More Thoughts on the Debate
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A morning after having watched the debate a second time -- that's how much I love you people -- I stand by my contention that McCain won. I am even more firm in my conviction that not only did Rudy Giuliani lose, but he imploded. His campaign will have to fly to Upper Mongolia to pick up all the pieces.
But there are two things that stand out to me in addition to these two thoughts.
First, people who were on the fence today about Mitt Romney are probably comfortably in his camp today. I cannot really argue with those who say Romney won the debate, because I can see why a person would say it. To quote Peggy Noonan
The statuesque Mr. Romney had a certain good-natured command, a presidential voice, and a surprising wiliness. He seemed happy to be there, and in the mysterious way that some people seem to dominate, he dominated. He had a quick witted answer when Mr. Mathews asked him if the Roman Catholic Church should deny communion to pro-abortion politicians. What, said, Matthews, would he say to the bishops? "I don't say anything to Roman Catholic Bishops," he said. "They can do whatever the heck they want!" He deftly flipped it into a church-state issue. He did some light-handed and audience-pleasing Clinton bashing, and was confident on stem-cell research.
But, as she also said
he was weak on Iraq, predictable, like someone who knows the answer that polls right with the base. How can you be utterly banal about a war, and such a controversial one?
Second, I think Mike Huckabee, who really should be running for Senate, really set himself apart from the second tier as a serious candidate with the intellect and ability to be President. Too bad he's a protectionist with a bad Club For Growth record.
Let me add one last thing -- we and the media should stop treating as serious candidates Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. We should also treat Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, and Tommy Thompson as Vice Presidential wannabes and leave the serious Presidential debating to Romney, Rudy, McCain, Brownback, and Huckabee.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Forget Who Won. Who Lost? — Comments (16) »
More Thoughts on the Debate 29 Comments (0 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I saw it the way you did. I was willing to give Senator Mccain the benefit of the doubt and will continue to do so but he just was not very good last night. He seemed nervous at times and did not seem preidential. Just my .02.
so that he'll run for Senate :-)
Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) McCain; 4) Gingrich; Guiliani removed 04/03/07
"We should also treat Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, and Tommy Thompson as Vice Presidential wannabes and leave the serious Presidential debating to Romney, Rudy, McCain, Brownback, and Huckabee."
I think you're right on here, Peach Pundit.
And this is to nobody in particular, just a thought this morning:
I would treat this debate as the very first "toe in the water" introduction to all of these people. Castigate Chris Matthews as you will for his willfully glib, interrupting, and irrelevant questions -- that's fine. But let's not predict big things from this just yet.
The Democrats haven't even begun to fight. TNR this morning is sending me emails about how the Donks are saving all their big guns for the later debates, evidently hoping we'll use ours on each other before then.
So I recommend that we just chill out, say that some people were better than others, but not go into a feeding frenzy or try to predict events more than 18 months away based on a haphazardly-run debate hosted by Chris Matthews. Observations and critiques are fine, I think, but blanket condemnations or predicitons that someone has damaged themself beyond repair (or redeemed themself beyond all possibility of eventual defeat) are really so outrageously speculative and they're also unfair to our candidates, all of whom I think did at least a passable job last night, despite a couple of notable gaffes.
We need a better debate format, and more debate, not a circular firing squad. I'm proud of Romney's performance on most levels, and everyone knows I'm a Romney supporter, and so last night's debate has me feeling pretty good. But my gosh, there's a long time yet to go, and several people who haven't announced their intentions yet.
End of rant, and thanks for everyone's criticisms of Romney in addition to the praise, which I think has been a long time coming. Obviously he has what it takes as an orator, debaters, and a leader. Whether that's enough to change some people's minds about other issues remains to be seen.
Let me add one last thing -- we and the media should stop treating as serious candidates Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo.
While you don't consider them serious candidates, many of their values are legitimate and very popular among an awful lot of voters. Theirs are the values that set Reagan apart from the rest of the crowd. I couldn't help but roll my eyes at the numerous pathetic attempts by several candidates to convince us that they're Reagan republicans. If they really wanted to be convincing they'd pick up some ideas from Paul and Tancredo.
My $0.02.
someone might think Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo personify Reagan values... until they sober up.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Streiff, did you support or oppose S.2611, the immigration reform bill passed by the Senate in 2006, that was supported by Sen. McCain and Sen. Brownback?
Do you believe illegal aliens should be given legal status? Do you believe illegal aliens should be given a path to citizenship?
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
I agree. Those two and Hunter would be my picks out of all the candidates. I don't plan to waste my vote, but I think they represent conservatism the best.
You don't like Guiliani and you want to elevate an alternative.
