The Elephant In The Room Has Stature
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (54) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I agree with the consensus that Rudy won the debate last night. In fact, I agree with Alexham, Leon, and others that as long as Ron Paul is in the race, Rudy comes out looking the hero. Every time the nutter from Texas denies the realities of September 11th, he sets Rudy up to take him on and win with sane America.
And yet this image remains an indelible part of last night's debate and sets up an advantage that Fred has among the front runners -- as Rudy and Romney squabbled like children over the line item veto, there was "Dad" looking down at them, the statesman between two kids.
Fred is the elephant in the room. Beyond just the solidly Republican voting record on issues like life and taxes that go beyond what the other two (or three if you count McCain) top tier candidates have, here we have an older guy standing between two younger men bickering with each other over a mundane issue like the previously unconstitutional Line Item Veto Act of 1996. Chief Justice Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens found the legislation unconstitutional. And, as Rudy correctly pointed out, he beat Bill Clinton in the Supreme Court.
It made for a very interesting dynamic to see Thompson, who would not get into the weeds and throw a lot of punches at the other guys like the second tier guys tried to do, tower over everyone else and then pull a few unexpected zingers out, calling Chris Matthews "Christopher" and turning Romney's scripted one liner around on him, calling Romney the best actor on stage.
Time will tell if Thompson can really fire himself up for this. He was not great on the first question. But as it stands, the man who the other candidates have been treating as an elephant in the room — dancing around him as best they could without too many acknowledgments of his existence until recently — proved not only is he a very good elephant on taxes, social security, national security, and business issues, but also was willing to do what few candidates are willing to do, give a real "yes" and a real "no."
Rudy definitely won on points, and probably will every time he gets to remind us of the outrage that is 9/11 and how he fought the Clintons and won, but Fred wins on stature, which might just be his ultimate trump card.
By the way, was it just me or when they showed Fred up close talking with Romney in the background, didn't you think Romney had that John Kerry look on his face of, "I can't believe I'm losing to *this* guy."
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Some final thoughts on last night's GOP debate — Comments (128) »
The Elephant In The Room Has Stature 54 Comments (0 topical, 54 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
On your last point Erick...ya know now that I think about it I did get a little bit of that impression but it was when Thompson was talking about his Social Security proposal. The camera got a shot of Romney and he had a very strange look on his face. I say it was strange because it wasn't the kind of look I would've given if I was on that stage.
I think it was about the same time that I noticed it too. That's what I was talking about. Thompson was stumbling to get the words out and Romney just had a "Holy Lord, I'm behind this guy in the polls? WTF?!?!?!?!" look on his face.
I had been hoping that Fred Thompson would be everything people were claiming he was after my initial misgivings about his rather moderate voting record in the senate while representing a very conservative state like Tennessee.
That said, after yesterday's economic debate, I was less than impressed. It looked to me like Romney and Giuliani were by far the sharpest. And yes, the quibble over the Line Item Veto was a bit juvenile and boring. Giuliani was right that as a fiduciary of New York City, he had to fight something that was unconstitutional to save his city $250 million.
Romney was right, however, that there has been a new version of the line item veto that has been designed to address the specific constitutional concerns raised in the initial case. Romney, instead of attacking Giuliani for being successful in the first case should ask if he supports the line item veto in the second iteration if it passes constitutional muster - as most agree that it probably does.
But all that aside, Romney and Giuliani were both sharp. They both displayed the skill, the passion, and the tact required to take on Hillary in the general election.
But since my conscience will not allow me to vote for Giuliani in the primary because of his positions on social issues - specifically the right of innocent unborn human beings to not be slaughtered, often less humanely than chickens are slaughtered - I have to say that my vote in the primary, surprisingly enough to me, has ticked back towards Mitt Romney.
Now I guess I'm pulling for Romney/Bonilla in 2008. haha
And here's a draft of my all-star cabinet in such an administration:
• Newt Gingrich for White House Chief of Staff
• Rick Santorum for Secretary of State
• Rudy Giuliani for Secretary of Defense
• Phil Gramm for Secretary of the Treasury
• John Yoo for Attorney General
• Duncan Hunter for Secretary of Homeland Security
• Miguel Estrada for Solicitor General
:-)
Estrada & Santorum on the SCOTUS.
