Republican Debate Thread -- Tuesday, June 5, 2007 -- 7:00 pm EDT

[Sam Spade]

Hmmm...  This silly software lost my earlier answer.

I would say that Rudy performed the best of the top tier.  Huckabee of the second tier.  It's too bad for him that Fred Thompson is sucking the wind out of his sails every time he tries to get going. 

Both were far from perfect and both could be hurt.  I need to see how Rudy's "nation-building" comment plays among voters not far-left hacks like Scoonie.    I also need to see how Huckabee's evolution answer plays among a general public that is often fed soundbites.

I thought Huckabee's evolution answer was one of the best of the debate; it is too sad most of the comments I read simply decried it (shows the common lack of intelligence at this site).  That doesn't mean it will translate well in the populace.

Romney is simply too slick for Republicans, and I simply think his performance has gotten less effective each debate.

McCain appeared listless throughout and got hammered on immigration.  But his ending was good, and he probably finishes about equal with Romney in my book.

Going through the others:  Thompson - comes off badly, though well-meaning; Tancredo - one-issue guy, still no issue; Brownback - performed worse than before; Gilmore - who?; Ron Paul - his positions should perform well with a certain sector of New Hampshire voters, but 1953 and the Shah of Iran to Woodrow Wilson - the American public doesn't want a history teacher for President.

[Sam Spade]

Oh, I left out Duncan Hunter.  He must have been an excellent Congressman.   That doesn't translate into Prez material (rarely).

[TheresNoMoney]

I am no more a left-wing hack than you are a right-wing hack, Spade. Jackass.

You think that a nation that is 60%-70% against the Iraq War is going to like someone who talks about the need for more "nation building" multiple times during his debates? Get real bro.

[Reaganfan]

Winners:
John McCain
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Jim Gilmore
Sam Brownback

Losers:
Tom Tancredo
Duncan Hunter
Ron Paul
Tommy Thompson
Mitt Romney

[StateBoiler]

Winners:
John McCain
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Jim Gilmore
Sam Brownback

Losers:
Tom Tancredo
Duncan Hunter
Ron Paul
Tommy Thompson
Mitt Romney

Can't remember anything Gilmore said.

Brownback I think hurt himself by backing off his comment on Republicans should only nominate a pro-lifer. He should've just gone full hog and said he wouldn't support Giuliani, or at least state that Giuliani doesn't have a chance of winning. He sounded like an instantaneous flip-flopper.

[Sam Spade]

I am no more a left-wing hack than you are a right-wing hack, Spade. Jackass.

You think that a nation that is 60%-70% against the Iraq War is going to like someone who talks about the need for more "nation building" multiple times during his debates? Get real bro.

Iraq War and "nation-building" do not necessarily connect in the public's mind - the more important question in the mind is whether they connect in the 25-30% of voters who oppose the Iraq War and are amenable to voting for Republican Presidential candidates.  Most importantly, does "nation-building" connect with the concept of "losing a war", which as Patton so accurately told us, is the one thing Americans hate above all others?

I know they connect in your mind, you don't need to tell me so.

[Sam Spade]

Can't remember anything Gilmore said.

I don't remember anything Gilmore said either, except Rudy McRomney, but I've heard that one before.

When you're in the second tier and you don't perform above expectations, you lose.  Even though you may perform better than the top tier.

[Reluctant Republican]

I thought Ron Paul did good, since he’s the only one really in step with the American people on wanting to end this insane war and change our foreign policy.  However, I was disappointed that he did not want to end don’t ask don’t tell, and wanted to make English our official language. I think both of those things are not really needed, but, oh well.

I will say though that I loved Huckabee’s performance. He is a very charismatic man, I think. He has sex appeal too. Like a George Cloony type. I don’t agree with everything he said,  but he is a very eloquent speaker.

[TheresNoMoney]

I do not dispute that these types of comments will help Rudy with the Republican primary voters. That is not what I was referring to.

They spell disaster in the general election with independents and Democrats.

