In Which the GOP Field Drives RS Contributors to Drink
Let's All Drink til we Don't Feel Feelings Anymore
By Ben Domenech Posted in 2008 — Comments (60) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Behind the scenes, many of us contributors spent our evening watching the YouTube debate with our own hard-hitting discussion: which form of liquor will be the best to recover from such an event (I started with some Grey Goose, thinking this would be a lighter affair, but once the shindig started went quickly to straight bourbon). You are welcome to offer your own recommendations in comments.
My own feelings are not much different from Erick's: Huckabee had his best debate when he needed it the most, and McCain came across very well in his "damn kids on the lawn" scalpings. I think Rudy's answers were feast or famine, and Fred's one-liners are a reminder of what a great radio host he'll make when all this is over, but that's all. I am encouraged by the fact that David Gergen on CNN and Byron York on the Corner agree with me about the Huckabee thing: hey, look, it's the conventional wisdom already. And it probably all serves to make a Rudy/Huck ticket more likely.
As for Mitt Romney - both Bill Bennett and Kate O'Beirne think he did well. I have a really hard time seeing that. I think he got the better of the first exchange, but seemed to be getting his questions at a bad time (either having to echo those who came before or defending his Massachusetts record for the umpteenth time) throughout the night, and I think it was certainly not a helpful night for him.
As for CNN: bad start, solid middle chunk of questions, but they seemed to get curiouser and curiouser as the night went on. Personally, I think this format will be more stable next time around - when more normal people submit questions, and fewer snowmen.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | My Winners — Comments (112) »
In Which the GOP Field Drives RS Contributors to Drink 60 Comments (0 topical, 60 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...he didn't do too bad. Supposedly there are special plans in the works for Iowa re: Romney in the near future.....
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Against Huckabee doing average to worse than average. Huckabee had momentum going into this debate, now he has more.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...debates don't matter a whole lot, the post-debate spin matters more. We'll see who controls that. In the end, the soundbytes will still be that Huckabee is lose with other people's money and he supports college scholarships for illegals.
A debate that *could* perhaps matter is the one in Iowa on December 12 (I think it's the 12th).
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
If people voting in the Iowa Caucus tuned in, then thats out the window.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
but you are right on subsidies, it alone could win for him. I know McCain has no chance because he admits the waste of ethanol spending and always has.
Molon Labe!
There are very few single issue ethanol voters in Iowa or anywhere else in the Midwest. Ethanol matters a lot for fundraising... not so much for votes.
The real reason he couldn't win in Iowa in 2000 was simply because they don't have a Democrat friendly Republican primary. He was counting on Democrats and independents big time in 2000. You get much less crossover at caucuses than at any other kind of contest.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Most people do not get any direct benefit from ethanol subsidies, even in the Midwest. They don't own part of an ethanol plant. They don't work at an ethanol plant. They don't grow corn. They don't sell farm machinery. At least 95% of the voters in the Iowa caucus would fit in to the "no direct benefit from ethanol" basket.
Now you could make an argument that many people indirectly benefit because it brings money into their area, but the benefit there just isn't strong enough IMO to turn somebody into huge proponent of ethanol. I live in an area that benefits from ethanol subsidies. I have an ethanol plant less than 10 miles from my house. That isn't enough to make me a fan of ethanol, much less a single issue voter who will only vote for a Presidential candidate who supports ethanol subsidies.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
you are arguing from the specific to the general, not usually a good way to go. If you are so sure that support for ethanol subsidies is not a winning issue in Iowa, then why not provide substantive primary sources?
The fact of the matter is corn ethanol subsidies are a governmnent give away program for Iowa. If Iowa was the last state to hold a primary/caucus/political cotilion, then the subsidies and tarrifs would be much lower.
Molon Labe!
You are the one that makes this claim:
I know McCain has no chance because he admits the waste of ethanol spending and always has.
Then you make this claim:
fine, but you know dang well people love local pork
Then you make this claim:
The fact of the matter is corn ethanol subsidies are a governmnent give away program for Iowa. If Iowa was the last state to hold a primary/caucus/political cotilion, then the subsidies and tarrifs would be much lower.
And you want "substantive primary sources?" You first. I'm unaware of any data that shows that people just love government checks going to their neighbors, when they aren't seeing a piece themselves.
I'm unaware of any data that shows Congress cares a great deal about the primary schedule, considering the vast majority of those in Congress will never have anything to do with it, since they aren't running for President.
