Friday, May 04, 2007

Belated Republican Debate Reaction

Debate setup- First of all, Chris Matthews should never, NEVER be able to moderate a debate. He is horrible, and it is not even a conservative-liberal thing. You don't cut the candidates off, and nobody is interested in You, Chris. You host a show watched by dozens of not hundreds of people. These people are campaigning as the Leader of the Free World. Even the lesser candidates are far more important than you will ever be.

And, for the record, Democrats are pansies. Did you notice the debate bookended by moonbat Keith Obermann? Did you see any of the candidates pitch a hissy fit over that? Obermann couldn't even carry Brit Hume's lapel microphone. How are we supposed to trust Democrats to stand up to Islamofacism when they can't even face down Fox News paired with the Congressional Black Caucus?

And finally, 10 candidates is way too many. They need to find a way to cut it to at least 6 or 7 by the next debate, with eventual further winnowing thereafter.

Now to the scorecard.

Rudy Giuliani- The only bigger loser last night was Dirk Nowitzki. Honestly, if you are Rudy your goal for the less than nine minutes that you are going to going to be speaking is to show yourself to be articulate and in command and stay off the YouTube blooper reel. Guess what?

His initial comments on Roe v. Wade could only have been worse if he had used profanity to express his thoughts. When asked if it would be a good day if Roe v. Wade was abolished, his initial answer was "That would be OK." How does that make anyone happy? He did try to clarify himself, but the damage was already done. That one sentence will probably be the one thing that most of America sees of the debate.

He seemed somewhat disjointed for other questions as well, although I think that the Sunni v. Shiite was just childish and unfair. Rudy will need to step up and show better, or Fred Thompson's eventual entry will doom him.

Mitt Romney- Accomplished everything that he had to do to stay afloat and perhaps gain on the leaders. He turned in the performance that John Edwards should have in the Democratic debates. For those who saw Romney for the first time, they had to be impressed. He was engaging, articulate, appropriately passionate, and handled challenges about his flip-flopping well. He also was appropriately dismissive of Matthews at certain points which earned big points in my household. For those Republicans looking for a "communicator," Romney fir the bill tonight.

John McCain- Perhaps inappropriately angry at times, he definitely did not suffer from momentary bouts of apparent disinterest that plagued Giuliani. There are Republicans that are looking for a little righteous anger, and McCain fit that bill, channeling Zell Miller circa 2004. This approach could wind up working well for McCain, as long as he does not allow it to become his entire stump. He needs to find some positive to go with his message as well. Overall, he didn't hurt himself with those who are still truly undecided.

Tommy Thompson- Tommy is done. Not as big of disaster as Giuliani, because not a lot was expected, but did absolutely nothing to justify his presence on that stage. The sad part is that at one time he was a Republican rock star, and now he acts like he is older than McCain.

Duncan Hunter- Did well enough that he should get another invite. As always he was knowledgeable, poised, and, if he could raise money, able to compete.

Jim Gilmore- Again, he earned the right to hang around for another debate with his performance. I knew little of his platforms and individual ideas before, but I liked what I saw. I would put his performance above Hunter and even Brownback's.

Sam Brownback- A solid Social Conservative with good morals, and domestic ideas. I saw nothing from him to convince me that he would have any type of handle on foreign affairs or diplomacy. He risks becoming as one note as Tancredo, if he doesn't get to issues other than his strong pro-life resume. He makes a very good senator from Kansas, but I cannot see him as president. I would like to keep him around for a while as his voice is important.

Tom Tancredo- I love ya Tom, but I need to vote you off as well. I'm not sure that your presence was helping the issues that you are trying to put forward. I liked the Compeon and Ramos mention, but it was hurried and not as strong as it could be. I can't help but think that border hawk money could be spent better elsewhere than a Tancredo presidential campaign.

Mike Huckabee- Of the second tier challengers, I believe that Huckabee did the most for himself. He was likable, articulate, and passionate where appropriate. I had a hard time believing him when he expounded on tax cuts, knowing his past record, but with enough work, he could probably convince me. If the field were not so crowded, he could possibly be a strong candidate for the VP slot.

Ron Paul- Guy belongs in a museum. Honestly, there were probably people right outside with the tranquilizer guns, as it is not often you get to bag a true "Big L" libertarian. It also brought me satisfaction that our "loonie" wasn't actually all that crazy like that Gravel fossil the Democrats showed up with. As I have mentioned before, Libertarians are good entertainment, but they will never win due to the fact that they have a "stick in the eye" for every possible voter. It is valiant in principle, but hopeless in reality. Keep him for another debate, then let him go.

Overall, I thought the debate was more substantial, and overall better than the Democratic demabte despite the lousy moderator and overwhelming numbers.

15 comments:

x4mr said...

No argument regarding Matthews. It is one of the human flaws I find most irritating. Folks need to drop the self importance and understand their place in a particular situation.

I've already said this is Giuliani's unless he takes it from himself. I would be interested in what you really think a Romney Presidency would look like, FOR REAL.

McCain, seriously, needs to retire.

If I were the GOP in Chief, I would funnel resources to strengthen Giuliani's presentation and performance, his command of the conversations to be had, the articulation of moderate yet intelligent positions, and he would be a formidable foe.

Seriously, if you are willing to say, what do you think Romney is really about? I confess ignorance. What do you think this guy stands for?

Jason Br. said...