After seeing Fred on the spot, its become clear he is an inferior candidate than Rudy or Mitt.
My problem with Mitt is that he seems to have too many scripted answers. Not to mention, I really question a man whom suddenly becomes Pro-life just as his name gets babbled about for President. As far as I'm concerned, we got two top candidates that are Pro-choice, one just is in denial about it. As for Fred being Pro-life, who knows if thats really true.
Dr. Dobson please add Mitt to your list.
Thanks...
Solicitor General is often a stepping stone to the Supreme Court.
Ken Starr was asked to step down from the DC Circuit to be the Solicitor General, basically as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. That was before J. Michael Luttig and others derailed his nomination because he might not have been an exact replica of...J. Michael Luttig. Which, of course led to the nomination of that conservative luminary that J. Michael Luttig shepherded through the senate confirmation process, David Hackett Souter.
But I digress.
Miguel Estrada as U.S. Solicitor General would be a perfect setup for the Supreme Court.
R. Ted Cruz, the Texas Solicitor General, should then succeed Miguel Estrada as Solicitor General and follow Miguel Estrada to the Supreme Court at the end of the Romney Administration's two-term tenure. :-)
I like Rick Santoum, but I would not support him for a position on the Supreme Court. I'm in favor of fostering the conservative judicial monastery and promoting Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison Eid, Judge Margaret Ryan of the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (and a former active duty marine), Judge Jennifer Elrod of the 5th Circuit, and Dean Jim Chen of the University of Louisville's Brandeis School of Law.
Eid clerked for Clarence Thomas and Jerry Smith, Ryan and Chen both clerked for both Thomas and Luttig. Cruz clerked for Luttig and Rehnquist.
I don't think that there are that many Mormons who are truly pro-choice, save Mitt's deceased mother. Even Harry Reid CLAIMS to be pro-life.
On the other issues, I don't know. But on the issue of life, I think that Mitt Romney has come home to where his heart has probably always been.
We need someone charged with looking after our ports who wouldn't be content to, you know, hinder the process of trade a bit.
My runner-up for Homeland Security is former U.S. Rep. Bob Beuprez from Colorado. I don't think that Duncan Hunter would strangle trade as director of Homeland Security, however.
Strongly disagree. Though Thompson looked a bit rusty at the beginning, he clearly had a greater presence on that stage than Mitt and Rudy combined. He stood above the fray. I think he only gets better from here. And -- not that it matters to some Republicans -- he's the type of genuine, life-time, card-carrying, common-sense, across-the-board conservative whom I believe can bring the party (and the nation!) together.
but I am starting to move toward him and away from Mitt.
'Which of our guys has the guts to do it?' IMO Fred showed that he does have the guts. Ed Morrisey agrees with me.
The first debate with Fred Thompson was expected to reveal whether the lanky actor had what it takes to make a national run for the office. Instead, it revealed Chris Matthews as a hack of the first order, one who tried his best to torpedo Thompson -- and failed utterly. He got so desparate that he demanded to know whether Thompson knew who the Canadian Prime Minister was -- and he did. Matthews grew so frustrated that he openly critiqued one of Thompson's answer for being too detailed, which prompted a scolding from Thompson.
I suggested that "the candidate who can push back best against Matthews' potential low blows should be strongly considered for the nomination." I think Fred qualifies as someone who can fight for himself.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
What the hell the excitement was and continues to be about Fred Thompson; there's nothing there. He took his time to get off his duff and into the race, which isn't fatal in and of itself, but he has to do better in his first debate then "hold his own". All Fred accomplished these past months was being a distraction, I can't see him beating any one of the three top tier candidates - Rudy, Mitt, or McCain. Maybe he has a secret weapon. But at the rate he moves, we won't see it unti the eve of the first primary.
I was curious about Thompson, but I now think he would be a horrible candidate. Hearing FredHeads trumpet "Fred proved he's not a moron!" is truly baffling.
There's a large portion of the Republican base that wants a conservative nominee. So when it looked like the social liberal fiscal moderate (nobody who can get elected in NYC is conservative anything) Giuliani was going to get it, or a slight chance that the 'what do the polls say I need to say this week' Romney would, they cast about for someone, anyone who was an actual conservative that might win the nomination.