I almost didn't watch this but my curiosity got the better of me. I actually ended up enjoying it more than I thought I would. Didn't have any preconceived ideas heading in but I thought all of the candidates did a pretty good job of articulating conservative principles. I even like having Ron Paul in there.
However, to say Mccain won ruins your credibility. As the "heir apparent" he has a pretty high bar to reach. I found him at times to be inarticulate and kind of like an irascible grandpa. I hate to say it but he is showing his age.
Here's how I score it:
Rising:
Romney- More articulate than I expected and certainly looks the part. Pretty good on issues and has a leadership record.
Guiliani- Keeps going back to what he has actually done. Articulate and good debater. I could see him doing well against the moonbat lefties. Knocked the Shia vs. Sunni question out of the park.
Gilmore- Didn't know much about the former gov, but I found myself liking his answers.
Brownback- Gave many good answers. Seems likable. Think it has to about more than just social issues, though.
Hunter- Seemed more presidential than I thought he would and is great on defense. Secretary of Defense, maybe?
Falling:
Mccain- His sputtering and finger pointing just did not seem very presidential to me. I think he comes across just as you would expect a long time Senator to come across, "...I sponsored legislation...." It's boring.
Tancredo- Sure this guy is with me on alot of issues but he sure didn't make his case very well.
Thompson- Always liked the ex-gov but he seems like maybe his time is passed.
I hate to say it but he is showing his age.
I agree. I came away almost feeling like senility is setting in. That forced smile was almost creepy.
Erick, did you support or oppose S.2611, the immigration reform bill passed by the Untied States Senate in 2006, that was supported by Sen. McCain?
...for it every time one of you guys opens your mouth on the subject. Not much; just a touch.
You sure this is a winning strategy for getting your policy positions passed, hunter? Pestering the people who are giving you a forum with which to speak?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Actually, a bill, H.R.4437, that contained some of my "policy postions" was passed by the United States House of Representatives in December 2005. The bill was overwhelmingly supported by House Republicans. It was strongly opposed by House Democrats. A majority of Senate Republicans voted against S.2611, while Senate Democrats overwhelmingly supported that legislation.
Since my question may constitute "pestering", I hereby withdraw my question to Erick.
In the thread at this link: http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/immigration_hardliners_ar... , I complemented SteveLA on his analysis of the performance of the 109th Congress on border security and made a few comments about the November 2006 elections. Though I had not made any comments direct towards you in that thread, you responded to that comment by asking me the question "So when they gut the fence next year ... how, precisely, will that be a victory for Rep. Tancredo and his supporters?" I responded at length to your question and asked you if you supported the Senate immigration reform plan and also asked you if you supported H.R.4437. Would you have voted for S.2611 if you had been a member of the United States Senate in 2006?
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
If I tell you that I and all the other Contributors here at RedState are all amnesty-ists: if I tell you that we want to make a big amnesty pie and invite the neighbors in; will you then smirk the smirk of the satisfied and SHUT UP about the whole thing?
Will that recharge your capacitors, [raider]? Or at least get you off trying to hector the people who don't agree with you and onto convincing them, instead?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Those of us who are in border states are going to continue to bitch and whine about this subject because we are feeling the pinch. If you don't like that then you better put wax in your ears because all the problems I am facing are coming soon to a city near you.
Until we fix the problem its not going to get any better, it might be tedious to listen to one issue people all the time but god bless them, for keeping the issue to the forefront.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
When you asked me the "So when they gut the fence next year ... how, precisely, will that be a victory for Rep. Tancredo and his supporters?", I provided you with a detailed answer. I had not made any comments to you in that thread. I didn't complain about your question, I simply answered it. If you ask me whether I support or oppose any particular piece of legislation that has been passed by the House or the Senate, I will answer your question just like I answered your previous question. Like most folks, I'm probably not familiar with most of the legislation passed by either the Senate or the House. However, I could certainly read about a piece of legislation about which I was asked and then answer the question. S.2611 and H.R.4437, though, were not obscure pieces of legislation. They both received much media coverage.
It is curious that your post contains these words "Or at least get you off trying to hector the people who don't agree with you and onto convincing them, instead?". You've yet to say whether you agree with my position of support for H.R.4437. You've yet to say whether you support my position of opposition to S.2611. Before considering whether my time should be spent "convincing" anyone with regard to S.2611 or H.R.4437, it seems rather basic that I should know their position on that legislation.
The subject of S.2611 seems relevant. Apparently, a presidential candidate may be reconsidering his support for S.2611.
