Here are my thoughts as I listen to the Nevada Democratic debate:
-We start off with a Kum bay ya moment as the candidates try to make nice and get past the recent racial tension. Meanwhile Republicans everywhere laugh. Edwards is happy he wasn't dragged into this mess. Barrack says it's all cool. Hillary wants it all to go away...BAD.
-Barrack apologizes to HIllary for calling her "likable". It's still a total love fest 24 minutes in.
-Edwards points out that he kills more lobbyists before 7 am than most candidates do all day. He will stand up to the big money interests.
-Hillary calls Bush pathetic for begging the Saudis for cheaper oil. Somehow I doubt cheap oil is on his radar over there.
-They then talk about their strengths and weaknesses. Edwards says he's a fighter. If I'm looking for the candidate I would take in a street fight, I'd take Rudy to be honest with you. (but only because McCain is so old and took all those beatings in 'Nam.)
-There is false information circulating on the internet about Obama. You're shitting me! False info on the internet? I feel so used right now. Next you're going to tell me that the illuminati aren't behind a conspiracy that has been running the world for the last few hundred years.
-Obama: "I trust the American people to sort out the truth". So would I if I'd been asleep for the last 7 years. Truth and Reason aren't exactly in vogue these days.
-All three say they don't want a continuation of the current hands-off approach to anything regulatory. Edwards reminds us he's the only liberal on the stage. Both Clinton and Edwards come out against predatory lending and the bankruptcy "reform" act that passed a few years back. All three will be knocked as anti-capitalist for this. But the most anti-capitalistic people around tend to be successful capitalists who don't want competition.
-Hillary wants a five-year freeze on interest rates. Interesting, but it sounds like something that could be a really bad or really good idea. I'd have to consult an economist.
-Now they get to ask each other questions! this better be good. Hopefully they won't suck.
-Edwards: "Why do these special interests give you so much money? Because they think you're nice?" no softball there. Obama: "yes, because they like me. And I don't take lobbyist money either." and calls for public financing of campaigns.
-Hilary: "Barack, will you co-sponsor my legislation to make Bush obey the constitution in regards to treaties?" LMAO, there's no one short of God himself that could make Bush obey the constitution, let alone a spineless congress. He simply doesn't think it applies to him in accordance with Cheney's Law. The legislation she is proposing already exists. It's called article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the United States Constitution. (It states that all treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate.) Obama: "we'll work on it."
-I didn't catch Obama's question because I went outside to smoke a cigarette.
-All three would end the war in Iraq (or not). Only Edwards says he will take ALL combat troops out of Iraq. I like this better than the half-ass strategy. I would rather have either 0 troops or 250,000. The last thing I want is a force over there too small to adequately defend itself. If we're going to be an empire, BE AN EMPIRE. All or nothing. Go big or go home.
-Hillary is the only one really nailing Bush over and over. Smart move on her part. The other 2 should follow this example.
-All three say we're not taking good enough care of our veterans. It's a sad commentary on the "leadership" of Bush that this is even an issue. Absolutely disgusting.
-Edwards opposes more nuke plants. Obama: "if we can find a way to do nuclear energy cheaply and safely, I'd do it." Yeah, okay.
-Hillary wants to stop subsidies to oil and gas companies. I don't believe her for a second. She's the main "big money" candidate on that stage.
-Edwards smacks her down: "Hillary has raised more money from those companies than anyone else" Thank you, John. My thoughts exactly. He'd end the subsidies to. I believe him. I may have been wrong about this guy. Too bad the media has ruled him out and only wants to talk about the other two. So much for the idea of a "liberal media".
-All three now get out their 10-foot poles to touch the immigration issue with.
-Hillary says she's been working on family issues for 35 years. (Insert your own joke right here)
-Now for gun control: careful guys this is what cost you the congress in '94, according to Bill's memoirs. All 3 are careful to take moderate stances.
-Now for the "war on terror". This should be good.
-Hillary "we need to repair relationships. we can't win by going alone." Good point but I would have taken greater care to separate Iraq from the "war on terror".
-Obama: "we are less secure now than before Iraq. We should have used that money and manpower to secure this country" Good point. Something that the current administration is not doing very well AT ALL.
-Edwards sounds good talking about Pakistan.