I know I was in that position. Look, I haven't ruled out voting for Rudy or Romney if they get the nod, but both make me _very_ uncomfortable, and I think both would damage the country as President, though not as much as Hillary would.
All we're saying is we'd really like to have a choice that's not the choice between the greater evil and the lesser one.
In the post debate poll, Ron Paul had 78% of the votes before NBC took it down.
I had the virtue of listening to the debate rather than watching it - and my conclusion was the Fred! was dreadful and completely un-ready for anything resembling prime-time.
Pictures do say 1,000-words, I suppose.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
JFK gave us tax cuts to grow the economy. JFK gave us Byron White, a dissenter in Roe v. Wade. Nixon gave us Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe.
After watching the debate, however, I am afraid that if we're going to win this thing, Romney and Giuliani are the two that give us the best fighting chances.
Nixon also gave us Rhenquist, so it's a lot more complicated then that.
“I am telling people loosen your ties, fire up the coffee pots, get ready for the weekend, ... We've got a lot of work to do.”
- John Bolton
Nixon:
Warren Burger - moderate, less conservative than Kennedy (0.500)
Lewis Powell - moderate liberal (0.250)
Harry Blackmun - raging left-wing liberal (0.000)
William Rehnquist - stalwart conservative (1.000)
Batting Percentage: 0.4375
JFK:
Byron White - moderate conservative, more conservative than Kennedy (0.850)
Batting Percentage: 0.850
These ratings are imprecise, but there is no doubt that JFK was way better than Nixon on the courts. If Nixon hadn't gotten a surprise final nomination in Rehnquist, he would have been a complete disaster.
He was.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
But I just don't see Fred as all you guys are making him out to be. He's a good guy, but he has yet to demonstrate that he is capable of handling the immeasurably complex issues of our world. I really think that, besides Newt (God bless him), only Rudy and Mitt (McCain too, but I think he's too far gone) are up to task. Fred has ample time to prove me wrong, and I hope he does--we could use an articulate, bright conservative in office.
**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
Rudy is the only one who can compete with Hillary, he knows and and so does everyone else, no one wants to admit this though. The more time everyone wastes getting distracted by the other contenders the worse off Republicans will be come November.
Didn't I shut you down for advocating socialism the other day? Now your advocating Rudy? That's telling.. No I will not be voting for Rudy the neo-socialist. In my mind hes little diffrent than Hillary.
Rudy may not be very good on social issues, but on the economy, he is probably THE most free market capitalist candidate running. I would have him tied with Romney, but RomneyCare - despite Mitt's best efforts, I believe - isn't free market enough for me.
Rudy is an anti-socialist, not a neo-socialist.
Mike Huckabee + all the Democrats are the socialists in the race; Comrade Clinton most of all.
he is probably THE most free market capitalist candidate running
Based on what? You mean his shutting down businesses that he didn't like? Or his suing the gun manufacturers?
Still... maybe, just maybe, he is fiscally conservative. I'll give you that. But that's not all that clear to me. If I lived in a big city, I'd vote for him as Mayor in a second. He's better than all the other losers with that serve in that post. But there's a big difference between the city budget and the Federal budget. There's a big difference between Congress and the city council.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You are almost saying that no one else should even bother running against Rudy for the nomination. I bet you are a fan of the clash of the "INEVITABLES" - Rudy vs. Hillary. My hope is both get crushed in the primaries and that we get a good nominee on the Dem side so that if he happens to win, we don't get 4 years of disasterous governance.
I wouldn't say I was a "fan" but I do think it might be inevitable and we will get 4 years of disastrous governance, it will be our choice as to how disastrous.
I have been looking at some of these posts and I can't believe some of the stuff I am reading. Just because someone is tall, southern, can call Chris Matthews Christopher, and is pro life does not mean they are qualified to be the next president of the United States. Rudy, Mitt, and McCain understand the issues way more then Thompson and and they are way more qualified and experienced then Thompson. If you are looking for a solid conservative Brown Back is solid conservative and he understands the issues way more then Thompson and is more qualified then Thompson. What makes Fred the choice more then Brown Back? Maybe I am missing something but I don’t see the love affair with this guy. Any democrat would destroy him. Plus he looks so old and tired. The republicans would go down like 1992 and 1996 if they nominated Fred. He has 0 appeal to independents and moderates. He looks like a nice man and looks like a good family but he Is no Ronald Wilson Regan. Not even close. Please tell me what this man has done in his life to be in the first tier for the republican nomination? Am I missing something? Does being southern, pro life, tall make you qualified to be president?
