I didn't find tonight's Republican YouTube/CNN debate as refreshing and provocative as the first YouTube debate among the Democratic contenders for President a few months ago. Possibly the YouTube bloom is off the rose. More likely the questions weren't as humorous or provocative tonight as those received via YouTube for the Democrats.
Otherwise, it was a good, punchy debate which showed most of the candidates off to their best advantage. McCain, in particular, was more eloquent and forceful than usual in his support of the war and his denunciation of torture. Romney was on the receiving end of McCain's torture lecture - Romney falling back on his all-too-typical letting the experts decide - but Ron Paul had a fine moment in his cogent explanation, back to McCain, on the difference between being an isolationist and a non-interventionist (Ron Paul is the latter). And Ron Paul also spoke truth about why violence has decreased in southern Iraq - that has happened because the British have left.
But Romney was excellent in knocking down Giuliani's attack on Romney's alleged employment of illegal aliens - Romney reasonably replied that he contracted with a company to work on his home, he did not directly hire illegal aliens.
I should note here, however, that although I admired Romney's rhetoric in this exchange - a rarity - I think most of the Republicans and many of the Democrats are making too big a deal about illegal aliens (which, not that terminology matters all that much, but I can't help thinking of people from outer space whenever I hear that phrase). One of America's greatest strengths has always been its openness to people from other countries and cultures.
Huckabee was probably the best on stage about this issue, refusing to back down from his funding of education for children of illegal immigrants.
Giuliani, other the exchange with Romney on the employment of illegal immigrants, was pretty much on top of his game, and Fred Thompson was a little more animated than usual tonight, too.
So where do we stand: Huckabee is personable and gaining in the polls and could conceivably pull an upset in Iowa. Even if he comes close, he could be a good running mate for Giuliani. I'd say it's too late for McCain and Thompson, whatever they do or say from now on. Romney is still Giuliani's major competition.
And Ron Paul still has by far the best positions. He alone among the Republican candidates continues to speak to truth to authority about war. We'll soon find out how many votes this translates into in the primaries.
Otherwise, it was a good, punchy debate which showed most of the candidates off to their best advantage. McCain, in particular, was more eloquent and forceful than usual in his support of the war and his denunciation of torture. Romney was on the receiving end of McCain's torture lecture - Romney falling back on his all-too-typical letting the experts decide - but Ron Paul had a fine moment in his cogent explanation, back to McCain, on the difference between being an isolationist and a non-interventionist (Ron Paul is the latter). And Ron Paul also spoke truth about why violence has decreased in southern Iraq - that has happened because the British have left.
But Romney was excellent in knocking down Giuliani's attack on Romney's alleged employment of illegal aliens - Romney reasonably replied that he contracted with a company to work on his home, he did not directly hire illegal aliens.
I should note here, however, that although I admired Romney's rhetoric in this exchange - a rarity - I think most of the Republicans and many of the Democrats are making too big a deal about illegal aliens (which, not that terminology matters all that much, but I can't help thinking of people from outer space whenever I hear that phrase). One of America's greatest strengths has always been its openness to people from other countries and cultures.
Huckabee was probably the best on stage about this issue, refusing to back down from his funding of education for children of illegal immigrants.
Giuliani, other the exchange with Romney on the employment of illegal immigrants, was pretty much on top of his game, and Fred Thompson was a little more animated than usual tonight, too.
So where do we stand: Huckabee is personable and gaining in the polls and could conceivably pull an upset in Iowa. Even if he comes close, he could be a good running mate for Giuliani. I'd say it's too late for McCain and Thompson, whatever they do or say from now on. Romney is still Giuliani's major competition.
And Ron Paul still has by far the best positions. He alone among the Republican candidates continues to speak to truth to authority about war. We'll soon find out how many votes this translates into in the primaries.
6 comments:
Please consider contributing on the 16th of December.
Ron Paul needs the publicity of another big fund raising day.
I’m a veteran of the U.S. Air Force active duty (4yrs) and I currently serve as a traditional guardsman in the Air National Guard. All military personnel upon enlistment take the oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” A vote for Rep. Paul does just that. Ron Paul has my support.
There is an obvious media bias and it is sad. Rep. Paul is the one candidate of the crowd who has substantially differing views and he was not given much of a chance to articulate those views. Much time was given to marginal issues and small differences between other candidates’ positions on the issues. I suspect many special interest groups have much to lose if a President Paul had a chance to use his veto pen. This is reflected in the lack of time given to Rep. Paul.
HDNet Dec 1 DNC debate (Sat 7:30pm ET).
- all eight -
gravel kucinich paul nader
I have to say, I do think Ron Paul does well in the debates, which seems to go largely unnoticed (or at least uncommented on...)
Hmmm. Is uncommented a word? well, I guess it is now.
Ron does something that most politicians do not... He answers a question with (brace yourself) an answer.
Most of the answers I hear from politcians seem like Math Models. You look at them, they look vaguely familiar but you're not quite sure what they mean most of the time. But if you are patient, the math model will speak to you and tell you exactly what it means. Sometimes you find the answer is appropriate, sometimes you find it is not.
With politicians, it's used to hide the real answer, like the way a recall on a defective part in an automobile is written in such a way that the danger is hidden in obscurity.
i.e. "The brakes may fail, and you could crash and die"
as compared to
"Application of pressure in the direction of the negative z-axis, at such times as vehicle's velocity exceeds all zero and non-negative values, infrequently fluctuates outside government mandated deviation limits resulting in loss of decelleration."
It's the same with most of the answers I hear in debates.
However, with Mr. Paul, One can understand his answers without a map, legend, and graphing calculator.
doctatlanta from myspace
If Ron Paul was allowed the same amount of time the other candidates are afforded, we'd finally have some progress on a real debate. Clearly the calculated bunch of pols that populated these events would disagree with Paul, but they'd be forced to respond more directly if he was the fulcrum for every question.
I thought Huckabee's answer on the interpretation of the Bible was most authentic, and really showed how insincere Giuliani and Romney are about religion. Giuliani is a secular candidate for the most part and appears to be repeating talking points when asked about the topic. Romney is petrified to engage on religion because it will eventually force him to answer about the return of Jesus to the United States to rule Earth for 1000 years. Huckabee is a theology scholar and seemed perfectly comfortable in saying that he didn't know the answer to the interpretation of the Bible. It's a work of higher power and he's an imperfect human being.
If I were picking from this group, I'd choose Paul(1), Huckabee(2), and throw the rest of them in the ocean. On the Dems side, I'd go Kucinich(1), Edwards(2), and toss the rest of them in a different ocean.
Ron Paul was only asked 3 questions directly (not a 30 second follow-up):
1. Are you a conspiracy nut or not?
2. How would you punish women for having an abortion?
3. Even though you have no hope of winning, do you think there's purpose to your campaign?
---
He wasn't even asked a couple of questions that were key points in his campaign, and if McCain hadn't went on the offensive, his speaking time would have been minimal.
Meanwhile, Kerry... I mean Romney was flip-flopping uncontrollably on stage. Rudy didn't seem to come off well. Tancredo is nuttier than ever. McCain got booed for saying that isolationism (and he was wrong, so congrats to the audience) caused WWII. Thompson was, as always a disappointment.
The only candidates who looked good were Ron Paul and Huckabee, although, Huckster is in many ways a fraud, and hopefully someone will expose him.
I have to disagree with you professor that Giuliani was anything worth watching during the debate.
He dodged abortion instead of just coming out and saying that he is pro-choice as he has demonstrated in the past; and refused to admit that he's anti-gun. He even went so far as to say he supports the individual right of the second amendment - which is out and out a lie for him. He's basically a democrat, and there's nothing wrong with it except he refuses to admit it.
I could respect him more if he stood up for what he believes, but this flip-flopping is far worse.
There's nothing wrong with being anti-gun or pro-choice, just own your beliefs.
Ron Paul did great, McCain was fiery and I thought pretty legitimate. I was impressed about how he stuck to his opinion on the war and torture, and called out the fact that he's really the only one on stage who has actually gone to Iraq.
the 30 second commercials were 'interesting' to say the least.
Post a Comment