-"When did you make the decision to run for president?" Hillary: "a year ago" Me: "LMAO How stupid do you think I am?" Edwards:"a year ago" Obama: "same answer" Okay so I don't really believe any of them. But that's okay, because it's not really an important question. And with that we wrap up.
-Overall thoughts: This was a much kinder, gentler debate than the last one, much to my disappointment. No one really stuck out to me as looking particularly strong, or weak. Fortunately I was probably the only one watching so I don't see this moving any one's poll numbers any.
Showing posts with label debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debates. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Scoring the January 5th Debates: Part 2 the Democrats.
- I'm not going to go into nearly as much detail as I did with the GOP. Not because of any bias, but because I can only handle so much debating, and my note-taking was more and more sparse as the night wore on.
-As an aside, I wish I knew how to read lips when they had all the candidates from both parties on stage at once. It would be very entertaining if they had all been hugging and smiling while telling each other what douche-bags they are.
-Winner: John Edwards via TKO in the second round. He came out looking strong and determined tonight. He was really on his game. The angry "crusader for the working class" and blue collar advocate role is working very well for him. I still don't think he can get the nomination, but he will be a factor. The winner could will be whichever candidate he takes fewer union and other blue collar votes. The strategy of taking down Hillary so he can get Obama one-on-one is a much better strategy than what I expected.
-Loser: Hillary Clinton. I thought for sure it would be "attack Obama" night from all sides, but instead it was Edwards dealing damage to Hillary all night.
Random observations:
-While far from a supporter, I think Dennis Kucinich should have been there. I tend to think more viewpoints are a good thing, not a distraction from the "serious" candidates.
-We start with Obama's hawkish statements about Pakistan and Al Qaida. He wants to go after UBL no matter what and secure the nukes. I think Obama has to talk tough on this issue, so people take him seriously as something other than a lightweight on foreign policy. You could look at this and other Pakistan statements as his "I am not a pussy. The American people have a right to no whether their president is a pussy, and I am not pussy" speech. He didn't score major points but didn't lose any ground which was kind of how the night went for him on the whole.
-Next Edwards promises to be even tougher against Al Qaida, talked tough about Musharraf and states his goal to rid the world of nuclear weapons. That's nice, but how many countries do you really think are going to give up their nukes? It'd be one big game of you first, no you first, no you first.
-Hillary weighs in on the issue to point out that her husband went after Al Qaida by launching missile strikes on the Sudan back in the 90's. I remember that. As I recall those strikes blew up an aspirin factory and may have also knocked over a chair. I don't think reminding people of half-ass measures taken pre-9/11 is a very good strategy.
-Then the moderator talks about a nuclear attack occurring on an American city and mentions some "expert" who says there is 30% chance of that happening in the next decade. WTF? How the hell do you think they arrived at that figure? I'm not saying it won't happen. I wouldn't be surprised if did but I'm willing to guess that number was pulled out of some one's ass. Edwards then pointed out how the president would have to be strong, yet a calming figure if that happened which is probably good. Because I'm the furthest thing from calm, and if I were president in that situation this planet would be a very quiet place for about the next million years or so if you follow my train of thought.
- At that point...... well I went outside to have a smoke, not sure if I missed anything or not. Fortunately I came back for the defining moment of the debate.
-Hillary's going after Obama, she's backing him down. He's keeping his cool but he's up against the ropes. She's accusing him of talking a good game but not backing it up with results. And then.....
-John Edwards launches this barrage out of nowhere, referring to Hillary as an agent of the status quo, attacking those who want change. He then points out that she wasn't doing this "when she was ahead". If this were a boxing match Hillary would be getting the standing 8 count at this point. I thought he really connected on this one. I don't know that I've ever seen Edwards look as strong as he did tonight. He was passionate. I think he came across as a fighter and a populist.
- To make matters worse Hillary responds with this diatribe about how she has been changing things for 35 years (by being married to Bill I suppose). I wanted her to say "I was changing things before your balls dropped!" There was a good minute or so of Mr. Hyde before she calmed down. My reaction: wow, a campaign just died right before my eyes. She was the candidate who could least afford to lose her composure. That may very well be her Howard Dean "HYYYYAHHHH!!" moment. Part of the reason is latent gender bias. If John McCain goes off on a similar rant, people think "wow he's a bad ass. Don't mess with those old veterans, they're some tough bastards." If Edwards did it it's "wow what a fighter". When Hillary does it people say "what a bitch!" It's totally unfair but I think a lot of people felt that way whether they realized it or not. I know it was 15 or 20 minutes before I thought to ask myself if I would have reacted the same way to a man. The answer is no, I think I'd be like "wow, this guy plays hardball". I know I wasn't the only one thinking it, probably just in the minority of people who will admit it.