"Every time the nutter from Texas denies the realities of September 11th" -
..and that reality is.. In response to a terrorist attack, we will start a progressive war against the entire middle east region and every Muslim nation that does not bend to our will, have you heard people say "Iraq is but a battle in this war"? also in response to little more than wild hypothetical fear of a terrorist attack we will completely destroy freedom and liberty here at home and institute a police state. Indeed I believe it was Patrick Henry who said "Give me absolute safety or give me death!" am I wrong?
Then again.. maybe Ron's got it right.. time will tell.
I once supported the war on terror, I made all the arguments you guys do.. for why it was necessary.. here I'll post some for fun.
I said this in 2004 when Al Zarqawi was killed: "This is proof we are wining in Iraq and I can't believe you people who think this was somehow a unimportant or even a bad thing that he was killed. Why let your hate for Bush or this war blind you from reality. This dude got everything he deserved, and the world is a better place without him. Look out though, we bombed him without a trial, the left will be all over that you watch." - me. Is this any different from what any of you said?
I find it funny now that I can't really think of a way to justify it in my own heart, even though I was so supportive of it.. I just don't believe in the reasons for the war anymore. Since I don't believe it, I can't argue it with any passion.. It's not a war for defence and we only go to war for defence.
Shoo. Go back in your cave and work on your tinfoil collection.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
So fast a reply, you are as closed to my stance.. as.. well, as I was..
lol
Why is that? Why are we so conviced we are right and nobody else can change our minds..?
Perhaps you can change mine.. ehh?
Yup, he's a retread. I blame my need to baby-wrangle.
Shoo. Grownups talking.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Maybe you should offer the terrorists some therapy sessions or something? That will solve the problem.
You must have mistaken me for a liberal. We are at war with Al-Qaeda, I support Ron Paul in his aim to capture and or kill Osama Bin Laden and other members of Al-Qaeda. I don't support the war in Iraq.
Tom Tancredo: "Iraq needs to take care of Iraq."
I agree with Tom, without us Iraq's would fight against trynical forces hell bent on rueling them, with out support in mearly arms and equipment they will win too.. Liberty is not given.. if the people of Iraq truely want freedom, they must fight for it themselves.
I don't think I am mistaken.
Are there terrorists in Iraq or not?
If you answer "yes" but want to leave Iraq then you are letting them win and might as well offer them a shoulder to cry on too.
I'm going to give you an asnwer you are not expecting.
I dont know, maybe.
If Al-Qaeda does eixsts in Iraq they are in small numbers. I do not believe that occupying an entire nation is an effective way to fight Al-Qaeda members..
I think it was a mistake to call our war "The war on terror" as terror is a tatic, and can be used indiscriminatly. So if you are an Iraqi civilian who takes up arms against the US troops there, is he also a "terrorist"?
Are fighters from Iran or other nations that we stirred up that want to attack the great Satan also "terrorist"?
I think we beat Al-Qaeda a long time ago in Iraq and have little reason to stay.. we are cauing more people to become terrorists.
HHmmm let's see how that works. 1) President Paul is informed by
intelligence that Al Qaeda just got a tac nuke from the Russian underground. It is currently located somewhere in North east Pakistan.
2) President Paul calls president Musharraf and asks him to do something about it. Musharraf says, :but I am already doing everything I can."
3) President Paul ponders his options, since any attack within the borders of Pakistan is strictly off limits.
4) He calls a general assembly of congress, (this takes two days, procedures have to be followed) The democrat controlled congress, already angry that he has vetoed every single thing they sent to him, call him a liar and refuse to declare war.
5) Our Allies, appalled at our lack of resolve finally prepare to act without us, but now it's too late, the nuke has been moved.
6) Boom,
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Sometimes I hear this stuff and I just go ballistic, and believe me I would delete accounts and ask questions later. Maybe I'm overreacting though.
I'm tired of hearing worn out lies and fabrications preached as "the real truth" about Iraq. Pay close attention to what I am about to say, and before you try to give me your philosophical objections to my factual assertions, go over there for a year and see for your da** self.