And the first is obviously false to anybody who paid attention in 2000 as he was running as fast as he could to the left of W to rake in the independent and Democrat vote. He even flirted with going pro-choice back then, remember? His problems had nothing to do with ethanol, and everything to do with his horrible campaign strategy.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Hurt Hillary's chances to gain the nomination. It all depends on how many Democrats watched the debate, and compared the two as politicians.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Imagine you are a democrat watching last nights debate.
You are a hillary supporter(smartest woman in the world the second coming of bubba) then you watched Huckabee last night. Huckabee is not only the second coming of Bubba he is an even better Bubba than bubba.
You have to ask yourself just who is going to vote for Shrillary ? Huck is better on all the mainstream issues than she is and comes off more likeable than she does where he isn't. Then you have to picture the two of them debating and the result Huck spreads Hillary over the walls in a thin red smear. My guess is she would refuse to debate him and disguise as complete inabillity to agree on a format.
So if I were democrat hot on getting the whitehouse and keeping congress Obama or Edwards would be looking mighty good to me.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If I were a big Hillary fan, I would certainly be pro-choice and would probably be a big proponent of gun control. Huckabee's position on those issues would be enough to disqualify him right there. Liberals aren't too willing to look past a candidate's heresy on even one issue. Just look at Lieberman.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Electability is kind of like the emperors new clothes as long as you don't examine it to closely it can be taken for granted.
What huckabee does is make democrats take a long hard look at shrillary's chances
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
of course most Democrats, at least the base types, are not open minded. But I agree Hillary is in trouble. She has no personality other than bad, and she does not inspire. Molon Labe!
As I said here, Romney showed that he isn't a conservative. When he said that he'd sign legislation that banned abortion, not only was he pandering for pro-life votes, he also told us that he doesn't care about the Tenth Amendment or federalism.
He lied, too, about being pro-life since taking office. If that's true, why didn't he veto the RomneyCare bill that contains a $50 co-pay for abortions? At what point exactly did Romney experience his conversion???
Bourbon first, Scotch second.
Since I have not had many opportunities to agree with Mr. Emanuel of late, I'll second "Bourbon first."
Of course, traitor that I am, I'm more likely to be found with a rocks glass of Beefeater, splash of tonic, please no lime.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
damn lobsterback! :)
Ulster always outlobsters the lobster, albeit sometimes to the misfortune of its chosen home.
(By which I mean: I express no political opinion regarding these issues, save sadness for the past and happiness for the future -- as well as a powerful desire for drink.)
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
"I've drunk to your health in company,
I've drunk to your health alone.
I've drunk to your health so many times,
I've damn near ruined my own!"
"Here's to those who wish us well,
And those that don't may go to hell."
"Here's to us;
May we never drink worse."
"One bottle for four of us,
Thank God there's no more of us!"
"Here's to beefsteak when you're hungry,
Whiskey when you're dry,
All the girls you ever want,
And heaven when you die."
"Here's to good food,
Good fortune,
And good whiskey!" "
btw, I am an huge anglophile, just having some fun. You should check out Gibraltar, way more English than London :)
Molon Labe!
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
I don't know about all of them, but I know that some of them are Irish. Six counties are enough without stealing our toasts too.
I just want the nominee picked. How much would I need to drink so I have no idea what's happening until Mid March or April?
Intrigue and a Convention that actually picks the candidate would be awesome, but I don't think my liver will cope.
Because Georgetown was on, but that necessitated bourbon whiskey (Evan Williams, aka cheap Jack Daniels...I'm young and poor), and reading the debate thread made me glad I had a few.
I'll probably read the transcript, but that'll be tomorrow when I'm sober, sadly.
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
It's made by the same folks as Evan Williams.
If you're mixing with Coke, Evan Williams is $20 cheaper than Jack for a handle in DC. It's really not worth thinking too hard about.
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
but if you have never tried elijah, it is as good or better than wild turkey, makers mark etc, and cheaper because it is not as well known.
Molon Labe!
It's 1.75 liters. A handle of Jack is around $40. A handle of Evan Williams is around $20.
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
The MSM will be full of the matter tomorrow. Profiles of the brave general, and chatter about how CNN got snookered.
And Hillary's campaign has plausible deniability. Of course, she'll claim, she knew nothing about this, and CERTAINLY had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, the issue of gays in the military will crackle over the airwaves the next few days. Just what the GOP wanted from its YouTube debate.
Face it, Patrick Ruffini and Mary Katherine Ham, you f@#$ed up. You trusted CNN.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
attention to makes me think that "Shillarygate" might be a good thing. If it overwhelms comment on the debate itself, all to the good.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
by the venetian blinds I had to peer through, to form a valid opinion about anything other than CNN, which I already had, anyway.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I admit, I get my news from Hannity on the way home from work, and Fox at night. I have not watched a single debate until tonight, and, until this weekend, I hadn't visited any candidate's web site. Until this weekend, my leanings were to Rudy and Huckabee and McCain. I hadn't seriously considered Romney and Fred because I really didn't know them. I think this attitude from the mildly-interested political observer hurts Fred the most. My sister loves him, and he does nothing to stir passion in me, but I am 10 years younger than she. His performance tonight stirred nothing in me. He DOES look like he needs cue cards, and although I admit he has some well-thought-out, conservative views and positions detailed (check out his web site to see), and, so, is a great candidate from that perspective, his charisma, for an actor, is near zero. Romney, I also found, has quite a few detailed positions spelled out on his web site (I particularly like his video section with snippets from appearances and speeches), and, he's articulate and I think will appeal to general electorate. Believe it or not, I would like to WIN this election, so, I'm looking for a candidate that gives us the best chance to do that, without violating too many of my principles (sorry Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter - who I really, really like). For some reason, Fred just isn't exciting me - and, for a guy who basically is agreeing with me 100% of the time - why do I find myself wanting Rudy or McCain to be the nominee instead of him?
Anyway, he didn't help himself in the debate tonight. He's stiff, I think his answers, while genuine, seem forced. I don't think he can sell his conservative vision to the masses. I want this guy to excite me. He hasn't done it here, on radio when I've heard him, his ads don't do it. Speaking of which, I think his ad tonight was a rotten choice.
I think Huck and McCain were the winners tonight. I am mighty PO'd at McCain for some of his transgressions (CFR, CIR, failure to fully support Bush's tax cuts), but, the guy is a genuine leader, and the one area he has changed my mind on is torture. If McCain says it is torture, it's torture. Case closed for me.
This is where he trumps Romney, who sometimes, and tonight did as well, seems like a manufactured candidate. His answer on torture was tortuous, and he should have just stopped and said, "I will not condone torture, we won't allow it, but I will not comment on specific interrogation methods, not as a candidate, and not as President. Period."
As for Romney, felt like a wash. As someone just getting to know him, I liked most of his answers (the torture question notwithstanding). I thought his abortion answers were the best and clearest. My guess is those following this closely for a while might have been disappointed by him. In the completely subjective category of performance, I rate him 4th tonight, behind Huck, McCain, and Hunter (who has no chance, so no details from me).
Does anyone else find it unsurprising that Rudy and Romney don't own guns?
The Liberal's definition of torture: Anything that provides useful information from the enemy
Sleepy Eyed Whiners of the Deep
But I think you should reconsider your position here:
"I'm looking for a candidate that gives us the best chance to do that, without violating too many of my principles (sorry Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter - who I really, really like). For some reason, Fred just isn't exciting me - and, for a guy who basically is agreeing with me 100% of the time - why do I find myself wanting Rudy or McCain to be the nominee instead of him?"
I agree that RP, TT, and DH do not stand a chance, but I don't feel that way about Fred Thompson. You say he "basically is agreeing with me 100% of the time." What makes you think that there aren't enough voters who agree with you to elect Fred Thompson?
I'm not smart enough to know what other people will do. I just know what I believe, politically. Like you, I'm pretty much in agreement with Thompson. He has my support until someone else is nominated.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
about a candidate... We are electing someone to run the country, not someone to cheerlead us on in our daily lives, or that feels "our pain". We need an adult with an understanding of the issues, real policies to address these issues (not sound bites), and a proper perspective. We don't need someone who caters every comment and speech to the media and pundits, and who thinks that polls are the way to run the country. I don't need to "get to know" a candidate before I can vote for him/her. I just need to know how they approach and understand the issues, and what their policies will be...
in life's rear view mirror. One beer at Thanksgiving and I slept for 3 hours!
The caffeine in iced tea will assist in analyzing how CNN found all those contrived-yet-spontaneous question videos on You Tube.
It seemed to me, when I actually paid attention to where the questioners were from, there seemed to be a TON of questions from places that aren't Republican strongholds. I mean, Seattle, Los Angeles, the Bronx?
It seemed to me that most of the questioners had this air of sarcasm or condescendation.
Ain't gonna happen. If he doesn't get the nomination he certainly won't settle for being on a losing ticket. We can expect to see a scandal a day from Rudy from now until he gets shamed out of the race.
By the way, to really judge how the debate went, consider how people who don't incessently follow politics would view each candidate's performance. Debates are all about style. They give us a chance to only gauge how non-political junkies view the candidates.
If some of your new pals on the Huckabee campaign weren't quietly asking this question, even now. :)
I thought Huckabee didn't do too great. I guess my expectations for him were sky-high. I agree that McCain did awesome, however. As for Romney....he sounded solid. He seemed honest to me, actually. Unfortunately, whenever he's honest, I tend to disagree with him.
But glad to hear that it's shaking out well for Huck. And I'm very glad to hear we caught Hillary with her hand in the cookie jar.
I was wondering how he would handle the attacks. He brushed them aside.
I thought he did really well.
Jim Tomasik
...for substance (still beating Romney and Rudy, the real competition for the nomination) since Huck's job was to push himself as THE fiscal conservative, and instead continued to paint himself mainly as the likable witty humorous conviction SoCon candidate. His ad was a lost opportunity (I thought that the day I saw it earlier this week), we GOT the "Christian Leader" part, just a tad too much of the hoky aw-shucks Huck rather than the serious "I will cut your taxes and here's how" Huck: bring on some Ivy League economists and more passion and fact on how the Fair Tax is clearly the most conservative (in terms of not penalizing the productive segments of society and maximizing market efficiency and free market activity by minimizing tax policy social engineering) proposal for tax reform and has a broad appeal that a "flat tax" would NEVER have among the middle/lower-middle class, highlight your willingness to take the no-new-tax pledge, highlight facts like in Dick Morris' article today headlined Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative explaining facts like over the 11 yrs he was governor the income tax stayed the same and the overall increases were only half the national average of tax burden risen, etc.
www.townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/11/28/mike_hu...
Needs to explain soon how he'll make fiscal conservatism a priority, using the bully pulpit to push for elimination of income tax for national sales tax, and that if that does not work due to a Dem Congress that in the meantime he will push for lowering taxes as a plan B.
Time is getting short and with conservative critics piling on, now is the time for Huck to make a strong push for fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately, I think instead his strategy involves listening to voices telling him to continue shoring up his SoCon base, but they are already with him at this point and will be even more with him as their qualms about his fiscal conservatism are relieved. Especially with his ltd. money and time, he needs to kill 2 conservative birds with one stone by going hard for characterization as a fiscal conservative, and as he makes that sale the evangelicals will continue to rally around him and get others excited about him as his polling avoids hitting an evangelical ceiling.
if Gov Huckabee wins the nomination and it appears he's gonna make a serious run now, then are Republicans saying they want four more years of Bush because Mike Huckabee is a Compasionate Conservative in every way and has not foreign policy experience. He spends big and likes programs to illegal immigrants. Could Karl Rove be right about his vision that it's all about judges and tax cuts that really matter to the average Rep voter? I'm just asking. Let's have a discussion about this. Look, I'm supporting Fred, but let's face it; let's be real, Fred looked and sounded bad last night. He's not gonna win!
Where do we go from here?
Pam
grammer! I'm on fumes this morning. Still my point is where do we go as a party. We need more than the Evangelicals, I am one by the way, to win! Is Karl Rove right?
Pam
Gents?
This mutual murder-suicide pact the two of you seem to have developed for each other?
It's not working.
For either of you.
Just saying.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
His plan is to keep Romney down just long enough to lose Iowa. Then Romney wins NH, and there is a Romney-Huckabee split. Giuliani goes back to acting like the undisputed front-runner (Clinton style), and takes it all.
I'll write-it up as to why later - got some actual paying work to do first.
Bottom line in two quick points:
1) I'm less sure than ever that Rudy (my #2 choice after Mitt) has the staying power I thought he had, and
2) I believe Rudy is going to pay dearly for this mutual non-aggression pact he currently has with Huckabee.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Rudy looked petty as he picked at Romney about the "amnesty mansion." Romney tuned it on him pretty well, but Rudy certainly gave a good imitation of a bully. In fact, of a "loser." It sort of reminds me right now of somebody calling supply-side "voodoo economics."
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Unless he can do something to turn this around quick. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a significant drop in the nationals tonight as well.
The one thing that might help him is his answer on the farm subsidy question.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777