Decision ‘08

The GOP Debates, Round Two: General Observations

Well, first of all, let’s skip the grading this time, in favor of some comments:

Rudy won this one. He was clear and honest on abortion, he didn’t hesitate; he was (rightfully) indignant when Ron Paul endorsed the Ward Churchill theory of 9/11; he stood up for his innate conservatism in the face of personal attacks from the moderators and the other candidates; and (no small thing) he was the ‘most improved’ after his weak performance the first time around.

McCain’s inability to keep his words and thoughts organized is a bit worrisome; I think he’s perfectly capable of leading, despite his age, and he is clearly a fine man, and a man of principle, and I’ll support him happily if he is the eventual nominee. I still worry about his electability, and I think the age issue is going to be a factor.

Shame on Brit Hume, by the way, for directing the first ‘torture’ question towards McCain - it was in poor taste and the audience reaction of shocked moans was entirely appropriate.

In fact, the entire last ‘premise’ series of questions was just a waste of time. Fire the moron that came up with that ‘concept’ - this is a debate, not reality television.

Tancredo was not as good this time; Hunter, Gilmore, and Huckabee were about the same; Brownback is…well…let’s just say he doesn’t get it done for me. Tommy Thompson was weaker this time, too.

Let’s talk a little about Romney, though, who was widely perceived as winning the first debate, in no small part because of Rudy’s weak initial performance. I could probably vote for at least six of the men on that stage with no hesitation, but I would have to seriously consider sitting out or even (gasp!) voting Democratic if Romney was the nominee. This man is just not a man I want in the Oval Office. He’s slick in all the worst ways; he throws all of the terrorist groups into the same bucket, as if there were no difference between, say, a Sunni follower of Al Qaeda, a former Baathist, a member of Hamas, or a Shi’a follower of al-Sadr (they all look alike to me, perhaps?), which is the sort of indiscriminate xenophobia that will doom our efforts in the Middle East if nothing else does, and his explanations of his flip-flops are wholly unconvincing (he seems to think we’ll believe that he went into seclusion for a number of years with all the leading scholars on abortion and stem cells and discovered the answer to this impenetrable riddle of potential vs. actual life through sheer mental effort). Tancredo got a good laugh when he said he’s fine with conversations on the road to Damascus, but not on the road to Des Moines, but his point was well made.

Last observation: Huckabee got BY FAR the biggest laugh of the night, after McCain repeated his ‘drunken sailor’ bit on spending (note to John’s staff: new jokes before the next debate!), when he said the Congress spends like John Edwards in a beauty shop. Nice…

27 Responses to “The GOP Debates, Round Two: General Observations”

1 Ryan Bonneville Says:
May 15th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I was really impressed by Tancredo. I would never vote for him in a million years, but he’s certainly forthright and thoughtful. Except on global warming, where he opted for the tried-but-true Republican tactic of pretending there’s still a debate going on.

I actually thought McCain came off the best in this one. He socked Romney in the mouth and generally struck me as presidential. He’s been my guy since 2000 and I see no reason to abandon him now.

As for Giuliani, there is no Republican candidate who tires me more. Even Ron Paul is at least interesting. If I have to hear Giuliani babble stupidly about 9/11 one more time, I am going to lose it (and we all KNOW he’s going to babble more about it - it’s his ONLY issue). I’m sick of him and I’d vote for Kerry first. I know you like him, Mark, but I just don’t get it. He bores me to death.
2 Ryan Bonneville Says:
May 15th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Oh, one more thing: Gilmore blew it on the minorities question. What kind of response was that? Was he actually trying to claim that Republican women/blacks/Hispanics should be ashamed for not choosing to run? I’m not going to tell him what his answer SHOULD have been, but any of the following would have been appropriate:

“The lack of minority candidates is distressing/unfortunate/whatever.”
“I wish Secretary Rice and General Powell were here right now.”
“If I receive my party’s nomination, I will seriously consider minority candidates for running mate. Secretary Rice and General Powell would both make excellent vice presidents.”

