Jan 10 Republican Debate

[Universe Prince]

I have to say, I think Ron Paul got a couple of AMBE questions but he answered them well. Knocked them out of the gorram ball park, imo. Huckabee also got an AMBE question which he also answered pretty well.

Romney didn't do as well as I expected.

Giuliani and McCain seem stuck on the idea that America needs to control the Middle East. Thompson too, but I don't think his "most improved" status will translate into primary votes.

McCain seemed the most relaxed, but he was only marginally less boring to listen to than Thompson, imo.

Huckabee was in full on "ain't I a great guy" mode. But contrary to what he said in the debates, I think he would probably enlarge the government the most of all the Republican candidates, with Giuliani being a close second and McCain an extremely close third.

Romney seemed to me to be the real loser of the debate (contrary to what F.N.C.'s "focus group" said) because he really just didn't perform as well as he probably could and should have.

I think Paul flubbed his answer about the U.S. Navy ship versus the speedboats. He screwed up. But he also did pretty well on the other questions. The shots of McCain looking confused as Paul talked about not trying to control the Middle East was probably meant as a dig at Paul, but I thought it was about right. I would Expect McCain to be confused by the notion of trying to approach the situation rationally rather than by the usual send in the troops and ask questions never procedure. McCain is, after all, the man whose idea of smaller government apparently involves abridgment of free speech via campaign finance reform. Expecting him to understand Paul's positions on anything is asking too much of him.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not a big fan of McCain. I'm sure he is good man and a nice guy in person, but I don't care for him as a politician.

I have to say, I liked the cheers Ron Paul would occasionally get from the audience, or at least part of the audience. Especially after those AMBE questions he got from Carl Cameron. My respect for "Campaign Carl" dropped about 75% tonight.

Well, that is, briefly, what I think about the debate. What do the rest of y'all think of it?

[Michael Tee]

I worked right through the debate.  What kind of bullshit questions did Paul have to answer?  (I've noticed before on the relatively rare occasions when he gets asked questions by the MSM, he gets asked BS stuff and handles it extremely well.)

[sirs]

Well, that is, briefly, what I think about the debate. What do the rest of y'all think of it?

I didn't see it, but I'm in complete agreement with you on McCain

[_JS]

My observations from the debate and from the campaign thus far:

Mitt Romney: He's honestly one of the most plastic candidates I have ever seen (and I lived in the state from whence Al Gore came!). Seriously, he's like watching a really bad actor trying to get by on looks and cue cards. I'm not trying to insult any of his supporters, but just as an observation I don't think he comes across as a guy who relates to people unless you're someone who is a member of a really expensive Country Club and you sit around at the bar discussing last weekend's jaunt to the Riviera.

Rudy Giuliani: To me, he doesn't come across as a professional. Don't get me wrong, you don't want to make the Romney error above, but if we had a Westminster system, Giuliani would make a great "attack dog" for a party. Anyone familiar with Westminster politics knows that the attack dogs never become Prime Minister (though occasionally they get a cabinet post as a reward). I also believe he's made a very fatal mistake in adopting the "ignore Iowa and New Hampshire" strategy. Gore tried it in '88, and others have tried it since. It doesn't work and I don't expect Rudy to break the mold.

John McCain: Likely dead in the water if he hadn't won New Hampshire, McCain is leading in Michigan polls, a state where Romney should have a large advantage. McCain is likable. He is a maverick and Americans always like a maverick, at least for a while. He's energetic for an old man, and has a great sense of humor along with a dazzling war record. His problem has historically been that in closed primaries the true Republicans don't love him near as much as independents. He may solve that through "electability" as he is the only GOP candidate who polls ahead of Clinton and with Obama in national polls.

Fred Thompson: A cliche. Thompson is actually a very intelligent lawyer, but he's presenting himself as the good ol' charming country boy from Tennessee. He has nothing that sets him apart from the other candidates other than a few remarks on state's rights, which is not a major vote winner across the nation. Also, W has played the charming, simple, Southerner card in two elections in a row and I don't think Republicans will pick up that card another time. As for skipping Iowa and N.H. - see Giuliani above.

Mike Huckabee: Likable, and like McCain he has a great sense of humor. He's a Baptist preacher, but does a good job showing the softer side of his faith without a lot of the rough edges. His weakness is foreign policy and the question is whether that will hurt him or help him. I think that is the sharp contrast between Huckabee and McCain.

My thoughts as a whole: I really see this as coming down to Huckabee, McCain, and Romney. Huckabee and McCain will be a real choice on the Iraq War, War on Terror, and how best to wage those battles. Romney is the safe plastic person to choose if either of the other two should falter.

[Universe Prince]

What kind of bullshit questions did Paul have to answer?

After asking the other candidates serious questions about issues and positions, Carl Cameron asked Ron Paul a question about "9/11 Truthers" Let's go to the transcript.

CAMERON: Congressman Paul, many of your supporters call themselves 9/11 Truthers. They believe that the U.S. government was in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or covered it up. Are you tonight prepared to either embrace that rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it, or divorce themselves from your candidacy? PAUL: Well, I can't tell people what to do, but I've abandoned those viewpoints. I don't believe that, and that's the only thing that is important. And so I don't endorse anything they say. But I would like to take an opportunity to talk about the issue that we've been debating here for the last 20 minutes... CAMERON: Sir, would you ask them to cease that rhetoric tonight on your behalf? PAUL: Well, it doesn't do me any good, so if they care about me, they should. But the only thing I have control over is what I believe and what I say. I can't tell them what to do. So I don't endorse what they say and I don't believe that, so, please, could I participate in the current debate rather than picking this out. (APPLAUSE) (CROSSTALK) PAUL: No, I would like to address the subject about whether or not we've lost our way and whether there's a coalition building or whether it's gone. I think it's gone. I don't think we're fiscal conservatives anymore. Look at what we've done over these 10 years. We finally got control of the government and we became big-government people. Our deficit's out of control and we no longer are opposed to new entitlements. We are entitlement people. And then we turn around and we talk about liberty and we've undermined the Fourth Amendment and personal liberty and personal privacy. In the year 2000, we won the election by condemning the Democrats for nation-building and policing the world, and now, what are we doing? We're policing the world, we're involved in all of these countries around the world and threatening going into Iran and Pakistan and on and on. At the same time, our economy is suffering to the point where we can't even finance what we have here today. We have to borrow from the Chinese and the dollar is crashing. So no wonder our coalition is breaking up. We actually have lost our way. Now, over the years, I've never voted to spend one penny of the Social Security fund, because I'm a fiscal conservative. If you want the Social Security system to work, get people who will vote against robbing the Social Security fund.

Believe it or not, when Carl Cameron next asked a question of Paul it was even worse.

CAMERON: Congressman Paul, yet another question about electability. Do you have any, sir? There's always the question as to whether or not... (LAUGHTER) CAMERON: ... you are, in fact, viable. Your differences with the Republicans on the -- with the rest of the Republicans on this stage has raised questions about whether or not you can actually win the Republican nomination, sir. PAUL: Well, we've only had two little primaries so far. So it's pretty premature to decide which one is going to be the candidate. But, you know, when you think about it, if you measured everything I've ever said, every vote I've ever taken against the Constitution, you know, I'm a strict constitutionalist. Are you suggesting the Republicans should write me off because I'm a strict constitutionalist? I'm the most conservative member here. I have voted, you know, against more spending and waste in government than anybody else. (APPLAUSE) PAUL: So you're suggesting that I'm not electable and the Republicans don't want me because I'm a strict fiscal conservative, because I believe in civil liberties? Why should we not be defending civil liberties and why should we not be talking about foreign policy that used to be the part of the Republican Party? Mr. Republican Robert Taft didn't even want us to be in NATO and you're saying now that we have to continue to borrow money from China to finance this empire that we can't afford? Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what's going on here? (APPLAUSE) PAUL: And you're saying that this isn't appealing to Republicans? Where did this come about? I think this is the Republican message. I defend the platform. It used to say we'd eliminate the Department of Education. It doesn't say that now. We, as Republicans, went and doubled the size of the Department of Education, so where have we gone? I think we've lost our way. And then the insinuation that I am less Republican because of that?