Agreed that Paul has no chance to win, but (1) he's in it to influence policy, not to win, and (2) if ever there were a year for a libertarian (Paul may not be the particular guy), it's a year when on the dominant issue, he'd be the only one in his party on the popular side of that issue (in other words, when all the other guys have not a stick but a beam in the eye for 70% of Americans - a beam called "an unpopular, lost war").

Sirocco said...

Romney had a great tan ... and his hair was terrific too! Very Edwards-ish.

Sadly, I missed the debate, so only know what I have read about it. I haven't seen anyone yet who didn't think Huckabee did pretty well.

shadow_light5 said...

A number of concerns
1. The Democrats have competitors; the Republicans are still trying to find someone to fit their mold, Giuliani next, McCain next, Romney next, Thompson…
2. Republicans always seem to believe absolutely that Democrats are weak, let’s not forget that Terrorism struck on the watch of a Republican President who need I remind you yet again has no Plan B if the surge doesn’t work. Let me use you’re method now, Republicans have a lack of foresight.
3. About the Debate: MSNBC is showing that damn thing repeatedly, as if they have no news to report but that, they’re showing more than they did the Democratic Debate, arggg. Talk about the mainstream media being controlled but the right-wingers, how many people now own the top broadcasting agencies, in fact how many agencies are there now as compared to 50 years ago?
4. “There are Republicans that are looking for a little righteous anger,” Hold on a second, what the hell do Republicans have to be angry about anyways? It’s the Democrats, nay the people, who have all the right in the world to have righteous anger, Republicans won’t budge on the war.
5. “It is one of the human flaws I find most irritating. Folks need to drop the self importance and understand their place in a particular situation.” I find this to be so much of a truism with Bush Co and their ardent refusal to accept the will of the people, Congress, and his advisors.

GOP Boomer Gal said...

I don't agree with the President on every issue, but I respect the fact that he will not listen to "70% of the American people" because that's what the polls say.

He alone is the Commander in Chief and is trying to protect this country and our culture from Islamofascists. And I haven't heard any better ideas from the DemoncRATs except "We're losers". Big help there.

Yes, the biggest attack occurred 8 months into the Bush presidency, but many more attacks occurred including the first attack on the WTC, and the previous president ran off his mouth but did nothing.

Sirocco said...

But, GOP Boomer Gal, would you respect him for the same reason if he weren't Republican? (I'm not asking that to be facetious, I am actually curious in your answer.)

shadow_light5 said...

Yes....Yes, ungodly loyalty to a President who has instituted complete corruption and cronyism since god knows when, absolute loyalty like you give Boomer is the very reason why Bush Co has been aloud to corrupt the Justice Department, yes it's absolute loyalty that command people towards Hitler and Stalin, yes I love you're loyalty....save for the part that America knows better, save for the part this war is a complete farce and represents nothing of our interests. Sure if we leave now there "may" be more attacks but Bush would have brought that about us...save for Bush being the worst President this nation has ever had, thank you sir for your loyalty...continue on when Congress the Democrats want to bring the troops home but the Republicans will not allow an override veto. I love the fact that the Carrier that Bush claimed Victory on was harbored outside of San Francisco Bay, that's a laugh, I love it, what a great guy for a PR, low and behold the loyalty that a President must command. To you sir I say the loyalty of an American is judged by his scrutiny of power. To you sir I say just as the religious man is commanded to judge the bible, the patriotic man must judge power and the people presiding over it. To you sir I say that I am sorry for you're blind obedience, you sir do not belong in the political world.

GOP Boomer Gal said...

Sirocco,

Of course I would respect any President who was trying to protect our country.

I'm sorry that the RATs in Congress don't see it that way.

Dark Shadow,

No point trying to engage with you; you're obviously a MOVEON.ORG mindless type.

shadow_light5 said...

I'm a Progressive Democrat, we're at opposite ends of the poles, be it so, so it be

GOP Boomer Gal said...

It's OK; I used to be there back in the '60's when I was a young'un

Liza said...

shadow_light5,
I read your profile and I wouldn't recommend commenting on this blog. There is nothing to be gained.

Anonymous said...

shadow light -- no way you make it into the Air Force piloting jets. I'm pretty sure they are looking for people who will conform to their rules and take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Your postings indicate that might not be your strong suit....

GOP Boomer Gal said...

Anon.. Wrong.... he's a kid; he's smart; he has potential

Liza said...

How nice of you, anonymous, to take time out of your busy day defending the constitution to attack a 21 year old who, as far as I can tell, is quite thoughtful and articulate.

roger said...

That is what warmongers do Liza. We need to start calling this for what it is. There is no interest among any here in a free and stable Iraq whatsoever. A free and stable Iraq of THEIR making would be a Shia dominated state that no Republican I know would EVER support. Talk about building another Syria???

All that is left here is a juicy mantra of support the troops, we gotta win, and at all cost to American society.

There are a host of ways to fight terrorism and fight Islamofacism. It is more than clear that Iraq was never the way and it will never be the way.

Everyone knows that the terrorist plots were hatched on our soil or even on the soil of our "friends" the Saudias.

$500 billion could do a lot of good to fight terrorism here and to frankly educate a lot of kids, pay for healthcare, etc.

Republicans call this wasteful welfare liberal spending but putting $500 Billion into Iraq to save how many lives???? $500 Billion??? I bet we could save a hell of a lot more lives with $500 billion spent on social programs or even by simply letting Americans keep the money.

My brother and his friends...the families of these brave soldiers who were sent into battle upon the basis of a fraud...should get an apology from all of you.