Essentially, anything other than the answer he gave would have been really nice.
3 JB Says:
May 15th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Mark, I’m a bit surprised to hear you talk of sitting out the election or even voting Dem if Romney gets the nomination. Especially after all the talk from Rudy supporters about at least getting 80% of your issues with a liberal Republican versus 30% from shrillary. Don’t worry, Mitt’s going nowhere.

I guess I’m with Ryan. I voted McCain in 2000 and I find myself somewhat reluctantly back there again at this point for 2008. He hasn’t been very impressive, but it’s early and he can improve…and he may be the only hope for us Rudy haters. I’m not going to rant about Rudy like I did the other day, but I still would never vote for him…no matter who the Dem nominee is.

Rudy was much better tonight, but it didn’t take much to improve upon his last debate performance. Huckabee’s line about Edwards was really funny but I still no little about him other than what I hear on blogs, which is that he’s a big government Republican like Bush. They really need to trim the fat for the next debate; T.Thompson, Gilmore, Paul, Brownback, can all be axed.
4 Mark Says:
May 15th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Well, Romney would have to work much harder for my vote than he has thus far…you never say never. Ryan, I disagree that Rudy is a one-issue candidate, he’s talked much more about lowering taxes and fighting crime (and even abortion) in the first two debates than he has about 9/11.

A pro-choice, pro-gay-rights Republican who’s leading the field, and you find that boring?…
5 Mark Says:
May 15th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Totally agree on Gilmore, though - I’ll go ahead and say what I thought he should have said:

“Yes, I find it appalling that there are nearly a baker’s dozen up here and we’re all white men. That says we still have a long way to go in this country and in this party…but let’s not judge the men up here tonight on the color of their skin, but, to quote one of the greatest of Americans, by the content of their character, while we continue to take our message of hope and opportunity into every community of this great nation of ours…”
6 Digger Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 3:45 am
I could never, ever vote for Giuliani based simply on his stance on illegal immigration.

“Let the illegals come into the country, we’ll sort them out once they get here”.

Yeah, unfortunately it costs American citizens money and becoming a victim before you find the bad ones. And how is that homeland security? He says he is concerned with terrorism, but obviously from his past actions is unconcerned with the border and illegal immigration. Sounds like a Bush thing to me.

YOU’LL NEVER GET MY VOTE GIULIANI!!

(Don’t even get me started on McCain)
7 mikebdot Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Hehehe, gossip is funny! Aren’t you the guy that says cursing is uncalled for in civil debate because it lessens the point? One would think gossip would do the same. But I guess I just don’t have a sense of humor about the possible president talking about other candidates hair. How vacuous.
8 Fargus Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Gotta say I agree with mikedbot here, Mark. Would you have paid the same respect to a Democratic candidate who’d taken a cheap shot at one of the Republican frontrunners like that?

I guess it couldn’t have really happened, since there hasn’t really been an analogously frivolous piece on one of the Republican frontrunners as the “John Edwards’ hair” piece. But still, it’s in the poorest of taste, and I’m quite surprised that you’d implicitly endorse it.
9 Peter Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 7:15 am
I missed the debate. Which was discussed more: John Edwards’s hair or George Bush?

Based on the first debate, my guess is the last thing they want to talk about is the current Republican President — and the thing they are most eager to talk about is what Edwards pays for haircuts.
10 Andy Vance Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Ron Paul endorsed the Ward Churchill theory of 9/11

And then Rudy went on to endorse the Politique Potentielle theory of national security.
11 Ryan Bonneville Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
In their defense, Peter, they didn’t really talk much about either of those topics. Nor did they talk about health care and entitlements, the twin elephants in the room.
12 peter Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I guess it would be churlish to say that George Bush is the elephant in the room –
13 Mark Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Gee, and here I thought the John Edwards line was funny - I guess me and the hundreds of people in the room laughing were mistaken.

Thanks for dogmatically correcting me on the appropriate use of humor…
14 Mark Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Peter, you could try watching the debates, and maybe you’d know instead of guessing. I watch the Democratic debates, too, you know.