AMBE questions that, imo, Paul responded to really well. What is missing here is the tone of Paul's voice as he answered. He was obviously not happy about the questions, and he was showing it. As someone else at another website pointed out, the only reason Paul isn't saying "F--- you!" is because he is an actual gentleman. But it was in his tone.

[_JS]

Mr. Republican Robert Taft didn't even want us to be in NATO and you're saying now that we have to continue to borrow money from China to finance this empire that we can't afford?

Well said.

[Universe Prince]

Yeah, that one was pretty good. I liked this one better:

Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what's going on here?

That is about the best brief summation of the situation I've heard.

[_JS]

Judging by history, I don't think democracy was or has ever been a real goal.

Look at Korea, Vietnam, Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, Cambodia, Greece...I could go on for quite a while. Democracy has always been a fleeting concern in U.S. foreign policy and neoconservative policy is little different (simply more brazen in its sacred respect for the Empire).

Torture is no different. The Bush administration didn't invent this stuff. We've researched and applied torture (or if you wish to play semantics, call it what you will) for decades. We've spent taxpayer money on researching and improving techniques on Americans, Canadians, Native peoples, and all sorts of POW's and foreigners. The only difference in this administration is that they tried to argue that 9/11 should make it acceptable to perform torture openly and without worrying about legal impediments. In other words, what we all knew (or chose to be ingorant of) should be allowed, right out in the open.

I agree with Paul, the "spreading democracy" crap was just a political line to win support. It was just one of many.

[sirs]

I agree with Paul, the "spreading democracy" crap was just a political line to win support.

Good thing that was NOT the reason we went into Iraq. 

[_JS]

I agree with Paul, the "spreading democracy" crap was just a political line to win support.

Good thing that was NOT the reason we went into Iraq.

 

No need to rush in with your binder Sirs...I never once mentioned the sacred reasons for invading the sovereign nation of Iraq.

[Universe Prince]

Judging by history, I don't think democracy was or has ever been a real goal.

I would tend to agree with you. I will say, however, that some people do actually believe that the world will either become full of democracy or full of dictatorships, and that the U.S. has a responsibility to protect and encourage (which seems to mean force and enforce) democracy in other nations. Frankly, I think the politicians care less about that than they do controlling other parts of the world. The recent Republican debate, I think, shows this to be true. Romney, Giuliani, McCain and Thompson (and probably Huckabee too though I don't recall specifically) all pretty much argued that the U.S. government has to try to control the Middle East in the name of U.S. interests.

[Universe Prince]

Good thing that was NOT the reason we went into Iraq.

It was not the reason, but it was a reason. As I recall, we were, in addition to getting at the W.M.D., out to topple Saddam Hussein, to remove the dictator from power. And it is a reason why U.S. troops are still there. That's all I'll say about it. I'm not going to argue the point with you, Sirs.

[sirs]

Good thing that was NOT the reason we went into Iraq.

It was not the reason, but it was a reason.

Close...it's a reason we're still there, but not why we went in, in the 1st place.  Subtle but distinct difference

[Xavier_Onassis]

Fred Thompson: A cliche. Thompson is actually a very intelligent lawyer, but he's presenting himself as the good ol' charming country boy from Tennessee. He has nothing that sets him apart from the other candidates other than a few remarks on state's rights, which is not a major vote winner across the nation. Also, W has played the charming, simple, Southerner card in two elections in a row and I don't think Republicans will pick up that card another time. As for skipping Iowa and N.H. - see Giuliani above.

====================
Thompson is a major disappointment. He has talent for delivering someone else's lines, but he comes across as a Big Southern Doofus, not any sort of great communicator. I agree that seems to be imitating Juniorbush, and he seems every bit as phony.

If he is very intelligent, he has not used his intelligence to hire good speechwriters or campaign managers. I thought his lack of hair would be his biggest problem, but no, he seems to be a doofus, and we are sick unto death of doofi.