1. Al Qaeda IS in Iraq. The instigators of many of our problems there are trained and supplied by Al Qaeda and its sympathizers. Doubt the connection? How much correspondence between Zarqawi and Bin Laden would you have needed to see. Perhaps you are confused enough to think that Bin Laden IS Al Qaeda, so anything but trying to kill him is a waste. I have news for all of you - It wasn't Bin Laden that flew those planes into the Twin Towers. It was people who followed what he had to say. Same as AQIZ does...get the connection.
2. Every single day, GOOD Iraqi people risk their homes, their lives, their families, everything for the future of their country. Every single day, courageous Iraqis die alongside American troops. What the heck more do they need to do to qualify as "fighting for it themselves"? Their political system has issues, so the heck what - looked at Washington D.C. lately? Some of the best people I've known in my life are Iraqi's. They deserve the same opportunities as everyone else, and considering the "purple fingers", they certainly have put more into the furtheerance of freedom there than most Americans have ever done here. Think about that. If we could remove Syrians, Wahabis, Iranians, etc from Iraq, they probably would have little trouble winning their freedom. As it stands, they have no chance against the enemies - all allies of Islamofacism - arrayed against them, not without our help.
If you all don't want to fight in Iraq, then fine, just shut up and go the **** away. Since noone but the military has given anything in the GWOT, I have yet to figure out why the **** you care.
I am just sick and tired of hearing this nonsense. Criticism of things I hold dear and have suffered for like you will never understand is one thing. When that criticism is based on falsehoods, misrepresentations and ignorance I guess I just lose it.
You hold war dear? I care because you make me less safe by attacking countries who will then want to attack us back.
Here is where we differ Hooah Mac you think Iraq was a military threat to the US, and I do not. That's it.. everything else is icing on the cake.
1) I thought they were supplied by Iran.. or maybe it was Egypt of Syria.. gosh.. we have so many enemies there now.. who could tell anymore!
2) Every single day good Iraqi people fight with us, Every other day they disband and go home too, and sometimes they take up arms against us.
We are the catalyst there.
I will proudly serve in the defence of this nation.. got it DEFENCE.. but I will never go to war for ever growing reasons we went into Iraq.
So, as far as I can tell the real and only elephant in the room was McCain.
He's been standing for deregulation, free markets, and free trade his whole political career. He's a real social conservative. And he'd make an excellent commander in chief during a time of war against Islamic extremists.
And yet Erick presents us with this notion that Thompson is the elephant in the room. With due respect to Erick whose posts are excellent, the real elephant in the room is McCain.
"Oh, but campaign finance ...". It's time to start calling b.s. on that line of attack. For one, Thompson stood right there with McCain on BCRA (as he did on most of his votes as a senator). What's more, the goal of campaign finance reform was to take politics - our democratic process - out of the hands of unions and corporations and into the hands of the average Joe (us). I understand when DC insiders moan about this legislation because their livelihood depends on influencing with money, but the rest of us should support trying to clean out the system. I'd even go so far as to say that blogs benefit from more power going to individuals.
"But what about immigration?!?!". Please. We need to start being adults about two things: (1) we need the labor, and (2) we can't boot 20 million people out of the country without massive federal gov't spending. That's the plain and simple truth you get to after you peel away all the rhetoric.
So you get past these two issues and what's left is a man who stands on conservative principles and who has done so steadfastly and forcefully for decades.
I agree with you that McCain would make a great president. I just fear that he won't get a chance to run because he is not likely to win the nomination. I find it fascinating that some folks will never forgive McCain for his stand on immigration but they are ready to believe that Romney and Rudy are actually conservatives when for their entire careers they have proven to be liberals.
and I hope that we're not "opponents" or else the Republican party is DOA come the general elections.
What I'm pleading for is another look at a guy who stands as a conservative on many, many, many issues, and who has admitted that he made a mistake on his immigration sequencing (i.e., comprehensive reform all at once rather than enforcing the border and our current laws first and then dealing with the very real issue of the 20 million or so illegals in the US).
I'm also pointing out that we need to focus on some hard truths about our immigration situation. One is that we need the labor, like it or not. Another is that millions of people are already here illegally and there's no fiscally conservative way to kick them all out.
"Distance has not discouraged illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people." -- Ronald Reagan, November 1986
You can't teach height.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill