On the Republican debate last night

[JMS]

I watched the Republican debate last night and came away with some thoughts. Now knowing I am one of George Bush's biggest critics. Knowing I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Knowing I've already made up my mind that the Republican party is totally whacked and I'm not going to vote for them for at least a decade.. Here were my thoughts.

First off, over all impressions; The Republicans have a stronger field than the Democrats. From top to bottom they are more polished and give more intelligent answers than the Democrats who seem to speak in sound bites rather than answer questions. I was very impressed with the Republicans in this debate, first one I've watched.

Oddly enough I thought the weakest Republican in this debate was Mitt Romney. He didn’t come across as Presidential. I always thought of him as a stuffed shirt, someone who would say anything in order to win. I must say, that's how he came across last night. He couldn’t give clear answers on some of the questions and was caught several times talking out of both sides of his face. On immigration for example Romney jumped on Giuliani for NY city being a sanctuary city during his term as Mayor. Giuliani’s responded that he went to court to ensure illegal immigrant children could go to public schools because his primary concern as mayor was crime. Giuliani countered that Romney had actually employed illegal immigrants in the governor’s mansion in Ma. Romney looked very foolish I thought. It's amazing to me Mitt is among the front runners ( in NH and Iowa). Knowing this is the only Republican debate I've watched maybe someone can say if this poor showing was representative of how Romney has preformed previously, or not. I can’t believe it is because I always heard Mitt was a good debater.

On Huckabee. I hate the thought of the guy. A Baptist preacher running for President; Oh my god can you think of anything worse. Another faith based reasoner who will consult the bible and speak to god rather than employing his brains or that of his advisors. After watching him however he turned in one of the strongest performances of the night. They guy was very appealing. He came across as a level headed pragmatic guy. He was very well spoken, and represented some very tough questions with intelligent well thought out responses. It was amazing to me. I can see why he's climbing in the poles.

Giuliani. I thought Giuliani did well in the debates. He wasn’t head and shoulders above his competition, but he didn’t hurt himself and I thought he did well defending his front running status. He spent quite a lot of his time sparing with Mitt Romney, as they are the front runners; frankly I thought Giuliani got the better of Mitt. Giuliani also fielded question on spending irregularities (expense reports) while mayor of NY. I thought he was very creditable in his explanation and in dismissing these problems. I've heard Giuliani is running a one issue campaign.. (Terrorism / 911 ).. I must say Giuliani was at his best talking about crime and social programs which he implemented while mayor of NY. He represented his achievements very impressively.

Ron Paul. Again, I've long since lost any faith in libertarians. I must say though Ron Paul impressed me too. Mitt and the rest of the Republicans were talking about holding taxes down or even cutting taxes. Ron Paul amazingly spoke out about that's only half the problem. Tax cuts or holding taxes steady is irrelevant if you don't cut spending. Again I was floored. On Iraq Ron Paul was also impressive. Saying he would get out sooner rather than latter. Saying he didn’t want to pay to tell other people how to live their lives. Paul gave very common sense answers and represented himself very well, I thought.

John McCain. I used to like the guy. He has stuck his head so far up George Bush's sphincter in the last three years I've totally abandoned him. It also really annoyed me when McCain caved to the Bush administration on torture a few years back. Boy was McCain impressive last night. He was like Zeus throwing lightning bolts into the crowd. John didn't loose a single opportunity to tell the red meat Republican crowd about how they had screwed up or how he would fix them. He was roundly boo’ed on more than one occasion, but man did he have his game on. McCain has recaptured the magic he lost four years ago. It really brought me back.

Tancredo didn't get much air time, but he too had his moments on immigration and didn’t make any mistakes.

I really thought the Republican group was an impressive group, and they really did well in the debate. The Democrats are going to have to put a superior candidate together to beat the Republicans next year. The republicans have put together some really impressive candidates. The country might be suffering from Bush fatigue, but the democrats are going to have to do more than just show up to take this election.

Lastly I wanted to talk about the format of the debate. They had internet folks submitting questions via U-Tube. The questions were excellent, and hard. It made for a very entertaiining debate; something that also supprised me.

[tomgraham]

Ron Paul is my fav. Rep

[headexplode]

On the Republican debate last night . . . nothing of value or meaning was actually said, and the joke that is the election process and the candidates that participate was fully revealed for all to see, sparking a cultural/intellectual/spiritual revolution among all peoples of the world to tear down the artifice in our lives, who once and for all resolved to build a new future based on peace, love, and mutual respect?

Or was that just a dream I had?

[JMS]

On the Republican debate last night . . . nothing of value or meaning was actually said, and the joke that is the election process and the candidates that participate was fully revealed for all to see, sparking a cultural/intellectual/spiritual revolution among all peoples of the world to tear down the artifice in our lives, who once and for all resolved to build a new future based on peace, love, and mutual respect?

Or was that just a dream I had?

Again, I disagree. I thought most of the candidates declaired themselves clearly on controversial issues which separated them from their party and their President. Several candidates were roundly booh'ed by the crowd, including front runners, Guliani and McCain. It was a wild wild west show.

The formate and moderation were excellent. I didn't know Anderson Cooper had it in him. It was brilliant, if you directly attacked a candidate on an issue he got 30 seconds to respond. Wow... It was a debate; rather than just five concurrent press conferences going on concurrently.

Anyway, As someone who will most likely be voting Democrat in 2008, I was impressed.

[ImmortalDragon]

What about Fred Thompson? I thought he was much more impressive than Huckabee or Romney.

[Burgold]

What a different take than the one in the other debate thread. It's facinating how people can come away with such different impressions.

[JMS]

What about Fred Thompson? I thought he was much more impressive than Huckabee or Romney.

Good point. I thought Fred Thompson looked very presidential and aquited himself well. Each campagn was allowed to prepare a 30 second piece about their candidate, with no restrictions. Every candidate used it as a commercial to present their candidate. Thompson interestingly chose to point out Huckibee and Romney raising taxes or flip flopping on issues. Thompson threw some elbows.

I still was more impressed with Huckabee. Likely because my expectations of Huckabee were so low. His candacy is for real.

[zoony]

I heard Bill O'Reilly say that Thompson was in it simply to be a VP.

He and Guiliani would make a strong ticket. Both are strong where the other is weak.

I wonder if Guiliani could win NY? Thompson would secure the southern vote.

[JMS]

What a different take than the one in the other debate thread. It's facinating how people can come away with such different impressions.

I kind of agree with Kilmer in the other thread. The questions were very hard. They were almost designed to test the nature of the candidates and expose where they differed from their party and their president. I thought all the candidates other than Mitt Romney handled the questions very well. They didn't shirk off the questions or even waiver. I thought they did very well.

Frankly if the Democrat nominees did plant questions, which I doubt. I think they did the Republicans a service.

[JMS]

I heard Bill O'Reilly say that Thompson was in it simply to be a VP.

He and Guiliani would make a strong ticket. Both are strong where the others are weak.

I wonder if Guiliani could win NY? Thompson would secure the southern vote.

I wouldn't overlook Huckebee after last night. I've never known much about him, but I think he definitely came across better than Thompson. Not that Thompson did poorly but because Huckebee was just as carasmatic and presidential while doing better with the evangelicals and south.

As for Thompson just being in it for VP. I didn't see that. He was definitely throwing elbows.

[Burgold]

I kind of agree with Kilmer in the other thread. The questions were very hard. They were almost designed to test the nature of the candidates and expose where they differed from their party and their president. I thought all the candidates other than Mitt Romney handled the questions very well. They didn't shirk off the questions or even waiver. I thought they did very well.

Frankly if the Democrat nominees did plant questions, which I doubt. I think they did the Republicans a service.

That's good to hear. Regardless of party, I am hoping for a strong President who is quick on their feet.

That's why I disagreed with Kilmer about the "appropriateness" of the questions. I still don't believe in "Republican" or "Democrat" questions though.

Mostly though, I think I'm just in the mood to procrastinate (which is really not a good thing when you work for yourself :laugh: )

[ACW]

Mitt and the rest of the Republicans were talking about holding taxes down or even cutting taxes. Ron Paul amazingly spoke out about that's only half the problem. Tax cuts or holding taxes steady is irrelevant if you don't cut spending.

It seems like it should be :obvious:, but it's not :doh:

[Zguy28]

I thought it was funny when Huckabee offered to help Guiliani with a Bible question. :laugh:

[GibbsFactor]

It was also funny when Huckee offered to send Clinton to Mars. Unfortunately, in this day and age, we don't need a comedian in the white house.

[Ghost of]

As a Thompson supporter, there is no way in hell Fred is going to be VP to GIULIANI. Fred's in it to be Prez-O-dent, not some petty tyrant RINO like Rudy.

If anything, the race will be to determine who is VP to Thompson.

It may not seem that way now, but if you're looking for a return to fiscal conservatism, the only way you're getting that is with Thompson. Hunter can't win and I think he's too protectionist for his own good. Thompson will talk a good game for the socons but he's out of the Reagan mold of "leave me the hell alone" conservatism. This does not mean that states will not be able to make their own laws about gay marriage, abortion, etc but his administration will be focused on other matters primarily, which makes sense from a federalist perspective, anyway.

Giuliani may somehow survive as the candidate going toe-to-toe with Thompson but in the end "Al Qaeda" of the GOP ('The Base,' not a slur against religious conservatives, just something I've been saying lately) will see Giuliani for what he is, which is someone who will serve the interests of the most liberal GOP elites and the Democrats.

Romney is almost too polished. What I like about Fred is that he wants to be President but he hasn't been spending his whole life building up to it. Give me the man who kinda wants the job but isn't some kind of Todd Marinovich of national politics and believes in basic, productive administration and policy and can speak to the people without engaging in shrill rhetoric.

He's exactly the counterweight needed for HIllary in the general election and if we want to escape disastrous health care proposals and ignore social security for ANOTHER generation---other than just taxing young people TODAY.

[JMS]

I thought it was funny when Huckabee offered to help Guiliani with a Bible question. :laugh:

Yeah Huckabee did show a good sense of humor. But more importantly he really knocked that question out of the ball park and challenged his own camp a little bit.

The question... ( video )... a dude with a bad hair cut and a danny partrige outfit from the 1970's is holding up a bible. Says. Do you believe in this book. Is it the word of god? do you believe everything written in this book is true...

Guliani says, I believe in some of the bible.. Booh's raise from the crowd. But I believe some of it is alagory. I don't for example believe Johnah actually lived inside a whale ( for a number of days...)... Uneasyness from the crowd...

Mitt Romney up next. I believe in the bible. I believe everything in the bible. I believe its the word of god.. Crowd cheers..

Huckabee up next. I believe in the bible, but I don't believe in a literal interpretation. ( stunned silence from the unwashed masses ).. Some of the bible is alagory.

Amazing...

[JMS]

As a Thompson supporter, there is no way in hell Fred is going to be VP to GIULIANI. Fred's in it to be Prez-O-dent, not some petty tyrant RINO like Rudy.

Fred was sure throwing some sharp elbows if all he wanted was to be VP.

His campagn add was hard hitting to both Huckabee and Romney. He also took his shots at Guliani during the debate.

1. Romneys claim that Guliani ran a sanctuary city in New York as Mayor.
   
2. Guliani answers the Romney claim and counters that Romney hired illegals to work in the goveners mansion while gov of Mass.
   
3. Romney hums and haws, and says he's insulted, but basically fumbles the volley.
   
4. The immigration question comes to Fred. Fred says to Guliani, I think Mitt wasn't the only person to make questionable hires while in office.. Reffering to Guliani's police comish who was taking bribes and not paying his taxes. ( OUCH!! )
   

If anything, the race will be to determine who is VP to Thompson.

Thompson didn't do badly at all during the debate. The biggest problem Thompson had during that debate was time. Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson got the least amount of air time. The folks who did most of the talking was Guliani, Mitt, and to a lesser extent Huckabee. It didn't even seem to me that Thompson was a top contender.

Anyway.. This was the first republican debate I've seen. As I've said, I thought everybody did well except for Mitt, who is supposedly one of their best debaters.

[zoony]

Ghost... I think Thompson's time was 8 years ago. He seems... old. I'm not sure how he would hold up in office.

I've always liked him though. He has a very cool accent

[PeterMP]

He has stuck his head so far up George Bush's sphincter in the last three years I've totally abandoned him. It also really annoyed me when McCain caved to the Bush administration on torture a few years back. .

I'm sorry JMS, but he didn't cave:

"McCain's initial bill called for banning all U.S. personnel from engaging in "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of detainees. The only changes to his proposal, McCain said, dealt with people accused of mistreating detainees.

"(It) basically says that if a person, a reasonable person, would feel that someone was acting under orders ... then it could be a defense in case of accusation," McCain said. "And there is a provision for legal counsel for those who are accused (of torture), both civilian and military.""

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/index.html

How is giving people the right to claim that they were following a legal order a cave in (note- not that they would be immediately be innocent, but that it could be a defense). All it ensures is that some poor PFC won't be charged with a crime when the Attorney General or President is really to blame.

If he he caved, then why did Bush feel the need to add the signing statement:

"After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

I don't why, but for some reason the left likes to portray him as having caved. It just isn't true. He got the law passed. Now it is up the courts to step up and do the right thing. There is no doubt that the legislator (McCain) considers all forms of toruture "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" .

[ATV]

The Republicans have a stronger field than the Democrats. From top to bottom they are more polished and give more intelligent answers than the Democrats who seem to speak in sound bites rather than answer questions.

JMS, I don't think you were joking, were you? I suspect you actually believe that.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/29/post-debate-undecided-gop-voter-leaning-towards-edwards/

This is from my brother's blog, and we think a lot alike.....

http://goofyblog.net/the-us-military-is-only-for-conservative-christians-and-other-things-i-learned-from-last-nights-republican-debate/

[JMS]

I'm sorry JMS, but he didn't cave:

Pete, Fact is the administration does continue to use water boarding and other techniques which McCain himself calls torture. Fact is some of McCain's toughest language in his bill banning tortur was stripped out of his bill by his own hand after "discussions" with the administration. Like holding soldiers responsible for their acts and not allowing them to hide behind the chain of command, ( a defense the nazi's used at neuramburg by the way).

McCain went toe to toe with his own President and Party on the issue and caved. I'm not saying McCain is a weakling for caving. I don't know of many folks who could have stood the preasure which McCain did stand up too. I am just documenting that McCain did cave.

Rather than sticking with what he himself has declaired to be a core issue, that the United States does not torture; McCain made a calculated political decision to align himself closer to George Bush, in order to foster political capital with the Presidents base for the 2008 elections. After 2 years of aligning himself with Bush McCain lost all crediblity with the independents who were his strongest supporters.

I was also noting that based on last nights debate. McCain is back to making waves and talking tough and is no longer Bush's lap pupet. Which was good to see.

[JosephGibbs]

Somewhat off topic... but I was watching "Days of Thunder" the other night on Bravo and noticed that Fred Thompson's 2 scenes were not in there. I have watched the movie on tv before and the scenes have been in there. I realize networks chop up movies to fit time restraints, but was this deliberate and if so, why? I know the networks have not been showing the Law and Order episodes he is in as well. To me, this is just political correctness. Do the networks believe people think "well, I really enjoyed Thompson's acting so he must make a great politician". Did California quit showing Arnold's movies while he was running for Governor?

thanks

[JMS]

JMS, I don't think you were joking, were you? I suspect you actually believe that.

I honestly believe that the Republicans last night took harder questions than the democrats have faced in their debates and handled them better than the Democrats have.

As someone who is very critical of the Republican party over the last 8 years; I was very impressed with the candidates and the answers they gave last night. I’ve never seen a debate like it. Three of the Republican front runners were roundly boo’ed by the partisan crowd. It was impressive as hell watching these guys in real time stand up to their own party and differentiate themselves from the President the parties last eight years.

Giuliani, Ron Paul, and McCain were all boo’ed.

If the democrats think they are just going to show up and can count on George Bush’s low approval ratings giving them the race. I think they’re going to loose.

The Democrats are going to have to run good campaigns to take this thing, and that’s something we haven’t’ seen from a democrat in a national campaign for almost a decade.

As for your brother’s blog, I will agree that Mitt Romney had more than his share of rough moments and didn’t do very well over all.

As for Ron Paul I disagree with you. Ron Paul expressed some very interesting and controversial ideas on foreign policy and defended them very well in my judgment. When McCain called him an isolationist and following the same philosophy which allowed Hitler to come to power, I didn’t find it an effective response to Paul’s call for us to extricate ourselves from a policy of telling other folks how to live their lives. Just the fact that nobody challenged Paul on his claim that that is what our foreign policy has devolved into was a powerful positive for Paul. Frankly I was dismissing Paul before last night. He was pretty sharp and did well.

In general I also disagree with your brother..

Over all, just another night of a bunch of clueless right wingers pandering to other clueless right wingers.

That’s not what I saw at all. Huckebee saying the bible shouldn’t be interpreted literally… Paul calling for getting out of Iraq. McCain giving a litany of how the Republican party has failed over the last eight years while the crowd boo’ed him.

These guys had game…

The problem the democrats have shown Is that their debates aren’t nearly as fiery, contentious or informative. The democratic debates have been much more about just reciting pieces of the candidates stump speeches rather than actually answering the weak questions thrown out at them.

I'll tell you flat out last nights debate was the best debate I've seen in any Presidential race. It was a brawl.

[PeterMP]

Pete, Fact is the administration does continue to use water boarding and other techniques which McCain himself calls torture. Fact is some of McCain's toughest language in his bill banning tortur was stripped out of his bill by his own hand after "discussions" with the administration. Like holding soldiers responsible for their acts and not allowing them to hide behind the chain of command, ( a defense the nazi's used at neuramburg by the way).

McCain went toe to toe with his own President and Party on the issue and caved. I'm not saying McCain is a weakling for caving. I don't know of many folks who could have stood the preasure which McCain did stand up too. I am just documenting that McCain did cave.

Rather than sticking with what he himself has declaired to be a core issue, that the United States does not torture; McCain made a calculated political decision to align himself closer to George Bush, in order to foster political capital with the Presidents base for the 2008 elections. After 2 years of aligning himself with Bush McCain lost all crediblity with the independents who were his strongest supporters.

I was also noting that based on last nights debate. McCain is back to making waves and talking tough and is no longer Bush's lap pupet. Which was good to see.

And all that has to happen is for the courts to do is step and do their job and declare that things like water boarding are cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" like the author of the legislation clearly intended. At that point in time, then anybody giving such orders have broken the law. Blaming him for the water boarding that is occurring is akin to blaming the founders for the different things Bush is doing w/ respect to invastion of privarcy (e.g. opening mail).

I'll ask again, if he caved, then why the signing statement? Because the fact of the matter is that Bush knows he's breaking the law, but isn't going to stop until the courts force him too (just like the signing statement w/ respect to opening the mail). The courts are going to have to step in and declare that Bush is breaking it or that the law is unconstitional and that Congress doesn't have the authority to tell Bush how to treat detainees. The addition makse sense so some poor PFC doesn't take the blame for what is the doing of the President.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Somewhat off topic... but I was watching "Days of Thunder" the other night on Bravo and noticed that Fred Thompson's 2 scenes were not in there. I have watched the movie on tv before and the scenes have been in there. I realize networks chop up movies to fit time restraints, but was this deliberate and if so, why? I know the networks have not been showing the Law and Order episodes he is in as well. To me, this is just political correctness. Do the networks believe people think "well, I really enjoyed Thompson's acting so he must make a great politician". Did California quit showing Arnold's movies while he was running for Governor?

thanks

I believe there is an equal airtime law on the books for elections that causes this. I'm sure someone else can give you the exact details.