-Richardson, by the way, has not been seen or heard from in twenty minutes. I picture him sitting there grinning and rubbing his hands together like the emperor from star wars watching his opponents destroy each other. He gets in a good line saying "I've been in hostage negotiations that weren't this brutal"(paraphrase). He sort of came across as the "adult" here, calming the rest of them down.
-I won't bore you with any more details as to me this was the high point, and I was having a hard time keeping my concentration after that having been up since 4:30 a.m. but suffice to say I thought Edwards won, Obama and Richardson didn't do anything to hurt themselves, and it's the beginning of the end for Hillary. I'd say on the party level, the democrats as a whole came across better than the republicans.
-As an aside, I wish I knew how to read lips when they had all the candidates from both parties on stage at once. It would be very entertaining if they had all been hugging and smiling while telling each other what douche-bags they are.
-Winner: John Edwards via TKO in the second round. He came out looking strong and determined tonight. He was really on his game. The angry "crusader for the working class" and blue collar advocate role is working very well for him. I still don't think he can get the nomination, but he will be a factor. The winner could will be whichever candidate he takes fewer union and other blue collar votes. The strategy of taking down Hillary so he can get Obama one-on-one is a much better strategy than what I expected.
-Loser: Hillary Clinton. I thought for sure it would be "attack Obama" night from all sides, but instead it was Edwards dealing damage to Hillary all night.
Random observations:
-While far from a supporter, I think Dennis Kucinich should have been there. I tend to think more viewpoints are a good thing, not a distraction from the "serious" candidates.
-We start with Obama's hawkish statements about Pakistan and Al Qaida. He wants to go after UBL no matter what and secure the nukes. I think Obama has to talk tough on this issue, so people take him seriously as something other than a lightweight on foreign policy. You could look at this and other Pakistan statements as his "I am not a pussy. The American people have a right to no whether their president is a pussy, and I am not pussy" speech. He didn't score major points but didn't lose any ground which was kind of how the night went for him on the whole.
-Next Edwards promises to be even tougher against Al Qaida, talked tough about Musharraf and states his goal to rid the world of nuclear weapons. That's nice, but how many countries do you really think are going to give up their nukes? It'd be one big game of you first, no you first, no you first.
-Hillary weighs in on the issue to point out that her husband went after Al Qaida by launching missile strikes on the Sudan back in the 90's. I remember that. As I recall those strikes blew up an aspirin factory and may have also knocked over a chair. I don't think reminding people of half-ass measures taken pre-9/11 is a very good strategy.
-Then the moderator talks about a nuclear attack occurring on an American city and mentions some "expert" who says there is 30% chance of that happening in the next decade. WTF? How the hell do you think they arrived at that figure? I'm not saying it won't happen. I wouldn't be surprised if did but I'm willing to guess that number was pulled out of some one's ass. Edwards then pointed out how the president would have to be strong, yet a calming figure if that happened which is probably good. Because I'm the furthest thing from calm, and if I were president in that situation this planet would be a very quiet place for about the next million years or so if you follow my train of thought.
- At that point...... well I went outside to have a smoke, not sure if I missed anything or not. Fortunately I came back for the defining moment of the debate.
-Hillary's going after Obama, she's backing him down. He's keeping his cool but he's up against the ropes. She's accusing him of talking a good game but not backing it up with results. And then.....
-John Edwards launches this barrage out of nowhere, referring to Hillary as an agent of the status quo, attacking those who want change. He then points out that she wasn't doing this "when she was ahead". If this were a boxing match Hillary would be getting the standing 8 count at this point. I thought he really connected on this one. I don't know that I've ever seen Edwards look as strong as he did tonight. He was passionate. I think he came across as a fighter and a populist.