[Eraserhead]

Well I thought McCain was the best of the big three but a lot of what he said will piss off most Republicans. Rudy was most likely the major winner with Republicans. Romney was much worse in this debate than in the other two. His fakeness is really shining through now.

As for the second tier, Paul was quite good but we saw very little of him, Thompson yelled too much and Huckabee sounds like a theocratic nutjob.

[Joe Biden 2020]

By the way, the debate will re-air tonight at 11:00 pm CDT (midnight EDT) after Anderson Cooper 360.

[Eraserhead]

Oh yeah and is Tancredo serious when he calls for an end to LEGAL immigration? I hope that neofacist/ KKK vote really comes through for him.

[Reaganfan]

Tancredo and Paul are jokes.

[MODU]

Well, I missed the whole debate, but I've read most of your comments so far.  I'll try to catch it online tomorrow.

[StateBoiler]

Well, I missed the whole debate, but I've read most of your comments so far.  I'll try to catch it online tomorrow.

It'll be replayed at midnight.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Now, I have an idea for a line Giuliani should add to the next debate.

He should state that if he is not telling the truth when he says he opposes abortion, may lightning strike him.

If he adds those lines, I would suggest connecting him with the host city's electrical system.

Might also be a good idea to have the fire department stand by to extinguish the crispy critter.

[StateBoiler]

Just found this. This is good. It's the Fox News Republican Debate in 44 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKtuXmorlSY

Here's the first Republican debate in 32 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liXVWd4JvCs&NR=1

[Tender Branson]

Brief analysis (I had a hard time not to fall asleep as the debate began 1am here in Austria ... ):

Giuiani had some good points, but the best was when god sent him a message as the lightning struck when he was talking about abortion ...

Romney wasn´t bad either until he got grounded by the audience guy who accused him of flip-flopping with his spanish advertising.

McCain seemed out of power and uninterested, but at least he has locked up the Trekkie vote: "Where no one has gone before ..."

Huckabee again had a good debate too I think and this was obviously when he made his points, standing in front of the audience, something I completely missed in the Democratic debate. Did any Democrat stand up to talk to the audience ? I don´t remember anyone

[Eraserhead]

Did any Democrat stand up to talk to the audience ? I don´t remember anyone

No because the Democrats are lazy liberal bums.

[nlm]

The one thing that surprised me a bit in this debate was the degree to which Rudy was openly embracing nation building as the center of his campaign. It was a fairly lifeless debate though, with very little interaction between the candidates. Mitt didn't seem as slick as he normally does, McCain really did look a bit worn down, and even Ron Paul seemed off his game and not really driving his points home.

[Tender Branson]

And would they please fix Rudy's mic problem?

It's interruption from lightning.  But it seems to almost exclusively be affecting him...

yeah, I saw that before... clearly its not just the lightening though, unless God really is trying to screw Rudy.

The man is pro-choice.

It wasn´t God. It was someone who died in the WTC. It was an inside job and Rudy knew it. If the lightning wasn´t able to kill him, I hope he gets suffocated in the future by a plastic vagina.

[MODU]

Well, I missed the whole debate, but I've read most of your comments so far.  I'll try to catch it online tomorrow.

It'll be replayed at midnight.

hahaha . . . some of us have to go to work in the morning. 

[angus]

Watched the midnight rerun of the debate.  Again, I was fairly impressed overall.  Seems both parties are getting serious and generally sticking to issues I care about.  Most striking to me was that there really are differences between Republicans and Democrats.  Like many unaffiliated voters, I often complain of their similarities, and I have to admit that during years when I have voted for 3rd-party candidates (e.g., 2000) I used the derogatory and offensive term "republicrat" to describe them.  Always unfair, it was more fair in 2000 than this time around.

The overall impression I get when Democrats stump is that they talk about what they do, or what they'll do, or what they want to do.  Republicans, on the other hand, talk about who they are, or what they want or think they are.  And it's not just the candidates answering questions that make it this way, but the very questions asked of them.  "What do you do?" is asked of Democrats and "Who will you be?" is asked of Republicans, by and large, even by the same moderators.  At least that's my impression.

Another striking difference, though not necessarily surprising, is that the Republicans spend a great deal of time talking about faith and religion.  And of course the parties' midpoint views on foreign policy, immigration, economic policy, and federalism were also evident.  Finally, whereas democrats seem to stress urgency and gravity, the republicans attempted (and in some moments succeded) to invoke Reaganesque optisim.  Romney, in particular, evaded just about every question asked by turning it into a stump speech about a bright future for Americans.  Speaking of Romney, my wife really liked him.  She and I differ, in particular, on immigration.  And no doubt we spent a great deal of time discussing it.  Like many immigrants who worked hard, made straight As in college and grad school, paid all the fees, waited patiently, followed all the rules, filled out the forms, and learned English, she is full of strong opinions about those who skirt the system.  Whereas I see fences as ecological and public-relations distasters, she says, "if you don't put up a fence, pretty you'll have as many people here as are in China right now, and it's not just the unskilled jobs they'll be taking."  And her attitude is common among white-collar green-card holders who follow the rules.  I remind her that Reagan talked about tearing down walls, but now the GOP wants to build them.  How far we've come.  She says she's no fan of Reagan anyway, so that argument won't work.  Romney's speech, in particular, resonated with her, "It's just not fair to those who follow the rules to reward those who cheat the system."  I say that people should be able to come and go as they please.  Why did you get a green card anyway?  Isn't it so that you can work and come and go as you please?  Yeah, but I paid the fees, filled out the paperwork, worked hard and stayed within the rules.  But they're not taking a job away from you.  Well, they might be one day, and by the way, I studied hard to learn English, and now I have to learn Spanish too?  Well, no you don't have to learn spanish.  I speak spanish very well, as you know, so I'll translate if it becomes necessary.  No, but you don't translate, every time we're in mexico and I ask you what you were talking about you just act like you can't be bothered, or like you're somehow above the menial work of translation, so don't tell me you'll translate.  Look, I already learned English, and I want to live in this country and follow the rules.  And if I can do that then so can everyone else.  Okay, then, fine.  Fine.

And when did the word "amnesty" come to mean something dirty?  It comes from two greek words meaning "not" and "remember" and is related to amnesia.  So it's like forgetting.  Forgetting the sins.  Pardoning.  Sounds very Christian and righteous to me.  Somebody is willing to scrub your toilets and pick your oranges for two bucks an hour and you bitch?  Ah, well, I have to admit that Tancredo and Romney did eloquently explain their positions, and while I don't share their paranoia I do at least appreciate them taking the time to try to clarify their position.  And, I'd like to add that the criticsm of Tancredo as a bigot is unfounded.  We may not agree, but I see no evidence if bigotry on his part.  But as long as we're invoking god in our debates:

And the sign said anybody caught trespassing would be shot on sight
So I jumped on the fence and yelled at the house, Hey! what gives you the right
To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in
If God was here, he'd tell you to your face, man you're some kinda sinner

Okay, enough on border fences.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Iraq figured prominently as well.  Of course my wife and I are in total agreement here.  We take the Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich view of US involvement in Iraq, but I have to give credit to Giuliani and McCain for answering the hard questions and very eloquently outlining their views.  They seem to genuinely believe that the consequences of failure in Iraq would be long-term national insecurity.  Fair enough, but I quibble a bit with their use of the phrase "in denial" when referring to peaceniks.  When I hear them talk about our "success" in Iraq I really have to ask, "Now who's in denial?"  Well, at least Giuliani and McCain answered.  Once again, Romney skillfully evaded.

Speaking of Romney, my wife finds him perfectly charming and handsome.  "He really looks like a President, don't you think?"  Well, yeah, he is very handsome.  And yes, he's a smooth talker.  Charming.  But really, Clinton was charming, and Bush is handsome, and they are two of the most divisive presidents we have had.  One managed to get himself impeached, the other is running at about 30% approval, mostly for talking the congress into the monumental folly of making us ineffectual spectators and open targets in a civil war we touched off.  So, I'm sorry, but charming and/or handsome just isn't going to cut it for me this time. 