Or you could choose not to, of course - but this is the second debate in a row you’ve chosen not to watch and then came here to tell me what you ‘guess’ was or wasn’t discussed.

You know, they even have transcripts of these things…
15 peter Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Well, my daughter demanded that we watch American Idol, which is even more painful than watching politicians debate –
16 Mark Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Ah, then you’re excused - but that would have made a good counterpart to the torture part of the debate…
17 Mark Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Andy, Rudy Giuliani equals Pol Pot of the “Killing Fields” fame?

At least you didn’t call him Hitler…
18 Ryan Bonneville Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Hey, the Khmer Rouge used waterboarding too. The analogy isn’t completely off-the-mark.
19 Mark Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Nah, waterboarding, 1 million dead Cambodians…it’s all the same…
20 Ryan Bonneville Says:
May 16th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Well, right, it isn’t completely on-the-mark either, but there’s not a lot of doubt that Giuliani is as pro-torture as the current administration. So that’s great.
21 Fargus Says:
May 17th, 2007 at 5:12 am
Actually, the main thrust of a large portion of the debate was “who’ll torture them more?” Romney jumped surprisingly high by proposing to double Gitmo, specifically to have more people out of the reach of lawyers. Romney and Giuliani both said they were against torture, but that they got to decide what torture was.
22 too many steves Says:
May 17th, 2007 at 5:43 am
Huckabee’s Edwards joke was juvenile, as was the audience reaction to it, except that I think they were laughing at him rather than with him. Admit it, if they tried that joke on SNL you would groan.

On the topic of torture, I’ll identify torture for you: watching these debates (both Repubs & Dems), which I feel compelled to do. They are little more than pander-o-rama exercises. Wake me when they are down to three or two candidates, then they may engage in a “debate” of the issues.
23 mikebdot Says:
May 17th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Mark, he may as well have said “Edwards is a faggot and Congress sucks a**” but that would have been far too awful because it’s crude. I wonder if Maureen Dowd or Chris Matthews helped him with that one…gossip queens that they are. I wonder if you find them funny now that I think about it…
24 Andy Vance Says:
May 17th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Rudy Giuliani equals Pol Pot of the “Killing Fields” fame?

It’s a joke, son. Ward Churchill compares 9/11 victims to Eichmann, you compare Ron Paul to Ward Churchill, I compare Rudy Giuliani to Pol Pot.

It’s all good.
25 Lance Armstrong Says:
May 20th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Let’s be honest, if Romney wasn’t a Mormon, he’d win the nomination outright. But, he is, and people have a rather bigoted view of Mormons. Too bad. I thought, for a moment, that I lived in America. I must have been mistaken.

People try to point out rather minute details about Romney’s political past as if, somehow, he isn’t the most conservative of the three contenders that actually have realistic chance of becoming president. An example of a minute detail would be freaking out over an issue that Romney has no power to change anyway such as abortion. Last I checked, separation of powers makes that impossible.
26 rudy | newt » Rudy won this one Says:
May 21st, 2007 at 12:52 am
[…] Decision ‘08 Tags: election 2008, politics, Rudy Giuliani, rudynewtAdd to: […]
27 Doug Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I have to agree with Lance, Romney would have the nomination if he was not Mormon. Even a cursory review of the blogs reveal a lot of discussion regarding Romney’s Church’s positions and not a lot on Romney. Even McCain supporters have to agree that their candidate does not have the same fire and energy that he had 8 years before President Bush derailed the Straight Talk express. Sadly, McCain’s best days are past.

As for Rudy, if you can get past the three marriages, the private sector “consulting” gigs, the shacking up with homosexuals to escape his then wife, and his obvious support for abortion, he tried to criminalize selling guns. It wasn’t enough to prevent law abiding citizens from owning firearms, he had to sue out-of-state manufacturers because other less enlightened states and municipalities permitted these manufacturers to sell guns in their states. Also, if you look closely at Rudy’s last year or so in office, he was operating straight from the liberal NYC playbook. If Rudy is the GOP’s nominee, we are really hurting.