- To make matters worse Hillary responds with this diatribe about how she has been changing things for 35 years (by being married to Bill I suppose). I wanted her to say "I was changing things before your balls dropped!" There was a good minute or so of Mr. Hyde before she calmed down. My reaction: wow, a campaign just died right before my eyes. She was the candidate who could least afford to lose her composure. That may very well be her Howard Dean "HYYYYAHHHH!!" moment. Part of the reason is latent gender bias. If John McCain goes off on a similar rant, people think "wow he's a bad ass. Don't mess with those old veterans, they're some tough bastards." If Edwards did it it's "wow what a fighter". When Hillary does it people say "what a bitch!" It's totally unfair but I think a lot of people felt that way whether they realized it or not. I know it was 15 or 20 minutes before I thought to ask myself if I would have reacted the same way to a man. The answer is no, I think I'd be like "wow, this guy plays hardball". I know I wasn't the only one thinking it, probably just in the minority of people who will admit it.
-Richardson, by the way, has not been seen or heard from in twenty minutes. I picture him sitting there grinning and rubbing his hands together like the emperor from star wars watching his opponents destroy each other. He gets in a good line saying "I've been in hostage negotiations that weren't this brutal"(paraphrase). He sort of came across as the "adult" here, calming the rest of them down.
-I won't bore you with any more details as to me this was the high point, and I was having a hard time keeping my concentration after that having been up since 4:30 a.m. but suffice to say I thought Edwards won, Obama and Richardson didn't do anything to hurt themselves, and it's the beginning of the end for Hillary. I'd say on the party level, the democrats as a whole came across better than the republicans.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Scoring the January 5th Debates 1: the GOP
Damn, talk about some hardball!
These are my post-debate impressions. I have avoided reading or watching "expert analysis" as much as possible since my experience is most media types see what they want to see during these things and a lot of analysis seems to come from someone who was watching an entirely different program. I'll start with the republican debate:
Winner- I don't think anybody looked particularly strong to me, but Ron Paul is making a serious bid to get my vote. It would have been nice if he had at least got some time to speak during the second half of the debate. I think McCain seemed to help himself the most, but he didn't deliver the knockout punch at any point. (Other than the line about romney being the candidate of "change")
Loser- Romney. If this had been a prize fight he would have been carried out of the ring about half way through. He faced a vicious triple-team from McCain, Thompson, and Rudy and did not handle it well at all in my opinion. He came across as a guy who can dish it out but can't take it.
Now for my observations about various portions of the debate in no particular order.
-The first portion of the debate was on foreign policy. I expected to hear a lot of statements with no basis in reality and was not disappointed.
-The first statement I noticed that raised a few eyebrows for those of us in the "reality based community" was Fred Thompson saying that we are winning in Iraq, and we are safer because of it. I guess one of the upsides to having no long term strategy is that you can't be accused of failing to implement it. As a candidate, I think Fred Thompson makes a good actor.
-The best example of the death of conservatism happened when the other candidates snickered and shook their heads while Ron Paul suggested that people don't like having their countries invaded, or to be pushed around. I'm getting more and more certain of my belief that this guy is the only conservative on the stage. Rudy made a particular ass out of himself by once again repeating that we were attacked because they "hate freedom" saying that the attacks had "nothing to do with our foreign policy". (sure, Islamic terrorists and the Muslim world in general couldn't care less about the overthrow that put the Shah in power, our support for Israel, or anything like that. I'm not saying any of these policies are even wrong, I'm just saying that you can't isolate them from the current situation) And in keeping with the World War 2 fetish that dominates the right these days someone threw out the term islamofascism, because remember all bad guys are just like the Nazis in every way. You only serve to undermine your own credibility with that kind of thing. Seriously, a neocon history of the world must read like this: stuff happened, more stuff happened, WORLD WAR 2!, stuff, more stuff, 9/11! None of these guys are interested in rational analysis, they just want to wave the flag. Right Rudy, we've been choir boys all along.
-McCain had interesting (and revealing) thoughts on this issue. First he talks about how great Bush has been as a leader and notes that there have been no recent terror attacks on US soil. A few minutes later he mentioned the need to "restore confidence in government". WTF? Generally those replacing "great leaders" don't need to do much confidence restoring.
- Romney uttered some of the most outlandish lines of the night at this point. He referred to Robert Kagan, neocon icon, war-enthusiast, and self-proclaimed expert as "brilliant". I didn't catch the next part because I was cleaning vomit off of the carpet because of that statement. I guess we know what to expect from a Romney presidency; more faith-based defense policy, lies, and exploiting fear. At another point Romney referred to the current struggle with terrorism as the biggest (or one of the biggest) crises this country has ever faced. another WTF? moment. I guess if we didn't include foreign threats in the late 1700's, the war of 1812 when the British burned the capitol, the Civil War, reconstruction, World War 1, the great depression, World War 2, the Cuban missile crisis (and cold war in general), then yeah this is at the top of the list. I'm not saying we ignore the danger, because it is obviously very real, but we need to maintain some perspective.
-Huckabee came off to me as kind of a lightweight on this issue. No glaring absurdity, but no real insight or details either.This is where I think if he gets the nod he needs a proven commodity as running mate.
-Ron Paul emphasized again that we're not living up to the principles of the constitution. It's too bad he didn't mention domestic spying and some of the related issues right here.
-Next came health care. I think this is one of the biggest areas where the republicans are going to get hammered in November. I didn't hear any statements last night from the candidates that I would think will resonate with voters.
-This may have been the strongest segment for Huckabee. When he pointed out to Romney that you can't get anything more than a bandage in an ER for $1,000 he subtly showed himself to be the populist candidate or "guy who gets it" while at the same time casting Romney as an out of touch elitist. The best part of this exchange was that Huckabee didn't do it in a way that looks like "going negative". I think he'll be the one who's assumed the "compassionate conservative" mantle from Bush (who ironically is neither compassionate nor a conservative)
-Rudy caught my attention by making the claim that "We have the best health care system in the world." What a completely meaningless statement. Best by what standard? longest life expectancy? lowest infant mortality rate? number of individuals covered? most money spent? He might as well have started a "USA!" chant. (And don't think you can win me over just by mentioning Reagan 11 times in 4 minutes.)
- Fred Thompson said " A good number of people who don't have health care can afford it." Voters watching the debate probably heard: "most people who don't have health care can afford it."
This seemed like a major blunder to me that helps reinforce the notion that republicans don't have a clue on this issue. What do you mean by "a good number"?
-McCain probably scored some points by mentioning free clinics and bashing the pharmaceutical companies. I think that's an argument that plays well with voters. Here's an industry charging 500 bucks a pill in some cases because otherwise there would be no money for "research and development", I'm willing to bet they could still find money to fund congressional junkets, the largest Washington lobby of almost any industry, and ads on EVERY PROGRAM on television telling me to go ask my doctor for their drug.
-Romney then rode in on his white horse to defend the drug companies. "no drug company left behind", I can see the bumper sticker now. This looked pretty weasely to me. I thought this would be the topic he would manage to score points on, but he seemed flustered and off his game at this point (and rightfully so, it was clear all night who the others were looking to damage) . From what I understand, he's had success on this issue as governor, but didn't really drive that point home here. Instead he went the route of using the word "change" at least 10 times in 5 minutes. Way to latch on to the hot buzz-word of the day.
-Ron Paul also did nothing to distinguish himself in this one (or the illegal immigration debate that followed). As a medical doctor who still occasionally delivers constituents' babies, I expected more insight from him. Basically he simply pointed out that inflation is the problem and that we have to quit running massive deficits to stop inflation, and mentioned people flying to India for surgery. Not a good night for him.
-Next came the issue of illegal immigration. I can't really seem to stir up the vitriol a lot of people can on this issue (I've tried). It seems like everyone you talk to is either completely naive or a complete xenophobe on this one. So we have 2 parties talking about the need to secure the borders ( just one border actually), and 0 parties actually making anything happen other than lip service.
-I thought this was the first issue Rudy looked good on. Most of the candidates have positions on this issue so similar that any variance in position gets blown completely out of proportion. I think some of the misconceptions he had on this issue were the ones shared by pretty much everyone on the stage, but he came across as striking the right balance between toughness and compassion.
-McCain probably had the most to lose with the base on this one. He and Romney looked ready to fight each other on this one. There was like 5 minutes of back and forth over the word "amnesty". Best line from McCain at this point was "Ronald Reagan gave out amnesty, so I guess he'd have appeared in one of your attack ads, too." I'm normally not a big fan of these guys taking Reagan's name in vain but it was good here. He was also the only one to mention going after those who employ illegal immigrants which is vary popular on the left.
-Romney had another bad moment in my eyes when after agreeing that you can't just throw out 12 million people, talked like he wanted to just throw out 12 million people. I hope I'm not the only one that caught that one. The Thompson, Rudy, McCain triumvirate stuck together to go at him early and often on this issue just like the previous two.
- Huckabee seemed not to want to wade into the mud on this one and was content to let the other combatants hack away at each other. Most of what little he said was positive and exceedingly vague. Paul and Thompson were non-factors in this discussion, besides Thompson jumping in to help McCain when Romney attacked (I think someone's looking for the veep nod.)
- Overall analysis, not the best debate for anyone in terms of striking a chord with the general populace. I think you could say McCain was the winner simply in terms of New Hampshire because of the damage done to Romney from all sides. There's a lot of work to be done on this side of the aisle between now and November 4, because I don't think anybody really did anything that would attract more people to the party in the general.
These are my post-debate impressions. I have avoided reading or watching "expert analysis" as much as possible since my experience is most media types see what they want to see during these things and a lot of analysis seems to come from someone who was watching an entirely different program. I'll start with the republican debate:
Winner- I don't think anybody looked particularly strong to me, but Ron Paul is making a serious bid to get my vote. It would have been nice if he had at least got some time to speak during the second half of the debate. I think McCain seemed to help himself the most, but he didn't deliver the knockout punch at any point. (Other than the line about romney being the candidate of "change")
Loser- Romney. If this had been a prize fight he would have been carried out of the ring about half way through. He faced a vicious triple-team from McCain, Thompson, and Rudy and did not handle it well at all in my opinion. He came across as a guy who can dish it out but can't take it.
Now for my observations about various portions of the debate in no particular order.
-The first portion of the debate was on foreign policy. I expected to hear a lot of statements with no basis in reality and was not disappointed.
-The first statement I noticed that raised a few eyebrows for those of us in the "reality based community" was Fred Thompson saying that we are winning in Iraq, and we are safer because of it. I guess one of the upsides to having no long term strategy is that you can't be accused of failing to implement it. As a candidate, I think Fred Thompson makes a good actor.
-The best example of the death of conservatism happened when the other candidates snickered and shook their heads while Ron Paul suggested that people don't like having their countries invaded, or to be pushed around. I'm getting more and more certain of my belief that this guy is the only conservative on the stage. Rudy made a particular ass out of himself by once again repeating that we were attacked because they "hate freedom" saying that the attacks had "nothing to do with our foreign policy". (sure, Islamic terrorists and the Muslim world in general couldn't care less about the overthrow that put the Shah in power, our support for Israel, or anything like that. I'm not saying any of these policies are even wrong, I'm just saying that you can't isolate them from the current situation) And in keeping with the World War 2 fetish that dominates the right these days someone threw out the term islamofascism, because remember all bad guys are just like the Nazis in every way. You only serve to undermine your own credibility with that kind of thing. Seriously, a neocon history of the world must read like this: stuff happened, more stuff happened, WORLD WAR 2!, stuff, more stuff, 9/11! None of these guys are interested in rational analysis, they just want to wave the flag. Right Rudy, we've been choir boys all along.
-McCain had interesting (and revealing) thoughts on this issue. First he talks about how great Bush has been as a leader and notes that there have been no recent terror attacks on US soil. A few minutes later he mentioned the need to "restore confidence in government". WTF? Generally those replacing "great leaders" don't need to do much confidence restoring.
- Romney uttered some of the most outlandish lines of the night at this point. He referred to Robert Kagan, neocon icon, war-enthusiast, and self-proclaimed expert as "brilliant". I didn't catch the next part because I was cleaning vomit off of the carpet because of that statement. I guess we know what to expect from a Romney presidency; more faith-based defense policy, lies, and exploiting fear. At another point Romney referred to the current struggle with terrorism as the biggest (or one of the biggest) crises this country has ever faced. another WTF? moment. I guess if we didn't include foreign threats in the late 1700's, the war of 1812 when the British burned the capitol, the Civil War, reconstruction, World War 1, the great depression, World War 2, the Cuban missile crisis (and cold war in general), then yeah this is at the top of the list. I'm not saying we ignore the danger, because it is obviously very real, but we need to maintain some perspective.
-Huckabee came off to me as kind of a lightweight on this issue. No glaring absurdity, but no real insight or details either.This is where I think if he gets the nod he needs a proven commodity as running mate.
-Ron Paul emphasized again that we're not living up to the principles of the constitution. It's too bad he didn't mention domestic spying and some of the related issues right here.
-Next came health care. I think this is one of the biggest areas where the republicans are going to get hammered in November. I didn't hear any statements last night from the candidates that I would think will resonate with voters.
-This may have been the strongest segment for Huckabee. When he pointed out to Romney that you can't get anything more than a bandage in an ER for $1,000 he subtly showed himself to be the populist candidate or "guy who gets it" while at the same time casting Romney as an out of touch elitist. The best part of this exchange was that Huckabee didn't do it in a way that looks like "going negative". I think he'll be the one who's assumed the "compassionate conservative" mantle from Bush (who ironically is neither compassionate nor a conservative)
-Rudy caught my attention by making the claim that "We have the best health care system in the world." What a completely meaningless statement. Best by what standard? longest life expectancy? lowest infant mortality rate? number of individuals covered? most money spent? He might as well have started a "USA!" chant. (And don't think you can win me over just by mentioning Reagan 11 times in 4 minutes.)
- Fred Thompson said " A good number of people who don't have health care can afford it." Voters watching the debate probably heard: "most people who don't have health care can afford it."
This seemed like a major blunder to me that helps reinforce the notion that republicans don't have a clue on this issue. What do you mean by "a good number"?
-McCain probably scored some points by mentioning free clinics and bashing the pharmaceutical companies. I think that's an argument that plays well with voters. Here's an industry charging 500 bucks a pill in some cases because otherwise there would be no money for "research and development", I'm willing to bet they could still find money to fund congressional junkets, the largest Washington lobby of almost any industry, and ads on EVERY PROGRAM on television telling me to go ask my doctor for their drug.
-Romney then rode in on his white horse to defend the drug companies. "no drug company left behind", I can see the bumper sticker now. This looked pretty weasely to me. I thought this would be the topic he would manage to score points on, but he seemed flustered and off his game at this point (and rightfully so, it was clear all night who the others were looking to damage) . From what I understand, he's had success on this issue as governor, but didn't really drive that point home here. Instead he went the route of using the word "change" at least 10 times in 5 minutes. Way to latch on to the hot buzz-word of the day.
-Ron Paul also did nothing to distinguish himself in this one (or the illegal immigration debate that followed). As a medical doctor who still occasionally delivers constituents' babies, I expected more insight from him. Basically he simply pointed out that inflation is the problem and that we have to quit running massive deficits to stop inflation, and mentioned people flying to India for surgery. Not a good night for him.
-Next came the issue of illegal immigration. I can't really seem to stir up the vitriol a lot of people can on this issue (I've tried). It seems like everyone you talk to is either completely naive or a complete xenophobe on this one. So we have 2 parties talking about the need to secure the borders ( just one border actually), and 0 parties actually making anything happen other than lip service.
-I thought this was the first issue Rudy looked good on. Most of the candidates have positions on this issue so similar that any variance in position gets blown completely out of proportion. I think some of the misconceptions he had on this issue were the ones shared by pretty much everyone on the stage, but he came across as striking the right balance between toughness and compassion.
-McCain probably had the most to lose with the base on this one. He and Romney looked ready to fight each other on this one. There was like 5 minutes of back and forth over the word "amnesty". Best line from McCain at this point was "Ronald Reagan gave out amnesty, so I guess he'd have appeared in one of your attack ads, too." I'm normally not a big fan of these guys taking Reagan's name in vain but it was good here. He was also the only one to mention going after those who employ illegal immigrants which is vary popular on the left.
-Romney had another bad moment in my eyes when after agreeing that you can't just throw out 12 million people, talked like he wanted to just throw out 12 million people. I hope I'm not the only one that caught that one. The Thompson, Rudy, McCain triumvirate stuck together to go at him early and often on this issue just like the previous two.
- Huckabee seemed not to want to wade into the mud on this one and was content to let the other combatants hack away at each other. Most of what little he said was positive and exceedingly vague. Paul and Thompson were non-factors in this discussion, besides Thompson jumping in to help McCain when Romney attacked (I think someone's looking for the veep nod.)
- Overall analysis, not the best debate for anyone in terms of striking a chord with the general populace. I think you could say McCain was the winner simply in terms of New Hampshire because of the damage done to Romney from all sides. There's a lot of work to be done on this side of the aisle between now and November 4, because I don't think anybody really did anything that would attract more people to the party in the general.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)