Huckabee?  I admit to picking on him a few years ago when he was arkanas governor.  You can probably find me calling him a bible-thumping bumpkin and asking whether he beats his wife or whether he looked better before he cut off his mullet.  I truly apologize.  I'd never really listened to him before, but last night he sounded positively philosophical.  Hillbilly, but philosophical.  What is it about Hope, Arkansas and their hillbilly philosophers?  Weirdly wierd.  Still, I was impressed particularly at his faith/reason spiel.  Brownback's too, for that matter, and his clever, if somewhat patronizing, reference to Saint Anselm.  However, I still don't think it's entirely appropriate to demand that our politicians wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves.  And I think the treatment of Romney is particularly bigoted and am astonished that they won't drop the questions about mormonism.  Then again, I don't think religion should have any place in policy debates and am not entirely comfortable with the blurring of the lines between church and state.  Ah, but, in the end, we yankees have roots in separatism from Anglicanism, and those separatists who formed Plymouth colony gave us our ideals, our freedoms, and our schools, so I'll accept the fact that their descendants must feel free to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed rights to question the candidates about faith in such public fora.  And, once again, I apologize to anyone I offended earlier with my remarks about Huckabee.  I was impressed with his knowledge, impressed with his gentle style, and, while I disagree with him on many issues, I found him to be the sort of level-headed person of sound judgement whom I would seriously consider supporting for US President if he should win his party's nomination.

Education?  My wife and I totally agree here.  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 (aka No Child Left Behind) just isn't working.  Period.  Yes, I still believe King George II has a good heart, and wanted, along with his librarian wife, to leave a legacy of school improvement.  And it hasn't been all bad.  NCLB has spectacularly identified which schools are miserable failures and which are performing well, but that's primarily only useful for parents deciding upon which neighborhood to live in.  But the disadvantages are many.  Arts, music, and social studies suffer as a result of the increased pressure to focus on math and reading.  Gifted, talented, and enriched advanced curricula suffer since there's no incentive to focus on them.  Similarly, special education and remedial classes suffer for the same reason.  NCLB forces schools to put time and money into borderline cases and borderline schools.  It encourages schools to ameliorate their own standards in order to be able to claim that a majority of its students are progressing. 

"Don't send a test to do a curriculum's job."
   ---P. D. Pearson, UC Berkeley dean of the graduate school of education

And, mostly, it asks the federal government to make decisions that only local school boards and state legislatures have the authority to make.  Only Ron Paul seems to understand this.

Ah, I don't mean to impugn the GOP, nor did I mean to impugn the Democrats.  In fact, both debates were enlightening, and I found the candor refreshing.  Both parties seem genuinely to be sticking to issues that are important to voters.  While there's no candidate in either party with whom I totally agree, I find that while I'm in general agreement mostly with Ron Paul.  But all republicans last night eloquently layed out positions without being too negative or attacking each other or the Democrats.  I want to emphasize that I appreciated the upbeat and positive tone of the both parties' debates and look forward to hearing more.

[Governor PiT]

Being an independent I don't like to give out labels like Rhino's, but the top tier candidates are phonies. I thought Tancredo was awsome when he anwered Wolf's question about what job he would give Bush in his cabinet, and he sayed he would telll the president the same thing Karl Rove told him "to never to darken the doorstep of the Whitehouse." Then Guliani comapred Tancredo to the "Know nothings" of the 19th Century for callin for a time out on legal immigration. I'm undecided betweeen Tancredo and Paul. Paul for his Strict Constitutionalism and Tancredo for his Passion. As much as I respect Paul he did not come across as presidential.

[Eraserhead]

The best part of the debate was when Tom Tancredo basically said it was time to end legal immigration. You could see Giuliani was puzzled by the remark while McCain looked genuinely disgusted.