In a prior post in this thread, you claimed your support "for it every time one of you guys opens your mouth on the subject. Not much; just a touch". I'm not sure about the positions of the others that comprise "you guys", but in my case I am willing to state explicity whether I support or oppose immigration-related legislation that comes before the House or the Senate for a vote. It's interesting that some that post on the subject of immigration-related issues seem so unwilling to do that.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
"If I tell you that I and all the other Contributors here at RedState are all amnesty-ists: if I tell you that we want to make a big amnesty pie and invite the neighbors in; will you then smirk the smirk of the satisfied and SHUT UP about the whole thing?
Will that recharge your capacitors, [raider]? Or at least get you off trying to hector the people who don't agree with you and onto convincing them, instead?"
Ask me one serious question to which a yes or no answer can be given and I will answer it. If you ask me multiple questions involving talk of "amnesty-ists", "big amnesty pie" and other nonsense, it is unlikely that I will answer "yes" or "no".
With regard to whether I will "SHUT UP about the whole thing", I believe S.2611 merits further discussion as does apparently a presidential candidate.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
Feel free to answer each question in turn, if that will make it easier for you.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
"If I tell you that I and all the other Contributors here at RedState are all amnesty-ists: if I tell you that we want to make a big amnesty pie and invite the neighbors in; will you then smirk the smirk of the satisfied and SHUT UP about the whole thing?". No. My questions are would you have voted for H.R.4437 if you had been a member of the House and would you have voted for S.2611 if you were a member of the Senate. I didn't ask a question about "amnesty-ists" or "amnesty pie"
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
Now that we've got that out of the way, let's talk about your threadjacking. As in: stop it. You started this thread with a direct challenge to the author that had nothing - in my opinion, which outvotes yours - with his post. We have wasted enough time on this: so, in the future, you will reserve your comments on illegal immigration to the comments sections of posts that are about illegal immigration; or, of course, start your own blogs on the subject*.
Period. End stop.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*I close calling-out blogs, by the way. They set a bad example for the rest.
(1) I'm up all night tonight. Don't push it.
(2) Moe is a squishy little puppy of the VRWC on immigration matters. In many ways, I have more in common with your position than with his, much to my chagrin. Push this topic one more comment in this or any non-immigration thread, and our dance ends. We clear?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I think it was from Rich Lowry, but I don't recall for sure. The point was that the forced insertion of planned talking point responses regardless of the question is very offputting if you are watching the debate, but if you skipped it and are watching the news where it's just a few seconds of soundbites per candidate it comes off well.
I never thought of it that way, though it makes perfect sense as to why they do it when it seems so weird at the time.
A morning after having watched the debate a second time -- that's how much I love you people -- I stand by my contention that McCain won.
I think Romney won but McCain really enhanced his status in my mind. Not despite how awkward some of his answers were but because how awkward some of his answers were. He came across like someone who was so convinced that winning the Iraq war was important that he was trying too hard to persuade people. I like that passion.
I didnt like Romney when he first ran for Governor of Massachusetts, but he won me over with sheer competence. He is just a competent executive and communicator. Period. Mitt's best attribute is what people saw yesterday - himself. As long as he stays in the hunt, and he has the money and organization to do so - he will gain more and more traction and people see him and get used to him. In my opinion, his only real competetion will be Fred Thompson.
I was listening to Rush this afternoon and Rush is vocally supporting Romney. On talk radio, you definately get a better sense why social conservatives are on the fence with Romney. I dident believe his Mormanism was much of a factor, but it is. I stole exchange from the NRO online:
In response to people giving him grief for taking a liking to a Mormon for president, saying to him, "you should know better," Rush responds: "No, I don't know better."
He continued: "I rather have a Mormon than a liberal. I rather have a Mormon than John Edwards. ... I rather have a Mormon than Hillary."
As mainstream pundits like Rush, Ingraham and Scarborough warm up to Mitt, so will much of their audience.
Putting my seer hat on,
1) We withdraw ( surrender ) and the middle east region becomes very unstable. Oil prices go way up, wrecking the US and world economy.
2) We withdraw ( surrender ) and within a short period Iran gains power in Iraq, either military or political power. Oil prices go up and US and world economy are wrecked. A power that hates us will have control over our main energy source.
3) We withdraw ( surrender ) and Al-Queda has a power base in the middle east, disrupting the region, forcing up oil prices ,and ruining the US and world economies. Al-Queda then brings their terror tactics to the United States, possible with WMD which they would be able to afford.
Solutions--- Dont withdraw ( surrender ) in Iraq and push alternative energy, ie wind, nuclear and solar power. Stop getting our oil from the Middle East.
As soon as we're gone, Israel does most of our dirty work for us. (That's assuming a new government there.)
as did Rudy (although to a lesser extent). Then again, I didn't watch twice. Seriously, the ones who stood out for me last night were Romney, Brownback, and Hunter. The only one out of the "second tier" who even registered a blip was Huckabee.
I probably should watch twice if my perception is this far off.