torture.' McCain could neatly take the issue off the table as one that Democrats can use to hammer toe Administration and our troops and as one that troubles fellow Republicans who might wonder if the life and health of a Jihadist is worth more than the lives of a couple million Americans.
Verdict: I can't see anyone getting much of a bounce, if any, as a result of this debate. You might see Rudy gain a couple-three points, though I'm not sure who'd lose the points for him to gain them. No candidate- save Paul- did himself much harm (and Paul has no shot anyway so it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things), and no candidate really enhanced his prospects, though Guiliani's camp might disagree: anything that takes attention off his tortured pro-choice position has to help him and that did hapen courtesy of Paul.
A few observations:
First, Fox News conducted a far more serious, thoughful and professional debate than the hapless and hopeless folks over at MSNBC.
If anyone wondered if Fox would ask tough questions of the Republican candidates, such doubts were dispelled almost immediately, as the debate began with Chris Wallace asking questions on Iraq.
Both Wallace and Wendell Goler had no problems asking candidates followup questions if they felt the candidates were eucking the issue, as when Wallace broke into a response by Tommy Thompson, saying "You didn't answer my question and give me three programs you'd eliminate. Could you give me one?"
MSNBC could learn a great deal about how to conduct a good debate among candidates rather than the biased dreck they offered last time.
As for the candidates, the gloves came off.
Perhaps the best line of the evening came from Mike Huckabee, who said that Republicans " hadspent like John Edwards at a beauty shop."
Romney and McCain had a rather testy exchange in which Romney made the point that McCain's support of the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill would do the same damage to national security that McCain-Feingold had done to free speech.
McCain responded by saying that his positions on various issues such as fiscal responsibility, life issues and gay rights were consistent through the years and didn't change as he ran for various political offices, an allusion to the fact that Romney has changed position several times in his various campaigns.
But the real confrontation of the evening was between Ron Paul and Rudy Guiliani.
Paul suggested that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because of our foreign policy in the Middle east throughout the years and that we bore more than a bit of the blame.
Said Paul:
"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East — I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting," Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq.
"They are delighted that we're over there because Usama bin Laden has said 'I'm glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time they've killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary," Paul continued
Guiliani actually broke in to Goler's followup question, saying:
"That's really an extraordinary statement," "That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
Guiliani's response drew loud and prolonged applause, not only from the audience but also from several of the other candidates.
Paul- God bless him- stepped in it right up to his shins. His position on this issue would be far more at home in the next Democrat Party debate than it was here.
Winners and Losers:
Winner #1- Surprise!- Democrats. Too much time was spent trying to tear down the other Republican candidates and not nearly enough attacking the real enemy- the Democrats.
If the Republicans want to emulate Ronald Reagan, they should follow his Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not attack a fellow Republican."
Democrats spent almost their entire debate attacking Republicans in the most mean-spirited and disingenuous ways they could devise. Republicans need to quit being so damn nice and respond in kind.
Winner #2- Guiliani. Not many people are going to be talking about his pro-choice position; they're going to be talking about Rudy's response to Ron Paul and remembering that no one among the Republican (Dems either for that matter) has the absolute moral authority he has to speak out on matters of terrorism and effective reponse to terrorism.
Winner #3- Duncan Hunter. He spoke out strongly on what are, to Republicans, the major key issues: national security, border security and fiscal responsibility. Tom Tancredo came into the race as the ackowledged authority on border security and dealing with illegal immigration, but Hunter is only a smidge behind him- if that- and he has a far better command of other issues than Tancredo does. Don't get me wrong- I love Tancredo on illegal immigration- but that's the only instrument in his orchestra. If either McCain or Romeny begin to slide, Hunter could join the Top Tier candidates.
Winner #3A- Mike Huckabee. OK...I admit it: he's on the list just because he championed the Fair Tax again. But that's plenty to make my list...and it is, after all, MY list.
Loser #1- Ron Paul. Viewers of this debate are going to go away with the impression that Ron paul believes America is, to some degree, at fault for inciting the Muslims to commit the 9/11 attacks. While that viewpoint might fly over at DailyKOS, it won't among Republicans.
Paul suffers from the same malady that Bush does- "foot in mouth disease"- and the debate format doesn't give him enough time to clearly express himself. He's forced to speak in sound bites and he is singularly incapable of doing so.
Loser #2- Mitt Romney. I heard a caller to a national radio program say today that Mitt Romney looks and sounds like the "perfect Presidential candidate"- in fact, >TOO< perfect. He comes across as a bit plastic, a bit contrived, a bit scripted- like he's reciting memorized dialog rahter than speaking from his heart. If he'd just burp to remind us he's really human, people would be more likely to trust him. The caller might have been on to something. McCain was able to portray Romney as a flip-flopper on some issues very key to Republican support- life issues, gay issues, universal health care, etc. McCain isn't exactly a polished speaker and elite debater- if he could make the case against Romney, anyone could...and will.
Loser #3- McCain. He did pretty well until the last question asked by the Fox moderators.
That question involved each of the candidate's response to a nuclear attack on the United States, either before it takes place or after, and how each of them would either try to prevent it- would they authorize torture in order to gain information that might prevent such an attack- or, if it was not preventable, how they would respond to it.
McCain took his usual stance that he would not suborn torture, no way no how. While I concede that no one on the panel has the moral authority that McCain has on this issue, I found myself wishing once again that McCain had taken the stance that, 'yes, I am against torture....but no interrogation techniques of which I am aware that the US uses to extract information rises to the level of torture, and I ought to know what does- and what does NOT- constitute torture.' McCain could neatly take the issue off the table as one that Democrats can use to hammer toe Administration and our troops and as one that troubles fellow Republicans who might wonder if the life and health of a Jihadist is worth more than the lives of a couple million Americans.
Verdict: I can't see anyone getting much of a bounce, if any, as a result of this debate. You might see Rudy gain a couple-three points, though I'm not sure who'd lose the points for him to gain them. No candidate- save Paul- did himself much harm (and Paul has no shot anyway so it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things), and no candidate really enhanced his prospects, though Guiliani's camp might disagree: anything that takes attention off his tortured pro-choice position has to help him and that did hapen courtesy of Paul.